20040325 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20020901

WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PHASE II
Submitted by:
65C
651
?l 63
=Y _- J
? sue.
r ? v
i J4
?? 63h ? a
o ?
4sp y?
wo
63h
,..r OAF ? Cape Fw
Prepared by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 2522
Wilmington, NC
September 2002
?7_
September 19, 2002
ECOBANKI
Mr. Ken Jolly
Chief
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 26402-1890
Re: Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank, Phase H
Dear Mr. Jolly:
ECOBANK is pleased to submit to you and other members of the Mitigation Bank-Review Team
(MBRT), the enclosed Wetland Mitigation Plan and proposed amendment to the Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI) for the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
The existing MBI provides, in Paragraph 2.2 Additions to the Bank Site, that ECOBANK, as Bank
Sponsor, may request the addition of adjacent lands to the Bank Site. Specifically, ECOBANK is
requesting the addition of 1,817 acres (Phase II) that are adjacent to and upstream from the
existing 623-acre site (Phase 1). Based upr -179ur years of hydrologic and vegetative success at
Barra Farms, Phase I, we believe that the a - of Phase 11 will significantly enhance the
ecological benefits already demonstrated in the gin. In accordance with Paragraph 2.2, we have
prepared and have enclosed a wetland mitigation ;for Phase H, including specific provisions
concerning credit ratios, credit release schedule, fi, -.ial assurances, and property disposition.
The current MBI is enclosed as Appendix A for refer' Le.
In addition, in accordance with Paragraph 4.1 Geoerapi?ic Service Area, ECOBANK is requesting
that the Geographic Service Area be expanded to include that portion of Ecoregion 63 situated
within the boundaries of the Cape Fear River Basin (refer to Appendix D). The Ecoregions of
North Carolina Map is a collaborative project among the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the University of North Carolina. The Ecoregions Map,
with accompanying ecoregion characteristics, denotes area of similar ecosystems with similar
geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology.
Within the Cape Fear River Basin, the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain (Ecoregion 63)
extends from southeastern Cumberland County to the mouth of the Cape Fear River in the
Wilmington area. Barra Farms is located in this ecoregion, which supports our request to expand
the service area to the mouth of the Cape Fear River.
1555 HOWELL BRANCH ROAD , WINTER PARK FLORIDA 32789
[phone] , FAX [phone]
r
E,
a fB
fou
We have appreciated the opportunity to work with the MBRT as we successfully
developed Phase I of the Barra Farms Bank. We look forward to continuing that success on the
- Barra Farms, Phase II project. If you have questions or need additional information, please let me
know.
Sincer y,
Alan G. Fickett, Ph.D.
Enclosures
C:
Ms. Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. Mike Wicker, USFWS
Ms. Shannon Deaton, NCWRC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................1
I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................3
II. MITIGATION GOALS .....................................................................................................5
III. SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................5
A. WETLAND GEOMORPHOLOGY ........................................................................6
B. PRIOR ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS ................................................................7
C. GENERAL SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ..............................................................9
D. VEGETATION ......................................................................................................11
E. WETLAND FUNCTIONS ....................................................................................12
F. SITE SUITABILITY .............................................................................................12
Service Area Considerations ..........................................................................12
Replacement of Wetland Functions and Values ..........................................13
IV. PROPOSED MITIGATION ...........................................................................................15
A. RESTORATION ....................................................................................................16
B. ENHANCEMENT .................................................................................................17
C. PRESERVATION ........................................................................................:.........17
D. UPLAND BUFFER ..............................................................................................18
V. MONITORING PLAN ....................................................................................................18
A. VEGETATION MONITORING ...........................................................................19
B. HYDROLOGY MONITORING ...........................................................................19
VI. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .............................................................................20
VII. FINAL PROPERTY DISPENSATION .........................................................................20
VIII. SOURCES OF INFORMATION .................................................... .............................21
i
TABLES
1. PLANTING REGIME
2. MITIGATION CREDIT
3. 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. PC/CC STATUS MAP
7. USDA-SCS GENERALIZED COUNTY SOIL SURVEY
8. MITIGATION PLAN MAP
APPENDICES
A. MITIGATION BANKING INSTRUMENT - BARRA FARMS CAPE
FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK, PHASE I
B. BARRA I FOURTH ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
C. DUKE UNIVERSITY WETLAND CENTER RESEARCH.-
ABSTRACTS AND CONCLUSIONS DERIVED FROM BARRA I
STUDY SITE
D. ECOREGIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA
E. LMG DRAINMOD ANALYSIS OF BARRA II
F. BARRA II SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
G. MITIGATION BANKING INSTRUMENT - BARRA FARMS CAPE
FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK, PHASE II
ii

C
,4j
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 2,440
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 four 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 2,440 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 1,817
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 and a
proposed amendment to the existing MBI (Appendix G) in order to add the adjacent
Phase II land (1,817 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 912 acres of wetland restoration, 215
acres of wetland enhancement, 621 acres of wetland preservation, and 69 acres of upland
buffer 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 1,053 bank credits. Also
included in the Mitigation Plan and the amended MBI are provisions for success criteria,
monitoring plans, financial assurances, credit release schedule, and final property
disposition.
2
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 1,817 acres (totaling 2,440 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.
3
Hydrologic and vegetative success criteria have been met and documented in each of the
four annual monitoring reports since restoration was completed. The Fourth 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 J. 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 (1,817 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 397,000 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 1,817 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
yyy
x?
y
O
z
II. MITIGATION GOALS
The objective of the Barra II project is to provide for the establishment of a compensatory
wetland mitigation bank suitable for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts authorized
by state and federal permits. The long-term goal of the project is to establish pocosin and
associated pine flatwood/savannah habitat via the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of 1,748 acres of wetlands and 69 acres of upland buffer (totaling 1,817
acres) 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.
III. SITE DESCRIPTION
The 1,817-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 1793 acres of previously altered and/or
disturbed nonriverine (i.e. pocosin/Carolina bay) wetlands and 24 acres of non-hydric
soil. In conjunction with Barra I lands, the tract forms nearly the entire headwater
5
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 GEOMORPHOLGY
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 0-1%. Natural drainage of the area is by rapid permeability through sandy
upland areas to the concave organic Carolina bay, where permeability and water
movement slows. Barra II's natural drainage and water movement is in a south to
southwest direction towards Harrison Creek. Prior to anthropogenic disturbance, wetland
systems of the Barra II site were typical of natural pocosins/Carolina bay systems
occurring along interstream divides throughout the entire Coastal Plain. Indeed, the
Barra tract is part of a larger ecoregion, the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, as defined by
Griffith et al. (2002) "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 4 ft-deep lateral (i.e. tertiary) open
ditching on approximate 300-ft spacing, which connect to 4 to 6 ft-deep collector (i.e.
(secondary) ditches, ultimately draining off-site through large (6 to 8 ft-deep) canals (i.e.
primary ditches). There are approximately 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. On-going silvicultural activities 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.

Based upon the extent of agricultural fields and land-use practices, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) provided Prior-Converted (PC) and Commenced
8
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 6 for a map of PC and CC designations for the Barra
II site.
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 ft 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
9
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 7), 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 +2-3 ft
depths, where loamy sand to sandy loam substratums are encountered. These land types
(in undisturbed conditions) exhibit 404 wetland hydric soil and vegetative characteristics,
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 7).
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.
10
D. VEGETATION
Agricultural and silvicultural practices have significantly altered natural vegetative
assemblages of the wetland system. Undisturbed bays typically have dense, impenetrable
vegetation with characteristic species including loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus),
American titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), gallberry (Ilex glabra),
pond pine (Pinus serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and
catbrier (Smilax species).
PC fields (approximately 440 acres) are currently in agricultural production for corn,
soybean, and winter wheat rotation. Some CC fields that were previously cleared and
ditched have reverted to vegetation consisting of more opportunistic species such as
broom sedge (Andropogon spp.), catbrier, and saplings of red maple and sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua). In general, areas that are influenced by drainage effect of
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
11
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. Carolina bays, in particular, represent
a landscape feature unique to the southeastern Coastal Plain and supporting vital habitat
for migratory songbirds and endemic species. 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.
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).
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
12
Flatwoods' - a subregion occurring along nearly level, poorly drained areas and
exhibiting characteristic landforms including pocosins and Carolina bays.
The "Ecoregions of North Carolina" is a collaborative effort between the NRCS, EPA,
NCDENR, U.S. Geological Service (USGS), U.S. Forestry Service (USFS), and the
University of North Carolina (UNC). The Ecoregions Project has identified areas of
North Carolina consisting of ecosystems that are similar in type, quantity, and quality of
environmental resources. Characteristics of ecoregions include similar geology,
physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. Ecoregion 63
(Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain) and subregion 63h (Carolina Flatwoods) includes all
2,440 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. Doing so will remove a major source of nutrients and contaminants (e.g.
13
herbicides/pesticides) contributing to impaired water quality in Harrison Creek and the
Cape Fear River.
Currently, agricultural and silvicultural practices of Barra II contribute to decreased water
quality of downstream waters. Ditches and canals drain 1,817 acres of agricultural fields
and forest stands. These surface waters serve as direct conduits for sediment, nutrients,
and other pollutants entering Harrison Creek. Removal of these ditches/canals and
restoration of natural groundwater conditions will promote enhanced uptake/filtration of
potentially nutrient-enriched agricultural run-off and associated contaminants. As
documented by researchers at the Duke University Wetland Center (under the direction of
Dr. Curtis J. Richardson), mitigation activities on Barra I resulted in a significant
decrease in nitrogen run-off from restored agricultural fields (refer to Appendix Q.
Clearly, such work has discernible benefits to the water quality of downstream waters
including the lower Cape Fear River Basin. In addition, enhanced water quality directly
benefits residents of New Hanover County, since municipal water supplies are drawn
from the Cape Fear River just above Lock and Dam #1 in Elizabethtown, NC.
Due largely to physiographic characteristics, the restored wetland will increase the
buffering capacity of storm water runoff, thereby reducing the danger of flooding
downstream. Episodic peak runoff will be intercepted and discharged slowly over time.
Existing fields in agricultural production do not provide this flood attenuation value.
14
The restored habitat will also serve as refuge for resident and migratory animals,
providing the opportunity for increased recreational activity (including bird watching
and/or hunting). It should be noted that the entire 2,440-acre Barra Farms site is
designated as a wild turkey sanctuary. In addition, this area will continue to serve as an
ideal setting for academic groups to conduct research and/or teaching. Currently, the
Duke University Wetland Center uses Barra I for wetland research. Research can be
expanded to encompass Barra II upon initiation of the mitigation activities. Indeed, there
are numerous benefits to the local and regional community inherent in a project of this
scope and magnitude.
IV. PROPOSED MITIGATION
A total of 1,817 acres of existing or previously altered wetlands and upland buffer 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 8. 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
15
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 912 acres of the Barra II tract is targeted for restoration. All 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
gully erosion of former drainageways during periods of increased surface runoff. These
berms will be spaced approximately 200 ft apart from each other. 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.
Figure 8 illustrates planting zones of the mitigation site. Characteristic tree species to be
planted within the restored bay include bald cypress, pond pine, American white cedar
(Chaemycyperus thyroides), black gum, swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and water tupelo
(Nyssa aquatica). Tree species will be planted on 10-ft spacings, corresponding to 435
trees per acre. It is expected that characteristic shrub species (including sweet bay,
16
loblolly bay, gallberry, American titi, and fetterbush) will recruit naturally into restored
areas. Characteristic species to be planted within the restored pine flatwood/savannah
habitat include longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and water oak. Herbaceous and understory
vegetation characteristic of the restored habitat are expected to recruit naturally. Planting
for both zones (i.e. habitat types) will be conducted concurrently or immediately after
grading work during the winter or early spring (i.e. January 15 to March 15).
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 8. 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 8).
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.
D. UPLAND BUFFER
A total of 69 acres (corresponding to drained areas adjacent to the large outlet canal) will
be preserved as upland buffer. Protection and management of upland areas adjacent to
17
restored wetlands contributes to the overall ecological functioning of the mitigation
project (as recognized in USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter 01-01, October 31, 2001).
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
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:
(1) Demonstrated density ofplantings and naturally colonized individuals' to
meet or exceed 320 trees per acre; and
(2) Hydrology during the growing season must be sufficient to meet the guidelines
set forth within the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Technical Report Y-87-1).
A. VEGETATION MONITORIN
The vegetation monitoring protocol is based upon accepted methods used for the Barra I
site. Thirty-six (36) permanent 0.1-acre plots (equivalent to 0.4% restored wetland area)
will be randomly established and monitored for vegetative success criteria. The number
18
of surviving planted individuals and the number of volunteer individuals (of desirable
species) will be counted within each plot. 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 five characteristic
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 established vegetation monitoring plots. Water
levels will be recorded once daily. Well data will be compiled and graphically displayed
to demonstrate hydroperiods of monitored areas. As stated above the primary hydrologic
success criteria will be either (1) 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 or (2) the
establishment of a hydroperiod similar (in amplitude and frequency/duration of saturation
and/or inundation) to the reference monitoring area established within the preservation
section of the mitigation site.
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 30th of each year.
' Naturally colonized individuals must be of an acceptable species naturally occurring in pocosin/bay wetlands.
Individuals of species considered invasive or undesirable will not be counted toward the success criteria.
19
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
Upon acceptance of the amended MBI for Barra II, mitigation activities, including site
grading and planting, will be initiated. The conservation easement will be recorded in
January 2003. All site grading, planting, and the as-built survey will be completed by
May 2003.
VII. FINAL PROPERTY DISPENSATION
Ownership of Barra II will reside with the bank sponsor who intends to transfer fee
simple title to an appropriate land management organization (as determined by the
MBRT) for long-term protection of the site. Fee simple transfer will occur once the
mitigation site is deemed successful by reviewing agencies and no further performance
monitoring is required.
20
VIII. SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Griffith et al. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Mitsch, W.J. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
21
yy
~ .?
w?
TABLE 1: PLANTING REGIME'- BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL
MITIGATION BANK, PHASE II
Nonriverine Pine Flatwood/
Community Type Pocosin/ Savannah TOTAL
Carolina Bay
Stem Target' 435/acre 435/acre
Area (acres): (888) (24) (912)
SPECIES # planted ## planted #planted
(Wetland Indicator (% of total) (% of total)
Status)
Atlantic White 38,628 (10) 38,628
Cedar
(OBL)
Bald Cypress 77,256 (20) 77,256
(OBL)
Black Gum 77,256 (20) 1,044 (10) 78,300
(FAC)
Pond Pine 77,256 (20) 77,256
(FACW+)
Swamp Tupelo 77,256 (20) 77,256
(OBL)
Water Tupelo 38,628 (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 386,280 10,440 396,720
'Please note final species composition dependent upon nursery quality and availability
at the time of plant ordering.
TABLE 2. MITIGATION CREDIT - BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL
MITIGATION BANK, PHASE II
Area Mitigation Credit Replacement Credit
Mitigation Type
(acres) Ratio (acre credits)
Nonriverine
Pocosin/Carolina Bay 888 1:1 888
Restoration
Nonriverine Pine
Flatwoods/Savannah 24 1:1 24
Restoration
Nonriverine Wetland 215 3:1 72
Enhancement
Nonriverine Wetland

Preservation 621 10:1 62
Upland Buffer 69 10:1 7
TOTAL 1,817 1,053
TABLE 3. MITIGATION CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE - BARRA FARMS
CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK, PHASE II
Task Projected
Completion
Date Percentage of
Credits Released
(% cumulative) Credits
Released Cumulative
Credits Released
Signing of the MBI
Amendment 2/2003 20(20) 211 211
Completion of all
Restoration
Activities 5/2003 20(40) 211 422
Monitoring Plan --- --- --- ---
Year 1 Success 2/2004 10(50) 105 527
Year 2 Success 2/2005 10(60) 105 632
Year 3 Success 2/2006 10(70) 105 737
Year 4 Success 2/2007 10(80) 105 842
Year 5 Success 2/2008 20(100) 211 1053
TOTAL 100 1,053
C?
00
1 ,jVt? fit: /"a, ` _, SITE
K C`r 'J'' t? '?- CM =
?q r\`? ? ? Ftif ?C. a' w -1 $I b• M?.\?` „I`n'n?{? .?}t
I
.R, I : rr l,• , /
n C
wr?.b7?- 4b
r; - i .. t ' ?/ '' / - - .• _ b ti / to
* YS
',
SCALE I"= 2.4 miles
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional ECOBANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase II Land Management Group, Inc. Figure 1. Vicinity map.
Cumberland County, NC September 2002
7 ti?
.;1 tl ' :' t
,),
k-
s
iiw?

Barra Farms I Mitigation Bank
i
SCALE 1" = 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 September 2002 the Autryville quad.
Q"
z - ? y
U
? O
4 Y p: ~
L i i ?3 d„? ` ? L !
y n Q
f t..r 1 v- t '? M
5 '? ¢
? - ? z ? .,'? •T+a X31
?41
r a ^?I ? N
Q J? ... ? ?, 6 a Q? c ? O
!?. "` z
W 9 V O a0i
i2 'n
?, f ? ? _ s r; ?T•, a O v7 m
a i ICI (, M t E "Its
Oi 3 =? _N?J O o r
ell
L i ?, i :V '• I a
?a n & °_'V
L 9 ?. h
nR Q
° Q O H
0-1
r ?? 6 ,o O o. n_i N 7
L x ; w u 4. :°. Lei cd a
Y .a.2Se=O
C'd
r- N
y :+ a ?c ?c'F w O
? w x ? 35 5 '> a ¢, ?
t N _ C,j \z =p=? U
fj 00 00 0
Cd
IZ
L__ Barra Farms I Mitigation Bank
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional ECOBANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase II Land Management Group, Ina
Cumberland County, NC September 2002
SCALE 1"= 3000'
Figure 4. 1998 aerial
infra-red photograph of the
Barra Farms Tract.
Existing Soil Roads
Existing Collector Ditch (4'-7' deep)
Existing Lateral Ditch (2'-4' deep)
Drainage Canal (ie. primary ditch)
Property Boundary
---- Existing Roads
SCALE I"= 3000'
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional ' ECOBANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase II Land Management Group, InG Figure 5. Drainage network.
Cumberland County, NC September 2002
LEGEND
CC' Approved commenced areas that were not completed by January 1, 1995
Commence conversion areas completed by January 1, 1995
PC PC Areas (wetlands converted prior to December 23,1985) SCALE V = 3000'
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional ECOBANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase II Land Management Group, Ina Figure 6. PC/CC status.
Cumberland County, NC September 2002
1.n& \-' ?
.? ? 4Y. ? ft : ?' .Ilan ?(, + .. ?? ? ??/' ? ? / A
A'A
' F
L Ii
? /?.... \? iR .alt rR •h r {" J a.Y ??`tR?l. '?
.. .r3 '? r?? stn ? I
Evr } ). are-1`
E.A
Cr r ross /
o- r.a
a
A- le
?i
_
pR.. VT
Jo 18 z?A
\r c.,?1
611
?.
EsA , •\ . a
c t
t?
INA
Ift Go')
.?u??•r„ i ???r
co - JJJ r . i C
n..,n TH
In `Y
PA CT
A. ;n 1.r7 F'r?g
Ta ?? ro' 111 1\J ` .
l.. rt
11
A
W.8 l
y Barra Farms I Mitigation Bank
SCALE I"= 3000'
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional ECOBANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase II Land Management Group, Inc. Figure 7. SCS soil survey
Cumberland County, NC for Cumberland County.
September 2002
o Q"
0 0
C>
M ?
bo
W
06
U ?
GO
w
Q
? M
a
AyyU
00 k a ? 1"1 rl VJ CMC V)
00 e4 Q
+ ? a
? '. ?.f !rte
4. ' {.?? i.1 17
r? w
m •r~n W C? 3 a?
as
a a, a a ? w ? u,o
C
w ?
H
0
z
b
?z
d
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
r
i
?I
December 1998
MITIQA ION BANKING INSTRUMENT
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 MOLE
This agreement made and entered into on the day of 199 , by Ecosystems ..
Land Mitigation Sank Corporation, hereinafter Sponsor, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), the U,S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the North
Carolina Division of `V-*dter Quality (NCDWQ), hereinafter collectively refers-; to as the
Mitigation Bank Review Team (MORT)-
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 4uality 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
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 tnis agreement.
Pagel of 14
MHI 1
2.0 GENERA PROVISIQNg
2.1 Goals: The goal of the mitigation bank is to restore and enhance streams, rivenne
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 members
of the MBRT.
2.2 Additions to the Bank Site; The Sponsor may request the addition of adjacent lands to
the Bank Site. Such a request shall be accompa~ied 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 Bank 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 MBRT 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
i
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, 1995 (Guidance).
Page 2 of 14
MBI 2
2.4 Role of the MBRT: 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 conceming
the amount and type of compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable, permitted
wetland and stream impaiem, and whether-or not the use of credits from the B~?k 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 Sank 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?1?11ITMCATION PLAN
3.1 Genejglpescriution: The Bank Site is composed of approximately 623 acres (ac) of
interstream flats, former Carolina Bays, and historic stream origins which have been ditched
and drained to support agricultural and siivicultural activities. This site offers opportunities
for nonriverine wetland, riverine (riparian) wetland, and stream restoration and enhancement.
In addition, surrounding areas within the former wetland complex are available for expansion
of the Bank Site which can be phased over a period of time. A more detailed description of
the baseline conditions on the site is contained in Sections 1.0 through 4.0 of the Mitigation
Plan.
3.2 Site Modifications: The Sponsor has completed all work described in Section 6.0 of the
Mitigation Plan. Scream repair and ephemeral pool construction has been corn pitted and ditch
flows diverted into the restored floodplain where planned. Ditches have been backfilled and
Page 3 of 14
MB I 3
spoil/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 former wetlands to riverine and nonriverine wetlands,
and to enhance 172 acres of disturbed wetlands (Table 1, copied from Table 10 in the
Mitigation Plan).
3.3 Site Monitoring: The Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Site as described in Section 7.0
of the Mitigation Plan- IMonitoring 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;.~s that the Success Criteria have been
met, whichever occurs later.
The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration and enhancement
activities at the Bank Site, and for the overall operation and management of the Bank.
The Sponsor shall provide the reports described in Section 7.0 of the Mitigation Plan to each
member of the MBRT,
3.4 Contingency: 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.
Page 4 of 14
a
m
Z
a
k?
ILI Z
? v
m O ¢
C7 L
N
a
V
iF
a
a
m

m ?
iA m
m
LO
r- 0
m - N r N N

N
a

10

(? ^ ?1 Q3 - r r
CR r N' ?? '-
r-
0

m
m

ca
r ? ? d' to O ?' N Q7 ?O ['1
a m c7 (G N r- tt N N

? O C
? C C
..y

y
+p+ m 43 _
? (tea '? m
?y'
?

p a c tZ'? u. c n
m C Id C C l0 ?. ?"' ?. RI m N

0 N
??
? r
b Q
y
? > ?
r-
13 ?
O
C p 3
m
w ip
Q O G v O
h
le +, C p' p
O .r p
O O` O p 0
O ch
R!
cn VJ tl? C [7 0 cp C7 C m
* C
l0
' O C O C E. O

J0 ?- td C
?? 10 m
}? C
> d
C -o
C

4
C m
m
il! m
tC m
= m
Z lU O y. G
Z w m O
z W
X
m c
=
a G
m?
mb
r c
~ m
.C m
n 3
m n
`om
?m
m ? r
? C
y
m ? N
a m C
?.r
17
U N
7 m tD
H
m
cc
Q`1 }, m
m 3 ra
m
m 01 0.0
E m
w ? = m
m a m c .
? ? 0 0
m ? ? o
ro ? m
G
Q M
m C
m ? ? L
m m E?
? c
o c w m
m o . o ca
p -p 7 E
y, C V O
m m A
a rn
O R1 5
U G ? m
n m
jr m .0 .yr
Q! `p m C;
2 0.m" 04 .ma
? N
MBI 5
4.0 USE OF 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 arid/or 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 Bank is located in
proximity to, or -on the boundary between three hydrophysiographic cataloging units depicted
on 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, 03030006, and 03030006 as depicte in Figure 15 of the Mitigation
Plan, These Cataloging Units support similar Coastal Plain natural communities, wetlands,
and drain into the lower Cape Fear River. Therefore, the eastern and western limits of the
service area are defined by the outer boundaries of the Cape Fear River Basin contained within
the above-listed Cataloging Units.

The 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 geomorphology and regional aquifer issues identified
by the MBRT. The MBRT has further restricted the service area north of Wilmington due to
expected development patterns in the region and the potential for wetland compensatory
mitigation in proximity to these developments. To the north, the service area has been
reduced along 11 digit watershed boundaries to exclude Raleigh Belt portions of the Cape
Fear basin (Figure 15 of the Mitigation 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 Geographic Service Area if this option is preferable to other mitigation alternatives.
It is understood that Geographic Service Area expansion will be considered if the area of the
Bank is expanded.
page 6 of 14
MBI 6
JA= 2
ELEVEN DIGIT MROLOGICAL 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
MSY 7
4.2 Amount and Type of Credit; The Mitigation Plan is intended to result 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 11.
It is anticipated by the parties to this Agreement that use of mitigation credits shall be "in-
kind"; riparian (riverine) wetland, nonriverine wetland, and first order, stream channel credits
will be used to offset riverine wetland, nonriverine wetland, and first order, stream channel
impacts.
It is anticipated by the parties to this agreement that in most cases in which USACE, after
consultation with members of the MBRT, has determined that mitigation credits from the bank
may be used to offset wetland and stream impacts authorized by Department of the Army
permits, for every acre of impact, one credit will be debited from the Bank. Deviations from
the one to one compensation ratio will be based on considerations of value of the wetlands
impacted, the severity of the impacts to wetlands, whether this compensatory mitigation is
in-kind, and physical proximity of the wetland impacts to the Sank 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 Credit Release SchedyJe: The credit release schedule for the Bank, as depicted in Table
3, will be based upon successful completion of the following tasks:
Page 8 of 14
8
MB 1:
a
Z
m
yo
y d
?o
9; w
C °C
oa
ri Us
W
OU
dy
R2
i- cc
W
Q
t.
Q
Q
to
5
Elm
o
4
Q
m?e c ?
? I I ?
m m
tp N
? o
E
5yUQ N
v

d Z ami r N d'
N Q -
m

to N N m N

m m-
? ccn cc N cq m N
3
a
?m
?
,oz
~ O
Q s
G

maw r
- M ct a co
Lo
o a to

o

0
m
a
13
41 0 Om7 En o O
m
tf .? .. Q1 m m O O O O

' N N N
o EQ

d
` V N
r- 1
Cr1
r
.-
r
r
?e
d
w 43
cii
U
Q
o
U
m 'j U U' V U 0

4
C
F
?
°- oo
O
LL
cL
Li
4L
ti
Qf
C G ?0+ ' N C7 rh w

•
O ONE
U ¢ C
O
r2
m a
} '=
m N
} .=
m !p
} ..
0 0
> '?
w m
'..
O O O 1 N C m No tt7 .
.- cV e*i m U c? U m U m u ei u
00
c
3
=n
U N
c N
G N
N V
U
m ?
N ?
O C
m
m o
m ?
m ?
m
m ?
CD >
sm
r-
y
ao
- U
? C
m
o?
'C «
? C
m
U U
N
H
d
U H
a
t
7 m
? Ua
'fl Oi
U N
d to
O C1
U C
G ?
•O
? E
L N
to m
b 41
}
Co
.U C
? y
O
H
w

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, 15% of the wetland Bank credits will be released.
Completion of_ Task 1 is a prerequisite for release of any credits from the Sank, 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 --poil/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 and of each growing season (between September 1 and October 311.
The data will be compiled and success/failure documented within the Bank. The data will be
submitted to the MBRT as an Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR). Upon submittal
of the AWMR showing that success criteria are being fulfilled, wetland credits will be released
as follows.
First AWMR (November 1998): 10% 140% cumulative)
Second AWMR (November 1999): 15% (55% cumulative)
Third AWMR (November 2000): 15% (70% cumulative)
Fourth AWMR (November 2001): 10% (80% cumulative).
Fifth AWMR (November 2002): 20% (100% cumulative)
Page 10 of 14
MBI 10
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 end of .the Second AWMR and
corresponding to the percent of wetland credit released in years 3,4, and E (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 dispensation/lor;. 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 Accogntina Proce gres: - The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures for
maintaining accurate records of debits made from the Bank, acceptable to the MBRT. Such
procedures shall include the generation of a report by the Sponsor showing "credits used at
the time they are debited from the Bank, which the Sponsor shall provide within 30 days of
the debit to each member of the MBRT. In addition, the Sponsor shall prepare an annual
report on each anniversary of the date of execution of 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., nonriveiine forested
wetland), and shall include for each reported debit the USACE Action ID number for the
permit for Which the credits were used. Exhibit B comprises a sample master credit Iedger
which will be used to track and report Bank debits.
S.0 PROPERTY DISPOS111ON
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
MBI 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 or failure. 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 v- 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
L . 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
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for
the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
(See Attached Page 14c)
Col. T rry R. Y n bluth William L. Cox
Wilm? gton Dis ict Engineer Chief, Wetland Section, Wetlands
U. S. Army Co ps of Engineers Coastal, and Water Quality Grants
Branch, Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(See AttachedPage 14a) (See Attached Page 14d)
John M. Hefner Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Ecological Services Supervisor Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(See Attached Page 14b)
Frank McBride iller McCarthy
Director President
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank
Commission Corporation
Alan G. Fickett
Secretary
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank
Corporation
(Corporate Seal)
Page 14 of 14
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for
the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.

John M. He er
Ecological foervices 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.
4
Frank McBride
D#ector `t?a {tee.w` Ac??Q6G?
North Carolinaildlife 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. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Director
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Page 14d
O N
z
d
ANNUAL WETLAND MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 4)
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, 2001
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 ................................................................................ 8
3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING ................................................................................13
3.1 Monitoring Program ..............................................................................................13
3.2 Monitoring Results ...............................................................................................14
Herbaceous Vegetation .....................................................................................14
Groundwater Flats ............................................................................................14
Headwater Slope ...............................................................................................14
3.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria ..............................................................................15
4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND MITIGATION CREDIT ........... 19
4.1 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 2000 to October 2001) ............................19
5.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 20
6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................... 22
7.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Mitigation Credit Release Schedule
Appendix B: Wetland Hydrology Data and Hydrographs
Appendix C: Wetland Vegetation Data
Appendix D: Comparison of 2000 and 2001 Vegetation Data
Appendix E: Summary of Monitoring Plan
Appendix F: Photographs of Barra Farms
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 ...................
Table 2. Woody species found in groundwater flats habitat ....
Table 3. Woody species found in headwater slope habitat ......
..................................................11
............................... ...............17
..................................................18
ii
ANNUAL WETLAND MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 4)
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 4 of the
monitoring plan. Monitoring was performed during the 2001 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 4 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 and 3 credits were released and the Bank is on
schedule for release of Year 4 credits.
Year 4 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 2001 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.
2
.t
' 2d ? \ _ l .ti ? ?- `\ ?.. c*wCV .ok i ? l '../• V•.YaW?
• ? t Y ' 6
4 ?^ _ ? ? ? Cro..rw
Jl ' ,??r , ?? NC24 ' b:??. ?, 1. , '',,,•? ?? ? ?
t - _ . csc+r, 210", 4r!
iver
Nu 87 BARRA FARMS/CAPE FEAR
rp-
- + - ?, REGIONAL MITIGATJQN? N
. [ ?'"? ? JwwAiw` S
All
210
rno. ? .1l '' ? tom. 2? ?i = •?, y. _ ? ? G?? ?" w Sy +a` .
Study Area 53
D 7 2 3 Miles
Ilk 'a;
A 1 2 3 4 Kilometers
Mpfoduaod wflttPrrtnifaiorf lmm vw Nofm Gmlvu
r'
v, Awf:.rw ?,znne.t, Datortn. wPpvp, too3 - ? '
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
ECOBANK
Figure 1. Vicinity Map Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
3
Rainfall (in)
U
bog
0
1:1
U
00 N OM M
00 110 cd O
0
O c?
? x
a? w
0 0
o
O ?
U?
w
10.x,

"Y
E'er
, I1
10, M
x
?
O W
?? p
6r,

fp;t?,11

6 M
?
Q
10.4,
10

10. 2 00
00

M

?

ate,
lp, 0e
Qa tf'1
M ?
3
yl0?t, 01 ? N

10.E 1?
,l.
to ll
O
(ut) qldoQ JQjVAlpunojD
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 21, 2001 (1' reading within the growing
season) to September 26, 2001 (last reading prior to submission of this report) have been
utilized in this Year 4 monitoring report.
4
'9

>~ cd
o ?
0
o ° C7
? P4
t5 0 '20
4.) O
w U
r?
0
Cl
0
it

W .?
o

? o

?r

a?

0

U
O
O
3

o w o
CZ) p
,

x w
? C7
soll
5
2.2 Monitoring Results
The raw well data are depicted in hydro graph and tabular format in Appendix B. Wetland
hydrology criteria in number of consecutive days and percent of the growing season are
also summarized in Table 1. 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 2001 hydroperiod on groundwater flats supporting steady state forest structure
and organic soils. Data indicated that the reference groundwater flats habitat maintained
wetland hydrology during 17.3% of the growing season. The automated reference well
located within this same reference area recorded wetland hydrology for 19.7% of the
growing season.
The groundwater flats data from the restoration wetland area had an average wetland
hydrology of 17.7% of the growing season and ranged from 16.3 to 37.2% (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 4 results are similar to Year 3 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
6
because as more vegetation becomes established within the bank, causing
evapotranspiration, hydrological differences between these areas are diminished.
The automated monitoring wells located within groundwater flats habitat at the Bank
(wells A, B, and E; Figure 2) documented wetland hydrology within this habitat for
19.2%, 10.9%, and 7.5% of the growing season, respectively (Appendix B). Well B
stopped reading during the growing season, when its water table was high, and most likely.
would have documented a longer duration of wetland hydrology had data been collected
throughout this time period. (Well B stopped reading for a total of 36 days because of
bear damage and has since been repaired. Please see section 2.3 for more information on
automated well problems.) Data from well E were unusual and showed a somewhat flashy
pattern that did not appear to correlate with rainfall. Data from this well documented a
shorter wetland hydrology duration than the other wells largely because two days in April
dropped slightly below 12" from the soil surface, breaking up the continuous number of
days of wetland hydrology.
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 43.1 % 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 32.6% of the
growing season.
Data from the two manual wells located in the restoration riverine floodplain habitat
showed that wetland hydrology averaged 16.3% of the growing season. Both wells
exhibited the same duration of wetland hydrology, therefore, differences in hydrology
could not be correlated to proximity to the stream channel.
7
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
27.6% of the growing season and ranged from 17.3% (groundwater flats) to 43.1 %
(riverine floodplain).
Headwater slope in the restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging
16.3% of the growing season, with all wells achieving this percentage. Unlike previous
years, because all wells achieved the same hydrology percentage, hydrology did not appear
to be influenced by landscape position within the headwater storage area or vegetation
cover.
The automated monitoring well (well C; Figure 2) located within the headwater slope
habitat recorded a wetland hydrology for 11.7% of the growing season (28 consecutive
days). Well C stopped reading during the growing season (mid-April), when the water
table at this location was well above the soil surface, and would likely have documented a
longer duration of wetland hydrology had data been collected throughout this time period
(Appendix B). (Well C stopped reading for a total of 35 days because of bear damage and
has since been repaired. Please see section 2.3 for more information on automated well
problems.)
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 17.3%, 43.1%, and 27.6%,
respectively. In the Bank, restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging
17.7% (102% of reference), 16.3% (37.9% of reference), and 16.3% (59.1% of
reference), respectively. When comparing manual wells located in the restored habitats to
manual wells located in the reference areas, the groundwater flats and headwater slope
habitats fulfilled the wetland hydrology criterion, however, the riverine floodplain habitat
did not. This appears to be due to an exceptionally long wetland hydrology duration
exhibited by the reference riverine manual wells. In fact, this duration is longer than that
exhibited in Years 2 and 3, when rainfall was above normal for the area (see Appendix B
for a comparison of rainfall during Years 3 and 4). However, the restored riverine area still
surpasses ACOE wetland hydrology standards of being within 12" of the soil surface for at
least 12% of the growing season (restored riverine wells documented wetland hydrology
for 16.3% of the growing season). In addition, data from the manual wells located within
the restored riverine habitat achieved wetland hydrology for 50% of the automated
reference well (36 continuous days and 72 continuous days, respectively), which is within
the success criterion. Therefore, the restored riverine habitat does achieve the hydrology
success criterion. The unusually long wetland hydrology exhibited by the manual wells
located in the reference riverine habitat may be a result of riverine bleed out and artesian
effect as seasonal surface flow changes. Also, evapotranspiration may be reduced in this
forested area due to cooler temperatures exhibited this year.
Automated wells are dependable and accurate ways of recording hydrology. It should be
noted, however, that it has become 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. In fact, the well
located near plot 10 (well D) has been replaced three times this year because a bear has
broken it; the last time completely snapping it in two (Appendix F). A subcontractor reads
both the manual and automated wells frequently and repairs any problems promptly.
However, gaps in the data do occasionally occur. 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.
10
Table 1 enmmarv of')001 hydrnlnuv mnnitoring data at the Bank.
Well
Number Maximum
Consecutive
Saturation Days Percent of Growing
Season
(Saturat'n Days/239) Comments
Groundwater Flats
Restored
Wetland
Wl 39 16.3. former farmland (FF)
W2 46 19.2 FF
W4 89 37.2 FF
W5 39 16.3 FF, mineral soil flat
W6 39 16.3 FF, mineral soil flat
W7 39 16.3 FF
W10 39 16.3 FF
Wll 39 16.3 FF
W12 39 16.3 FF, mineral soil flat
W14 39 16.3 FF, mineral soil flat
W17 54 22.6 FF, located on fill material in backfilled ditch
W20 54 22.6 FF
W21 39 16.3 Existing pocosin vegetation (PV), end organic
soil flat (targeted swamp forest community)
W22 39 16.3 PV
W23 39 16.3 PV
Average 42.2 17.7 Range: 16.3-37.2%
Reference
Wetland
JB1 39 16.3 Existing forest vegetation (FV), mineral soils
JB2 39 16.3 FV, organic soils
JB3 46 19.2 FV, organic soils
Average 41.3 17.3 Range: 16.3-19.2%
11
Tnhle 1 cnntinued_ Summary of 2001 hvdroloQv monitoriniz data at the Bank.
Well Number Maximum
Consecutive
Saturation Days Percent of Growing
Season
(Saturat'n Days/239) Comments
Riverine Floodplain
Restored
Wetland
Wls 39 16.3 existing forest vegetation (FV), upstream
reach, outer floodplain
W18 39 16.3 FV, downstream terminus, inner floodplain
Average 39 163 Range: none
Reference
Wetland
SS1 103 43.1 FV, outer floodplain
SS2 103 43.1 FV, inner floodplain
Average 103 43.1 Range: none
Headwater Slope
Restored
Wetland
W3 39 16.3 Former farmland (FF), upper reaches
W8 39 16.3 FV, interior slope
W9 39 16.3 FF, interior slope
W16 39 16.3 FV, interior slope
W19 39 16.3 existing pocosin vegetation (PV), upper
reaches
Average 39 163 Range: none
Reference
hydroperiod* 66 27.6 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.
12
3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
3.1 Monitoring Program
Quantitative sampling of vegetation was conducted in October of 2001 and was similar to
the sampling performed in 1999 and 2000. Thirty-four plots that were each 0.1-acre in size
were sampled resulting in 3.4 totalacres 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 biflora 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 most seedlings.
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
13
ground surface covered by its vertical projection.
3.2 Monitoring Results
Herbaceous Vegetation
During Year 4 monitoring, a total of 21 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, 20 were tree species and 8 were shrub species. Of the tree species, 12
were planted and 8 were volunteer. All shrubs were volunteer. Most common tree species
included red maple (Ater 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 940.0 stems/acre with
approximately 260.4 stems/acre from planted species. When using the number of trees/acre
by species that can be applied to the stems/acre criterion (s 20% of 320 stexns/acre.for -
hardwoods and _< 10% of 320 stems/acre for softwoods), the total number of trees that can
be counted per acre was 393.4 (see Table 3, column 5).
Headwater Slope
A total of 13 woody species was identified within this habitat, of which 8 were planted and
5 were volunteer. The most common tree species included red maple (Acer rubrum), black
14
willow (Salix nigra), and swamp tupelo and /or water tupelo (Nyssa biflora, N. aquatica):
Density averaged 1746.0 stems/acre, with 282.0 stems/acre resulting from planted species.
When success criteria percentages were used (<_ 20% of 320 stems/acre for hardwoods and
<_ 10% of 320 stems/acre for softwoods), the total number of trees that can be counted per
acre was 378.0 (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).
Several plots within both the groundwater flats habitat (P7, P32, and P35) and the
headwater slope habitat (P8) contained an abundance of red maple stems, which elevated
the average number of maple sterns 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. Because maple numbers are continuing to increase in certain areas,
the effect that these seedlings have on planted species was evaluated by comparing
vegetation data in 2000 and 2001, specifically the number of trees observed in each plot
and the average height of each species in both years (Appendix D). As is shown from these
data, 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).
15
When evaluating the success criteria, only 20% of the 320 stems/acre criterion (64 stems)
was used for maple or any other hardwood that exceeded this value. Only 10% of the 320
stems/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
stems/acre criterion. For groundwater flats, a mean density of 940.0 stems/acre was found
across 26 character wetland species, with an average of 6.4 tree species/plot. An average of
393.4 stems/acre can be applied to the vegetation success criterion. In the headwater slope
habitat, a mean density of 1746.0 stems/acre was found across 13 wetland species, with an
average of 7.0 tree species/plot. An average of 378.0 stems/acre in this habitat can be
applied to the vegetation success criterion. Therefore, both of these wetland community
types meet the vegetation success criteria.
16
Table 2. Woody species found in groundwater flats habitat, average number of trees/acre, and the number of trees
nllnumd in S77ccP.SS criteria
Common name Scientific Name Avg # of trees/
acre % of total # of
trees/ac # trees/ac allowed
in criteria Comments

Red Maple
Acer rubrum
427.2
45.4
64 Volunteer hardwood,
three plots had many
seedlings (see
Appendix D
Winged Sumac Rhus copallina 157.9 16.8 32 Volunteer softwood,
mostly from 2 lots
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 89.0 9.5 64 Planted hardwood
Swamp/ Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 76.9 8.2 76.9 Planted hardwood
Black Willow Salix nigra 64.5 6.9 32 Volunteer softwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 24.8 2.6 24.8 Planted hardwood
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 24.1 2.6 24.1 Planted hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 14.5 1.5 14.5 Planted
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciua 13.8 1.5 13.8 Volunteer hardwood
Red Bay Persea borbonia 12.1 1.3 12.1 Volunteer softwood
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 6.9 0.7 6.9 Planted softwood
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 6.2 0.6 6.2 Planted hardwood
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4.5 0.5 4.5 Planted hardwood
Water Oak Quercus nigra 4.5 0.5 4.5 Planted hardwood
Longleaf Pine Pinus palustris 3.5 0.3 3.5 softwood
Pond Cypress Taxodium ascenders 2.4 0.3 2.4 Planted hardwood
Loblolly Pine Pinus weda 2.1 0.2 2.1 Volunteer softwood
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 1.7 0.2 1.7 Planted hardwood
Tulip Poplar Driodendron tulipifera 1.4 0.1 1.4 Planted hardwood
Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 1.0 0.1 1.0 Volunteer hardwood
Unknown (no leaves) 1.0 0.1 1.0 No leaves, but stem
alive
TOTAL 940.0 100 393A
17
Table 3. Woody species found in headwater slope habitat, average number of trees/acre, and the number of
trees allowed in success criteria.
Common name Scientific Name Average #
of trees/
acre % of total
# of
trees/ac % of total / ac
allowed in
criteria Comments
Red Maple Acer rubrum 1300.0 74.4 64 Volunteer hardwood;
one plot had many
seedlings (see
Appendix D)
Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 158.0 9.0 128 Planted hardwood
Black Willow Salix nigra 134.0 7.7 32 Volunteer softwood
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 64.0 3.7 64 Planted hardwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 28.0 1.6 28 Planted hardwood
Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda 18.0 1.0 18 Volunteer softwood
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 14.0 0.8 14 Planted hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 8.0 0.4 8 hardwood
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 6.0 0.3 6 hardwood
Sweetgum Liguidambar styraciua 6.0 0.3 6 hardwood
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 4.0 0.2 4 Planted hardwood
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 4.0 0.2 4 Planted hardwood
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 2.0 0.1 2 Planted softwood
TOTAL 1746 100 378
18
4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND MITIGATION CREDIT
Post-Restoration Conditions (October 2000 to October 2001)
The following is a brief summary of the conditions observed at Barra Farms Cape Fear
Regional Mitigation Bank during the past year.
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.
19
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 17.3%, 43.1%, and 27.6%, respectively. In the
Bank, restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging 17.7% (102% of reference),
16.3% (37.9% of reference), and 16.3% (59.1 % of reference), respectively, when comparing data
from manual wells. The wetland hydrology success criterion was met for groundwater flats and
headwater slope.
However, the restoration riverine floodplain habitat achieved wetland hydrology for only 37.9% of
that of the reference habitat. This is due to an unusually long wetland hydrology (102 days) exhibited
by the two reference wells, which was actually longer than that exhibited in Years 2 and 3, when
rainfall was above normal for the area. Despite this, the manual wells located within the restored
riverine habitat meet ACOE wetland hydrology success criteria (saturation within 12" of the soil
surface for 12% of the growing season) and the wetland hydrology duration of the manual wells is
within 50% of the automated well located within reference riverine habitat. Furthermore, hydrology
within the restored riverine habitat met the hydrology success criterion in all previous years of
monitoring at the Bank. Finally, the unusually long wetland hydrology exhibited by the manual wells
located in the reference riverine habitat may be a result of riverine bleed out and artesian effect as the
seasonal surface flow changes. Because of these reasons, it is concluded that the restored riverine
floodplain habitat meets the hydrology success criterion.
The wetland vegetation success criterion was met during Year 4 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 448.5 stems/acre across 24 wetland species.
Headwater slope habitat supported 380 stems/acre and 14 character wetland species. Although the
20
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.
The installation of drainage pipes to alleviate ponding, along with normal weather conditions and
cooler steady temperatures in 2000 and 2001, have created better growing conditions for planted
vegetation. In addition, supplemental planting in the winter of 2000 increased the number of
stems/acre to acceptable levels.
Year 4 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 thus far successful and Year 4 credits should be
released.
21
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.
22
i Water uak tree at Barra.
Land Management Group, Inc.
Barra Farms Mitigation Site Environmental Consultants
Cumberland County, NC Wilmington, N.C.
November 2001
Pictures of site.
i Bald cypress trees.
1 Bald cypress trees within plot.

Land Management Group, Inc.
Barra Farms Mitigation Site Environmental Consultants
Cumberland County, NC Wilmington, N.C.
November 2001
Pictures of site.
1 Trees within a typical plot at Barra. Many trees are greater than T tall.
i A majority of the herbaceous vegetation consisted of broomsedge.
Land Management Group, Inc.
Barra Farms Mitigation Site Environmental Consultants
Cumberland County, NC Wilmington, N.C.
November 2001
Pictures of site.
Goldenrod was found in drier sections.
Land Management Group, Inc.
Barra Farms Mitigation Site Environmental Consultants
Cumberland County, NC Wilmington, N.C.
November 2001
Pictures of site.
1 Red maple dominated several plots, however planted species continued to grow.
Red maple appeared to have no more effect on planted species than herbaceous vegetation.
i Automated well broken at Barra Farms by a bear.
Land Management Group, Inc.
Barra Farms Mitigation Site Environmental Consultants
Cumberland County, NC Wilmington, N.C.
November 2001
Pictures of site.
4
b
d
5?
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 F. 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
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
Abstract
We compared hydrology, soils, and water quality of an agricultural field (AG), a two-year-old
restored wetland (RW), and two reference ecosystems (a non-riverine swamp forest (NRSF) and
a tall pocosin forest (POC)) located at the Barra Farms Regional Wetland Mitigation Bank, a
Carolina bay complex in Cumberland County, North Carolina. Our main objectives were to: 1)
determine if the RW exhibited hydrology comparable to a reference ecosystem, 2) characterize
the soils of the AG, RW, and reference ecosystems, and 3) assess differences in water quality in
the surface outflow from the AG, RW, and reference ecosystems. Water table data indicated that
the hydrology of the RW has been successfully reestablished as the hydroperiod of the RW
closely matched that of the NRSF in 1998 and 1999. Jurisdictional hydrologic success criterion
was also met by the RW in both years. To characterize soil properties, soil cores from each
ecosystem were analyzed for bulk density (Db), total carbon (Ct), nitrogen (Nt), and phosphorus
(Pt), extractable phosphate (P04w), nitrogen (N,), and cations (Caex, MgeX, KeX, NaeX), as well as
pH. Bulk density, Pt, Caex, MgeX, and pH were greatly elevated in the AG and RW compared to
the reference ecosystems. Water quality monitoring consisted of measuring soluble reactive
phosphorus (SRP), total phosphorus (TP), nitrate + nitrite (NOX), and total nitrogen (TN)
concentrations in surface water from the AG, RW, and reference outflows. Outflow
concentrations of SRP, TP, and NOX were highest and most variable in the AG, while TN was
highest in the reference. This study suggested that while restoration of wetland hydrology has
been successful in the short term, alteration of wetland soil properties by agriculture was so
intense, that changes due to restoration were not apparent for most soil parameters. Restoration
also appeared to provide water quality benefits, as outflow concentrations of SRP, TP, NOX, and
TN were lower in the RW than the AG.
2
Introduction
Wetland restoration is a promising strategy for alleviating water quality problems in
watersheds dominated by agriculture. The effectiveness of the wetland at improving water
quality will depend on the flow of the water through the system (hydrology), as well as the forms
and amounts of nutrients in the soil (soil properties). We report here the early results of a study
investigating the effects of agriculture and wetland restoration on hydrology, soil properties, and
water quality of the Barra Farms Regional Wetland Mitigation Bank, a Carolina bay complex in
Cumberland County, North Carolina.
The conversion of a wetland to agricultural production has implications for all components of
the ecosystem. In terms of hydrology, the establishment of networks of drainage ditches lowers
the water table, promotes rapid drainage during and after precipitation, and creates conditions of
continuous surface water flow; in contrast, prior to ditching, water tables would be higher,
drainage would be slower, and only intermittent flow would occur (Sharitz and Gibbons, 1982;
Richardson and Gibbons, 1993). Reversal of these effects, to reestablish wetland hydrology is
often cited as the most critical component to wetland restoration success (Kusler and Kentula,
1990); as hydrology has been considered the master variable controlling redox status, pH,
nutrient cycling, community composition, and wetland development (Bridgham and Richardson,
1993). Thus, the first objective of our paper was to determine if the restored wetland (RW)
exhibited representative wetland hydrology and met jurisdictional hydrologic success criteria.
This was accomplished by comparing the seasonal pattern of water table depths of the RW to
that of the reference non-riverine swamp forest (NRSF).
3
Upon conversion to agriculture, wetland soils that were once subjected to reducing
conditions and low rates of decomposition are subjected to oxidizing conditions and high rates of
decomposition (Armentano and Menges, 1986; Schlesinger, 1986). Artificial drainage leads to
the loss of organic matter and subsequent soil subsidence (Lilly, 1981). Following the initial
impacts of ditching and clearing, come the secondary impacts that result from tillage, liming and
fertilization. Tillage has been shown to increase compaction of wetland soils (Brady and Weil,
1999; Braekee, 1999). Liming increases soil pH and elevates base cation content (Simmons et
al., 1996; Braakee, 1999). This, in turn, can further increase decomposition (Lilly, 1981;
Compton and Boone, 2000). Fertilization often leads to over-saturation of agricultural soils with
inorganic nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate. This occurs as more nutrients are applied as
fertilizer than are taken up by crops during the growing season. Like hydrology, the restoration
of wetland soil properties is another important factor in restoration, as soils are the physical
foundation of wetland ecosystems (Stolt 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 palustrine wetlands (Cowardin et al., 1979).
However, due to their variability in size, depth, and substrate conditions, Carolina bays do not
have a single characteristic cover type and may contain woody, shrub-scrub, herbaceous, and
even aquatic vegetation (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
Sharitz, 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 Ra£), 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
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
scheme of Schafale and Weakley, we refer to them as the high pocosin (POC) and the non-
riverine swamp forest (NRSF)
The vegetation of the POC was characterized by a thick understory of Lyonia lucida
(fetterbush), Ilex glabra (low gallberry), Smilax 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
(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, Ca,,,,
Mg,,, and pH of the AG and RW soils. Upon comparing the soils of the AG to RW, the main
differences between the two ecosystems were in Ct, Nt, and P04wi 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
nroviding these water quality benefits.
Outline of
Carolina bay
4
11
Reference
Outflow
\(R. I- F)
Focosin
Re\f,Qrence
(270'ha)
Bay Forest
Reference
(`3,Q_ ha)

4

Agricltlval
Outflow
(A G) ,
Barra Farms Cape (UPL) ,
Fear Regional Restored
Wetland
Mitigation Bank Outflow
N . Water quality monitoring outflow point Harrison Creek
• Water table monitoring well
T Direction of surface water flow
I Km
Agricultural ?
V \\\
\\Area (240 ha)
0
O R?§tored
• Wetland
0 -7 Riparian Forest
UPI 250 h'd
• ?_(51Yhf • q\
O ?.
O
North Carolina
A comparison of Carolina bay soil properties under agriculture,
wetland restoration, and reference conditions
Gregory L. ruland, Matthew F. anchey and. Curtis J. Richard..sm, Duke University Wetland, Center, Durham,NiC, 27708 ?
Abstract-??: J_. _ >-m Results and Discussion
Wetland rr_smrx ion is a frequently used method of muigaimo damage to a watershed caused by the destruction of nature' a 1 1 ? .a 1 1 ° i -„ .? ., 9
_ i
wetland functions on the landscape Assessment of wetland restoration success is frequently based on restoring hydroloa' r- 1
and vegetation, while soil properties, which are more difficult to restore, arc less often monitored. Few in depth studies have I
been conducted on the soil characteristic of natural and developed Carolina bays of the southeast United States. We took
i
multiple soil cores from each of two developed ecosystems, an agricultural field and a restated wetland, and two reference
wetlands at the Barra Farms Mitigation Bank, a Carolina bxy in Cumberland Co., North Carolina. The cores were analyzed a i G `r E m'~
a "u t,_ i n ? o?p
for: total carbon C
ammonium, ammod Ipul nitrogen (M, total phosphorus (P), water extractable phosphors, ICCI extradable muam and ?- ' ? w.. ..--.. .
mm acetme exuactable cations (Ca, Mg, K, Na), oxalate extractable uon and aluminum, panicle size, and
pH. Our results indicate that agricultural land-use practices have caused stgndicant changes in soil properties of the o n i o cr o ro
developed ecosystems in comparison to the reference ecosystems. Agriculture has reduced the amount of C and N
ica
throughout the soil profile in the developed ecosystems. Restoration had no effect on C and N content after two years. Total sir 1 s t "o v o is eon zo no sw sac r
?.
soil? was not affected by agncultural soil practices. Liming has significantly elevated the exchangeable Ca content and pH as or i .. u
of the developed ecosystems, and CART analysis indicates that Ce was the pnmary'soil parameter separating developed t %Carbon ? f %Nitrpgan Total Phosphorus (µ91g)
from reference ecosystems. These differences in soil properties have the potential to affect biogeochemn:al precasts such u r?
damFositia, AdenitrifiFcalion, and ehosphorus sor?tioo._ Fs?s? -''POCOSIN -e-HARDWOOD -=-AGRICULTURE RESTORED
REFERENCE REFERENCE WETLAND
Objectives
"Characterize the soils of 2 developed (agriculture and restored wetland) and 2 reference (hardwood and pocosin) ecosyste
located in a Carolina bay in North Carolina, USA.
° Assess the differences between the restored wetland soils and agriculural soils that have arisen in the first two years after
restoration.
Typical Characteristics of Undisturbed Carolina Bays
-Named'bays" by early European pioneers who observed evergreen shrubs and
bay trees typically growing on their margins. mrrau,
'Definition: shallow elliptical depressions which occur abundantrp in abroad N ?
C]nn xm
band across the consul plain province of the southeastern United States. ?
• Cowardin Classification: Foreued or scrub-shrub palustnne wetlands ;swat"
'or'igin: formed during glacial periods probably by Fie, t. v,eetnlive mmmumry plow view
SW winds interacting with water stored in depressions ----7-rnx---
n features:
general
ori
bComm
N
ion
)1'?11'11W1
)11t 117} d rl I t l
end at
NW
ovate prevalent at ioa
p
tad ri
va
SE margin, water table dependent on rainfall and
evapotranspiration. ---
Figures 1 and 2 modified from Sharitz & Gibbous 1982.
- ....... - _ F• 2 SRae tl.@sx+nW,tonilonr ?x' FL ar.,u?;.
Study Site and Methods
• A portion of a 975 hectare Carolina hay wetland in Cumberland County, North Carolina was ditched and cleared in the
mid 1960s to be used for farming, while the remainder of the site retains the original vegetation, including pocosin and
hardwood forest.
• 250 hectares of agricultural land were restored in the winter of 1997 to create the Barta Farms Cape Fcu Regional
Mitigation Bank. Restoration consisted of filling of ditches and planting of scedhngs.
• We took soil samples from 5 depths (0-20 cm, 20-40 cm, 40-60 cm, 60-80 cm, and 80-100 em) in 4 ecosystems: restated
wetland (8 profiles), agricultural system (3 profiles), pocosin reference (7 profiles), and hardwood reference (3 profiles).
Additional surface samples were lateen from the anricunural and reference systems.
Study Area
;'• alCflgl'g _
tNorlli Carolina
S=d-d
Rcrorrnm Cumbertmd Co.
rk,
,
HanM'ut!d lief. ?, P, ;,,,in
BareFerms 1, ti?li I '?1?„N` i?as
Cape t^l fit} I' ,f
Fear
ig tr
M1 on Dank Ot I 1 j
? 1IUn
Outline of Carolina bay
Fig. 3. Location and plan view of study area.
Fig. 4. Carbon and nitrogen are consistently higher in the reference ecosystems throughout the soil profile.
In contrast, there are no significant differences in total P content among ecosystems. At a given depth, points
with different letters are significantly different (a = 0.05). Numbers indicate significant depth differences
within ecosystem types. Data presented are means ± 1 SE.
k-
ro
ss
a zo
V is
a tc
5
e ngncullwe
Yh
?lo?lofeo
ne.rn M
" I
uo'.vdm
a u I1am
Ya ao
2
pN
?i 10 I
m s ? I,
Aya'cutlure de"mr¢,; ruuaam ro''saw
Welland Relerence Reference
Fig. 5. Water extractable phosphate is highest in the surface cores of the reference ecosystems. Extractable
nitrogen in the surface cores is significantly higher in the agricultural, restored wetland and hardwood
ecosystems in comparison to the pocosin. Data presented are means ± 1 SE. Bars with different letters are
significantly different, and stars indicate significant differences between depths (a=0.05).
a o -_
POCOSIN
?• I I ' a
e m .r ?.?r..a,-• E -4k-- HARDWOOD
\'",t wt REFERENCE
? dal I
?'ae "- t rei t v a. _ -l-- AGRICULTURE
IM, "
o asy ,a„ mw :cee RESTORED
pH . WETLAND
Exchangeable Calcium (µ9l9) 3.5
Fig. 6. Exchangeable calcium and pH are elevated in the surface soils of both the agricultural system and the
restored wedand, relative to the reference systems.
Fig. 7. Oxalate extractable iron is significantly higher in the reference ecosystems than it is in the agricultural
and restored wetland ecosystems at the surface. Oxalate extractable aluminum is highest in the restored
wetland and agricultural ecosystems in comparison to the reference ecosystems.
Results
I ?
e a
a e s '
n•9
r c
`\ o
c,
fix

POCo56N
HARDWOOD
REFERENCE
A AGRICULTURE
0 RESTORED WETLAND
Axis t
Increasing y carbon, nitrogen,- * Inca r mineral
potassium, ¢ou, and phosphate soil content
Fig. S. Principal components analysis: Soils of the different ecosystems
separate primarily along principal components ais 1, which is positively
correlated with pH and trneral soil parameters and negatively correlated with
carbon, nitrogen, potassium and extractable phosphorus.
Fig. 9. CART analysis uses soil
paremeurs to explain divisions among
groups. Results of CART for surface
soils suggests that calcium concentration
is the most important variable dividing
reference systems from the restored and
agricultural systems. The most
significant division between the latmr two
groups is water extractable phosphate,
C. <223 29 nt/6
Na <ICJ.d7 VMC P0,<]de 4"alt
I
liob'N'IIi+
Conclusions
° Agriculture has reduced the amount of C and N throughout the soil profile in the developed
relative to the reference ecosystems. Restoration had no effect on C and N after 2 years. Total
soil P, however, does not appear to have been affected by agricultural practices.
*No consistent difference was observed between developed and reference ecosystems for either
of the extractable nutrients. This indicates that short-term processes are more important than
land-use history in controlling extractable nutrients.
"Liming has significantly elevated the exchangeable Ca content and pH of the developed
ecosystems. For example, Ca in the surface of the restored wetland was 1000x larger than in the
reference ecosystems. The primary soil parameter separating the reference from the developed
ecosystems is the concenlrad m of Ca.
Oxalate extractable Al has been elevated and oxalate extractable Fe has been depleted in the
developed ecosystems possibly as a result of changes in soil chemistry caused by liming.
Ecological Implications and Future Research
° Elevated pH may lead !o more rapid decomposition and less organic matter storage in the
restored wetland than in the reference systems.
° Depletion of C in the restored wetland soil may limit denitrification.
° Increases in oxalate Al and exchangeable Ca in the developed ecosystems may cause
them to have a higher phosphate adsorption capacity than the reference ecosystems.
Acknowledgments
W. Willis, I. Rice and P. Heine were very helpful with the laboratory analysis. N. Flanagan and
P.V. Sundareshwar made hr!pful comments about the poster. Thanks to ECOBANIC for access
to the research site and to Land Management, Inc. for information about the site. Funding was
ovided b the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.
Selection of Wetland Restoration Sites in Rural Watersheds to Improve Water Qualltyo Integrating Ee®i®gleal and
Economic Approaches
Curtis J. Richardson, Randall A. Kramer, 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 bicdiversit},, water quality, and natural hydrologic regimes depends at least in part on the total wetland area, types and spatial arrangement. 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 quality 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 landowner's 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 state 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
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
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.
Ecological Analysis
The water quality model will be 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.
Economit 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
restoration programs.
Economic analysis
16?w i
s
' mo ;
',Brie FVaa
_ ll,rrr,?.rrr:rt
Program Options for Landown.rA n North Garohna _
I NC
-- - - - - --- Location of ..heBar a Fsra s Resto c 4veds d
1
Acnal photograph of the Barra Farms restored wetland area
A=restored wetland area, B=agncultural uea scheduled for wetland's
restoration. C=Bay Forest area
IV Expected Results
A watershed level ecological model predicting the effects of
various wetland restoration projects on water quality,
• a model predicting farmer 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,
new information about nutrient cycling and retention in wetlands
restored on agricultural lands,
a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of one or more
restored wetlands in improving water quality,
a Decision Support System (DSS) that integrates the economic and
ecological models to assist the North Carolina Wetland Restoration
Program (NCWRP) in locating and designing wetland restoration
prolecls.
M
i
Total Phosphorus
i f I tai u: '. / '")
eB n.ru n t red Bey F.na am.. t f .
w u.ad
SA. t...nnn
Total Nitrogen
i i
6' Id F -lor.d Bey F.- am.rr
w waa
sn. mama
Dissolved Organic Carbon
AB Fem a.d B.,-- am„
Welhrtl
aAe h.etbn
Water samples from ea-* of the three ecosystems show
distinct nutnenl compou;ons One component of this
protect mll Be to evalovx Ih4 capacity of the restored
wetland to remove nulnants from the Barra rarms run-oll.
II Objectives
identify watershed level variables 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 these restored wetland in improving water
quality,
identify variables predicting farmer 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.
?rG +
o ?'1
• d i ;-t
T5 -t ?=at;aipotpmu,-, iNndrestoration sites I
prioritized by potential weer quality improvement and
farmer willingness-to•pay _
?d
b
dz
d

'IN
36.
1
,e
terns I
t 35"
tl°
45 Piedmont
( 45a Southern Inner Piedmont
O 45b Southern Outer Piedmont
I__l 45c Carolina State Belt
® 45c Northern Inner Piedmont
l= 45( Northern Outer Piedmont
OR 45g Triassic Basins
M 45i Icings Mountain
63 Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
63b Chesapeake-Pamlico Lowlands and Tidal Marshes
M 63c Nouriverine Swamps and Peatlands
63d Virginian Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes
1 63e Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods
M 63g Carolinian Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes
63h Carolina Flatwoods
® 63n Mid-Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces
PRINCIPAL AU'ITIORS: Glean U. Urilflh (NIiCS), James M. Umcml tLISITA),
J.lYmy A. Com%uict lhidus Cwp,mi nf. Mwhud P. Sdhu(A, (N('1)ItNR), W. Henry
McNab[USES),Oavud R, L. tINCOLNRk rind "Fnsh P. MaclYr+?,n 1N('I1FNIt)
COLLABORATORS AND lY7NTRinln'ORS: Jwmx f:. Ikrn-, it ISITA). David I..
Pcorose (N0)I:NR), Roy L.Vick, Jr. (NRC3), G,:mrd McMahon (I ISCISI. Roh rl Peel
(UNC). Cup Smith(NRS) and ram LovclarJ(USGS).
CI.I'IN(3 7'IIIS MAP: Grill-11h. G.F, Onhcnnk. J.M., t UI, . JA. Sdadolc, M.T.
.MCNab, W.H. LemL DA., and McPherson. T.F.. 2(X)2. Fcomghom o(Nonh C.vohna.
U.S. Fnvinmmvulal Pnnwmn Ag-y. Co-11r.. Olt. Pn:.p.,oak I I.,SIXr,OfXp.
6S Southeastern Plains
1 1 65c Sand Hills
1 1 651 Atlantic Southern Loam Plains
I 165m Rolling Coastal Plain
® 65p Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces
66 Blue Ridge
66c New River Plateau
66d Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
1 66e Southern Sedimentary Ridges
M 66g Southern Metasedfinentary Mountains
M 66i High Mountains
CJ 66j Broad Basins
M 66k Amphibolite Mountains
ME 661 Eastern Blue Ridge Foothills
= 66m Sauratown Mountains
Level III ecoregion County boundary
Level IV eeoregian State boundary -•-•-
SCALE 1:1 500 000
IS 10 5 0 10 6) mi
J
10 20 Ill 11 60 1211 km
Albers Equal Area Projection
Ixvn,tom dtmDtc area of general shrulaRy, m ocosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of
etevinaehemld resuarces. TMry arc tMai,-acd to serve as a spatial fmmcwork for the m-cmdh
nAMMMymad pout, and a ikoring of ecosystems and ecosystem conpaneas. Faarcgions am
dNcealy al"Rm le to may skit: age" activities, incising the selection of regional strum rdbrence
silts, the d6vc1oplmwt of bprlb XW cretcrm oral walla quality sta datift and nun estaWiihmaI. of
maragcmrnt goals for rrwgaia•sootc pollutes. They arc also relevant to integrated mosystam
13111512"wt, at utllrlnac goal of away federal and stale resource management agtmtiLy.
The ;4gwoach used to compile this map of Node Carolina is based al the premise thud ecological
n t0lh we bicnactrital awl Ian be identified through the analysts of the spatial patterns and the
cumpwmiua rf twine and abioic pbeumeru that affect or reflect okffenmcs in ecosystem quality and
integrity (Wtken 19K- ()amank 1987, 1995). Thcsc phenomena include geology, physiography.
vegeeaGn, climate, so tK land use, vnkthfe, and hydrology. The relative importance of each
ckwwctenslic varas from one ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A Roman
mmnnnl hicraninic l sliMAOC has ban adopted for differam levels of ecological regions. Level I and
I cvd It divine the North AAaaican caRiuett huo 15 and 52 regions respectively (Commission for
Irvircamaad Cooperation Waking Group 1997). At Level W, the continatW United Sucks conmms
104 rcgkurs (United Stma Eariroomcaal Proration Agency [U.S. EPAt 2000). Lewd IV is a further
wbdhvisiea of the Level fa etvregitas Explanations of lm mediods used to define the US. FA's
cenregittm am given in fm ernik (1995), Omanik and others (2000), Grillith and others (1994, 1997),
Mil GalRhnt and others (1989),
'Ito Loved III eM IV ccotegions were compiled at a scale of 1:250,000 and depict revisions aml
wh livisions of cattier fevd W ecoregions that were originally compiled at a smaller scale (II.S. EPA
2000: UaaKnik 1987k CompOalot of Otis map is pan of a collaborative project primarily hdweerl the
U.S. IX--p atone of AgricuRme's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), die LLS. F.1>A
National I Icallo and l mveuumcnul li ecls Rcwuch Labumtory(NI IIi11U.), U.S. EIIA Rcgtnn IV, and
der; North Carolina IkItartmern (f Pminrlmerd and Natural Resource-. This project is also associated
with ran interagency effort to develop a wmmon framework of ecological regions (McMahon and other,
MY Rcsional mllahoalive: pmgects, such as this one in North farohna what .some agreement Cm hl:
reached amarg multiple resource management agencies are a step in the direction of atudning
commonality and consistency in ccvrcgion frameworks for the entire ration.
Commends regarding the level III and IV lixm gions of North Carolina heap should he addressed to
Glcon Griffith, USDA-NRCS, 200 SW 35th Seem, Corvallis, OR 97333, (541) 7544465, FAX: (541)
7544716, crowd: griffhth,[e-mail], or to lanes Omcmik, USES, 2nn SW 15111 Street, Corvallis,
OR 97331 (541) 7 W-4458, email. omcmik.jamesG#cp,;l gov.
I.Iwamnra Cited.
Commission for Gtviroumerdal Cooperation Working fnwSa, 1997, Ixnlogical regions of
Noah Amman - Toward a common pmgastFre' Moaned, Quebec, Commission fur
Enviramrcnul Cmphcration, 71 p.
Conant, A.L.. Whinier, TR., Larsen. O.P., Oaut", J.M., and Hughes. R.W. 1989,
Regionalirnem as a cool for managing arvimnmentai racourc= Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.
Imrdtonmental Protection Agency UPAINRY3-89IkM,152 P.
Griffith, G.F., Omcmik, J.M., Wilton, T.F. and Piaum. S.M., 1994, Ecoregiona and
satrep;auu of lowu - a fiunework for waew quality mmsnhcat and managumone The
Journal of the lows Academy of Serene, v. 101, an I, p 5.13.
Griaft6, G.E., Omamik, J.M., and Anvalo, SA L, 1997, fcon:gions of Tmm;ssw: Corvalar,
oregon, U.S. Favirommcniad Prowrldon Agency, National Intealth and Irvirmmmenlal IQJfects
Rexcurch Latrowoy, EPAf600M-9710??, 51 p.
McMahon, G„ Gregonis, S.M., Waltman, SW„ Ometinik, 1,M.,'nmrctm, T.D., Prcenuf, J.A.,
Rorick. All.. and Rcysa J11_ 2001, Developing a spatial 'rrarm work if common ecological
regions for die Conterminaa United Stales: Envviomewtal Management, v. 28, no. 3,
p. 293.716.
Omcma, l.M.1997, lxoregnioN of the coatermianms United Sw_%(map supplement): Annuls
of the Association o(Ammieaa'Goographum v. 77, mm. 1, p.118.125. scale 1:7,500,000,
Omvmlk J.M., 1995, Ewregioos-a spmnat framework for ewvi"Ruentul mmugement, in
Davis, W.S, and Simon, T,P., ads„ niotogical asxsawhont and aiiafia-fools for walor
resaucc pmlaing and decision muking: nuca Rahn, Florida, Iawirs Publishers, p. 49.62.
Omemik, 1,M., Chapman, S.S., Lille, R.A., and Dumke. R.T., 2000, ficoragions of
Wisconsin: Transactions of the Wisctmsin Academy of Sciences, Arts :rod Lelterx,
v. lea. no. 2000, p. 71.10:5.
U.S. Fovirormawlal Prolection Agency, 2000, Level III ecoregions of the continental Unilnl
Sraha (mvwtoa or Qmrcmik, 1987). CorralIN, Orogom, 11.5. Environmenial Protection
Agcnry-National Health and Environmental fRccis Rek=rch Labumallay, Mup M-l.
Wien, li., 1986, Temestnal stryuLes or Canadw Oltuw., Enviromnom Gonda. Ecological
I and ('I...ifi-lion Scrics no. 19,16 p.
Ecoregions of North Carolina
65c
•66 ? ??•?, l?a uvilirl ? . ,
1
- -
Lg lop Rcwk Bill
a I ' GSp
Nn t)
66 BARRA FARMS' 63n
Grenville Jacket
: o? 63h
xr Ecoregions of No 651 ,3h 63DC
rth
Carolina
?.?. 6C
,a \ \ 63n ,
I' i • (5p _
65 Wilminn?
1 45
?% 63h
- - --- i r
Columbia
?ilUmhia
Athens , ? ? _.._.. ,t'j' ?r • ?, I.
63
Cape Fear
' ; . Myrtle Beach
84" 83' 82" SI" WY 79" 79°
45 Piedmont 65 Southeastern Plains Ecoregions demote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in tie type, quality, and quantity of
environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research,
I__ _.J 45a Southern Inner Piedmont 1 65e Sand Hills assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. Ecoregions are
145b Southern Outer Piedmont 1 1651 Atlantic Southern Loam Plains a
directly applicable to many slate agency activities, including the selection of regional stream reference
45c Carolina Slate Belt I 165m Rolling Coastal Plain sites, the development of biological cAterha and water quality standards, and the establishment of
L-_.1 45e Northern Inner Piedmont C _'vW 65p Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces management goals for nonpoint-source pollution. They are also relevant to integrated ecosystem
45f Northern Outer Piedmont 66 Blue Ridge management, an ultimate goal of many federal and state res-oume management agencies.
f _- !
'the approach used to compile this map of North Carolina is based on the premise that ecologiril
['7, ; i 45g Triassic Basins
66c New River Plateau regiomi are hierarchical and can be identified through the analysis of the spatial pauerts and the
45i Kings Mountain
I 66d Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect dillerences in ecosystem quality and
63 Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain I 1 66e Southern Sedimentary Ridges integrity (Wiken 1986; Omernik 1987, 1995). 'these phenomena include geology, physiography,
vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, did hydrology. The relative importance of each
1 63Chesapeake- Pam ieo Lowlands and 'T'idal Marshes 'w.I 66g Southern Metasedimentary Mountains characteristic varies from one ecological region to another n gardless of the hierarchical level. A Roman
E] 63c Nonriverine Swamps and Peatlands 66i High Mountains uumer;tl hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological regions. Level I and
1 163d Virginian Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes i *_1 66j Broad Basins bevel 11 divide the North American continent into 15 and 52 regions, respectively (Commission far
Environmental ('ooperation Working Group 1997). At Level III, the continental United Slates contains
1 1 63e Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods 1l?I 66k Amphibolite Mountains I04 regions (tdnited States Environmental Protection Agency IU.S. t'l'Al 20IN)). Level IV is a further
63g Carolinian Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes 661 Eastern Blue Ridge Foothills subdivision of the bevel III ecoregions. Explanations of the methods used to define the U.S. EPA's
63h Carolina Flatwoods 66m Sauratown Mountains ecoregions are given in Omemik (1995), Omemik and otters (2000), Griffith and others (10174, 1997),
163n Mid-Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces and Gallant and others (1989).
The Level III and IV ecoregions were compiled at a scale of 1:250,00 and depict revisions and
subdivisions of earlier level III ecoregions that were originally compiled at a smaller scale (U.S. EPA
Level III ecoregion County boundary 2(X)O; Omeinik 1987). Compilation of this map is part of a collaborative project primarily between the
PRINCIPAL, AII't'IRMS: Glenn F. Griffith (NRCS). James M. Omcmik (USI'.i'A)• Level U.S. department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), die U.S. ETIA
IV ecoregion State boundary
Jeffrey A. Comstock (Indus Corlx)ration), Michael 1'. Schafale (NCDFNR), W. i lenry National Health and Environmental 1:11e is Research Laboratory (N111TRL), U.S. EPA Region IV, acid
McNab (USFS), David R. Lena[ (NCDfiNR), and Trish F. MacPherson (N(•DFNR). the North Carolina Ikparnaent of' Environment and Natural Resources. 'Ibis project is also associated
('OLLAI(l)RA'fORS AND CONTRIBUTORS: James F. Harrison (US(il'A), David I.. S('Al,lI:I 500 000 with mi interagency effort to develop a common framework of ecological regions (McMahon and others
2(X)I). Regional collaborative projects, such as this one in North Carolina where some agreement can be
nrose (NCDFNR), Roy (, Vick, Jr. (NRCS), Gerard McMahon (USGS), Robert Peel
NC), Chip Smith (NRCS) and Tom Loveland (USGS ). 15 10 5 0 30 60 mi reached among multiple resource management agencies, are a step in the direction of attaining
I l commonality and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation.
CI'T'ING THIS MAI': Griffith. G.fs., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, 1.A., Schafale, M.P., 30 20 10 0 60 120 kin ('ommems regarding the Level III and IV EC regions of North ('arolina map should be addressed to
McNah, W.I I.. Leuat, D.K., arid MacPherson. T.F.. 2(X)2. lcoregions of North Carolina, Glenn Gnllith, I ISDA-NRCS, 200 SW 35dh Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, [phone], hAX: (541)
U.S. Iinvinomnenlal Protection Agency. Corvallis. OR, (map scale 1:1,5(X),(XX)). Albers E ual Area Projection
7544716, email: grillith.glemh((!)epa.gov, or to lames (hnernik, l ISGS, 2(X) SW 35th Streel, Corvallis,
OR 97333, [phone], email omernik Janhes0epa.gov.
63. MIDDLE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN
Level IV Ecoregion Physiography Geology Soil Climate Potential Natural Vegetation Land Use and Land Cover
Area Elevatiod Sur&ial Material and Bedrock Order (Great Group) Common Soil Sent, Temperature ! Precipitation Frost Free Mean Temperature
(sq- Local Relief Moisture Mean annual Mean annual January minim a;
miles) (feet) Regimes (inches) (days) July min/max (°)
63b. Chesapeake- 2226 Low, flat plains and peninsulas; poorly 0-25 Late Pleistocene marine sand, silt, and Ultisols (Endoaquults, Tomotley, Roanoke, Thermic 1 48-55 210-250 32/52; Wet hardwood forest (bottomland oaks, tulip poplar; sweet.-um, Cropland with wheat, cam, soybeans,
Pamlico drained with swamps, some low gradient clay. Umbraquults), Incepcisols Pergaimans, Pasquonink, Aquic 69!88 maple, swamp tupelo); mesic mixed hardwood forest (beech, potatoes, cotton, and peanuts: evergeen
Lowlands and streams with sandy and silty substrates, a 5-20 Humaquepts), Alfisols Hyde, Deloss, Portsmouth, tulip poplar. mapleoaks, swcetgum); some pond pine forest, mined forest, forested wetlands. o me
Tidal Marshes few large lakes; estuaries and sounds. (Endoaquaifs), Histosols Cape Fear, Wasda, Roper, woodlands and longleaf pint; tidal and nonriverine cypress-gum plantations, pasture, marsh.
(Haplosapnsts) Arapahoe. Yonges, Argent, swamps.
Dorovan, Currimck
63e. Nonriverine 1692 Low, broad flats and interstream divides, 5-50 Holocene peat and silty to clayey swamp Histosols (Haplosaprists), Pungo, Dare, Belhaven, Thermic / 50-56 210-235 32154; Pocosins (fenerbush, ti-ti, ink berry, pond pinepond pine Forested wetlands, evergreen forest, mixed
Swamps and poorly drained, a few lakes, low stream deposits, Pleistocene marine sand, silt, and laceptisols (Humaquepts) Ponzer, Dorovan, Wasda, Aquic 69/89 woodlands Atlantic white cedar forest, nonriverine swamp forest forest, some cropland and pine plantations.
Peatlands deasity; channelized drainage is common. 5-25 clay. Scuppernong, Roper, (bald cypress, pond cypress, swamp tupelo, loblolly pine, red
Torhuna, Croatan maple).
63d. Virginian 63 Barrier islands, dunes, beaches, lagoons, 0-30, some Holocene beach and dune sand, saline Entisols (Sulfaquents, Bohicket, Carteret, Currimck Thermic ! 48 220-230 33/52; Salt and brackish marshes (cunigrass, saltgrass, rushes); tidal Marsh, forested wetland, evergreen forest,
Barrier Islands estuaries, tidal marshes. dunes to 60 marsh deposits of sand, silt, clay, and peat. Psammaquents, in tidal marshes; Corolla, Aquic 69/81 freshwater mush (cordgrass, suwg ass, cattail, wild rice); urban, wildlife habitat, beaches, recreation,
and Coastal Quartzipsammentsi, Newhan, Duckston on beach maritime shrub (wax myrtle, vaupon); maritime dry grassland fish and shellfish production.
Marshes 5-30 Histosols (Haploseprists) dunes and flats. (saltmeadow cordgrass); maritime evergreen forest (live oak,
sand laurel oak, loblolly pine); dune grass (beach grass, sea
oats).
63e. Mid-Atlantic 2755 Pat plains on lightly dissected marine 2-100 Pleistocene and Pliocene marine sand. silt, Ultisols (Paleaquults. Rains, Lynchburg, Thermic ! 46-50 200-330 30/52; Mesic pine tlatwoods (longleaf p rtes loblolly p rtes oaks, Pine plantations, cropland with peanuts,
Flatwoods terraces; swamps, low gradient streams and clay. Paleudults, Albaquults, Goldsboro, Leaf, Craven. Aquic, 68/89 hickories, bluestem); wet pine Ilatwoods (longleaf pine with cotton, cam, 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 (,Sulfaqucnrs, Bohicket, Carteret, Thermic I 50-56 240-260 35153; Salt and brackish marshes iairdgrass, saltgass, 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 72186 maritime shrub (wax myrtle, vaupon); maritime dry grassland urban, wildlife habitat, beaches, tourism,
and Coastal 100 Hvdraquents, Corolla, Newhan, Duckston. (saltmeadow cordgrass): maritime evergreen forest (live oak, recreation, fish and shellfish production.
Marshes Quartzipsamments) Fripp on beach dunes and sand laurel oak. loblolly pug ); dune grass (sea oats, bitter panic
5-30 hats. grass, cordgrass, beach grass).
63h. Catalina 1510 Flat plans on lightly dissected marine 2-195 Pleistocene and Pliocene marine sand, silt, UI sols(Paleayuults, Goldsboro. Lynchburg, Thermic I 46-53 210-240 33!55; Longleaf p rte-w regrass; vac sandhi!l scrub (longleaf pine- Pine plantations, mixed forest, forested
Flatwoods terraces: swamps, low gradient streams and clay; Tertiary sand, silt, clay, and Paleudults, Endoaquults, Rains, Coxville, Wahee. Aquic, in the 70/90 turkey oak-wiregrass); pond pine forest and woodland; some wetlands, cropland of cotton, cam, 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 Guest. wheat, peanuts, tobacco, blueberries;
bays. clay. Alfisols (Endoaqualts), Noboco, Baymeade, 230-250 production of hags, broilers, and turkeys;
Spodosols (Alaquods), Woodington, Leon, Kureb, in the some public land, wildlife habitat.
Entisols Yauhannah.Yemassee, south
(Quarrzipsamments), 0geechee, Croatan
Histosols (Haplosaprists)
63n. Mid-Atlantic 2193 yfajur river (]oodplains and associated '_-LO Holocene alluvial silt, clay, and gravelly Inceptisols (Endoaquupts, Johnston, Muckalee, Thermic I 4654 210-240 32/54; Southern floodplaiu forest includes cypress ;um swamp (water Forested wetlands, deciduous tares[, same
Floodplains and low terraces; low gradient streams with sand, local swamp deposits and organic Dvstrudepts, 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 Humaquepls), Entisols Dorovan, Chastain, Johns, some Udic north. bottomland hardwood form (bottomland oaks, red maple,
ponds, swamps. estuarine sand and silt. (Udifluvems), Ultisols Kenansville, Roanoke, 230-250 sweetgum, green ash, biur nut hickory).
(Hapludults, Umbmquults, I.umbee, Paxville, Meggeu, in the
Endoaquults), Alfisols Fawcaw, Chewacla, Hobcnv south
(Albaqualfs)

x
d
,4d
9?a4a,Wa??? SwuA, JRc-
9o'W %&e ax 2522
Vc xMytm, A" Vww4na 28402
d'. 910-452-0009
gr g.
?X! ?i?a/ren ,?eewor,
DATE: August 15, 2002
gm& m
9J A effl. 3',.k
3805 V,*4 &:& 046MM
0dm Mptm, 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 [fxj
INTRODUCTION
The lands of Barra-II (1110 acres) within the Barra Farms Tract were evaluated and inventoried
to determine general soil/land types, drainage alterations, and their locations. Soil
characterization, present drainage conditions, and general geohydrologic conditions were also
used as inputs for a computer modeling drainage study ("DrainMod v.5.0). The results of these
evaluations were compiled to determine the degree of historic drainage alterations to the site, and
to determine potential areas that appear to function hydrologically as potential 404 Wetlands,
versus those areas that should not meet the hydrologic criteria to be defined as 404 Wetlands.
LAND & SOILS EVALUATION
Barra-II is a portion of the Barra Farms Tract which is within southeastern Cumberland County,
North Carolina (see general USGS topo and USDA soil maps). The general area's
geomorphology is characterized by organic "Carolina Bays", sandy uplands, and slightly incised
black-water streams. The Barra-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-ll 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-II'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 +24 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 ftdepths, 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 minorwithin 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 fora 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)
2 ft = 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
Water table <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 (1-6 yrs out of 31 yrs), it hydrologically meets the criteria to be defined as
404 Wetlands. The enclosed data summary and graphs show these results (see Croatan
DrainMod data).
Within "Croatan" soil types of the Barra-II Tract the following results were obtained within areas
of parallel ditchina:
Drainage Depths with 300 ft Spacing Number of Yrs 404 Wetland Criteria Met (%)
2.0 ft 21 out of 31 years (67.7%)
3.0 ft 15 out of 31 years (48.4%)
Page 3 of 5
Based upon the above resu
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-II, 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 % 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-II Tract the following results were obtained for the lateral
drninnnP Pffc?cts of single collectnr 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-II. The land areas with
collector ditching that do not meet 404 Wetland hydrologic criteria within Barra-II 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-II Tract (1100 acres). The bay areas have the hydric soil & vegetative indicators to be
defined as 404 Wetlands, but have significantly altered drainage conditions through historic, open,
parallel and collector ditching at various depths. The site was characterized through land/soils
mapping, aerial photo interpretation, qualitative determinations of soil properties, research of
existing reference materials, and "DrainMod" computer modeling. These evaluations were used
to further determine the general acreage that would or would not meet the minimum hydrologic
criteria to be defined as jurisdictional 404 Wetlands. Representative soil characterizations,
conservative hydraulic conductivity rates, and known ditch depths & spacing inputs were utilized
in the DrainMod drainage/hydrology model.
Based upon the various DrainMod models ran with the Croatan land/soil types, 404 Wetland
hydrology is not met when parallel ditch depths are 3.0 ft deep or greater with 300 ft spacing. Also
the lateral drainage effects of collector ditches were determined at various depths and for
conditions when 404 Wetland hydrologic criteria were not met. 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
' Acreage is planimetered & approximate.
Based upon the soils evaluation and "DrainMod" hydrological analysis, there are -755 acres that
do not meet 404 Wetland hydrology criteria within the Barra-II Tract. In addition, there are -130
acres directly adjacent to and outside of the Barra-II Tract that also do not meet 404 Wetland
hydrology criteria. Thus, there is a total of -885 acres that do not meet 404 Wetland hydrology
acres
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
c?
O
y
U
J
W
Q
J CIS
C
ca =
C9 ea
zU
=s
U?
o
oz
Ix '
0=
J C
J U
0-0
U =
ev
EEL)
0
z
w L
X
W
U Co
z_ d
L
=v
wo
0
N H
L
L C
CIS
V =
C
T Y
T d
v L
U
L

O
CL
Q
J
N
O
O
C
N
X
W
1L N
O =
d
QN N O, Ens" ? y
O
'C Qq? r C
t0 r.
Z
J
W
W
H
a
O
U
a
O
m
z
00
ZV
Om
a?
o
CZ
WQ
CO)
m c
N 0
Z
OV
H ?
L
0.0
E
Z ?
a?
?a
0
Um
? Y
OL
U
? O
2
Z ?
OY
2 d.
N `
yU
vV
ca 0
oU
2
H
V
a
m
LL
O
1
N
C
C
O
0 O
'rnZ.
0.9
o m
mo 0L
? it
U a
O
o
Z = m
m
0
m
M
0
c
L
U ?
°6
o =U
CO
C)
U)
•L A
0
O C
Z 0
Z)
cc
?D
m
•o 0.0
? L
a d 0
m
d'
co
C
c^6 O
w ?
o 0
m U_
M •?
o =a
+ 00
V O
v .20
Q
C
zm
tl!
m
L
v
a
tL N
Q 40
J C N
- ?))Njjj
Q N ,
N I' C
= Q
0 m O
_32 CD
r_ BARRA-II 300 ft Spacing 2 ft Depth
---------------------------- -------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.0 °
Copyright 1990-94 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS BARRA-II; Croatan soils; 2' Depth @300' Ditch Spacing
WILMINGTON, NC WEATHER DATA 1951-1981 TIME PERIOD
----------RUN STATISTICS -------- time: 8/20/2002 @ 16:34
input file: C:\Drainmod\inputs\Barra-Il.lis
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 9144. cm drain depth = 61.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
1955 2. 25.
1956 1. 16.
1957 0. 11.
1958 3. 38.
1959 2. 16.
1960 4. 14.
1961 2. 24.
1962 3. 15.
1963 2. 18.
1964 1. 21.
1965 3. 16.
1966 4. 16.
1967 0. 6.
1968 0. 3.
1969 4. 27.
1970 2. 27.
1971 2. 23.
1972 0. 4.
1973 3. 20.
1974 2. 29.
1975 0. 11..
1976 0. 11.
1977 1. 18.
1978 0. 8.
1979 2. 35.
1980 1. 22.
1981 1. 13.
Number of Years with at least one period = 21. out of 31 years.
Page 1
BARRA-.II 300 ft Spacing 3 ft Depth
---------------------------- 7------------------------
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-II.1is
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 9144. cm drain depth = 91.4 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.50 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
76 and ends on day 316 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.50 cm
------------------ --------------------
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
2.
0.
1.
2.
0.
1.
0.
3.
1.
0.
0.
1.
2.
1.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
7.
6.
6.
4.
24.
13.
8.
20.
6.
12.
18.
11.
14.
10.
14.
14.
4.
2.
25.
20.
16.
0.
14.
27.
8.
11.
8.
0.
32.
7.
12.
Number of Years with at least one period = 15
out of 31 years.
Page 1
4 'ft Depth -200 ft Drainage Influence
----------------------------7------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 5.0
Copyright 1990-94 North Carolina State university
-----------------------------------------------------
404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS BARRA-II; Croatan Soils; 4' Depth @400' Ditch Spacing
WILMINGTON, NC WEATHER DATA 1951-1981 TIME PERIOD L*^
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 8/20/2002 @ 17: 4
input file: C:\Drainmod\inputs\Barra-II-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 -x230 ft Drainage Influence
-----------------------------------------------------
* 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.
Page 1
6 ,ft Depth °x2'55 ft Drainage influence
-----------------------------------------------------
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
_INPUTS BARRA- I I WE'T'LAND ANKLY:SZ S
D R A I N M 0 D
Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
VERSION: NORTH CAROLINA MICRO-UNIX 5.0
LAST UPDATE: FEB. 1994
LANGUAGE: MS FORTRAN V 5.0 & UNIX f77
DRAINMOD IS A FIELD-SCALE HYDROLOGIC MODEL DEVELOPED FOR
THE DESIGN OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. THE MODEL WAS
DEVELOPED BY RESEARCHERS AT THE DEPT. OF BIOLOGICAL AND
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF R. W. SKAGGS.

* D R A I N M 0 D -- 5.0
DATA READ FROM INPUT FILE: C:\Drainmod\inputs\Barra-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:\DRAINMOD\WEATHER\NWILMING.TEM
RAINFALL STATION NUMBER ..........................(RAINID) 319457
TEMPERATURE/PET STATION NUMBER ...................(TEMPID) 319457
STARTING YEAR OF SIMULATION ..................(START YEAR) 1951 YEAR
STARTING MONTH OF SIMULATION ................(START MONTH) 1 MONTH
ENDING YEAR OF SIMULATION ......................(END YEAR) 1981 YEAR
ENDING MONTH OF SIMULATION ....................(END MONTH) 12 MONTH
TEMPERATURE STATION LATITUDE..... ..............(TEMP LAT) 34.16 DEG.MIN
HEAT INDEX ..........................................(HID) 85.00
ET MULTIPLICATION FACTOR FOR EACH MONTH
2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .82 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN
**********************
*** CONVENTIONAL DRAINAGE ***
JOB TITLE:

404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS BARRA-II; Croatan soils; 2'-6' Depth @300
WILMINGTON, NC WEATHER DATA 1951-1981 TIME PERIOD
STMAX = 3.00 CM SOIL SURFACE
Page 1
INPUTS BARRA-II WETLAND ANALYSIS
ADEPTH.=305. CM DDRAIN = 61 to 183 CM
0------------- SDRAIN = 9144. CM -----------0 -
*
EFFRAD *°* CM
HDRAIN =218. CM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IMPERMEABLE LAYER
DEPTH SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
(CM) (CM/HR)
.0 - 15.0 2.540
15.0 - 91.0 1.020
91.0 - 279.2 7.620
DEPTH TO DRAIN = 61.0 to 183 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH FROM DRAIN TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 218.2 CM
DISTANCE BETWEEN DRAINS = 9144.0 CM
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF SURFACE PONDING = 3.00 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 279.2 CM
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT(AS LIMITED BY SUBSURFACE OUTLET) = 5.00 CM/DAY
MAXIMUM PUMPING CAPACITY (SUBIRRIGATION MODE) 2.50 CM/DAY
ACTUAL DEPTH FROM SURFACE TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 305.0 CM
SURFACE STORAGE THAT MUST BE FILLED BEFORE WATER
CAN MOVE TO DRAIN = 3.00 CM
FACTOR -G- IN KIRKHAM EQ. 2-17 = 4.72
*** SEEPAGE LOSS INPUTS ***
No seepage due to field slope
No seepage due to vertical deep seepage
No seepage due to lateral deep seepage
*** end of seepage inputs * *
WIDTH OF DITCH BOTTOM = 91.0 CM
SIDE SLOPE OF DITCH (HORIZ:VERT) = 1.00 : 1.00
INITIAL WATER TABLE DEPTH = 30.0 CM
SOIL INPUTS
***********
TABLE 1
DRAINAGE TABLE
VOID VOLUME WATER TABLE DEPTH
(CM)
.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
(CM)
.0
36.5
47.2
55.5
63.0
69.4
75.7
Page 2
INPUTS BARRA-II WETLAND ANALYSIS
7.0 81.2
8.0 86.7
9.0 91.9
10.0 96.6
11.0 101.4
12.0 106.1
13.0 110.9
14.0 115.7
15.0 120.5
16.0 125.3
17.0 130.2
18.0 135.1
19.0 140.0
20.0 144.9
21.0 149.8
22.0 155.4
23.0 161.0
24.0 166.5
25.0 172.1
26.0 177.7
27.0 183.3
28.0 188.8
29.0 194.4
30.0 200.0
35.0 223.8
40.0 247.7
45.0 271.5
50.0 295.4
60.0 343.1
70.0 390.7
80.0 438.4
90.0 486.1
TABLE 2
SOIL WATER CHARACTERISTIC VS VOID VOLUME VS UPFLUX
HEAD
(CM)
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
190.0
200.0
210.0
220.0
230.0
240.0
250.0
260.0
270.0
280.0
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
300.0 .3650 50.97 .0000
350.0 .3600 61.46 .0000
400.0 .3567 71.94 .0000
450.0 .3533 82.43 .0000
500.0 .3500 92.91 .0000
600.0 .3440 94.33 .0000
700.0 .3380 95.75 .0000
800.0 .3320 97.16 .0000
900.0 .3260 98.58 .0000
GREEN AMPT INFILTRATION PARAMETERS
W.T.D. A B
(CM) (CM) (CM)
.000 .000 2.540
10.000 .250 2.540
20.000 .430 2.160
40.000 .630 1.590
60.000 .830 1.590
80.000 .910 1.590
100.000 .990 1.590
150.000 2.970 1.590
200.000 2.970 1.590
1000.000 2.970 1.590
WASTEWATER IRRIGATION
NO WASTEWATER IRRIGATION SCHEDULED:
-----------------------------------
***** Wetlands Parameter Estimation *****
Start Day = 76 End Day = 316
Threshold water Table Depth (cm) = 30.5
Threshold Consecutive Days = 12
Fixed Monthly Pet values
1 1.00 2 1.00 3 1.00 4 1.00 5 1.00 6 1.00 7 1.00 8 1.00
9 1.00 10 1.00 11 1.00 12 1.00
Mrank indicator = 0
****************************** END OF INPUTS ******************************
--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
--------------------------------------------------------------- --------
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 SOIL SUR.VFY
TABLE 1.--TEMPEP,ATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA
Temperatnrel ; Precipitationl
- I
2 Years in 12 years in 101
I 10 will have-- ; Average will have-- 1 Average
Month ,Average!Average,Average, , ;number oflAveragel i ;number of;Avera
1 daily ,.daily 1 daily 1 Maximum, 1 Minimum 1 growing 1 1 Less 1 More ;days withlsnowf
I'maximum;minimuml ltemperatureltemperature; degree ; ;than--;than--10.10 inch;
1 ,
higher ; lower ; days2 ; ; i ; or more '
than-- than-- I I
3
{ i F ; F i F i F In ; In i In i i n
January----1 55.9 1 35.3 1 45.6 1 77 1 17 1 57 1 3.41
I 1 1.94
I 14.61 1 7 1

February ---i
I
58.3 1
1
37.1
1 47.7 1
79 1
19
1 69 .
3.66
1 2.40 I I
1 4.80 ;
7 1 1
March------1
I 64.3 1
1 43.0 1 53.7 1
, 84 1
,
26
1 , 180
, 4.09 1
1 2.25
15.58 ,
8 ,
April------1 73.7 1 51.6 1 62:7 1 91 1
1 34 1 381
1 1 3.07
I 1.36
I 1 4.46 5

May--------1
80.8 1
60.1
1 70.5 1
95 ;
43
636
1 4.09
1 2.27 I 1
1 5.57 1
6 1
June ------- ;
1 86.2
1 67.2 1. 76.7 1 99
I 53 1 801
I ; 5.63
I 1 2.84
I 7.89 1 8 1

July-------
89.o i
71.2
1 80:1
98
61
1 933
1 7.72
1 4.47 I I
110.36 1
10
August-----1 88.3 1 70.5 1 79.4 1 98 1 60 1 911 1 6.80 4.10 ; 9.21 1 9
September--;
1 83.7 . 65.2 1 74.5 1 94 50 1 735 1 5.55 1 2.66 1 7.90 1 6
October----1

' 75.5 1 54.6 1 65:0

1
89 I
33
, 465
1 3.16
1 1.07
I ' 1
1 4.84 1 1
5

November---1

I
66.5 ;
43.7
1 55.1 1

, 1
82
,

25 1

; 162
I

3.19
I

i 1.28

1 4.73 i ,
'
5

December---1
59.1 1
37.4
1 48.3
,
78 1
18
'
, 115
1
1 3.17
1
l 1.59 I

14.44

6 ,
I
Year-----1
1 I
73.4 1
I
. 53.1 1 I
1 63.3
i 1 1
99 1
1
15 I
1 5,445 i
1 53.54 I
47.28 I ;
13j9
82 1 2
I I l 1` , ,
1Recorded in the period 1952-74 at Wilmington, N.C.
2A growing degree day is an index of the amount of heat available for plant growth. It can be calculate
by adding the maximum and minimum daily temperatures, dividing the sum by 2, and subtracting the temperature
below which growth is minimal for the principal crops in the area (56 degrees F).
102
TABLE 1.--TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION
[Recorded in the period 1951-73 at Fayetteville, North Carolina, in Cumberland County]
Month
Soil survey
Temperature ; Precipitation
2 years in
2 years in 10;
10 will have-- ; ;Average;Avera e'Avera e' ? Average ? I will have-- ; Average ;
; daily ; daily ; daily ; Maximum ; Minimum !number of Average; ; ;number of;Average
;maximum;minimum; 1 temperature 1 temperature 1 de reeg ; Less More ;days withlsnowfall
' g !than--,than--10.10 inch
, , I , higher , , lower ; daysl ;
' I ; than-- ; than-- or more ,
; of I of ; OF
- - - - F Units ; In ; In ; In
In
January----; 54.0 ; 30.0 1 42.0 ;
;
78
72
25
3.51 ; 2.22 ; 4.67 ;
8
7
February---; 57.0 ; 32.9 ; 44.9 ; 80 15 ; '
22 4.10 ; 2.42 ; 5.59 ;
8
1 .5
March .-----_; 63.9 ; 38.5 ; 51.2 ; 84 23
1 ;
11 ; 4.10 ; 2.59 ; 5.45 ;
8

.1
April ------ ; 73:5 ; 47.4 ; 60.5 ; 91 1 30 315 ;
3.21 ; 1.87 ; 4.40 ; 5 ; .0
MaY---=--_-; 80.7 ; 56.3 ; 68.5 ;
96
37
;
4
57 1 3.54 ; 2.20 ; 4.74 ; 6 ; .0
June ------- ; 87.5 ; 64.7 ; 76.1 ; 100
49
1 783
1 4.56 ;
2.50 ;
6
37 1

July ------- i
90.1 i
68.9
79.6 ;
101 ;
57
1 . 7 ; .0
; ; 9
8 ; 4.94 ; 3.02 6.66
.0
August----_; 89.1 1 67.9 78.5 ; 99 ; 55 1
; 884 1 5.67 ; 3.81 ; 7.36 ; 8 .0
September--; 84.5 ; 61.8 { 73.2 ; 96 1 45 1
696 1 ;
? 3 1
.53 ; 1.41 ; 5.36 ; 5 ; :0
October----1 75.4 ; 50.1 ; 62.7 ; 90 ; 28
; 394 ; 3.•15 ; 78 ; 5.03 ; 5 '
0
November---! 66.0 ; 38.4 ; 52.2 ; 84 19 ; 1 ;
03 ; 2.40 ; 94 ; 3.61 ; q 0
December---; 56.0 ; 30.8 ; 43.4 ; 79 12 .
, 78 ; 2.85 ; 1.27 ; 4.19 ; 6 ; 1,9
,
Yearly: ;
Average--; 73.1 ;
1 ,
Extreme--I Total ---- ; ___

49.0 ; 61.1
,
;

101 ;
; 12

4,903
,
,
45.56 137.72 ;
;
79
3.2
IC ,. f
1A growing degree day is a unit of heat available for-plant growth. It can be calculated by adding the
maximum and minimum daily temperatures, dividing the sum by 2, and subtracting the temperature below which
growth is minimal for the principal crops in the area (500 F), _.
104
TABLE 2.--FREEZE DATES IN SPRING AND FALL
[Recorded in the period 1951-73 at Fayetteville,
North Carolina in Cumberland County]
i Temperature
,
,
Probability 1____24_U_ F- ; 2g F ; 32 F
or lower ; or lower 1 or lower
Last freezing
temperature
in spring:
,
1 year in 10 ;
later than-- ; March 27 1 April 13 1 April 30
2 years in 10 ; 1 1
later than-- ; March 17 1 April 4 ; April 19
5 years in 10 1
later than-- 1 February 25 i March 17 1 March 30
First freezing
temperature
in fall: ;
t 1 '
1 year in 10 '
earlier than-= 1 November 5 1 October 27 1 October 20
2 years in 10
earlier than-- I November 11 1 November 1 1 October 24
5 years in 10
earli-er than-- 1 November 22 1 November 12 I October 31
[Recorded in the period 1951-73 at Pinehurst,
North Carolina, in Moore County]
1 Temperature
i
Probability i 24U_F i 28 F
' 32 F
,
1 or lower 1 or lower 1 or lower
,
Last freezing 1 ;
temperature 1
in spring:
1 year in 10
later than-- 1 March 27 1 April 2 1 April 24
2 years -in 10 '
later than-- 1 March 19 i March 30 1 April 18
5 years in 10 i i
later than-- 1 March 5 i March' 23 ; April 5
First freezing
temperature
in fall: 1 '
1 year in 10
earlier than-- 1 November 4 1 October 23 1 October 14
2 years in 10 I I 1
earlier than-- 1 November 9 1 October 28 1 October 19
5 years in 10 1 1 1
earlier than-- 1 November 19 1 November 7 1 October 28
Soil survey
Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina
i Daily minimum temperature
during growing season
Probabi lity i Higher ; Higher i Ht
r
than ; than han
i 240 F i 280 F i 320 F.
Days i Days i Days
9 years in 10 i 231 i 202 175
8 years in 10 i 245 i 215 i 189
5 years in 10 ; 270 i 239 i 214
2 years in 10 i 245 262 i 239
1 year in 10 ; 308 i 275 i 253
[Recorded in the period 1951-73 at Pinehurst,
North Carolina, in Moore County]
Daily minimum temperature
during growing season
i
Probability i
Higher ',
Higher
i Higher
i than i than i
240 F i 280 F i. 320 F
-
i Days i Days Days
,
9 years in 10 i
' 228 i
i 210 180
8 years in 10 i 238 i 216 189
'
5 years in i
10 i 258 i
' 228 i 205
i
2 years in 10 i 278 i
i 240 i 221
1 year in 10 i 288 247 229
TABLE 3•--GROWING SEASON
[Recorded in the period 1951-73, Fayetteville,
North Carolina, in Cumberland County]
Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina
This soil is suited to loblolly pine. The dominant trees
--=loiiy pine, sweetgum, yellow-poplar, and white
e main understory includes holly, sourwood, red
map e, 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
more than 500 acres in size.
pically, the soil is black muck to a depth of 37
mes. The underlying material to a depth of 80 inches
work 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 corn 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
may. Even with proper drainage, grazing probably would
20
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, light brownish gray, and light 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 corn and soybeans. The rest are in woodland.
This soil is suited to growing cultivated crops, such as
corn, soybeans, and small grains. 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 tilth.
This soil is suited to hardwoods and pines. Water
tupelo and sweetgum can be grown without artificial

a ?.
=ai
3
74
Ap-0 to 7 inches; brown (10YR 5/3) loam; weak fine
granular structure; friable; common fine and medium
roots; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary.
..$t1-7 to 23 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 516) clay;
moderate fine and medium angular blocky and
subangular blocky structure; firm, sticky, plastic;
common fine and medium roots; few discontinuous
clay films on faces of peds and in. pores; very shiny
ped faces; very strongly acid; gradual wavy
boundary.
Bt2-23 to 44 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) clay;
common medium distinct gray (1OYR 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 5/8) 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 1 OYR, 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
1 OYR, 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 chroma 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, browni or red,
or it is dominantly gray. The Bt horizon is clay, silty clay,
silty clay loam, br 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..,- .
Soil Survey
Oat -0 to 4 inches; black (1 OYR 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 (10YR 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 alf%or
part of the organic tiers.
The mineral horizon has hue of 7.5YR through 5Y,
value of 2 through 6, and chroma of 1 through 3. It
typically is sandy loam or sandy clay loam. Some pedons
contain thin strata of sand or loamy sand.
Deioss 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 (10YR 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•--PHYSICAL 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]
- ; Erosion
5oi1 name and 1 Depth 1 Permeability ;Available! Soil 1 Shrink-swell i factors
1 ; Organic

matter
1
Finap symbol , !
water ,reaction! potential K T 1
Y: i i Ica acity 1 i ! Pct
1 In ! In/hr
i i
! In/in ! pH

?aA-------------- 1
0-11 :
2.0-6.0 1

'
10.12-0.2014.5-6.0 ;Low ------------
1 1

0.24 1
24 :
0

5 1 •5-3
Altavista 1 11-37 1 0.6_2.0 10.12_0.2014.5_6.0 ;Low------------
------- 1 .
!
W 1 37-80 1 1 l--------

i
qUA-------------- !
i
0-25 i

>6.0 1

10.04-0..0914.5-6.5 :Low------------ 1

0.10 i
;

5 ' .5-1
`Autryville 1 25-39 1 2.0-6.0 10.08-0.1314.5-5.5 !Low------------ 0
.10
1 39-59 1 >6.0 10.03-0:0814.5-5.5 ;Low-----------= 1 0:10 :
1 59-80 1 0.6-2.0 10.10-0.1514.5-5.5 ILow------------ 1 0.17 ! 1.
AYB -------------- , 0-13 ! 2.0-6.0 10.15-0.2014.5-6.0 ;Low------------ !

-- 0.37 1
;
43
0 5' ! 1-4

!
Aycock i 13-80 1 0.6-2.0 10.15-0.2014.5-5.5 !Low----------
1 1 1 .
1
!
BaB, BaD---=-----: i
0-25 1 >6.0 1
lo.03-0.0614.5-6.0 !Low------------ i
! 0.15 :
28 !
0 5 ! <1
I
Blaney ! 25-34 1 0.2-0.6 10.05-0.1014.5-5.5 !Low------------
! .
0
28 ! 1
1 34-80 ; 0.2-0.6 10.03-0.0814.5-5.5 ;Low------------
1 .
1 !
Blaney----------1 0-25 1 >6.0
----
10.03-0.0614.5-6.0 ,Low--------
1
0.15 1
28 :
0
5 <1
1
1 25-34 1 0.2-0.6 ;0.05-0:1014.5-5.5 !Low------------ .
1 34-80 ; 0.2-0.6 10.03-0.0814.5-5.5 !Low------------ 1 0.28 !
!
!
Urban land.
1

BrB -------------- :
0-6
1 2.0-6.0
10.06-0.1214.5-5.5 !Low------------ ,
-
0.20 ,
5 i 0-2
1
Bragg : 6-30 1 0.2-0.6 ---- 1
;0.10-0.1514.5-5.5 !Low-------
1 28 !
0 1
1 30-80 1 0.2-0.6 10.10-0.1514.5-5.5 :Low------------ .
BuA -------------- ! 0-9 1 6.0-20 10.05-0.1014.5-5.5 :Low------------ r

: 0.15

0
15 !
' .5-2
5
,
Butters 1 9-37 1 2.0-6.0 10.10-0.1414.5-5.5 ;Low------------
1 .
10
0
1 37-58 1 6.0-20 10.03-0.0814.5-6.5 ;Low------------ .
1 58-80 1 0.6-2.0 10.10-0.1514.5-5.5 !Low------------ ! 0.17 ; 1

By---------------!
0-18 '
1 o.6-2.0
10.15-0.2013.6-5.5 ;Low------------ ,
1 0.28 1

32 !
0 5 1 2-9
Byars : 18-80 1 0.06-0.2 :0.14-0.18;3.6-5.5 :Moderate------- .
CaB, CaD--------- ; 0-20 1 6.0-20 ;0.03-0.06:3.6-6.0 !Low------------ 1 0.10 , 5 1 .5-1
Candor 1 20-30 1 6.0-20 10.06-0.1013.6-5.5 :Low------------ ; 20 !
0 !
! 60-80 : 0.6-2.0 ;0.12-0.16:3.6-5.5 ;Low------------
1 .
! ,
'
'
Cf--------------- :
0-16
! 0.6-6.0 1 : :

?
10.15-0.22:4.5-6.5 :Low------------
1
0.15 1

32 1
0
5 ! 5-15

1
Cape Fear 1 16-52 ! 0.06-0.2 10.12-0.22:4.5-6.0 !Moderate- .
1
1 52-62 1 --- ! --- : --- ----------------- 1

Ch---------------1
0-25 !
1 6.6-2.0
10.15-0.24:4.5-6.5 !Low------------
!
0.28 ,
0
28 ! ' 1-4
5 ,
1
Chewacla ! 25-48 : 0.6-2.0 10.12-0.2014.5-6.5 ;Low------------
-- .
32 !
! 0 !
48-64 ! 0.6-2.0 10.15-0.2414.5-6.5 !Low---------- . ,
co --------------- ; 0-7 1 0.6-2.0 I0.12-0.1713.6-5.5 :Low------------ 0.24 ;
32 1
! 0 5 2-4
Coxville 1 7-55 ; 0.2-0.6 10.14-0.1813.6-5.5 :Moderate-------
--- .
: ---- ! '
! 55-72 1 --- ! --- -----------
CrB--------------! 0-7 ! 0.6-2.0 10.12-0.1814.5-6.5 !Low------------
-
- ; 0.37 i
0
32 ; 5 ; 1 .5-2
Craven 1 7-58 1 0.06-0.2 -
10.12-0.1513.6-5.5 !Moderate----
- .
,
32 !
1 0
1 58-80 1 0.2-6.0 10.08-0.1413.6-5.5 :Low----------- .
I

0-37 I

1 0.06-6.0

10.35-0.451 <4.5 :Low------------

! ---- 1
!
,
--- , 25-60
Croatan 1 37-80 ! 0.2-6.0 10.10-0.1513.6-6.5 !Low------------ 1 ----
1

De---------------1

0-13 1

1 2.0-6.0 1 1

10.10-0.16:4.5-6.5 !Low------------
,
! 0.24 !
24 1
! 0

5 ! 2-9
Deloss 1 13-48 1 0.6-2.0 10.12-0.1814.5-5.5 !Low------------
----- .
,
: - ,
--
1 48-72 1 --- ---------
See footnote a t end of table.
TABLE 14.--ENGINEERING.INDEX PROPERTIES--Continued
i i 1 Ciassiiication ;r'rag- i rercentage passing . i i
name and jDepthj USDA texture lments 1 sieve number-- ;Liquid 1 Plas-
symbol 1 1 ; Unified ; AASHTO 1> 3 1 i i i 1 limit I ticity
;inches; 4 1 10 ; 40 1 200 1 i index
In , , c c
CaD--------- I 0-20ISand ------------- ISP-SM, SM :A-3, : 0-2 1 100 1 100 155-90 1 5-15 ! --- : NP
andor 1 1 1 1 A-2-4 i : ' : : : :
120-30I1oamY sand-------ISM, SP-SM IA-2-4 1 0-2 : 100 r 100 165-90 110-25 ! --- 1 NP
:30-60ISand------------- 1SP-SM, SM 1A-3, 1 0-7 190-100190-100155-90 ! 5-15 ! --- : ---
_ A-2-4
160-80;Sandy clay loam, 1SC, SM-SC„ A-4, 1 0-7 190-100190-100155-90 125-49 1 <45 1 NP-25
: sandy loam, 1 SM : A-2,
sandy clay. 1 1. A-7-6
Cf-------------- 1 0-161Loam-------------+M1, CL-ML,1A-4, A-6 1 0 1 100 195-t00185-100160-90 1 20-40 1 3-15
Cape Fear 1 1 , CL : : : : : i It :
116-52IClay loam, clay, 1ML; CL, 1A-7 1 0 1 100 195-100190-100160-85 1 41-65 1 15-35
silty clay. MH, CH
152-6.2!Variable---------, --- i --- r --- i --- --- i --- i --- --- , ---
'Ch------ ----- : 0-25:Loam------------- iML, CL, IA-4, A-6 ; 0 198-1:001195-100170-100155-90 ; 25-40 i NP-20
I
Chewaela : 1 1 CL-ML : i : : : : : :
125-64ISandy clay loam, 1SM ;A-4, A-6 1 0 196=100195-100160-80 136-70 1 <35 1 NP-28
clay loam, loam.!CL, SC, ML: I : :
--------------: 0-7 iLoam------------- 1SM, ML, 1A-4, A-6,1 0 1 100 1 100 185-97 146-75 1 20-46 1 3-15
Coxville 1 CL-ML, CLI A-7 ; ; : i i i :
1 7-55:Clay loam, sandy 1CL, CH IA-6, A-7 ; 0 It 100 1 100 185-98 150-85 : 30-55 : 12-35
clay, clay.
,. 155-721Variable--------- i --- i --- , --- , --- i --- i --- , --- i --- , ---
'CrB-------------- 1 0-7 ;Loam-------------:ML, CL-ML,IA-4 i 0 1100 1 100 175-100145-90 : <35 : NP-7
Craven ; I I SM, SM-SCI ! i i i
1 7-58IClaY, silty clay,ICH 1A-7 1 0 1 100 1 100 190-100165-98 1 51-70 1 24-43
i : silty clay loam.i
158-8013andy clay loam, ISM, SM-SC,1A-2, A-4,1 0 1 100 195-100150-100115-49 : <35 1 NP-15
sandy loam, SC , ' A-6
I'''I? clay loam.
C?-----------' 0-37:Muck iPT : --- : - : --- : -=- : --- : --- : --- : ---
Croatan 137-80ISandy loam, fine ISM, SC, ;A-2, A-4 1 0 1 100 1 100 160-85 125-49 1 <30 ; NP-10
sandy loam, ; SM-SC
mucky sandy
, i loam.
De--------------i 0-13ILoam------ ------ 151`11, SIrI-SC, 1A-2, A-4 i 0 1 100 I 100 170-95 130-65 1 <35 : NP-7
Deloss i : i ML, CL-ML; : : : i i !
113-48ISandy clay loam, 1SH-SC, SO,IA-4, A-6,1 0 1 100 1 100 175-98 136-70 1 18-45 1 4-22
clay loam, fine ; CL-ML, CLI A-7
sandy loam.
148-72,Varlable---------? --- i --- i --- i --- i -- , -- i --- , ,
DgA------------- I 0-4 ;Fine sandy loam ISM, SC, 1A-2, A-4 ; 0 195-100175-100150-100120-50 I <25 I NP-10
Dogue SM-SC
1 4-55IClay loam, clay, 1CL, CH, SC;A-6, A-7 ; 0 195-100175-100165-100140-90 1 35-60 1 16-40
: : sandy clay loam.:
155-72IStratified sand ISM, SC, 1A-2, A-4,1 0 180-100160-100135-100110-40 1 <30 1 NP-10
1 : to sandy clay SP-SM, 1 A-1
loam. 1 SM-SC
DhA-------------- , 0-11 :Loamy sand-------ISM IA-2 1 0 :95-100192-1001'60-80 113-30 ! --- i NP
Dothan 111-381Sandy clay loam, ISM-SC, SC,IA-2, A-4,1 0 195-100192-100168-90 123-49 1 <40 I NP-16
: 1 sandy loam. I SM - I A-6 ; i : i !
:38-72ISandy clay loam, 1SM-SC, SC,IA-2, A-4,1 0 :95-100:92-100170-95 130-53 1 25-45 1 4-23
sandy clay. , SM, CL 1 A-6, A-71
Dn --------------- 1 0-10ILoam------------- ISM, SM-SC 1A-2, A-4 1 0 1 100 ; 100 :50-95 1120-50 It <30 I NP-7
Dunbar 110-721Sandy clay, clay :CL, CH 1A-6, A-7 I 0 1 100 1100 185-95 150-70 1 36-60 : 18-35
1 1 loan, clay. ' ' I
DpA -------------- 1 0-6 !Sandy loam ------- 1SM, SM-SC :A-2, A-4 1 0 1100 1 100 167-98 120-49 ! <26 , NP-7
Duplin 1 6-65ISandy clay, clay 1CL, CH, SCIA-6, A-7 1 0 1100 198-100180-100145-75 1 24-54'1 13-35
loam, clay.
-ee footnote at end of table.
104
Soil survey
TABLE 17.--ENGINEERING INDEX TEST DATA
[Dashes indicate data were not available. NP means nonplastic]
1 Grain size distribution ;Moisture
Classification ; density
Soil name, ; ; Percentage , Percentage ; e ;,, ;
report number,, ; ; passing sieve-- ;smaller than--1 - ;4.) x,T-
horizon, and E i
depth in inches
; AASHTO ;Unified; No.; No.; No.; No.1.02 1.0051.002; ;m '14 i ml-' 01
t i r r r i i i o' ,m x C yi +a
4 t 10 , 40 , 2001 mm , mm , mm , ., , .i i , m w , , a o
i r r i i, r i I t .a i0. i= 'Cr0 E
;Pct 1 ; ft31Pct
Blaney=
(S74NCO93-008) ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
E---------7 to 27 ; A-1-6 ; SP=SM :100 ; 92 ; 40 ; 9 ; 7 ; 4- ; 2 ; - ; NP ; 114; 12
Btl------ 27 to 39 1 A-2-7 1 SM ;100 1 95 ; 34 ; 22 1 .21 1 19 1 17 ; 46 1 19 1 120; 12
Bt2------ 48 to 64 1 A-2-4 ; Sc ;100 1 91 1 33 ; 19 1 18 ; 15 1 13 1 33 ; 10 1 124; 11
i ? ? r r r i ? r i t r r
Candor:2
(S74NCO51-002)
El--------8 to 33 ; A-2-4 ; SP-SM 1100 1100 1 72 1 12 ; 7 1 4 ; 3 1 - 1 NP ; 116; 10
Btl------ 43 to 50 ; A-2-4 ; SM ;100 ;100 ; 74 1 22 ; 18 1 15 1 13 1 21 1 3 1 116; 10
Bt3------ 60 to 80 ; A-7-6 ; Sc ;100 ;100 1 81 1 41 ; 33 ; 30 ; 28 ; 44 ; 22 1 112; 16
Croatan:3 '
(S74NCO51-003) ; ; ; ; ; 1 1 1 1 ; ; ; ;
Cg-------37 to 52 ; A-2-4 : SM ;100 1100 1 76 ; 25 1 10 ; 5 ; 4 1 - 1 NP 1 1181 10
Cg-------52 to 64 ; A-4 ; SM ;100 ;100 ; 81 1 42 1 16 1 4 ; 3 ; - 1 NP 1 122; 8
Dothan : 3
(S74NCO93-009) 1 ; ; ; 1 l
Ap------- 0 to 7 1 A-2-4 ; SM 1100 1100 1 77 ; 27 ; 13 ; 7 ; 4 ; - ; NP ; 120; 09
Btl------ 11 to 25 ; A-6 ; Sc ;100 1 99 ; 77 1 46 ; 36 1 30 1 26 ; 33 1 16 ; 116; 13
Bt2------ 25 to 38 ; A-7-6 1 CL ;100 ;100 ; 82 1 53 ; 46 1 40 1 37 1 45 ; 23 ; 108; 18
Bt3------ 38 to 63 1 A-7-6 1 CL ;100 99 1 81 1 50 l 43 1 37 1 34 1 44 1 19 1 109; 17
i i ? r r r i r r r i r i
r r r
r i i r r i r r r r i
Faceville:
(S74NCO51-006)
Ap-------- 0 to 7 1 A-2-4 ; SM 1100 1100 ; 84 ; 22 ; 8 ; 4 ; 2 1 - ; NP ; 112; 10
Bt1------17 to 52 1 A-7-6 1 CL ;100 ;100 ; 84 1 52 ; 46 1 43 ; 41 1 49 ; 23 ; 107; 18
Bt2------ 52 to 70 l A-7-6 l SC ;100 ;100 1 86 ; 46 ; 37 1 34 1 33 1 46 1 21 1 109; 17
i r i i r r i r r i i r t
Fuquay:3
(S74NCO93-007) 1 ; 1 1 1 1 ; 1 ; ; ; ; ;
E---------3 to 29 ; A-2-4 ; SM 1100 ;100 1 80 ; 18 1 8 1 4 ; 2 ; - ; NP 1 115; 10
Be-------29 to 42 ; A-2-4 ; SM ;100 ;100 1 79 1 26 ; 19 ; 15 1 13 1 20 1 2 ; 124; 10
Btl------ 42 to 60 1 A-7-6 1 Sc ;100 ;100 l 81 1 41 1 34 1 30 1 28 1 45 1 21 1 107; 18
i r i r r i r r r r ?
r i i r i r i r i i r i r
Woodington:
(S74NCO51-004)
A---- --- 0 to 5 ; A-2-4 ; SM 100 100 ; 71 ; 26 ; 19 ; 11 1 6 ; - 1 NP ; 108; 14
Btg------ 11 to 28 ; A-2-4 ; SM 100 100 ; 63 1 25.1 21 ; 15 1 11 1 17 1 3 1 126; 10
BCgl----- 28 to 37 ; A-2-4 ; SM 100 100 ; 65 ; 22 ; 18 ; 13 ; 9 1 14 ; 2 1 127; 09
? ? i t t r i ? t t t• ? t
1 This pedon is a taxadjunct 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 Pedon 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
morphology for the location of the pedon.

TopoZone - The Web's Topographic Map
Pagel of 2
i
Target is UTM 17 709778E 3869088N - AUTRYVILLE quad rQuad Infol

C ? ?

s a fa carte, Inc.
oppnyht @ 2000 Map
r
? l

',rf l
5
L f ,?
?:-. i ? - ---?; .?- a. ?. fva -, `?.,q?..?:-mil'' rt ?.? ? `u ..yet .ek :1,. Y _ _.?I •_?.- _ __.

I?

c
F

brt Y ?n9? ? g. ro I t
tt fi

>d

,? ?. ..? 6L, I

i
r

Y

t'

1000 2000 3000 4000

1.0 2:0
fCi8?1ES I I I
http://www.topozone.com/print.asp?z=17&n=3869088&e=709778&s=50&size=m 8/20/02
TopoZone - The Web's Topographic Map

r?
f ,
..... .., ?l /. ;
500 1000 1600
Page 1 of 2
t

{

h4://www.topozone.com/print.asp?z=17&n=3868292&e=710519&s=25&size=m 8/20/02
by
b
??
x
d
5?
i Existing PC fields in agricultural production.
i Cleared CC areas with existing lateral (i.e. Tertiary) ditches.
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional
Mitigation Bank, Phase H
Cumberland County, NC
ECOBANK
Land Management Group, Inc.
September 2002
Pictures of site.
Large outlet canal (i.e. Primary ditch)
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional ECOBANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase II Land Management Group, Inc.
Cumberland County, NC September 2002
Pictures of site.
Collector (i.e. Secondary) ditch with adjacent road bed to be graded.
4
G?x
C
MITIGATION BANKING INSTRUMENT
AMENDMENT TO THE
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PHASE II
Submitted by:
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, FL
ECOBANK
Prepared by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
P.O. BOX 2522
Wilmington, NC
September 2002
MITIGATION BANKING INSTRUMENT
AMENDMENT TO THE
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NC
PHASE II
1.0 PREAMBLE
This agreement is made and entered into on the day of 20 , by
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation, hereinafter 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),
hereinafter collectively referred to as the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT).
The purpose of this Agreement is to add adjacent lands to the Barra Farms Mitigation
Bank which was designed to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland
impacts authorized by Section 404 Clean Water Act permits and/or Section 401 Water
Quality Certifications in appropriate circumstances.
The Sponsor is the recorded owner of that certain parcel of adjacent land containing
approximately 1817 acres located in Cumberland County, North Carolina as described in
the Barra Farms (Phase II) Regional Mitigation Bank Wetland Mitigation Plan
(Mitigation Plan). The Mitigation Plan is attached hereto.
The agencies comprising the MBRT agree that the Barra II Bank Site is a suitable
mitigation bank site, and that the implementation of the Barra II Mitigation Plan is likely
to result in net gains in wetland 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 this agreement.
2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.1 Goals: The goal of the Barra Farms, Phase II mitigation bank is to restore, enhance
and preserve pocosin/Carolina bay wetlands and their functions. Restoration,
enhancement and preservation activities are designed to compensate in appropriate
circumstances for unavoidable wetland impacts authorized by Clean Water Act permits
or Water Quality Certifications in circumstances deemed appropriate by USACE or
NCDWQ after consultation with members of the MBRT.
2.2 Additions to the Phase I Bank Site: The Sponsor is requesting the addition of
adjacent lands to the Phase I Bank Site. This request is accompanied by a Barra Farms,
Phase II Site-Specific Restoration Plan that follows the general format of the Phase I
Mitigation Plan and depicts the location and describes the hydrologic interaction between
the addition and the existing Bank Site. In addition, the Site-Specific Restoration Plan
includes specific provisions concerning credit ratios, a schedule for release of credits,
financial assurances, and property disposition. The MBRT shall review the Site-Specific
Restoration Plan, request additional information if needed, and approve/disapprove the
request within 90 days of submittal. In the event the request for addition is not approved,
specific modification suggestions may be provided by the MBRT to the Sponsor. In the
event of approval, the additional area shall be deemed a portion of the Bank Site and the
contents of the Barra I agreement not inconsistent with the Site-Specific Restoration Plan
shall apply to that area.
2.3 Use of Credits: Use of credits from the Phase II Bank to offset wetland 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
2
agreement has been drafted following the guidelines set forth in the "Federal Guidance
for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banks", 60 Fed. Reg. 58605,
November 28, 1995 (Guidance).
2.4 Role of the MBRT: The MBRT shall be chaired by the representative from the
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.
The 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 impacts, and whether or not the use of credits
from the Phase II Bank is appropriate to offset those impacts.
The parties to this agreement understand that, where practicable, on-site, in-kind
compensatory mitigation may be preferred. However, it is recognized that on-site
mitigation is often unavailable or inappropriate due to site constraints (including
hydrologic alterations and site development). In these instances use of a mitigation bank
is considered to be environmentally preferable.
3.0 MITIGATION PLAN
3.1 General Description: The Barra II tract is composed of approximately 1817 acres
(ac) of former Carolina bays, pocosins, and pine flatwoods/savannah that have been
ditched and drained to support agricultural activities. This site offers opportunities for
non-riverine wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation. A more detailed
description of existing site conditions is contained in the Barra Farms (Phase II)
Mitigation Plan.
3.2 Site Modifications: The Sponsor will complete all work as described in the Barra
Farms (Phase Il) Mitigation Plan. The Phase II bank site will include 912 acres of
wetland restoration, 215 acres of wetland enhancement, 621 acres of wetland
preservation, and 69 acres of upland buffer (Table 1, copied from Table 2 of the Phase II
Mitigation Plan). Restoration totals were determined by on-site evaluations, NRCS
guidelines, and DRAINMOD analysis.
3.3 Site Monitoring: The Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Site as described in the
monitoring section of the Phase II Mitigation Plan (Monitoring Plan). The Bank Site will
be monitored for a five (5) year period after implementation is completed or until such
time as the MBRT determines that the Success Criteria have been met, whichever occurs
later.
The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration, enhancement and
preservation activities at the Barra II site, and for the overall operation and management
of the Bank.
The Sponsor shall provide the reports described in the monitoring section of the
Mitigation Plan to each member of the MBRT.
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 the monitoring section of the Mitigation Plan. All remedial
actions required under this paragraph shall include a schedule, which shall take into
account physical and climatic conditions.
4
TABLE 1. MITIGATION CREDIT - BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL
MITIGATION BANK, PHASE II
Mitigation Type Area Mitigation Credit Replacement Credit
(acres) Ratio (acre credits)
Nonriverine
Pocosin/Carolina Bay 888 1:1 888
Restoration
Nonriverine Pine
Flatwoods/Savannah 24 1:1 24
Restoration
Nonriverine Wetland 215 3:1 72
Enhancement
Nonriverine Wetland

Preservation 621 10:1 62
Upland Buffer 69 10:1 7
TOTAL 1,817 1,053
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.
4.0 USE OF MITIGATION CREDITS
4.1 Geographic Service Area: The Barra II Wetland Mitigation Bank is located in the
lower Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030005). The lower Cape Fear
River hydrologic unit extends south to the coast in New Hanover County. 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). In addition, the Barra II tract is
located within the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain (Ecoregion 63) as defined by Griffith et
al. 2002 (refer to Appendix D of the Barra II Mitigation Plan). This ecoregion
encompasses the area defined as the `Carolina Flatwoods' - a subregion occurring along
nearly level, poorly drained areas and exhibiting characteristic landforms including
pocosins and Carolina bays. Ecoregion 63 (Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain) and subregion
63h (Carolina Flatwoods) includes all 2,440 acres of Barra Farms and extends south to
the mouth of the Cape Fear River in New Hanover County. The 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 II Wetland
Mitigation Bank.
4.2 Amount and Type of Credit: The Mitigation Plan is intended to result in the forms
and amounts, in acres, of wetland compensatory mitigation depicted in Table 1 (copied
from Table 2 in the Phase II Mitigation Plan). Successful implementation of the Phase II
6
Mitigation Plan will result in the creation of 1,053 nonriverine wetland and upland buffer
credits.
It is anticipated by the parties to this Agreement that in most cases in which USACE,
after consultation with members of the MBRT, has determined that mitigation credits
from the bank may be used to offset wetland 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 ratios will be based on considerations of
value of wetlands impacted, the severity of the impacts to wetlands, whether this
compensatory mitigation is in-kind, and physical proximity of the wetland impacts to the
Bank Site.
All decisions concerning the appropriateness of using credits from the Bank to offset
impacts to 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 Phase II
Bank to the members of the MBRT, and consultation with the members of the MBRT
concerning such use.
4.3 Credit Release Schedule: The credit release schedule for the Bank, as depicted in
Table 2, 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 mitigation planning, review of plan parameters by the
MBRT, and signing of the MBI Amendment. Protective covenants, easements, and
bonds on the property acceptable to the MBRT will also be obtained. Upon completion
of Task 1, 20% 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.
7
TABLE 2. MITIGATION CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE - BARRA FARMS
CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK, PHASE II
Task Projected Percentage of Credits Cumulative
Completion Credits Released Released Credits Released
Date (% cumulative)
1.0 Signing of the 2/2003 20(20) 211 211
MBI Amendment
2.0 Completion of all 5/2003 20(40) 211 422
Restoration Activities
3.0 Monitoring Plan --- --- --- ---
3.1 Year 1: Fulfill 2/2004 10(50) 105 527
Success Criteria
3.2 Year 2: Fulfill 2/2005 10(60) 105 632
Success Criteria
3.3 Year 3: Fulfill 2/2006 10(70) 105 737
Success Criteria
3.4 Year 4: Fulfill 2/2007 10(80) 105 842
Success Criteria
3.5 Year 5: Fulfill 2/2008 20(100) 211 1053
Success Criteria
TOTAL 100 1,053
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 will be submitted to the
MBRT certifying completion of Task 2. Upon completion of Task 2, 20% of the Bank
credits will be released (40% cumulative).
Task 3: Task 3 involves implementation of the monitoring plan and submittal of annual
reports to the MBRT for a five-year monitoring period, or until success criteria have been
fulfilled, whichever period is longer. Hydrology and vegetation sampling will be
completed toward the end of each growing season (between September 1 and October
31). 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 2004):
Second AWMR (February 2005):
Third AWMR (February 2006):
Fourth AWMR (February 2007):
Fifth AWMR (February 2008):
10% (50% cumulative)
10% (60% cumulative)
10% (70% cumulative)
10% (80% cumulative)
20% (100% cumulative)
Credit releases for Task 3 will occur only if success criteria are fulfilled as stipulated in
the Mitigation Plan.
4.4 Accounting Procedures: The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures for
maintaining accurate records of debits made from the bank, acceptable to the MBRT.
9
5.0 PROPERTY DISPOSITION
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 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 the Mitigation Plan.
6.0. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
6.1 Monitoring and Maintenance Bonds: The 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 been 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 as Exhibit A.
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; whichever is longer.
7.0 MISCELLANEOUS
This agreement may be amended with 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:
10
Sponsor:
Alan G. Fickett, Ph.D.
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, FL 32789
USACE:
Mr. Ken Jolly
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box Office 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
USEPA:
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsythe St.
Atlanta, GA 30303
USFWS
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 3326
Raleigh, NC 27636
NCWRC:
Ms. Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
11
NCDWQ:
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
12
IN WITNESS WHEREOF; the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for the Barra Farms
Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank, Phase H.
Wilmington District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ecological Service Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Service Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Commission
Chief, Wetland Section, Wetlands
Coastal, and Water Quality Grants
Branch, Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Director
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Miller McCarthy
President
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank
Corporation
Alan G. Fickett
Secretary
Ecosystems Land Mitigation
Bank Corporation
(Corporate Seal)
13
EXHIBIT A
MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE BOND
DOCUMENTATION
MITIGATION MONITORING /MAINTENANCE
PERFORMANCE BOND
Date bond executed:
Effective date:
Principal: Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road Winter Park Florida 3278
Type of Organization: Individual
Joint Venture
Partnership
X Corporation
State of Incorporation: Florida
Surety(ies): Cumberland Casualty & ure Company
4311 West Waters Avenue Suite 401
Tampa. Florida 33614
Scope of Coverage: Task 3 of the Cape Fear Mitigation Banking Instrument ("MK") for the Barra
Farms property in Cumberland County, North Carolina ("Mitigation Project").
Total penal sum of bond: $200,000.00
Surety's Bond Number: XXXKXXXX
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, the Principal and Surety(ies)
hereto are fmnly bound to the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE")/State of North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Wet Lands Restoration Program,
Division of Water Quality ("DENR") in the above penal sum for the payment of which we bind
ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns jointly and severally;
provided that, where the Sureties are corporations acting as co-sureties, we, the Sureties, bind
ourselves in such sum "jointly and severally" only for the purpose of allowing a joint action or
actions against any or all of us, and for all other purposes each Surety binds itself, jointly and
severally with the Principal, for the.payment of such sum only as is set forth opposite the name
of such Surety, but if no limit of liability is indicated, the limit of liability shall be full amount of
the penal sum.
WHEREAS, said Principal is required to provide financial assurance for Task 3 of the
MBI or the Mitigation Project as further described in the scope of coverage above, and
WHEREAS, said Principal shall establish a standby trust fund as is required when a surety
bond is used to provide such financial assurance;
NOW, TBEREFORE, 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
USACEIDENR's written approval of such assurance within 90 days after the date notice of
cancellation is received by both the Principal and the USACE/DENR from the Surety(ies), then
this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise it is to remain in full force and effect.
Such obligation does not apply to any of the following:
(a) Any obligation of Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation under a
workers' compensation, disability benefits, or employment compensation
law or other similar law;
(b) Bodily injury to an employee of Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank
Corporation arising from, and in the course of, employment by Ecosystems
Land Mitigation Bank Corporation;
(c) Bodily injury or property damage arising from the ownership, maintenance,
use of, or entrustment to others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or
watercraft;
(d) Property damage to any property owned, rented, loan to, in the care,
custody, or control of, occupied by Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank
Corporation that is not the direct result of a construction or implementation
activity for the NMI.
(e) Bodily injury or property damage for which Ecosystems Land Mitigation
Bank Corporation is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption
of liability in a 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.
Upon notification by the USACE/DENR that the Principal has been found in violation of
the requirements of MBI for completion of Task 3 of the Mitigation Project for which this bond
guarantees performance, the Surety(ies) shall within sixty (60) days of receiving such notice either
perform completion in accordance with the MM and pursuant to the written directions of the
USACE/DENR or place the bond amount guaranteed for Task 3 of the Mitigation Project into the
standby trust fund as directed by the DENR.
Upon notification by the USACE/DENR that the Principal has failed to provide alternate
financial assurance and obtain written approval of such assurance from the LTSACE/DENR during
the 90 days following receipt, by both the Principal and the USACE/DENR, of a notice of
cancellation of the bond, the Surety(ies) shall place funds in the total penal sum of this bond
guaranteed for the completion of Task 3 of the Mitigation Project in accordance with the MMI into
the standby trust fund as directed by the DENR.
The Surety(ies) hereby waive(s) notification of amendments to the NMI permits, applicable
laws, statutes, rules and regulation and agrees that no such amendment shall in any way alleviate
its (their) obligation on this bond.
The Liability of the Surety(ies) shall not be discharged by any payment or succession of
payments hereunder, unless and until such payment or payments shall amount in the aggregate to
the penal sum of the bond, but in no event shall the obligation of the Surety(ies) hereunder exceed
the amount of said penal sum.
The Surety(ies) may cancel the bond by sending notice of cancellation by certified mail to
the Principal and the USACE/DENR; provided, however that cancellation shall not occur during
the 120 days beginning on the date of receipt of the notice of cancellation by both the Principal
and the USACE/DENR, as evidence by the return receipts.
The Principal may terminate this bond by sending written notice to the Surety(ies);
provided, however, that no such notice shall become effective until the Surety(ies) receive(s)
written authorization for termination of the bond by the USACE/DENR.
Principal and Surety(ies) hereby agree to adjust the penal sum of the bond yearly so that
it guarantees increased or decreased completion costs provided that no decrease in the penal sum
takes place without the written permission of the USACE/DENR.
MITIGATION BANK STANDBY TRUST FUND AGREEMENT
TO DEMONSTRATE MONITORING /MAINTENANCE
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 Comoration (the Grantor,)
Name of Stare Insert "corporation, partnership association, or proprietorship ",
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 ("DENR") that Mitigation Banking Instrument ("MBI")
Number ("Permit") which authorizes the construction, operation and
implementation of a wetland mitigation bank known as Cape Fear Mitigation Bank.
WHEREAS, the USACE/DENR, have established certain, regulations applicable to the
Grantor, requiring that an owner of a wetland mitigation bank provide assurance that funds will
be available when needed for the monitoring and maintenance of this mitigation bank if Grantor
fails to monitor and maintain this-mitigation bank pursuant to the terms of the above referenced
permit.
WHEREAS, the Grantor has elected to establish a performance bond to provide such financial
assurance for the monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation bank identified herein and is
requested to establish a standby trust fund able to accept payments from the performance bond.
WHEREAS, the Grantor, acting through its duly authorized officers, has selected the Trustee
to be the trustee under this agreement, and the Trustee is willing to act as trustee,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor and the Trustee agree as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement:
(a) The term "Grantor" means Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation who enters into
this Agreement and any successors or assigns of the Grantor.
(b) The term "Trustee" means SouthTrust Asset Management Company of Florida, N.A., the
Trustee who enters into this Agreement and any successor Trustee.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Principal and Surety(ies) have executed this Performance
Bond and have affixed their seals on the date set forth above.
The persons whose signatures appear below hereby certify that they are authorized to
execute this surety bond on behalf of the Principal and Surety(ies).
PRINCIPAL
CORPORATE SURETY(IES)
ECOSYSTEMS LAND MITIGATION
BANK CORPORATION
Bv:
D. Miller McCarthy, President
(Corporate Seal)
CUMBERLAND CASUALTY & SURETY
COMPANY
By:
President
4311 West Waters Avenue, Suite 401
Tampa, Florida 33614
Florida
State of Incorporation
Liability Limit: $00.000.00
(Corporate Seal)
(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 -A
Insert "Letter of Credit" or "Surety Bond".
Section 7. Trustee Mana ement. The Trustee shall invest and reinvest the principal and
income of the Fund and keep the Fund invested as a single fund, without distinction between
principal and income, in accordance with general investment policies and guidelines which the
Grantor may communicate in writing to the Trustee from time to time, subject, however, to the
provisions of this Section. In investing, reinvesting, exchanging, selling, and managing the Fund,
the Trustee shall discharge his duties with respect to the trust fund solely in the interest of the
beneficiary. and with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then,
prevailing which persons of prudence, acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters,
would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims; except that:
(a) Securities or other obligations of the Grantor, or any other owner or operator of the
mitigation bank, or any of their affiliates as defined in the Investment Company Act of
1940, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 80a-2.(a), shall not be acquired or held, unless they are
securities or other obligations of the Federal or a State government;
(b) The Trustee is authorized to invest the Fund in time or demand deposits of the Trustee, to
the extent insured by an agency of the Federal or a State government; and
(c) The Trustee is authorized to hold cash awaiting investment or distribution uninvested for
a reasonable time and without liability for the payment of interest thereon.
Section . 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
(c) The term "USACE/DENR" means the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Wet Lands
Restoration Program, Division of Water Quality or any successor thereof.
Section 2. Identification of Facilities and Cost Estimates. This Agreement pertains to the
Facilities and cost estimates identified on attached Schedule A.
Section . Standby Trust. This Trust shall remain dormant until funded with the proceeds
from the Surety Bond as listed on
Insert "Letter of Credit" or "Surety Bond"
Schedule B. The Trustee shall have no duties or responsibilities beyond safekeeping this
Document. Upon funding this Trust shall become active and be administered pursuant to the terms
of this instrument.
Section 4. Establishment of Fund. The Grantor and the Trustee hereby establish a trust fund
(the Fund), for the benefit of the DENR. The Grantor and the Trustee intend that no third parry
have access to the Fund except as herein provided. The Fund is established initially as a standby
to receive payments and shall not consist of any property. Payments made by the provider of the
Surety Bond listed on hedule B pursuant to the DENR's instructions are transferred to the
Trustee and are referred to as the Fund, together with all earnings and profits thereon, less any
payments or distributions made by the Trustee pursuant to this Agreement. The Fund shall be held
by the Trustee,.IN TRUST, as hereinafter provided. The Trustee shall not be responsible nor shall
it undertake any responsibility for the amount or adequacy of, nor any duty to collect from the
Grantor, any payments necessary to discharge any liabilities of the Grantor established by the
DENR.
Section 5. Payment for Completing Monitoring and Maintenance. The Trustee shall make
payments from the Fund as the Director of the DENR's Division of Water Quality shall direct,
in writing, to provide for the payment of the costs of completing monitoring and maintenance of
Task 3 - Cape Fear Mitigation Banking Instrument including any modifications or amendments
to that Banking Instrument. The Trustee shall reimburse such persons as specified by the DENR
from the Fund for monitoring and maintenance expenditures in such amounts as the DENR shall
direct in writing. In addition, the Trustee shall refund to the Grantor such amounts as the DENR
specifies in writing. Upon refund, such funds shall no longer constitute part of the Fund as defined
herein.
The Fund may not be drawn upon to cover any of the following:
(a) Any obligation of Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation under a workers'
compensation, disability benefits, or unemployment compensation law or other similar
law;
(b) Bodily injury to an employee of Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation arising
from, and in the course of employment by Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation;
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.
(b) To purchase shares in any investment company registered under the Investment Company
Act of 1940,15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq., including one which may be created, managed,
underwritten, or to which investment advice is rendered or the shares of which are sold by
the Trustee. The Trustee may vote such shares in its discretion.
Section . Express Power of Trustee. Without in any way limiting the powers and discretion
conferred upon the Trustee by the other provisions of this Agreement or by law, the Trustee is
expressly authorized and empowered:
(a) To sell, exchange, convey, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any property held by it, by
public or private sale. No person dealing with the Trustee shall be bound to see to the
application of the-purchase money or to inquire into the validity or expediency of any such
sale or other disposition;
(b) To make, execute, acknowledge, 1d deliver any and all documents of transfer and
conveyance and any and all other instruments that may be necessary or appropriate to carry
out the powers herein granted;
(c) To register any securities held in the Fund in its own name or in the name of a nominee
and to hold any security in bearer form or in book entry, or to combine certificates
representing such securities with certificates of the same issue held by the Trustee in other
fiduciary capacities, or to deposit or arrange for the deposit of such securities in a qualified
central depository even though, when so deposited, such securities may be merged and
held in bulk in the name of the nominee of such depository with other securities deposited
therein by another person, or to deposit or arrange for the deposit of any securities issued
by the United States Goverment, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, with a Federal
Reserve bank, but the books and records of the Trustee shall at all times show that all such
securities are part of the Fund;
(d) To deposit any cash in the Fund in interest-bearing accounts maintained or savings
certificates issued by the Trustee, in its separate corporate capacity, or in any other
banking institution affiliated with the Trustee, to the extent insured by an agency of the
Federal or a State government; and
(e) To compromise or otherwise adjust all claims in favor of or against the Fund.
Section I . Taxes and Expenses. All taxes of any kind that may be assessed or levied against
or in respect of the Fund and all brokerage commissions incurred by the Fund shall be paid from
the Fund. All other expenses incurred by the Trustee in connection with the administration of this
Trust, including fees for legal services rendered to the Trustee, the compensation of the Trustee
to the extent not paid directly by the Grantor, and all other proper charges and disbursements of
the Trustee shall be paid from the Fund.
Section 11. Annual Valuation. The Trust shall annually, at least 30 days prior to the
anniversary date of establishment of the Fund, furnish to the Grantor and to the USACEIDENR
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their
respective officers duly authorized and their corporate seals to be hereunto affixed and attested as
of the date first above written.
ATTEST GRANTOR
ECOSYSTEMS LAND MITIGATION
BANK CORPORATION
By:
Signature D. Miller McCarthy, President
(CORPORATE SEAL)
ATTEST TRUSTEE
SOUTHTRUST ASSET MANAGEMENT
COMPANY OF FLORIDA, N.A.
By:
Signature
(CORPORATE SEAL)
ec i 1 6. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended by an instrument in
writing executed by the Grantor, the Trustee, and the USACE/DENR, or by the Trustee and the
USACE/DENR if the Grantor ceases to exist.
ection 17. Irrevocability and Termination. Subject to the right of the parties to amend this
Agreement as provided in Section 16, this Trust shall be irrevocable and shall continue until
terminated at the written agreement of the Grantor, the Trustee, and the USACE/DENR, or by
the Trustee and the USACE/DENR, if the Grantor ceases to exist. Upon termination of the Trust,
all remaining trust property, less final trust administration expenses, shall be delivered pursuant
to the written agreement terminating the Trust
Section 18. Immunity and-Indemnification. The Trustee shall not incur personal liability of any
nature in connection with any act or omission, made in good faith, in the administration of this
Trust, or in carrying out any directions by the Grantor or the USACE/DENR issued in accordance
with this Agreement. The Trustee shall be indemnif--d and saved harmless by the Grantor or from
the Trust Fund, or both, from and against any personal liability to which the Trustee may be
subjected by reason of any act or conduct in its official capacity, including all expenses reasonably
incurred in its defense in the event the Grantor fails to provide such defense.
ecti n 1 . Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be administered, construed, and enforced
according to the laws of the State of Florida-
Section 20. Interpretation. As used in this Agreement, words in the singular include the plural
and words in the plural include the singular. The descriptive headings for each Section of this
Agreement shall not affect the interpretation or the legal efficacy of this Agreement. -
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GRAN1"OR'S SIGNATURE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
On this _ day of 1998, personally appeared D. Miller McCarthy, who being
by me duly sworn, acknowledged said instrument to be his free act and deed. Mr. McCarthy is
personally known to me, or has produced her (state) driver's license
bearing number
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal.
Signature
Printed Name
(NOTARIAL SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF
Commission expiration date
Serial Number, If any
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRUSTEE'S SIGNATURE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
On this _ day of 1998, personally appeared ,
who being by me duly sworn, acknowledged said instrument to be his/her free act and deed.
is personally known to me, or has produced his/her
(state) driver's license bearing number
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal.
Signature
Printed Name
(NOTARIAL SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF
Commission expiration date
Serial Number, If anv
?-