20001085 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090428

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: 4=-- 21- 2LLC9 Evaluator's Name(s): t-Alm
Date of Report: ?--A-y-\Llnr 2E-)CO Report for Monitoring Year:
Date of Field Review: 4}= 22 -2Vp!A Evaluator's Name(s): - ?'
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: 1?Y1j tit I<prP of-L ( l l A'n L
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: GSRA is located to SW of Lejeune. Property is bounded US 17 to the E & Se, SR 50 to the SW & W, and
Padgett, Haws Run, Dawson Cabin, & High Hill Rd to the N
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20001085
Project Name: Greater Sandy Run
County(ies) Onslow
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030007
Nearest Stream: Sandy Run Swamp
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C; Sw
Mitigator Type: Mitigation Ba
DOT Status: non-DOT
Project History
Event Event Date
Closeout 6/26/2007
?I
CA V??n
I
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 1250.5 acres
Stream:
Buffer:
i
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes No
Monitoring reports available? Yes No
Problem areas identified in reports? Yes No
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No
Mitigation required on site: *Add significant project-related events. reports,
Associated impacts (if known): received, construction, planting, repairs, etc.
During office review, note success criteria and evaluate each component based on monitoring report
results. Record relevant data in Sections II and III.
- On back of sheet, note other information found during office review and/or to be obtained during site visit
II. Summary of Results:
?
Monitoring
Mitigation Component - - - - - -- -- Year Success - Success
Resolved
( report) ( )
20001085-1 886.8 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, drier) Restoration
20001085-2 143.4 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, wetter) Enhance
20001085-3 84.8 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, drier) Enhancemen
20001085-4 135.5 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, drier) Enhanceme
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this project is: successful partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this project:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
i
Jht-nob Lt ?iaCk 2 (Jur UAC? O"-L

G Ck+ d?mS + CJ_JLQ-e?A s "_+KytLk? UN- lo2?k?
lyl?cn' C_
ri 5 b (? c
l?U k G? L) cs-j-?x O uJ Cl?CY1CY? alt ?` J : "'1 c?? ca m o L
i C1 sy-ow?A _s v' r p F(u re st,T7_3u-r r ?i ? 1 C nL? C •(v ? ?'? (' m 4o
+?
CUAW 1/1
- cu (43 ac. -ibq S he A 5uicwnom ?- Succ CA-A'-A- + re L .
CVe?rsion ?4- S ?cc_ ? ?o c © erVe 0-a & ?R?f?) ?pk? ?v?
1.0 (August 2Z 2007) -kb C o - i rtS? COQ ag oVy '
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 886.8 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, drier) Restoration Component ID: 20001085-1
Description: being restored to pocosin wetlands C,IL-Ct_?> Cdr Cs?l NEIA
Location within project: center of GSRA
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
GW levels within 12" of surface for 12 consecutive days during Inundated
the growing GS with normal or below normal rainfall

I
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes No
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
"no veg. performance criteria for pocosin community
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPAPla cover
high J
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No u-??1 5{ ?-f
A TPAf-
verage r entire site (per report).
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
based on community composition? Yes No
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No
Vegetation planted on site? Yes No
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover):
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 8
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report. Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCWAM issues to address (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, etc.)
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
i
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
I
During site visit, document representative conditions and areas of concern. Observe preservation and
enhancement areas that may not have specific success criteria. Label and attach photos to this report.
Attach maps showing photo locations, areas of concern, and important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 8
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 143.4 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, wetter) Enhancement Component ID: 20001085-2
Description: nonriv swamp forest/wet pine flat in Big Shakey Swamp
Location within project: southern part of GSRA
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: W etland Hydrology Indicators:
GW levels within 12" of surface for 12 consecutive da Inundated
the growing GS with normal or below normal rainfall '7-t h dr
l ? OR3^
.
Saturated in upper 12 inches
.
MSe_?_6'Q 6_04CL ?nGT o C.t ??S t;um L??
W
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No cA,-Qc_<- Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes No
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species 1
LXID kAJQ_J? Cw ?c? Species Story TPAf% cover
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per rep ort):
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
based on community composition? Yes No
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No
Vegetation planted on site? Yes No
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover):
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 3 of 8
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques, NCWAM Type on Site:
Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report. Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCWAM issues to address (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
During site visit, document representative conditions and areas of concern. Observe preservation and
enhancement areas that may not have specific success criteria. Label and attach photos to this report.
Attach maps showing photo locations, areas of concern, and important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 4 of 8
i
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 84.8 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, drier) Enhancement Component ID: 20001085-3
Description: nonriv swamp forest/wet pine flat in burned pine plantation complex
Location within project: center of GSRA
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
inundated
?Saturated in upper 12 inches
Drift lines
Drainage patterns in wetlands
Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria:
GW levels within 12" of surface for 12 consecutive days during
the growing GS with normal or below normal rainfall
Monitoring report indicates success es No
Observational field data agrees? es No
based on mitigation plan? Yes No
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric?
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
survival of mean density of 320tpa, 5yrs of age, consisting o
the preferred canopy species
Vegetation growing successfully? es No
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
based on community composition? Yes No
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No
Vegetation planted on site? es No
Date of last planting:
Dominant Plant Species
f Species Story TPA/'lo cover
?lca-nom
L-;(;1.
k
Uolwoc?S 41.E
- ? )
g i
1 LQ-a 6 fD L*A-Z ?vJ C?fIQ?t71?A.L#"
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover):
List any remaining vegetation issues tohaddr`eess (e.g. plant survival, concern etc.):
I"P-NLb-s CL.-Q- a4 r) Lo6^'q op?ear
?? c.?er? l d (soy 1 s . ? ?1
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
Yes No
JCko w l ul'-) c?QQ
Page 5 of 8
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach List any remaining analysis results to this report.
Non Non-riparian y emaig WAM (e.g. y, op g type, etc.). I
to address functionality, developing in wetland p : (drier)
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
During site visit, document representative conditions and areas of concern. Observe preservation and
enhancement areas that may not have specific success criteria. Label and attach photos to this report.
Attach maps showing photo locations, areas of concern, and important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:

Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 6 of 8
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 135.5 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, drier) Enhancement Component ID: 20001085-4
Description: enhanced to pine flatwoods in burned pine plantation complex
Location within project: center of GSRA
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: ! Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
GW levels within 12" of surface for 12 consecutive days during Inundated
the growing GS with normal or below normal rainfall Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No Water marks

List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes No
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
survival of mean density of 320tpa, 5yrs of age, consisting of Species Story TPA/'/ cover
the preferred canopy species
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per rep ort):
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
based on community composition? Yes No
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No
Vegetation planted on site? Yes No
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no v
egetation:
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover):
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival concerns, etc.):
,pond P U'll-L qrU Lo? dtul-"el -t V

Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 7 of 8
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report. Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCWAM issues to address (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
During site visit, document representative conditions and areas of concern. Observe preservation and
enhancement areas that may not have specific success criteria. Label and attach photos to this report.
Attach maps showing photo locations, areas of concern, and important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 8 of 8

Tammy,
Take 40 East to Hwy 24 (Kenansville exit). Go around Kenansville, thru
Beulalville, Richlands and into Jacksonville. Look for and follow signs to
Camp Lejeune Main Gate. You'll have to get a vehicle pass at the main gate
Visitor Center (need DL, registration, vehicle info.).
Take Holcomb Blvd, (main entry road) to Post Lane Oust past the power plant
with giant smoke stacks to your left), make right on Post Lane (if you go
too far, you'll hit the traffic circle where you can loop back and turn left
onto Post). You'll be in the developed "epicenter" of the Base.
From Post Lane, make a left into the parking lot immediately after you past
Bldg 11 (Bldg 27 and Bldg 11 will be to your left - they are single story
red brick bldgs, Bldg 11 has the parking lot tore up for repaving). You'll
come up on them quick. Bldg numbers are black letter/numbers on white
backing usually on the upper corner.
I am in Bldg 12, right behind Bldg 11. Call when you leave the Visitor
Center and I'll be waiting for you in the parking lot. We'll meet briefly
and then drive out to the bank.
Call if you need to. Note - only hands free cell phone devices are allowed
on base, so you may need to pull over if you have to call me.
Is there any thing you'll need or want to bring back with you? Maps, copies
of any reports, the Banking Instrument, etc?
Let me know and I'll have them prepared. MK
Martin Korenek
Wildlife Biologist
Land & Wildlife Resources Section, ECON
Camp Lejeune, NC
desk 910-451-7235
cell 910-526-9577
-----Original Message-----
From: Hill, Tammy [mailto:tammy.l.hill cncdenr.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 12:15
To: Korenek CIV Martin G
Subject: RE: GSRA mitigation site visit
Hi, Marty.
Looking forward to tomorrow's site visit. My computer (or maybe it's me!)
doesn't seem able to open the map attachment. Could you give me directions
to our meeting point?
Thanks! See you in the morning,
Tammy
From: Korenek CIV Martin G [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:52 PM
To: Tammy.L.Hill
Subject: RE: GSRA mitigation site visit
Let's go with the 28th as our primary and the 30th as an alternate. We can
meet at my office, Rm 129 in Bldg 12 at 1030 and then head out. Bring a
sandwich and we can eat in the field/on the fly. We do have a facility out
near there to wash up at - just no place to get food. Map attached. Do you
need any info. about the Bank prior to the meeting? The Final Report is on
the USACE's website. MK
02,o d o I C)8 s

WETLAND MITIGATION BANK
MONITORING SUMMARY
2006 GROWING SEASON
Final
MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE
Greater Sandy Run Area
North Carolina
Prepared for:
Department of the Navy
Atlantic Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Norfolk, VA
March 2007
Marine Corps Base Camp Le

EXECCITIVF Ql INANfADV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document summarizes monitoring studies conducted in 2006 on groundwater hydrology in the
Greater Sandy Run Area (GSRA) wetland mitigation bank of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
(MCBCL), North Carolina. These monitoring studies were conducted by Geo-Marine, Inc. for the
Department of the Navy, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Norfolk, Virginia
under Contract number N62470-02-D-9997, delivery order 0048. The mitigation bank at GSRA was
created to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable non-tidal freshwater impacts authorized by
Clean Water Act permits for construction on MCBCL. The mitigation bank is comprised of three distinct
areas, totaling 1,250.5 acres (credits), including: Big Shakey Swamp (143.4 acres of enhanced
bottomland hardwoods), Burned Pine Plantation (BPP; 220.3 acres, including 84.8 acres of enhanced
bottomland hardwoods and 135.5 acres of enhanced pine flatwoods), and Pocosin (886.8 acres of restored
pocosin wetlands). To date, all areas of the Big Shakey Swamp and BPP have been approved for credit
release. In addition, all but 101.3 acres of the Pocosin (Lower SE Pocosin) have been approved for credit
release. This report summarizes hydrologic monitoring efforts within the Lower SE Pocosin for the 2006
growing season. This document is intended to provide support for application to the Mitigation Bank
Review Team (MBRT) for release of the remaining credits in the GSRA wetland mitigation bank (101.3
acres within the Lower SE Pocosin).
2006 Wetland Mitigation Report GSRA E-1
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
performance criteria for successful implementation of the GSRA mitigation bank. The MBRT determines
when the performance criteria have been met. The USACE, Wilmington District, after consultation with
the appropriate state and federal agencies, shall make all final decisions concerning the amount and type
of compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable permitted wetland impacts and whether the use
of credits is appropriate to offset those impacts.
2.2 Successful Mitigation Criteria
In order for mitigation credits to be released for a given site it must meet specific hydrologic criteria.
According to USACE, hydrologic criteria will be met when, based upon monitoring well data, the soil is
continuously saturated within 12 inches (in.) of the surface for at least 5 percent of the growing season
with periods of normal or below normal rainfall (Environmental Laboratory 1987). For GSRA, this
equates to the soil being saturated with 12 in. of the surface for 12 consecutive days between 19 March
and 11 November. In addition to the hydrology criteria, the BPP area of the mitigation bank also had to
meet established vegetation criteria for mitigation credits to be released. The established vegetation
criteria is the survival of a mean density of 320 planted trees per acre, five years of age or older,
consisting of the preferred canopy species. Maintenance inspections in perpetuity to evaluate the
condition and stability of each mitigation bank feature (ditch plugs, check dams, and spillway) are a
requirement for credit release.
2.3 Mitigation Credits
The Final Mitigation Bank Plan is intended to result in the following forms and amounts, in acres, of
compensatory mitigation:
Pocosin 886.8 acres restored
Bottomland Hardwood in Big Shakey Swamp 143.4 acres enhancement
Burned Pine Plantation
Pine Flat 135.5 acres enhancement
Bottomland Hardwood 84.8 acres enhancement
Successful implementation of the Final Mitigation Bank Plan will result in the creation of the following
credits:
Pocosin/Pine Flat 1,022.3 credits
Bottomland Hardwood 228.2 credits
MCBCL maintains accurate records of debits made from the mitigation bank. The mitigation credit ratios
from the bank used to offset authorized wetland impacts shall be 1.5 credits for every acre of Pocosin or
pine plantation impacted and 3.0 credits for every acre of bottomland hardwood impacted.
2-2 2006 Wetland Mitigation Report GSRA
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
2.4 Mitigation Bank History
To date, all but 101.3 acres of the proposed 1,250.5-acre GSRA mitigation bank have been approved for
credit release. Based on reviews of monitoring efforts conducted through the 2003 growing season, the
USACE, Wilmington District, concluded that mitigation success criteria had been met for the 490.5 acre
Lower Pocosin and 143.4 acre Big Shakey Swamp (Figure 2-1; see letter dated 27 February 2004,
Appendix B). Plugging ditches in the Pocosin and installing check dams along the channelized stream
course in Big Shakey Swamp accomplished hydrologic restoration in these areas. Following the 2004
growing season, the USACE concluded that continued monitoring was needed for all remaining areas
(Upper Pocosin, BPP, and Lower SE Pocosin), however the release of 10 percent of the credits from the
combined 515.3 acres of the Upper Pocosin and BPP was approved (Figure 2-1; see letter dated 17
January 2006, Appendix B). Following a 14 February 2006 meeting at MCBCL and review of the 2005
growing season monitoring report, it was determined that all remaining credits for the 220.3 acre BPP and
295 acre Upper Pocosin would be released and that monitoring for both hydrology and vegetation was no
longer required in these areas (Figure 2-1; see letter dated 27 April 2006, Appendix B). At the same time
it was determined that the 101.3 acre Lower SE Pocosin would need to be monitored during the 2006
growing season to determine conclusively whether this area is successfully meeting the hydrology
criteria. Although credits were released for the Upper Pocosin, a determination was made that a
permanent spillway device was required to prevent South Pocosin Road from washing out during periods
of high water levels. This spillway was constructed in November 2006 (see Section 4.3.1).
2.5 Monitoring History
To date, hydrology has been monitored during 13 periods. Table 2-1 lists the hydrologic monitoring
efforts conducted to date, the dates during which monitoring activities occurred and reference to a
detailed report which summarizes those activities. During the first two monitoring periods the areas
selected for mitigation did not meet the USACE wetland hydrology criteria, and thus did not satisfying
the mitigation bank's hydrologic criteria. Ditches were plugged in a systematic pattern between growing
seasons in order to restore wetland hydrology, starting in 1996 and ending in 1999. Ten of the 12
hydrologic monitoring reports (reports 3 through 12; Table 2-1) document the effects of the ditch plugs on
hydrology at GSRA and provide documentation of successful restoration of wetland hydrology in all but
the 101.3 acre Lower SE Pocosin. The first mitigation bank credits were released following the 2003
growing season (report 10; Table 2-1), with the remaining credits currently available released following
the 2004 and 2005 growing seasons (reports 11 and 12; Table 2-1). During the 2006 growing season
automated monitoring wells were only located in the Lower SE Pocosin cell and the reference areas, as all
other areas had been approved for credit release.
2006 Wetland Mitigation Report GSRA 2-3
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
Table 2-1. Hydrologic Monitoring Reports and Monitoring Periods.
Report Number Monitoring Period Citation
1 22 Jun 94 to 16 May 95 USMC 1995a
2 19 Mar 95 to 11 Nov 95 USMC 1995b
3 1 Feb 96 to 1 Jul 96 USMC 1996
4 1 Jul 96 to 1 Jul 97 USMC 1997b
5 1 Jul 97 to 22 Oct 98 USMC 2000a
6 23 Oct 98 to 25 Oct 99 USMC 2001a
7 26 Oct 99 to 07 Nov 00 USMC 2001 b
8 19 Mar 01 to 11 Nov 01 USMC 2002a
9 19 Mar 02 to I 1 Nov 02 USMC 2003
10 19 Mar 03 to 11 Nov 03 USMC 2004
11 19 Mar 04 to 11 Nov 04 USMC 2005
12 19 Mar 05 to I 1 Nov 05 USMC 2006
13 19 Mar 06 to 11 Nov 06 Current Report
Vegetation monitoring began in 1997, one growing season after the first ditch plugs were installed. The
purpose of the monitoring was to identify changes in the vegetation structure and composition in the
mitigation area that resulted from ditch plug installation. The first report identified the baseline
vegetation conditions at 18 monitoring sites within the BPP and Pocosin. Eight reports were produced
evaluating changes in the vegetative community and surface hydrological parameters that occurred
following changes in hydrology at the study sites on GSRA. Table 2-2 lists the vegetation monitoring
efforts conducted through the 2005 growing season. Vegetation was not monitored during the 2006
growing season, as the areas containing the vegetation monitoring plots (BPP and Pocosin) were
previously approved for credit release (see section 2.4).
Community mapping and tree survival studies were initiated in May 2000 on the BPP to monitor the
success of February 1999 and December 2000 planting efforts. Seven tree species in five community
types were planted. The species included: bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), water oak (Quercus
nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
2-4 2006 Wetland Mitigation Report GSRA

c?
,-
s
a
c
0
a?
L
G
M
C
G
fl
J?
,,
-??.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
Table 2-2. Vegetation Monitoring Reports and Growing Seasons.
Report Number Growing Season Citation
1 1997 USMC 1998
2 1998 USMC 2000d
3 2000 USMC 2001d
4 2001 USMC 2002b
5 2002 USMC 2003
6 2003 USMC 2004
7 2004 USMC 2005
8 2005 USMC 2006
michauxii), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), and pond pine (Pinus serotina). Planted community types
include bald cypress, longleaf pine, pond pine, mixed hardwood, and mixed pine (Figure 2.2). Due to
poor survival of the longleaf pine seedlings planted in 1999, 44,000 longleaf pine seedlings were
replanted in December 2000. The primary criteria for determining the success of vegetation enhancement
was a planted tree survival density of greater than 320 trees per acre. Table 2-3 lists the tree survival
studies conducted through the 2005 growing season. Tree survival was not monitored during the 2006
growing season, as the BPP was previously approved for credit release (see section 2.4). Photos of the
BPP from planting through the 2005 growing season are provided in Appendix C.
Table 2-3. Tree Survival Studies and Growing Seasons.
2006 Wetland Mitigation Report GSRA
2-7
w
u
w
m
O
Q
z
w
0

v
0
E
E
0
U
c
0
v
en
v
c
0
c
4
u
c
d
c
L
fV
N
v
L
0
Q
x
c
0
a
x
0
a
ro
3
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune STUDY AREA
3.0 STUDY AREA
3.1 General Description
The wetland mitigation sites are located in the southern half of GSRA, with the largest portion occurring
in the southern branch of the Greater Sandy Run Pocosin. This portion is occupied by a mix of high and
low pocosin habitat, although most would be classified as high pocosin. The understory is extremely
dense and dominated by a few woody species. The BPP is immediately south of the Pocosin. This area
had been harvested and burned in a wildfire in August 1993.
3.2 Vegetative Communities
3.2.1 Pine Plantation Community
Pine plantations at GSRA have been subjected to intense silvicultural management practices, to promote
the growth of marketable timber, since the early 1940s (USDA 1999; USMC 1993, 1989). Historically,
these areas contained southern mixed forests and southern floodplain forests dominated by a mix of
deciduous and evergreen trees. Currently, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and pond pine dominate the
canopies of the needle-leaved evergreen forests. The mid-canopies are comprised of species similar to
those of the broad-leaved deciduous forest. The shrub stratum consists of suppressed individuals of
loblolly and pond pine, as well as smaller species, such as inkberry (Ilex glabra); fetterbush (Lyonia
lucida); wax myrtle (Morella cerifera [syn. Myrica cerifera]); horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria); sweet
pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia); titi (Cyrilla racemiora); and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium
corymbosum).
Typically, pine plantations are characterized by acidic, sandy, or fine-textured soils with low nutrient
values. Soil types in the pine plantation community at GSRA include Mucklee loam, Stallings loamy fine
sand, Torhunta fine sandy loam, and Woodington loamy fine sand. All are considered hydric by the
National Technical Committee on Hydric Soils except Stallings loamy fine sand (which occurs as minor
soil inclusions; U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1992).
3.2.2 Pocosin Community
Low flatlands in close proximity to coastal areas with broad, shallow stream basins may contain pocosins.
Pocosins are characterized by highly organic peat soils with prolonged inundation or saturation caused by
poor soil drainage (USDA 1999). Bogs and pocosins, in which evergreen shrubs are dominant, may also
occur in poorly drained shallow depressions in upland areas (Bailey 1995). According to Schafale and
Weakley (1990), the dominant vegetation in the area of the monitoring plots is classified as a high/low
pocosin. High/low pocosins are dominated by evergreen and coniferous pyrophytic vegetation of
saturated, oligotrophic peatlands. A dense evergreen shrub layer typically dominates low pocosin, while
high pocosins generally contain small, sparse trees.
2006 Wetland Mitigation Report GSRA 3-1
STUDY AREA Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
Evergreen shrubs such as fetterbush and inkberry frequently dominate pocosins located on better-drained
soils; however, trees such as pond pine and loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) also regularly occur.
Pocosins exhibit complex successional trend patterns based on interactions of nutrient availability,
hydroperiod, and fire frequency and severity. Historically, pocosins were dominated by herbaceous
marsh vegetation and macrophytes, giving way to Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) and
bald cypress (USDA 1999).
Soil types in the pocosin community include Croatan muck, Woodington loamy fine sand, and Torhunta
fine sandy loam, all of which are considered hydric by the National Technical Committee on Hydric
Soils. All of the wells in the pocosin community were placed in Croatan muck; therefore, differences in
groundwater levels are not attributable to soil type.
3.2.3 Bottomland Hardwood Community
Bottomland hardwood forest communities are located in areas where streams and rivers occasionally
flood beyond their channels and in deepwater swamps that are inundated for most of the growing season.
Soils in this community are generally alluvial sediment with textures ranging from silty clay to sand. The
canopies of broad-leaved deciduous forests within the monitoring areas are dominated by blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica), red maple (Ater rubrum), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua). Other common
mid-canopy species include American holly (Ilex opaca), red bay (Persea borbonia), sweetbay (Magnolia
virginiana), loblolly bay, and American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana).
Common shrubs of this community include inkberry, red bay, titi, fetterbush, highbush blueberry, wax
myrtle, evergreen bayberry (Morella carolineinsis [syn. Myrica heterophylla]), sweet pepperbush,
winterberry (Ilex verticillata), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis).
Soil types in the bottomland hardwood community include Mucklee loam and Woodington loamy fine
sand (USDA 1992). These soil types are considered hydric by the National Technical Committee on
Hydric Soils.
3-2 2006 Wetland Mitigation Report GSRA
C
O
u
y
d
L
d
W
G
R
Qa
C
O
b0
7
R
d
L
7
b0
Gz.
Q
C7
C
0
a
c
0
wi
v
m
3
N
METHODOLOGY
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
BIG SHAKEY SWAMP :NI1TIC:il'IO\ AREA
? Cimika t`ti ti?l. I)nui
il4itizabcsii Iloundu?
`. t<au, • .gym=:cy3
Figure 4-6. Location of check dams in Big Shakey Swamp.
4-10 2006 Wetland Mitigation Report GSRA
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune RESULTS
5.0 RESULTS
5.1 Lower SE Pocosin
Six hydrologic monitoring wells were monitored in the Lower SE Pocosin during the 2006 growing
season (Table 5-1). All six wells provide data and demonstrated wetland hydrology. Two wells, 20B and
21 H, did not provide data for the entire growing season due to mechanical malfunction. However, each
of these wells demonstrated wetland hydrology for more than one 12-day period during normal and below
normal rainfall (Table 5-1). Hydrographs for all monitoring wells in the Lower SE Pocosin showed
similar patterns (Appendix E). All wells providing data early in the growing season, a period with normal
and below normal rainfall, demonstrated that the soil was saturated within 12 in. of the surface during this
period. Therefore, it is likely that the soil in the vicinity of wells 20B and 21 H was also saturated within
12 in. of the surface early in the growing season (see Figure 4-4 for well locations).
Table 5-1. Hydromonitoring Wells in the Pocosin Community, 2006.
Site Number of Days Meeting
Hydrology Criteria Number of 12 Day Periods
Meeting Hydrology Criteria Met Hydrology
Criteria?
17B 139 8 Yes
19B 137 7 Yes
2013' 69 3 Yes
21H' 71 4 Yes
211 131 7 Yes
23B 139 8 Yes
Total 686 37
Average 114.3 6.2
'Wells did not provide data for the entire growing season, due to mechanical failure.
2006 Wetland Mitigation Report GSRA 5-1
RESULTS Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
5.2 Unditched Pocosin
Three wells were monitored in an unditched pocosin located to the north and east of the mitigation bank
as reference wells (Table 5-2). All three wells provided data and demonstrated wetland hydrology for the
2006 growing season. See Appendix F for hydrographs.
Table 5-2. Hydromonitoring Reference Wells, 2006.
site Number of Days Meeting
Hydrology Criteria Number of 12 Day Periods
Meeting Hydrology Criteria Met Hydrology
Criteria?
REF 1 103 6 Yes
REF 2 139 8 Yes
REF 3 139 8 Yes
5.3 Mitigation Bank Accounting
To date, 1,149.2 of the 1,250.5 acres in the wetland mitigation bank at GSRA have been approved for
credit release (Table 5-3). The 1,250.5 acres is composed of 1,022.3 acres of pocosin/pine flatwoods
wetlands with a 1.5 to 1 credit ratio (i.e., for every one acre of wetland impacted, 1.5 credits will be
deducted from the bank), and 228.2 acres of bottomland hardwood wetlands with a 3 to 1 credit ratio (i.e.,
for every one acre of bottomland hardwoods impacted, 3 credits will be deducted from the bank). 921 of
the 1,022.3 acres of pocosin/pine flatwoods in the mitigation bank have been approved for credit release.
All 228.2 acres of the bottomland hardwoods have been approved for credit release. Upon final approval,
the mitigation bank at GSRA will allow for unavoidable impacts to 681.5 acres of pocosin/pine flatwoods
wetlands and 76.1 acres of bottomland hardwoods.
To date 369.26 acres of wetlands have been unavoidably impacted for various GSRA and North Carolina
Department of Transportation projects. 323.74 of the 369.26 impacted acres were in pocosin/pine
flatwoods wetlands, while 42.52 impacted acres were in bottomland hardwood wetlands. Therefore,
613.17 credits of the possible 1,250.5 credits have already been used, including 127.56 of the possible
228.2 bottomland hardwood credits and 485.61 of the possible 1,022.3 pocosin/pine flatwoods credits. A
detailed list of projects and wetland acres impacted is provided in Appendix G.
5-2 2006 Wetland Mitigation Report GSRA
N
O
O
C
O.
a
e=r
(1Q
OO
0
t?

W
o ?
m ?
a- ?
w a
a
c ?
0
^o ?
O
O 0
w O
o
-n o
? o
M O
A
lD
ti
w
w
0
O
O
0
fD
OU
M
O
O
-1 w b to ^ m -n^ w
l 10

uq 0 0 0 0 o b o cro t
d
ro o°
w
0 0 C o 0 o _0
'.3 'd ?G N 'd R.

x CL

x O

x?
CD
CD

O? O p
Q. G
O
Cl.
O

a
y ?7
y
J N
V .-. N
N
0 OA C
N
N
) .N.)
0Np 00
J A -0
p W ? 00
00

V? 0
.? N .
W
.W.. 00
LA
`0. Oo eD
K
M r
a ? C7
n
M.

Q A
?O w
00 IJ
-• 00p 00
A J A
w p W
cn W 00
In J O p
"

°c
°..°a
W V,
min p <
n O -1 p
et C A

w01 W
A
i
^ w
A
t-j
i
v ?'???0
?O w N J w V
i N v W V
i tyo p
Ull
a\
-4
K A
? a

n
?
N w
W ON w O
W ?O w ?-.
NJ .--. _
? A .-•? _
p ?O
? ?. A? .a
p
^

00
O C.

W Q\ O C/i

N W

W G 00

:P tl1

00 00 W

t.A

00 7
y

y n A

A G
Q ?
y

OQ
ft d

?Wi W
O
W
Cl
O
O
W y m^' C n
ro A A
y ?

f
?p W ^'
W 'A
N A
O r.w 0.1 y .Y .'3

O 00
O
O
N
O W
C
?° A ?p `Wi 00 0 A ?W. i A 01
\p
u
p„
a
?
f
D w,y
a p
y
a_
fD
th
W
n
0
?o
W
A
A
O
r7

4
ON
n
O
G
CA
!D
n

t?
r
t?
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune 2006 SUMMARY
6.0 2006 SUMMARY
During the 2006 growing season all wells within the GSRA mitigation bank (six in the Lower SE Pocosin
and three in an unditched pocosin) demonstrated wetland hydrology for at least three 12-day periods
during normal and below normal rainfall. Although two wells in the Lower SE Pocosin did not produce
viable data early in the growing season, all other wells in the mitigation bank demonstrated wetland
hydrology during this period. Therefore, it is highly likely that the portion of the Lower SE Pocosin
where the two wells malfunctioned would have met the hydrology criteria early in the growing season.
Well data from the 2006 growing season conclusively indicates the successful restoration of wetland
hydrology in the Lower SE Pocosin and should result in the release of the remaining 101.3 credits in the
GSRA wetland mitigation bank.
The spillway constructed along South Pocosin Road in November 2006 should prevent the road from
washing out during high rainfall events thus preserving the integrity of the mitigation bank. Regular
maintenance inspections of the spillway and all other mitigation bank features (ditch plugs, culverts, and
check dams) to assess their condition and stability will be conducted in perpetuity as required in the
mitigation banking instrument.
To date 369.26 acres of wetlands have been unavoidably impacted for various GSRA and North Carolina
Department of Transportation projects, including 323.74 acres of pocosin/pine flatwoods and 45.52 acres
of bottomland hardwood wetlands. The loss of these wetlands has resulted in a deduction of 613.17
credits from the possible 1,250.5. 637.33 credits remain in the bank for GSRA projects, including 536.69
pocosin/pine flatwood and 100.64 bottomland hardwood credits. MCBCL will maintain accurate records
of debits made from the mitigation bank and annual reports will be submitted to the USACE, Wilmington
District and MBRT showing all credits used and the balance of credits remaining, until such time as all of
the credits have been used or the mitigation-banking instrument is terminated.
2006 Wetland Mitigation Final Report GSRA 6-1
r-
4
?

0
0
a
w
ca
0

9
14
w
3
r
N

7

S..
? c
4
O
O
O
Q
O
x
H
w
V
C4
P?
0
U
a?
0
vl

a
b
0
c
0
V
0
a
0
t-Z
4
a?
0
w
W- , A* Is ? =MW
Za As iL mim 2-6 a a a a I i L a

cn

v
0
0
Q
0
x
w

t
O ?
?
Q ?
w
a ?

z ?
?
o

Ca
s
?Q?I L

r

x o
c`o
V
O
a

e?
-A
7r
d
0
or
v
a
0
on
b
0
0
N
0
0
a?
b
a?
0
0
N
4
a?
a?

a?
rn
U
W
H
U
W
ti
O
zQ
Q
W
O
a
a
4
c?
an
W

tow, am aw
?! ! ! ! ! !

H
U
W
ti
W
O
Q
z
w
0
a
x
a
N
ccS
N
C~
nU
?o
a?
_ o
0
5 C
W
N
N
i,
bA
W
jc?
ri
Q
L?
V)
C?
O
CL4
u
Cy
O
bq
b
cC