20001085 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_19971028

1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
GREATER SANDY RUN AREA
WETLANDS MITIGATION DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING STUDY 95-10
FINAL MITIGATION BANK PLAN
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

Naval Facilities Engineering Command
DEWBERRY &'DAVIS
in cooperation with
TRIANGLE WETLAND CONSULTANTS, INC.
October 28, 1997
_ GREATER SANDY RUN AREA
WETLANDS MITIGATION DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING STUDY 95-10
FINAL MITIGATION BANK PLAN
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

U
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
DEWBERRY &*DAVIS
in cooperation with
TRIANGLE WETLAND CONSULTANTS, INC.
October 28, 1997
r_?
1
1
i

1
1
1
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1. INTRODUCTION
2.2 HYDROLOGIC REGIME
2.3 SOILS
2.4 VEGETATION
2.4.1 HGM Types
2.4.2 Plant Community Types
2.5 LOCATION OF HGM TYPES
3.0 MITIGATION BANK DEVELOPMENT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 HYDROLOGY
3.3 VEGETATION
3.4 SOILS
3.5 REMEDIATION MEASURES
3.5.1 Drainage Ditch Alteration
3.5.2 Planting Plan
3.6 MONITORING
3.6.1 Mitigation Implementation Sequence
3.6.2 Mitigation Implementation Record
3.6.3 Hydrology
3.6.4 Soils
3.6.5 Vegetation
3.6.6 Observation
3.6.7 Success Criteria
4.0 MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS
4.1 CONTINGENCY PLANS
4.1.1 Herbivory
4.1.2 Fire
4.1.3 Noxious Vegetation
4.1.4 Drought/Storms
4.2 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
4.3 MITIGATION BANK INSTRUMENT
4.4 CREDITING/DEBITING/ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES
4.5 RESPONSIBLE SPONSOR
5.0 REFERENCES
Mitigation Bank Plan
TOC I
1

GSR,4 Wetlands Mitigation Development

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Master Development Plan
Figure 3
Figure 4 HGM Types within GSRA
Proposed Pocosin and Burned Pine Plantation Mitigation Areas
Figure 5 Proposed Bottomland Hardwood Mitigation Area
Figure 6 Monitoring Well Locations in Proposed Mitigation and Surrounding Areas
Figure 7 Pocosin Reference Well #2
Figure 8 Pocosin Reference Well #3
Figure 9 Pocosin Reference Well #12A
Figure 10 April 1994 Photograph of Burned Pine Plantation Area
Figure 11 Proposed Pocosin and Burned Pine Plantation Areas with NRCS Soils Delineations
Figure 12 Proposed Bottomland Hardwood Area with NRCS Soils Delineations
Figure 13 Proposed Pocosin and Burned Pine Plantation Mitigation Areas with Ditch Plug
Locations
Figure 13AWater Control Structures For Burned Pine Plantation Mitigation Area
Figure 14 Proposed Bottomland Hardwood Mitigation Area with Timber Dam, Monitoring Well
and Vegetation Plot Locations
Figure 15 Timber Dam Detail
Figure 16 Planting Plan for Burned Pine Plantation Mitigation Area
Figure 17 Proposed Pocosin and Burned Pine Plantation Areas with Monitoring Well and
Vegetation Plot Locations
Figure 17AProposed Monitoring Well Locations in Sister Drain to Big Shakey Swamp
Figure 18 Boundary of Big Shakey Swamp
Figure 19 Boundary of the Pocosin and Burned Pine Plantation
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of soil types within GSRA
Table 2. Delineation of HGM and community types and subtypes at GSRA
Table 3. Relative Species Mix for Burned Pine Plantation Mitigation Site
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE UNDER SEPARATE COVER
Phase I - HGM/Habitat Model Parameter Selection Report
Phase II - HGM/Habitat Model Functional Analysis
Mitigation Ratio Development
Memorandum of Agreement
Hydrologic Monitoring Reports
` Drainmod Study
I Mitigation Bank Plan TOC 2
n
1
I GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Greater Sandy Run Area (GSRA) contains approximately 41,000 acres and is located to the
southwest of the Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune (MCBCL) in Onslow County, North Carolina.
- The property is bounded by U.S. Highway 17 to the east and southeast, State Road 50 to the
southwest and west, and Padgett, Haws Run, Dawson Cabin, and High Hill Roads to the north (see
Figure 1). This property was purchased in 1992 to alleviate deficiencies in training areas and
available firing ranges at the MCBCL. The master plan for GSRA calls for ten training ranges and
i ancillary support facilities (see Figure 2).
Silvicultural activities dating back over four decades has left the majority of the GSRA ditched,
drained and dominated by pine plantations at various stages of development. Due to the significant
amount of degradation caused by prior land management practices, many of the areas once
considered wetlands are now altered. In the GSRA, determining what qualifies as a jurisdictional
wetland under the 1987 manual requires a fair amount of judgement. For instance, a ditched and
drained pocosin system can still have the appropriate wetland vegetation and organic soil, but
determining if the hydrologic indicators are present is where significant judgement is involved. This
determination is key for judging if the area in question is a degraded but still viable wetland, or
whether the hydrologic parameter for determining jurisdictional wetland status is absent.
The MCBCL has worked diligently since January of 1994 to prepare and gain approval of a
mitigation plan for the GSRA. During the course of the past two years, the MCBCL has worked side
by side with the Corps of Engineers (COE) to collect the information necessary to decide the
hydrologic regime of the potential Mitigation Banks. At great expense, the MCBCL placed 166
ground water monitoring wells throughout the Mitigation Banks based on a plan conceived and
approved in conjunction with the COE Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg,
Mississippi. In addition to the well placement, two methods currently under development by the
COE were utilized for the wetland functional analysis, the Hydrogeomorphic Methodology (HGM)
and Habitat Value Assessment (HVA). The HVA is based on the Wildlife Community Habitat
Evaluation model.
Field tours were conducted at critical stages in the development of the models to allow
representatives from all interested regulatory agencies a chance to gain first hand knowledge of the
plant communities and HGM types within the GRSA and participate in the selection of components
to be included in the functional analysis. By working together, a mutual understanding of the
existing GSRA ecosystem was reached along with mitigation efforts which may best serve the
overall system.
11
1
Mitigation Bank Plan Page 1
1
1
1
1
1
r
r
i
r
i
i
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
J MOFFMANM J/ • , ?+
s I
FOREST i •
i
?. cgwm
R. ? .......: -:::. CAMP \
EWE
s ?rt
40 •.
S
AVOY BWI
Al1EA ??
L : z".6
401
OHMS iswo w PON
0 1000 10000 21000 _-?.
4
Z
: I
0
Figure 1 -- Vicinity Map
Source: Greater Sandy Run Area Master Development Plan
Multi Project Mitigation Area Plan Page 2
1
1
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development

P-949 Multi-Purpose
Training Range (MPI'R) SR-7
P-935B Multi-Purpose Machine
Gun Range (MPMG) SR-3 OP- P-934B Multi-Purpose

3 Machine Gun Range
P-935B Anti-Armour r (1VIPMG) SR-8
Tracking Range
SR-4 -935 Anti-Amour
P-1
king Range
Tracking

HIZ 1
V P-934A Multi-Purpose
Gunnery Range ange SR-2
Gunnery Machine Gun Range
(MPMG) SR-9
P-935A Infantry Squad
Battle Course USBC) SR-1 P-934A Range Control
& Range Maintenance
P-935A Infantry Platoon OP-120
4 Buildings
Battle Course (IPBC) Battalion Bivouac Area #I
SR-6 Helicopter Drop Zone ' Ibrkey
-8
OP ZZ Battalion Bivouac Area #2
P-933 Multi-Purpose
Range Complex (MPTR)
SR-10 jIRC.M
? 125' Observation lbwer
¦ Helicopter Landing Zone (MU
O Battalion Bivouac Area
0.11 ¦ Strucare

5 - Access Road
TacticaUPerimeter Road
P-934A Mock Maintenance
Tank Trail
Building
P-934A Mock Terminal
D p ftopenY Line

` Clear Zone
P-934A Mock ControlTower
P-934A Mock Hangars OSurfhce Danger Zone
200' Microwave 'Rower

Figure 2 -- Master Development Plan
Source: Greater Sandy Run Area Master Development Plan

ion Area Plan
Mu ti Project MitigRt Page 3

GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
1 2.1 INTRODUCTION
Preliminary assessment of the GSRA was conducted during May 1995, during which more than 200
detailed sample plots were established. The sample plots were concentrated in areas with potential
impacts due to new training facility construction and potential Mitigation Banks. The preliminary
data included basal area of overstory species; coverage estimates of sapling, shrub, and herbaceous
species; information regarding soil morphology; estimates of fire frequency/intensity; depth to water
table; stand age; various wildlife habitat parameters; and distance to ditches. For a detailed account
of all the information collected and analyzed, see the Phase I - HGM\HABITAT Model Parameter
Selection report.
The majority of GSRA was acquired from International Paper Company (36,500 acres). During the
1980's, International Paper Company intensively managed portions of the site for forest products and
installed extensive ditch systems in the north pocosin, south pocosin, and wet mineral flats
surrounding the pocosin areas. Many of the non-alluvial hardwood and alluvial hardwood forests
were channelized prior to the 1980's, presumably to facilitate drainage and access to large diameter
cypress (Taxodium distichum) in these stands. During the early 1990's, many pine stands were clear
cut and abandoned. Presumably, this lack of site preparation and regeneration was due to the
pending acquisition of GSRA by MCBCL. Today, many of these previously harvested pine stands
have naturally regenerated to mixed pine-hardwood or hardwood stands. Although fire suppression
has continued on GSRA, there have been several recent fires that have completely destroyed
overstory pine trees. Specifically, pine plantations adjacent to the southern border of the south
pocosin, in the central portion of P-949, and north of Moore's Ridge Road near U.S. Highway 17
have been altered by recent, intense fires. These burned areas are characterized by a dominant
herbaceous/low shrub stratum with complete overstory mortality.
2.2 HYDROLOGIC REGIME
Drainage from GSRA is mostly to the west, through Juniper Swamp Creek and Holly Shelter Swamp
Creek. Great Sandy Run Pocosin is divided by a low sand ridge (Moore's Ridge Road) into the north
pocosin and south pocosin. The north pocosin primarily drains into Holly Shelter Swamp Creek.
However, the south pocosin drains into both Holly Shelter Swamp Creek and Juniper Swamp Creek.
Much of the drainage on the eastern side of GSRA between the pocosin areas and U.S. Highway 17
flows into the pocosins. The impact area for P-949 drains into the north pocosin, and the impact area
for P-933 flows into Juniper Swamp Creek. Other than the bottomland hardwood sites, the majority
of GSRA is strongly influenced by seasonal precipitation and evapotranspiration.
1
I Mitigation Bank Plan Page 4
1
1

[l

t

t
1

L

1
L
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
2.3 SOILS
GSRA is entirely within the Lower Coastal Plain Physiographic Province and is characterized by
poorly drained, broad, interstream divides. Great Sandy Run Pocosin and White Oak Pocosin
(Hoffman Forest) are examples of the thick organic deposits that have formed in some of these
interstream divides within Onslow County. A variety of soil types occur within GSRA (Table 1).
Foreston loamy fine sand is a non-hydric soil mapping unit, and Stallings loamy fine sand is a
mapping unit with hydric inclusions. Both mapping units primarily support flatwoods plant
community types. Croatan muck is a hydric mapping unit and primarily supports pocosin plant
community types. Leon fine sand, Murville fine sand, and Torhunta fine sandy loam are hydric
mapping units and primarily support flatwoods plant community types. Muckalee loam is a hydric
mapping unit and supports both non-alluvial hardwood forest and alluvial forest types. Woodington
loamy fine sand is a hydric mapping unit and supports both non-alluvial hardwood forest and
flatwoods plant community types.
Table 1. Summary of soil types within GSRA'
Soil series Mapping
Symbol Soil subgroup
Croatan muck Ct Terric Medisaprists
Foreston loamy fine sand FoA Aquic Paleudults
Leon fine sand Ln Aeric Haplaquods
Murville fine sand Mu Typic Haplaquods
Muckalee loam Mk Typic Fluvaquents
Stallings loamy fine sand St Aeric Paleaquults
Torhunta fine sandy loam To Typic Humaquepts
Woodington loamy fine sand Wo Typic Paleaquults
' Source: (Barnhill, 1992)
2.4 VEGETATION
Field reconnaissance was conducted to determine the HGM and plant community types within the
GSRA. A brief description of the types identified is listed below. For a detailed account of each
type, see the Phase I - HGM\HABITAT Model Parameter Selection report.
Mitigation Bank Plan Page 5

1
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
2.4.1 HGM Types
Wet Mineral Flats
Wet mineral flats within the GSRA consist of broad flat/depressional areas with no apparent
inlets or outlets. These areas generally correspond to the pine savanna and wet pine
flatwoods plant community types of Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Non-Alluvial Hardwood Forest
Non-alluvial hardwood forests within the GSRA consist of narrow linear headwater areas
along first order drainages adjacent to wet mineral flats. These first order drainages feed into
both pocosin areas and larger second and third order alluvial bottomland hardwood forests.
The non-alluvial hardwood forest type corresponds to the Coastal Plain small stream swamp,
nonriverine wet hardwood forest, and nonriverine swamp forest plant community types of
Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Pocosin
Pocosin areas within the GSRA consist of broad organic flats or ombrotrophic bogs. These
areas correspond to the low pocosin, high pocosin, pond pine woodland, and bay forest plant
community types of Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Alluvial Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Alluvial bottomland hardwood forests within the GSRA consist of second or third order
streams with a defined channel and alluvial features such as stream levee, drift lines, and
sediment deposits. These areas generally correspond to the coastal plain bottomland
hardwoods (blackwater subtype) plant community of Schafale and Weakley (1990).
2.4.2 Plant Community Types
The plant community types described here are the result of field reconnaissance of GSRA
and generally follow the appropriate community types outlined in Schafale and Weakley
(1990) (Table 2). These plant community descriptions facilitated recognition of HGM types
in the field and provided a framework for location of detailed HGM study sites.
I Mitigation Bank Plan Page 6
1

I GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development

r

t
1

J

1

Table 2. Delineation of HGM and community types and Subtypes at GSRA
HGM Type' HGM Indicators
Subtype
Wet mineral flats Mesic - wet mineral soils lacking spodic
(PF04E, PF03/4E) mineral flat horizon but may have organic
streaking (Woodington,
Plant community type(s): Stallings, Torhunta)
- pine savanna
- pine plantation - high landscape position
- pond pine woodland
- early successional mineral flat Hydric - wet mineral soils with spodic
(mixed,pine,hardwood) mineral flat horizon (Leon, Murville)
- frequently burned areas mapped
as Croatan muck
- high landscape position
Pocosin (PSS313g, PF03/4Cg) ----- - thick organic soils or histic
epipedon (Croatan)
Plant community type(s): - lack of flowing water
- low pocosin - intermediate landscape position
- high pocosin - includes high and low pocosin
plant communities
Non-alluvial bottomland hardwood forest ----- - minimal or no evidence of
(PFOIAB) alluvial features but with
flowing/standing water
Plant community type: - organic muck or wet mineral
- mixed bottomland hardwoods soils (Muckalee, Woodington)
- intermediate to low landscape
position.
Alluvial bottomland hardwood ----- - alluvial features such as natural
forest (PFOIAB) stream channel, drift lines, water
marks, & sediment deposits
Plant Community type: - organic muck soils (Muckalee)
- mixed bottomland hardwoods - low landscape position
' Wetland classification(s) in parentheses according to Cowardin et al. (1979)
I Mitigation Bank Plan Page 7
t

u

GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
Pine savanna
Pine savanna within GSRA is characterized by scattered overstory pines (longleaf, loblolly,
and pond pine) and a low understory (<I m) dominated by shrubs or herbs. Pine savanna
occurs on wet to dry soil types. Common shrub species include inkberry (Ilex glabra),
dangle-berry (Gaylussacia frondosa), and horse-sugar (Symplocos tinctoria). The dominant
herbaceous species is usually wiregrass (Aristida stricta), but a variety of other species may
be present.
Pine plantation

1

1
11

1
ri
Extensive loblolly pine plantations have been established within the GSRA. Pond pine has
become established in certain plantations and generally survives following intense wildfires.
Longleaf pine is not a component of these stands. Depending on the degree of wetness and
fire history, a variety of understory types have developed. In wet stands with infrequent or
low intensity fire a high shrub stratum of red maple, red titi, gallberry holly (Ilex coriacea),
inkberry holly, fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), and swamp blackgum becomes established. In
drier stands with recent fire a low shrub stratum (<1m) of inkberry, dangle-berry, horse-
sugar, and gale-leaf blueberry (Vaccinium tenellum) develops.
Pond pine/bay flat
The pond pine/bay flat can best be described as a pocosin-like plant community over a wet
spodosol (Leon or Murville series). This community is characterized by scattered pond pine
with a sapling stratum of loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), sweetbay (Magnolia
virginiana), and redbay (Persea borbonia). In recently burned areas a low shrub stratum
develops and resembles the low pocosin type. Characteristic species include honey-cup,
fetterbush, red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), red titi, gallerry holly, and dahoon holly (Ilex
cassine).
Pond pine woodland
Pond pine woodland is characterized by a higher density of pond pine than that of low or
high pocosin, sometimes forming a closed canopy. This community type occurs on shallow
organic deposits (<lm) and oligotrophic mineral soils. The understory and low shrub strata
are characterized by the same species found in the low and high pocosin types.
Mitigation Bank Plan
Page 8
P
I
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
Early successional flatwoods
The early successional flatwoods type encompasses a broad array of recently disturbed plant
communities. These communities have either been recently clear cut or burned by intense
wildfire. Depending on the composition of overstory and understory species prior to
disturbance, these communities are regenerating to a variety of flatwoods types (pine,
hardwood, or mixed). The successional pathway of these communities will depend on a
variety of factors including frequency of fire and site wetness.
Low pocosin/high pocosin
i
d
f
h
i
h
e vegetat
on an
t
g
t o
These two plant community types are distinguished based on the he
depth of organic layer (Weakley and Schafale, 1991). Low pocosins occur on deep organic
deposits (>lm) and are characterized by a low shrub stratum (<1.5m ht.) of honey-cup,
i fetterbush, red titi, dohoon holly, and galberry holly. High pocosins occur on shallower
organic deposits (<lm) or oligotrophic mineral soils and are characterized by vegetation
between 1.5m and 3.Om in height with scattered pond pine. The plant community is
dominated by a high shrub stratum of loblolly bay, sweetbay, redbay, red titi, and dahoon
holly with a low shrub stratum of honey-cup and fetterbush.
Swamp blackgum forest
The swamp blackgum forest type occurs within the alluvial and non-alluvial hardwood forest
types. We concluded that this forest type is the result of "high-grading" or selective logging
of large cypress and Atlantic white-cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) trees within these
stands. Although some cypress and red maple occur as a codominant species, these stands
are mostly dominated by swamp blackgum. The sapling stratum is usually dominated by red
titi, red maple, sweetbay, swamp blackgum, redbay, and American holly (Ilex opaca). The
understory is composed of Virginia willow (Itea virginica), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium
corymbosum), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), chain fern (Woodwardia spp.), and
greenbriar (Smilax spp.).
Mixed deciduous bottomland hardwood forest
This plant community type occurs within the alluvial and non-alluvial hardwood forest types.
In these stands swamp blackgum is present as a canopy species mixed with red maple,
cypress, sweetgum, loblolly pine, sweetbay, and American holly. The sapling stratum is
usually dominated by red titi, red maple, swamp blackgum, redbay, and American holly. The
understory is composed of Virginia willow, highbush blueberry, sweet pepperbush, chain
fern, and greenbriar.

Mitigation Bank Plan
Page 9
L

1

1

ri
r,

1

GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
Cypress bay forest
Cypressibay forest occurs on shallow organic deposits and oligotrophic mineral soils. The
overstory is dominated by cypress, loblolly bay, red titi, sweetbay, red bay, swamp
blackgum, red maple, and pond pine. The understory is composed of those species found in
the latter three plant community types.
2.5 LOCATION OF HGM TYPES
Based on the extensive field data collected, 14 key locations were identified as being representative
of the different HGM types within GSRA. Of the 14, ten are located within GSRA, three on main
base (reference sites), and one within the proposed NCDOT right-of-way. Quantitative data was
collected at all 14 sites and index equations developed for scaling the hydrologic, biogeochemical,
and habitat functions of the different HGM types. From the detailed information, HGM types were
then identified for areas within the training range clear zones identified on the GSRA master
development plan (see Figure 3). Pine plantations dominate the HGM type which may experience
impacts from range construction. Since a bedded pine planation is not a natural community type,
replacing it was not viewed as the best alternative to benefit the over all system. In order to assess
HGM functional values across wetland types, a direct comparison of the different HGM types was
required. To accomplish this comparison, it was necessary to slightly modify the HGM approach
currently being formulated by Brinson and Rheinhart. For an explanation of the HGM methodology
and results, see the Phase II HGM\Habitat Model Functional Analysis report.
3.0 MITIGATION BANK DEVELOPMENT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of creating the GSRA Mitigation Bank is to provide compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable non-tidal freshwater wetland impacts.
The goal of the Mitigation Bank is to provide benefits on a system-wide basis by returning a more
natural hydro period to the mitigation areas which in turn will enhance the associated downstream
systems. The hydrologic regime of the major drainage systems, Holly Shelter and Juniper Creek
Swamps, has been severely altered by the past forest management practices. The systems are
"flashy," that is, stormwater runoff is conveyed through and offsite in an expedient fashion.
Subsurface water storage is limited, leading to higher fluctuation in groundwater levels than natural
systems. The Mitigation Bank constitutes a portion of the headwaters of both systems. By
modifying the current drainage patterns back to a more natural state, the stormwater will have a
chance to infiltrate and discharge over a longer period of time.
Mitigation Bank Plan Page 10

1.
1
1
1
r

f
1

1

1

1
Ll
1
LEGEND
CUTOVER / BURNED - MGM DESCRIPTION
PINE (PF-4) . MGM DETAILED PLOT ASSIGYEN
PLANT COYYUNTITES / MGM TYPES
ABH(C) ALLUVIAL BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD
FOREST (CHANNLIZED)
NBH - NONALLUVIAL BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD
WMF H/D) WET MINERAL FLAT/HYDRIC/DITCHED
WYF(Y3 WET YINERAL FLAT/ MESIC
POC D POCOSIN DITCHED
Dw6ow ! awls
FIGURE 3.
HGM TYPES WITHIN GSRA
wr To mu

1

1
1
1

GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
The proposed GSRA Mitigation Bank consists of three restoration sites; two are located in and
adjacent to the southern portion of the south pocosin. The third is located south of Range P-933
within the Big Shakey Swamp (see Figures 4 and 5). All three areas are extensively ditched and the
burned pine plantation area has only sparse vegetation. An existing road (Watershed Road) bisects
the pocosin and burned pine plantation areas. The road acts as the high point and water drains from
it to both the pocosin and pine plantation. The pocosin area drains to Holly Shelter Swamp, whereas
the pine plantation and Big Shakey Swamp areas drain to Juniper Creek Swamp.
The Big Shakey Swamp area will be restored\enhanced by placing timber dams at 400 foot intervals
within the existing channel. The dams will allow the system to detain water and realize overbank
flooding conditions similar to the historical natural state. The pocosin area will be restored by
placing ditch plugs at key points throughout the extensive ditch network. The plugs will help elevate
the groundwater back to the levels experienced prior to the area being drained for silvicultural
activities. The surface and groundwater levels in the burned pine plantation will be enhanced by
plugging the existing ditches at key locations and by placing a temporary water control structure at
an existing culvert location. This combination will allow the natural hydrology to return, while
allowing the actual surface water level to vary based on actual field conditions. This feature is
important as this area will also be replanted with cypress and various oak and pine species. The
vegetation planted will need time to become established prior to completely inundating the area. The
planting plan calls for a bottomland hardwood area surrounded by a combination of pond pine and
long leaf pine. A more detailed account of the remediation measures for the Mitigation Bank may
be found in Section 3.5 of this plan.
The restoration sites contain the following acreage:
Restoration Site Area (acres)
High/low pocosin 886.8
Burned pine plantation:
Pine Flatwood 135.5
Bottomland hardwood 84.8
Big Shakey Swamp 143.4
Total 1250.5

1
I Mitigation Bank Plan Page 12

1

1
1

1

1
1

1

C V
3 Z
>
o a?i
? J
v
C7 U
p Z
°
I
Q N
z W
F
n
w It U a Q
m
z s
r W QO W
z to ?O
8 z
-
_
j
L
L-
3 U) -
d W

d =
M
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
U
? Z
N
L J
a?
0E
U
Z Z`ZZ
w
J
0
W
Z
Z Of
¢
gZ
O
Lo r ?-
Lj 0
m
Q
LLJ
O O
03
dcr
W
0
3 rr
Z V1 I
W
W
2
? J m D
JAJa oZ W
N
?C) WN
"
?ZZ
=
m
z Q U.Q.
Cl- Of
N
m
Q o ?
V)
0
W
N w
J Y
W Q
Z =
Z N
I (N
a
U m
CL =
m m to
Q Z. i
r
V) W
Y
? a
W =
Z C?
m
1

L?
1

1

1

GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
3.2 HYDROLOGY
There is an ongoing groundwater hydrology study being conducted for the proposed Mitigation
Bank. The latest hydrologic monitoring report covers the timeframe from, 1 February to 1 July
1996. In addition, this baseline data can assist in determining the remediation requirements
necessary to restore each area to a fully functional wetland. Figure 6 shows the location of the wells
in the proposed mitigation and surrounding areas.
Based on the well data, the majority of the proposed pocosin mitigation area would not meet the
hydrologic requirements to be classified as a wetland during the "normalized" rainfall periods or
during any portion of the data collection period. The only wells which met the Corps criterion
during the latest timeframe were 21E, 21I, and 23A. This was due to the placement of ditch plugs
in the vicinity of these wells during the winter of 1995 and spring of 1996. The pocosin reference
wells 1 and 2 have qualified as meeting the requirements since the inception of the monitoring
program, with well 2 also meeting the criterion during the latest timeframe. By reviewing the data
for reference wells, a distinct difference can be noted in the groundwater levels and the reaction to
a rainfall event for these areas versus the ditched pocosins (see Figures 7, 8, and 9). The reference
areas maintain a groundwater level near 12 inches below surface on a regular basis which then rises
in response to a rainfall event and maintains that higher level for a longer period than the ditched
areas.
The proposed burned pine plantation mitigation area showed the tendency to have wetland hydrology
at the initiation of the monitoring period in October, 1994 and during the spring and early summer
of 1996. The data reflects that the northwest corner of the mitigation area does meet the Corps
hydrologic criterion. A field inspection yielded that this area normally would be drained by a ditch
system and downstream culvert, but due to lack of maintenance and debris blocking the culvert, the
drainage system is not functioning properly. The mitigation area downstream of the culvert is
visibly drier. This observation leads to the conclusion that plugging the ditches and/or placing
control structures at culvert locations will effectively restore the hydrologic regime to the entire
mitigation area.
There are nine monitoring wells located within Big Shakey Swamp. Wells 13-1 through 13-8 during
the first full year of monitoring, showed that during periods of normal rainfall, the area would not
meet the wetland hydrologic requirements. The well data also indicates the ditching pattern
successfully drains the area quickly. In periods of higher than normal rainfall, the area has a
tendency to remain wet for longer periods of time. This may indicate the ditch capacity is exceeded
and the excess water is discharged into the overbank areas. By strategically plugging the ditches,
this overbank flooding should occur on a frequent basis, returning the natural hydrology to the
system. During the monitoring period from 1 February to 1 July 1996, wells 13-2, 13-3, 13-5 and
13-7 displayed wetland hydrology. All of these wells measure the groundwater, whereas wells 13-4,
Mitigation Bank Plan Page 15

1

1

1
1
F]

1
1

1

GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
13-8 and 13-9 measure surface water. This is important to consider since the latter wells are located
nearest the channel and do not meet the hydrologic criterion. This indicates, for this region of the
mitigation area, that the channel is adept in lowering the water table and reducing any potential
surface water storage.. To evaluate the effectiveness of the channel on water table Drayton, a brief
DRAINMOD model was developed by Dr. Devendra M. Amatya. This study indicated that for
about 2.1 inches/day of precipitation runoff, the channel could reduce the water table elevations for
a distance of approximately 200 feet. Based on the results of this study and field observations, the
ditched area north of the southern most well transect ( wells 13-1 to 13-4), could be enhanced by
placing timber dams at about 400 foot intervals. The limits of the enhancement area are set at a
distance of 200 feet from the centerline of the channel. While the mitigation area located south of
the referenced well transect has not been monitored, field observations indicate it is significantly
drier than the northern area. For this area, timber dams will be placed at approximately 400 foot
intervals. This should allow for longer detention time, greater overbank flooding and increase the
water table elevations. The historic mapping for the Muckalee Loam (Mk) soils series has been used
as a guide in establishing the boundaries for the southern two-thirds of the mitigation area. The
mitigation area varies from the Mk soils boundary to include two tributary fingers. A distance of
200 feet from the centerline of each tributary was established for these areas. The upper extent of
the finger areas were limited to the historical floodplain limit. To the south of the tributaries, the
mitigation area was set using a combination of the Mk soils line and a distance of 200 feet from the
centerline of the channel. As before, the extent of the mitigation area was limited to the historical
floodplain limit. This mitigation area will be monitored for both surface water inundation and
groundwater levels.
It is the intention of MCBCL to enhance and continue intensive monitoring of all three mitigation
areas. The monitoring will continue through the entire period of restoration activities, culminating
when the Corps Hydrologic criterion is met.
Mitigation Bank Plan Page 16

1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C/) o cn
OS6
U p <
Z w 3 M C7
g Z w J
O z U) a: L,
0?a0
03 w In J 3 ; LLZEr
?
0
(? ? Q ~ Q
Z
O
s
2
Rk
gYg
esw ?
3 Y • ??,
s ; !L. ??
= E ? s
a i : ab3 ??
a
` s
0
9 • Q'
6
w
W
w
N
U
? ?• J; w
3 K
{ 3 a
a
0
w
o
CL
?- w
c
• O
s z
O
Z
O
F
u
0
0
O
T
N,C. RT, w
50 u
:
0
s N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
(sepui) JJBJUIBa
?i. M ? 1 i\
>'N
CD CD
Q 3
o?
mr cc

3>
m
10
-4ew-80
CO
56-Jdd 6Z
O
LO
Figure 7 -- Pocosin Reference Well #2
Source: Geo-Marine, Inc.
Multi Project Mitigation Area Plan
Page 18
CV Cn It
(say0ui) yldea
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
(seyoui) llejuiea
L O d' M N O
'S6-?eW-9l

M 56-AeW-60 a

M
Uy-

0 V 56-?ceW-Zp ?

ROD (D
CD
0D
4-0
e
v
ss-ode sz
O O O O O O O' S fi-Jdy-g L
N CY) Lid
(seyoui) yjdea
Figure 8 -- Pocosin Reference Well #3
Source: Geo-Marine, Inc.
Multi Project Mitigation Area Plan Page 19
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
(sayoui) lle juiea
LO ct M N O
96-AeW-O L
56-AeW-£0
oa
N
Q ?
L m>
2
56-Jd"Z

56-Jctd-6 L

96-Jdd-Z L G
v
CO
96-Jdvf-9O m

s6-JeW-6Z
CO

g6-JeW-ZZ
o : 56-JeW-S L

R
56-JBW-80

96-JeW-LO
O O O O O O O
N CV) LO
(say0ui) yldaQ
Figure 9 -- Pocosin Reference Well #12A
Source: Geo-Marine, Inc.
Multi Project Mitigation Area Plan Page 20
GSKA Wetlands Mitigation Development
3.3 VEGETATION
The pocosin and hardwood bottom areas have established vegetation similar to that described in
Section 2.4.
Selective logging in the Big Shakey Swamp has slightly altered species composition. The majority
of Atlantic white cedar and large cypress have been removed, leaving swamp blackgum as the
dominate species.
The pine plantation area burned in August 1993. Figure 10 is a photograph of the area taken in April
1994.

3M
'r,
rr
F '
.`R.
Figure 10 -- April 1994
Photograph of Burned Pine Plantation Area
This area has some natural regeneration but is largely dominated by bracken fern.
Llulti Project litigation Area Plan Page 21

I GSR,4 Wetlands Mitigation Development
3.4 SOILS
There are six types of soils within the proposed Mitigation Bank, Croatan muck (Ct), Leon fine sand
(Ln), Torhunta fine sandy loam (To), Muckalee loam (Mk), Murville fine sand (Mu), and Woodington
loamy fine sand (Wo) (see Figures 11 and 12). All of these soil types are considered hydric by the
' National Technical Committee of Hydric Soils List. The vast majority of area is Crotan muck, a
nearly level, very poorly drained soil. Infiltration is moderate and surface runoff is very slow.
Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is high. This soil has a high organic matter
content in the surface layer and has high volume change when it dries. The seasonal high water table
is at or near the surface. This soil is subject to rare flooding. Torhunta's soil characteristic are similar
to Croatan muck, with the exception of ponding water on the surface during the winter months.
Muckalee loam is a poorly drained soil located on floodplains. It has the same infiltration and
permeability characteristics as Croatan muck, but its available water capacity is medium. The organic
matter content in the surface layer varies from high to low. The seasonal high water table ranges from
0.5 to 1.5 feet below the surface. Murville fine sand has the same infiltration, permeability, and water
capacity characteristics as Muckalee loam. Organic matter content in the surface layer is high. The
seasonal water table is at or near the surface and water ponds on the surface during the winter.
Woodington loamy fine sand is similar to Murville with the exception of the seasonal high water table
ranges from 0.5 to 1.0 foot below the surface and is only subject to occasional ponding of surface
water in low areas. Leon fine sand is a poorly drained soil usually located on uplands near broad
interstream divides. Infiltration is rapid and surface runoff is slow. Permeability is rapid in the
surface layer and moderate in the subsoil. Available water capacity is low. The seasonal high water
table is at or near the surface.
' The fire which occurred in August 1993 burned away the peat layer (Croatan muck) in the pine
plantation area. The substrate now consists of mostly mineral soil. Given the loss of 6 - 8 inches of
soil in the fire, restoring the hydrology to the area may actually result in surface flooding and open
water in the area. To minimize any potential flooding problems, the water levels in this area will be
controlled by ditch plugs and\or water control structures at culvert locations. The ditch plugs and
water control structures can be adjusted to accommodate for field conditions present throughout the
restoration period.
The soil types identified have and are capable of supporting the proposed wetland systems.
3.5 REMEDIATION MEASURES
1

1
3.5.1 Drainage Ditch Alteration
Each mitigation area: pocosin, burned pine plantation and Big Shakey Swamp, have been
thoroughly ditched and drained. Ditches in the pocosin and burned pine plantation will be
plugged at locations which correspond to about a three inch difference in gradient (see Figure
13). The ditch plugs will be constructed using on-site bank spoil whenever possible. If
necessary, borrow material of sand/loam and sand/sandy loam composition will be imported.
The ditch plugs will be armored with rip rap for protection against the anticipated higher water
levels. In addition to the ditch plugs, a temporary water control structure will be placed at an
Mitigation Bank Plan Page 22
1

I GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
existing culvert location within the burned pine plantation (see Figure 13). The water control
structure incorporates pvc pipes at multiple elevations such that surface water elevations can
be manipulated at six inch intervals. Depending on how the system responds to the initial
controls placed, a key ditch plug can be modified to include surface water control (see Figure
13A). Once the desired water level is achieved, the water control structure(s) will be replaced
by a permanent earthen dam constructed to the identified elevation. The dam will be
constructed out of the same materials as the ditch plugs. Timber dams will be placed in the
drainage ditch bisecting Big Shakey Swamp (See Figure 14 for dam locations). The dams will
be constructed out 6" x 6" pressure treated timbers (see Figure 15). Timber dams are a
permanent, low maintenance way to promote greater detention and over bank flooding. Minor
adjustments of the dams, either in location or vertical height, can be made depending on how
the system responds to the initial dam placement.
I
I
1
1
1
Mitigation Bank Plan Page 23
t
1
1
1
1
1
b
1
1
1
i
t
1
1
Z
z zZ
cU ? Z¢3?
0 8:5
C V a W W
c. Z 2 H d W Q 0
vv z
Nam G?odZJ
?J 3 ?W 00
OWQN
E a. z (n
v o cr
C9U am?z
z
??? Z J c
J
?Z C
?r p J
g
z G d
U J _ZO~ c
C J
a
J U a
O
CL O o
r
U c
= J
c
J
? W
Z
C.) ?y J C
C9 J
w z
Z O
z o- a.
qto
z"m
!3
O
H
O
H
W z
z
z
O Y
O H ?'
3 ti O
O
3 H U
O
LL. O Z +'
4 a H
Q
G.

1
1
f
1
1

t
1

U
Z
C
v d
N 'y
L- J
0)
vE
a?
r
W
2 W
3
o uj
? QZ J
0 ,,,
D
W M F- J
4. W N
N 0
a..oX
a.?z
A
1

1

1
r

1
P-j

z Z
Z Z O = Z

o
N 5
°? ? I
Q ?O

5
Z o
C
) <
g n
>? Z
?-
w
?O?Q-
?
e T N p
p o z v a s Z I
U a- w J

C: 7

C)
Zo 3a

W O W
C
,
z

O

?
m t:
_ 0 Of

Z cn° W w a- Wa
7
D
z
-
W
= 3 0
Z::D
J

J

J x m x O

s

w IL 3 (_?
Lli a-
O
a
3
N ? ?
I
1
1 Q =
O L
o o xz(? .
.
ti 0z
C7U OfC)
m

z
--?0 z? _
Jc? vz
J :D -
L
J
=
pOfL j .?
?
Dd

z Z
I/ Z
1

a x m
W o
?
/
? i
/
-
J
? ?
Z
a a
_
/I
I i
I
/ ? h?
U ? I I I /
? Z NW I/I / /? z III

0 Q /

Na N , /
O /

z e

w 0
//
.
i
u w ji =

U Z?
U Q
=
/
Wa
? ?
VI QU Y
3
V W V r Z
a
a /
//

/? 1

LLJ
`
W a 5 0 W
z N
go>2 ZK I? 1
~ QIz
? d0 W Z ~ / I
LL
LJ Z
D L
.
z

I 0
?
. Z a. `/?1
I

/

L_L 1

I
I/ -
`O?
/ Q

i
/ 0 0
I
O

/
1
i
' f i--? ? ?
< i / - 1l N H- DO:
ice' ??Q'?? ?? ? ?\ I
_

-----
/ z

/ / Q.. a- c?
1

1

i
%
? ? ? O ? ? `?
? ? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ??

/

V) Z
w O

U Q
U Z w

° o U a
O ¢ :

co ,
p

°

z w J Z 0

O a: Q
I I U W O° p
i
Z J
Q ?ZW
O z
l W

Q c0
X N
W W
C?
D7
o W = Q WI Q
p J =I p
0 v F-
W UI
W C,
z
0 CL cc

0 (n F-
p j _ w
'

O
C N M
-Lnl 3dld ??d „Z L 3NM331N33
'? F•
I
. I Z
Z
O
l
W o MMJ v
o
?
U o
(d)ll) 3dId
?d „9 3N1-12J31N33 W
> Q
d O
0 C
0
17 C)
_ ? D UI
T v J

°
Z Q
U =
? a_
U
W
n a_
E z _
°
O
0
U
U Z
Q
CD >OZ °
W W .-.

W 0
?i

b
LLJ 0-
Q
U

ZI

o F ° O
o 3: Q U

? W ° ccl
I
o ?

a.
W

W
-? ° Q
> W
a_ Q
?I

-.• W
,i
o M MA N,
_
W
0- i o
C'3
> I LLLJ J
o
o _ 0'I
ip

I/
a_
UI
F-

01
1
1
t
r
U
? z
v c
J
a?
v
C7 U
z
°
za Zo
gZ? QU
Q{
3 H W o o< J O
'- W
r-acr
Z =Z o IWtrm0m?0
RIC ?-
?

3 Of z
NO
00
ap?
0 Br. 3:: 0
a0: 204
>
Z
dop
1
m a
o
VI
r?
1 w v
I Y ?
m •
I a /
ru
2
O w
t
1
r
1

1

I zg
41 11 i
< bi'j- a
° Z
will
cb$ La W
La W
gild! M?
v
N
n
N
F- 2
_ = O
_ O F
J J W W
Z Z cr
O
3
= U O
+,£•xoadde-?

GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
3.5.2 Planting Plan
The overall Mitigation Bank is composed of three mitigation areas, and only the burned pine
plantation area will be subjected to vegetative restoration.
Remediation measures for this area will be accomplished in the following sequence:
T 1) Adjust/maintain drainage system to dry out entire Mitigation Bank.
2) Provide planting sites at ten (10) foot intervals by use of a v-plow to offset coarse
woody debris into the inter-row position. Use of a harrow may be required to restore
soil tilth within the planting rows.
3) Plant vegetation. Vegetation will be planted by hand.
4) Plug ditches as indicated in Section 3.5.1. Due to the loss of 6-8" of soil in this area,
it may be necessary to postpone the plugging of ditches until the plantation is deemed
able to withstand increased soil saturation/inundation. Groundwater levels in this
area may need to be adjusted to avoid excessively wet conditions.
Based on an inventory of the reference pocosin and pine flat and bottomland hardwood
wetland systems, a planting prescription of overstory tree and shrub species will be planted
r. in Pond Pine, Longleaf Pine, Cypress, Water Oak, Overcup Oak and Swamp Chestnut Oak.
Plants will be established at a 6 x 10 foot spacing (726 plants/acre). Tree and shrub mixtures
will be matched to specific hydrologic strata within the planting area. Species mixtures will
follow elevational gradients to simulate natural tolerances to wetland conditions.
r
1
Our strategy of planting 726 tree/acre should provide adequate insurance of meeting the
required plant survival even under severe abiotic and biotic conditions. No ground cover
plants will be planted given the potential seed viability within the surface soils. It is likely
that there will be high germination of indigenous pocosin shrub species and ground flora due
to frequent flooding events and close proximity to propagules.
Based upon species composition of overstory trees on reference sites, a planting guide is
provided in Table 3 and Figure 16.
11
Mitigation Bank Plan
Page 30

1
GSRA Wetlands Miti ation Development
1
1
1
1

1
Table 3.
Relative Species Mix for Burned Pine
Plantation Mitigation Site
Majority Pond Pine & Cypress and Multi Species
Long Leaf & Long Leaf Pine Water Oak Bottomland
Pond Pine Combination Hardwood
73.7 Acres 61.8 Acres 13.1 acres 71.1
Species Plant Species Plant Species Plant Species Plant
Type Per Type Per Type Per Type Per
Acre Acre Acre Acre
Long 544 Long Leaf 97 Cypress 581 Cypress 73
Leaf
Pond 97 Pond Pine 629 Water Oak 145 Water Oak 218
Pine
Willow Oak 145
Swamp 145
Chestnut
Oak
Overcup Oak 145
The species listed in Table 3 were chosen for their compatibility to the hydro period and fire
regime intended for this area. It has been noted that fire management will be part of the
concerns of operation the Mitigation Bank. Excessive fuel loads in conjunction with training
and operations activities would provide a potentially hazardous situation for MCBCL
personnel. Therefore, species such as Atlantic White Cedar were not considered due to their
intolerance to fire.
1

I Mitigation Bank Plan Page 31

1
1
r
1
1
r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
cU
3 Z
v a?i
? J
vE
C7 U
z
$

3

W oZujw.
?- Z g
:5
to Z
CI-
z?
Z i $ z rn
s w
?waZ -tj
gg
8s
3 0za?

I

R

E

D

- U- Z p
Cf3z?
of Igo

?
m
m

r

r \
z0
,
%
` ?%`` .?
% %
i

i
L/l
100,
-uj
a- CL
.,i-

1
.1
`
*4b
w

1
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
Use of Preemergent herbicides will be applied by a licensed applicator in strict adherence to
labeling following planting. In every instance, the planting stock will be obtained from the
State Forest Service and/or forest industry nurseries. The seed sources for the plant material
will be obtained from within the North Carolina Coastal Plain, and when available,
genetically improved seedlings will be obtained. Only the highest quality 1/0 or 2/0
seedlings will be obtained for planting. The seedlings will be hardened with well developed
fibrous root systems and healthy buds. At the nursery, seedlings will be packaged in groups
of 100 to 200 in Kraft seedling bags. Bags will be stored between 1 to 4° centigrade making
certain that the temperature does not dip below freezing.
Planting will be conducted during the dormant season. In all cases, a MCBCL staff member
or qualified consultant will be on site to supervise the planting job.
3.6 MONITORING
Background
Monitoring provides an accounting of ecosystem processes to ensure that functioning
wetlands are established. This is an important Mitigation Bank objective. Performance of
the Mitigation Bank is assessed by comparing monitored data from mitigation sites relative
to undisturbed, reference wetland habitats. The intensity of monitoring varies with the
degree of disturbance at the Project site and the probability of successfully achieving targeted
wetland functions (White, et al., 1991). Our monitoring program will evaluate structural and
functional indicators of each wetland parameter of the mitigation effort.
Plot locations for monitoring of vegetative mitigation success criteria will be co-located with
selected groundwater monitoring wells (see Figures 14 & 17). At each selected well location
a vegetation plot will be established to baseline initial conditions. Three additional wells will
be established in an undisturbed sister drain of Big Shakey Swamp with comparable
watershed characteristics and drainage basin size (see Figure 17A) to aid in comparing the
hydro period for the restored Big Shakey Swamp to a natural system.
'L
1
1
Mitigation Bank Plan
Page 33
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
w
1
1

t

U
Z
T 4)
v a?i
y ?
J
°E
C7 U
f?i z
Z ? s F
? 4 ?
w
°
Z +(A
3
zzoo
<pKa
Z?<- o
o
O g 2!R z
v)a01-O
w?
?aw?c9Q
LL. N 30-J
a° 0w N Q
Oaw?
ama3
1
J
W Z
3aa
za3
a'Z W ncor
H N
O G H° W ZQ N Q
C 3
N'?y g-2ZN
?J 3
Z
?
N O in
,v 0
'D E
L- 0 O V 'o
a?
t\ \ 1
ti
i

1
11

1
1
1
1
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
3.6.1 Mitigation Implementation Sequence
Following is the mitigation implementation sequence for the Mitigation Bank:
? Location and full description of monitoring plots.
? Final planting map showing planting zones by species within restoration
areas.
? Establishment and location of groundwater monitoring wells.
? Location of vegetation sampling plots.
- Measurement of vegetation will be based on 1/20th of an acre plot size and
will include the information gathered on the following field data sheet.
VEGETATIVE MONITORING DATA SHEET
Researchers
Transect ID
Recorder _
Plat Number
GENERAL
What cover type is present (According to Cowardin et al)?
If Upland, specify type (i.e. Pine, Planted Pine, Field)
Date
If forested, most trees are (D.B.H.): <6" 6-18" >18"
TREE LAYER (Consists of woody plants > 20 ft. Tall, excluding vines)
Average Height of all Trees (estimate representative tree) Ft.
Overstory Trees (At Least 80% of height of tallest tree)
Other
D.B.H. Estimates (to nearest
r- T-
Mean density of trees per acre
Mitigation Bank Plan Page 36
1

i
1
1
1
f
A
1

1
?l
1
1
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
Understory Tree (Less than 80% of height of tallest tree)
D.B.H. Estimates (to nearest
r- 7--
Mean density of trees per acre
SHRUB LAYER (Woody plants 3-20 ft. Tall; including vines)
HERB LAYER (Herbaceous plants, 3 ft. Tall)
PERCENT COVER (Visual Estimates)
Canopy cover of all trees
Canopy cover of overstory trees
Canopy cover of understory trees
Canopy cover of shrubs
Canopy cover of trees and shrubs combined
Percent cover in the ground layer:
(Less than 3 feet above the ground)
Overall litter depth in
Number of tree stumps (> 6 in diameter, > 1 ft. tall)
Number of logs (> 6 in diameter, > 3 ft. Long) _
Mitigation Bank Plan Page 37
Leaf litter _
Woody debris
Live vegetation
1
1

r
Ll
1
1

f
A

1
A

GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
SNAGS (D.B.H. Estimates, must be at least 6 ft. Tall)
HYDRAULIC FEATURES
Is there evidence of standing water on the plot? Yes No Max. Depth
Are the following present on the plat?
Water Marks Yes No
Drift Lines Yes No
Sediment Deposits Yes No
Drainage Patterns Yes No
Water Stained Leaves Yes No
Other (explain)
A description and verification of hydrological connections
Approval of the Mitigation Implementation Record Notebook
Mitigation work will be done by Camp Lejeune personnel or a qualified contractor as
appropriate.
3.6.2 Mitigation Implementation Record
A written Mitigation Implementation Record (MIR) will serve as a record for all activities
during construction regarding soils, hydrology, and plant establishment. This MIR will be
in notebook form with all tasks clearly defined by tabs and will be submitted to the
appropriate regulatory agency(s) following completion of each of the tasks. All monitoring
data will be summarized and graphically presented for submission as part of the MIR.
Initial work will include evaluation of the Mitigation Bank for compliance with the design
criteria and for agreement with permit conditions and Mitigation Bank objectives. Baseline
data has been collected on the Mitigation Bank location: hydrology, substrate, and
vegetation. Differences between the design and actual implementation will be documented
during the Mitigation Bank's implementation phases and mid-course corrections will be
made as necessary. Modifications to the original design are often necessary as unexpected
conditions are encountered. When necessary, such changes will be noted and brought to the
immediate attention of the regulatory agencies and new/revised Mitigation Bank
specifications submitted as part of the permanent record for the MIR.
Once the as-built assessment is complete, differences between what was planned and what
was built will be evaluated by the permitting agencies. If modifications to the Mitigation
Bank are necessary, the as-built assessment will be updated in the MIR to reflect these
Mitigation Bank Plan Page 38
1
1
GSRA Wetlands Miti ation Development
changes. When the evaluation is final, the as-built assessment will become the permanent
record in the MIR to enable comparison with future Mitigation Bank assessments. Obtaining
functional wetlands on the restoration portion of the Mitigation Bank will require
measurement and analyses of the following:
1 3.6.3 Hydrology
Water depth will be measured in the mitigation areas both as a function of inundation above
ground, and depth below ground using wells constructed of PVC plastic, equipped with pre-
programmed data recorders to read water depth four times daily (at 0600, 1200, 1800, and
0000 hours) with a 128-day wrap-around monitoring cycle. The micro-processor electronic
components and power supply are all enclosed within the weatherproof head portion of the
device. Well locations have been established on the site which encompass the slight
variation in topography, soils, and distance from perimeter ditches. Indirect indicators will
also be recorded according to the Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation,
1987 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (W.I., 1991).
Measurements will occur weekly (initial growing season) following installation of
monitoring wells for the first year, and at two month intervals (dormant season) and weekly
(growing season) until regulatory release. Rainfall events will be included within the MAR.
to facilitate a correlation of precipitation conditions at the time of well measurement.
3.6.4 Soils
In the Mitigation Bank, soil taxonomy will be determined by excavation of a pit to depth of
flooding. Mainsail color will be determined for chrome and hue for both matrix and mottles
(W.I., 1991) for each soil horizon to a depth of 40 inches at each sample plot location. Soil
texture will be determined for each soil horizon using textural triangle and based upon feel.
Soils will be classified into the appropriate series. All soil amendments such as fertilizer or
lime (if applied) will be documented and activity monitored by soil analysis.
3.6.5 Vegetation
Tree planting locations and establishment requirements are included in this mitigation plan
(see Sections 3.5.2). Survival, numbers of stems per acre by species, and tree height will be
measured at the end of each growing season as part of the vegetation analysis just prior to
leaf fall for the duration of the monitoring period.
3.6.6 Observation
The Mitigation Bank will be photographed from permanent photo stations and changes in
any of the above variables will be recorded and included in each MIR annual report.
The cost of post-construction assessments varies dramatically with the methods and intensity

Mitigation Bank Plan
Page 39
1
1
GSRA Wetlands Miti ation Development
of data collection. To obtain acceptable accuracy at a reasonable cost, the establishment of
permanent sampling plots at selected monitoring well locations will be used to facilitate
routine assessments. Visits to permanent plots in wetland forest creations or restorations are
not likely to significantly affect the physical integrity of the wetland for any of the
assessment proposed in this plan (Candela et al. 1992). Sampling in these plots will be
nondestructive. Sampling stations will be established within planting unit subdivisions (e.g.,
pocosin, pine flatwood and hardwood bottom habitat types)..
An annual report summarizing current year's assessments and monitoring data will be
submitted to the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MRBT) each December. Additionally, the
report will include the groundwater monitoring data for each individual well. The report will
indicate if corrections are required or if more comprehensive monitoring is needed to
interpret wetland conditions. The report will also document significant changes at the site
from the as-built conditions since the last routine assessment was submitted. The annual
assessment should be filed with the permanent Mitigation Bank records so that it is available
for future reference. Following the review of the Annual Reports or field review by the
regulatory agencies, modifications may be recommended for implementation.
3.6.7 Success Criteria
Monitoring efforts will continue for five years or until the following standards are attained,
whichever comes earlier:
u

1
1
1
I

Vegetation
For the burned Pine Plantation Mitigation Area, a mean density of 320 planted trees
per acre are growing within the burned pine plantation mitigation site consisting of
the preferred canopy species which average 3 years of age, based on a permanent
1/20th acre circular plots at each monitoring station. Natural regeneration
recruitment by species will also be measured using the same circular plots.
Any changes to the vegetation composition of pocosin, pine flatwood or hardwood
bottom systems will be noted.
Hydrology
Big Shakey Swamp, Pocosin and Burned Pine Plantation Mitigation Areas:
Hydrological conditions, as determined by visual observation and monitoring wells
will meet the 1987 Corps Manual.
Mitigation Bank Plan
Page 40

1
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
4.0 MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS
4.1 CONTINGENCY PLANS
When implementing this mitigation plan there may be circumstances beyond normal mitigation
practices that requires additional effort and the possible outlay of resources. Experience over the
years has indicated that occurrences such as herbivory of planted seedlings, intense competition by
herbaceous growth, fire, storms, drought, etc. can compromise stated success criteria. Therefore it
is essential to be able to manage for the occurrence of such unforeseen circumstances before the
mitigation project becomes a failure. Several of the most frequent contingency actions are identified
below:
4.1.1 Herbivory
There are many examples of mitigation projects where herbivory reached critical levels and
rendered all planting attempts useless. The best way to manage such problems is to be
cognizant of all potential pests. Beavers, nutria, rats, rabbits, insects, and deer can all be
controlled, but they must be closely monitored by continuous on-site reconnaissance during
the entire establishment period (2 to 3 years). Beavers and nutria must be eliminated if
succulent seedlings are to survive on sites adjacent to potential water courses. Rats and
rabbits are best controlled by raptor predation by keeping the planting row free from
vegetation. Selective herbicides used following planting are best suited to ensuring rodents
are controlled naturally during the initial establishment years. Many times a follow up
herbicide application is necessary to ensure rats are controlled into the second growing
season. Insects can significantly limit initial growth attainment of planted seedling, but
rarely kill mitigation plantings outright. When insects prove to be a constant threat to
planting stock, appropriate pesticides can be applied to ensure adequate control. The key to
managing insect herbivory is not to overreact and make an unnecessary application that have
other deleterious effects elsewhere in the ecosystem. Deer are obviously best controlled by
hunting. On sites where hunting is not a viable option, solar electric fencing has proven quite
effective.
4.1.2 Fire
The best way to manage wild fire is to have the mitigation site incorporated into a forest
management plan that has a comprehensive way of dealing with wild fire. At the GSRA site
there are adequate measures already provided that will attempt to limit the destructive forces
of fire. These measures include prescribed fire and Best Management Practices for fighting
wild fires. During high hazard periods the GSRA will come under the same oversight that
all of the other Base holdings are subject to. If fire does kill mitigation plantings, the site
will be assessed for survival and reestablishment of vegetation will be undertaken.
fl
Mitigation Bank Plan
Page 41

L
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
4.1.3 Noxious Vegetation
There is no way of predicting the types of vegetation that might become established on
mitigation sites. The best control of noxious growth is to predict early competition of weeds
and by using selective herbicides at the time of establishment within the planting rows.
Several herbicide applications may be necessary, but moderation should be shown given the
beneficial effects of having the site totally vegetated and the protection that light competition
afford the newly planted seedlings.
4.1.4 Drought/Storms
Early and prolonged drought during the growing season can render any planting attempt a
failure. Survival after the first year will have to be assessed and replanting considered if
survival approaches success criteria. Prolonged storms can often have the opposite effects
of drought by inundating seedling and eliminating the possibilities for normal growth. There
is often little that can be done to eliminate excess water given the location of most mitigation
sites close to the water table or open water. In stances where storms knock out ditch plugs
or other structures, a post storm assessment needs to be made immediately to ensure that
appropriate measures are undertaken to ensure hydrologic criteria are met. Remedial
activities will be reported to the Corps of Engineers to ensure modifications are consistent
with overall objectives of the mitigation project.
4.2 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Camp Lejeune's Multiple Use Natural Resources Management Plan has been a highly effective
means of coordinating the various natural resource elements that Camp Lejeune must manage. At
Greater Sandy Run, the key elements to natural resource management will include forest and
wildland fire, endangered species, wetlands, cultural resources, and wildlife (game and non-game).
Execution of Camp Lejeune's natural resource plan is done largely through the proper review and
coordination of the base forestry operations, managed by Camp Lejeune's Forestry Division.
To ensure continued effectiveness in coordinating Camp Lejeune's natural resource concerns, Camp
Lejeune will integrate the GSRA Mitigation Bank into its Multiple Use Natural Resources
Management Plan and Camp Lejeune's forestry operations. This will allow for the most effective
means of establishing successful pine plantations hardwood bottoms, fire management, and
endangered species management.
4.3 MITIGATION BANK INSTRUMENT
This Mitigation Bank will require an instrument as documentation of agency concurrence on the
objectives and administration of the area. The instrument for the GSRA Wetland Mitigation Bank
will describe the physical and legal characteristics of the area, and how the area will be established
and operated. It is envisioned that a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be signed upon
I Mitigation Bank Plan Page 42

GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
acceptance of this mitigation plan by the area sponsor and signatory agencies. Whenever this area
is to be used for wetland filling discharges requiring Section 404 authorization, the MOA will
become part of the permit.
4.4 CREDITING/DEBITING/ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES
Credits represent the accrual or attainment of aquatic functions at the Mitigation Bank; debits
represent the loss of aquatic functions at an impact or project site. Credits are to be debited from this
area when they are used to offset aquatic resource impacts requiring Section 10/404 permits.
The Hydrogeomorphic method approach for wetland functional assessment was used to determine
the debit ratios required for proposed discharge activities in aquatic resources. The HGM functional
analysis quantitatively adjusted the ratio's established for the Mitigation Bank as follows:
Pocosin restoration site: 1:1
Pine Flat restoration site: 1:1
Bottomland Hardwood restoration site: 1:1
General Guidelines published by EPA recommend a 2:1 ratio for restoration activities. This
suggested ratio is general in nature and was not intended for inclusion in every mitigation strategy.
In fact, the proposed pine flat Mitigation Bank is restoring a burned pine plantation to include both
a long leaf/pond pine and hardwood bottom system, vital habitat types which have nearly vanished
from the area. This adds even more overall value to the proposed Mitigation Bank.
The comprehensive field studies that accompany this mitigation plan far outweigh the general
guidelines suggested by EPA for setting mitigation ratios. Based on numerical methods established
by HGM along with the insight gained from regulatory personnel during numerous site visits, the
following ratio's are identified for the Mitigation Bank:
Mitigation Site Ratio
Pocosin 1.5:1
Burned Pine Plantation:
Pine Flat 1.5:1
Bottomland Hardwood 3.0:1
' Big Shakey Swamp 3.0:1
The boundary for the areas compensating for NCDOT projects R-2406 and U-2107 have been
identified within the Big Shakey Swamp and pocosin mitigation areas. An agreement between
NCDOT and the Corp's set the compensation area for each project. The mitigation acreage provided
by NCDOT for the impacts resulting from the referenced projects was not based on the ratios
established above.
I Mitigation Bank Plan Page 43

1
GSRA Wetlands Miti ation Development
The exact size and configuration of the Mitigation Bank can be found in Figures 18 and 19.
The MCBCL will establish and maintain an accounting system to document the activity of the
Mitigation Bank. Each time an approved debit transaction occurs at the Mitigation Bank, the
MCBCL will submit a statement to the MBRT. An annual summary of all activity will also be
provided to the MBRT.
1 4.5 RESPONSIBLE SPONSOR
The MCBCL will be responsible for assuring the success of the Mitigation Bank. This responsibility
is clearly documented in the MOA. The operational life of the Mitigation Bank is the period during
which the terms and conditions of the MOA are applicable, and signatories of the MOA are
applicable and responsible for carrying out its provisions. The operational life of the Mitigation Bank
will terminate at the point when (1) compensatory mitigation credits have been exhausted or the
activity is voluntarily terminated with written notice by the sponsor under the terms of the MOA,
and (2) it has been determined that the fully debited area is functionally self-sustaining to the degree
specified in this Mitigation Plan. It is the intent of MCBCL to develop all of the Pocosin and Big
Shakey Swamp mitigation areas upon approval of this plan. The MCBCL intends to restore the
burned pine plantation in two phases. This phasing will allow for adjustments to be made, if
required, to ensure the restoration measures implemented are as successful as possible. The first
phase will contain 110.04 acres (the four most eastern blocks of the mitigation area) and will be
developed upon approval of this plan. The remaining area will be developed within three years of
plan approval.
The Mitigation Bank will be protected to effectively prevent harmful activities that would
jeopardize its continued conservation purpose.
1
1

t

Mitigation Bank Plan Page 44
A
t
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
s
i
BOUNDARY FOR
NCDOT PROJECT R-2406
PT. NORTHING EASTING
2000 292549 .808 2433819 .634
2001 291567 .987 2433941 .040
2002 291197 .054 2434083 .310
2003 289695 .929 2433724 .845
3002 289480 .562 2433926 .601
2004 288743. 248 2434617 .320
2005 1 288726. 774 434732. 654
2065 88432. 073 434639. 491
2066 88417. 141 435319. 180
2060 288582 .772 2435315 .757
3001 289754 .031 2434218 .517
2061 289812 .342 2434163 .891
2062 291224 .637 2434501 .144
2063 291665 .589 2434332 .018
2064 292450 .405 2434234.972
BOUNDARY FOR BIG SHAKEY
SWAMP MITIGATION AREA
PT. NORTHING EASTING
2000 292549.808 2433819.634
2001 291567.987 2433941.040
2002 291197.054 2434083.310
2003 289695.929 2433724.845
2004 288743.248 2434617.320
2005 288726.774 2434732.654
2006 288378.702 2434628.299
2007 287641.124 2434704.500
2008 287424.734 2434598.432
2009 287049.900 2434600.322
2010 286615.601 2434784.542
2011 286204.234 2434849.008
2012 286148.520 2434739.853
2013 286476.332 2434173.689
2014 286293.821 2433942.624
2015 286114.195 2433969.092
2016 285941.890 2434376.253
2017 285422.932 2433934.594
2018 285182.165 2433577.104
2019 284910.177 2433338.043
2020 284551.347 2433518.800
2021 284948.532 2433910.255
2022 285172.505 2434248.721
2023 285668.890 2434675.829
2024 285786.605 2434908.746
2025 284740.028 2435029.656
2026 283771.233 2435877.297
2027 283222.662 2435860.312
2028 283106.846 2436051.198
2029 283197.988 2436259.568
2030 283336.060 2436269.384
2031 283288.780 2436628.703
2032 283479.851 2436864.165
2033 283674.193 2436948.638
2034 283710.656 2436453.073
2035 284230.631 2436086.441
2036 284468.646 2435843.483
2037 284548.881 2435711.514
2038 284932.355 2435556.227
2039 285199.014 2435377.457
2040 285341.187 2435596.680
2041 285455.964 2435718.036
2042 285671.668 2435761.096
2043 285824.275 2435728.474
2044 285986.012 2435438.786
2045 286712.194 2435194.766
2046 286855.671 2435175.194
2047 286897.409 2435293.943
2048 146 2435404.861
2049 1
286957.409 2435434.871
2050 287094.749 2435411.383
2051 287277.353 2435147.790
2052 287477.418 2435175.194
2053 287680.894 2435596.680
2054 287888.284 2435759.793
2055 288009.586 2435737.608
2056 287709.588 2435413.995
2057 287777.415 2435231.304
2058 288051.713 2435316.128
2059 288222.575 2435339.616
2060 288582.772 2435315.757
2061 289812.342 2434163.891
2062 291224.637 2434501.144
2063 291665.589 2434332.018
2064 292450.405 2434234.972
BOUNDARY FOR
NCDOT PROJECT U2107
PT. NORTHING EASTING
2065 288432 .073 2434639. 491
3003 288335 .703 2434626. 572
2006 288378 .702 2434628. 299
2007 287641 .124 2434704 .500
2067 287601 .404 2434678 .336
2068 287439 .194 2435144 .730
2052 287477 .418 2435175. 194
2053 287680 .894 2435596 .680
PT. NORTHING EASTING
2054 287888.284 2435759.793
2055 288009.586 2435737.608
2056 287709.588 2435413.995
2057 287777.415 2435231.304
2058 288051.713 2435316.128
2059 288222.575 2435339.616
'?90 337
' 1943.1,196 1
H2066 8417.141
28 1 2435319.180
2000 2064
M
mcn
rno
v ao
0) M
t 00
-t ,t
M N 200 2063 MITIGATION AREA
FOR NCDOT PROJECT
Z u' R-2406
200 2062 43.00 ACRES
/ N
W +E
2k61 s
2 MITIGATION AREA
?• 206 FOR NCDOT PROJECT
66 02107
004 15.00 ACRES
'2059
3058 2055
.2054
20 0 .53
2051
2009 2050
49
48
45
201
2013
'2015
2016 2044
2024 2043
3 2042
017 / ? 2041
2018. 022 &Q2
9 1 7
20 03
6
2035
2034 2033
032
2030 ,
FIGURE 18.
BOUNDARY OF
BIG SHAKEY SWAMP
NOT TO SCALE
Drwrbw., & Davb
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
BOUNDARY FOR POCOSIN
MITIGATION AREA
PT. NORTHING EASTING
4000 301827 .778 2449952 .059
4001 304357 .585 2444629 .363
4002 306725 .470 2445728 .052
4003 308993 .958 2440955 .171
4004 306622 .363 2439864 .275
4005 306081 .607 2441002 .022
4006 303827 .349 2439914 .013
4015 299558 .727 2448895 .171
BOUNDARY FOR BURNED
PINE PLANTATION MITIGATION AREA
PT. NORTHING EASTING
4007 303175.901 2441011.131
4008 300769.966 2439867.606
4009 299223.299 2443121.737
4010 301629.235 2444265.262
4003
4004
BOUNDARY FOR
NCDOT PROJECT R-2406
PT. NORTHING EASTING
4011 302413.557 2442888.616
4012 304663.233 2443986.273
4013 305514.268 2442195.708
4014 303286.221 2441125.576
4016 303002.468 2441722.590
4017 302974.163 2441709.112
BOUNDARY FOR
NCDOT PROJECT U2107
PT. NORTHING EASTING
4014 303286.221 2441125.576
4016 303002,468 2441722,590
4017 302974,163 2441709,112
4018 303545.203 440507.641
4019 305162.107 2441286.761
4020 304875.838 2441889.070
4002
4005 POCOSIN MITIGATION AREA
4013 /-MITIGATION AREA
4019 FOR NCDOT PROJECT
R-2406
4020 4012 113.00 ACRES
4001
40061
4018
MITIGATION AREAS 40b67
FOR NCDOT PROJECT
U2107 4011
28.00 ACRES
BURNED PINE PLANTATION
4008 MITIGATION AREA
4009
4010 POCOSIN MITIGATION AREA
N
W +E
S
4015
4000
FIGURE 19.
BOUNDARY OF
POCOSIN AND BURNED PINE PLANTATION
NOT TO SCALE
Dsmr! ono & Davis

GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
5.0 REFERENCES
Brinson, M.M. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
WES, Tech.. Rpt. WRP-DE-4, 79 pp.
Bouma, J. 1983. Hydrology and soil genesis of soils with aquic moisture regimes. p. 253-281.
In L.P. Wilding et al. (ed.) Pedogenesis and soil taxonomy. I. Concepts and interactions.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoc. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. OBS,
Washington, DC. FWS/OBS 79/31. 103 pp.
Daniels, R.B., H.J. Kleiss, S.W. Buol, H.J. Byrd, and J.A. Phillips. 1984. Soil Systems in North
Carolina. Bulletin 467, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC, 77 p.
Dunne T. and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H.
Freeman and Company, NY.
Faulkner, S.P., W.H. Patrick, Jr., and R.P. Gambrell. 1989. Field techniques for measuring
wetland soil parameters. Soil Sci. Soc.Am. J. 53:883-890.
Gambrell, R.P., and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1978. Chemical and microbiological properties of
' anaerobic soils and sediments. p. 375-423. In Plant life in anaerobic environments.
Ann Arbor Sci. Publ. Ann Arbor, MI.
Kentula, M.E., R.P. Brooks, S.E. Gwin, C.C. Holland, A.D. Sherman, and J.C. Sifneos. 1992.
And approach to improving decision making in wetland restoration and
creation. Edited by A.J. Hairston, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
' Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis OR. 151 pp.
McKee, W.H. Jr., 1978. Rust on iron rods indicated depth of soil moisture. Site productivity
symposium, U.S. Dept. of Agric, Atlanta, GA 286-291 pp.
S.C.S. 1992a. Engineering Field Handbook. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Publication 210-EFH,
i Washington D.C.
S.C.S. 1986. Soil Survey Report of Camp Lejeune, NC. USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1984.
1
Mitigation Bank Plan Page 47
r.

1
1
1

1

1

1

P"
1
1
GSRA Wetlands Mitigation Development
Veprreaskas, M.J. 1992. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. Tech. Bull. No. 301.
NCARA, N.C. State University, Raleigh 33 pp.
Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 1991. Field Guide For Wetland Delineation: 1987 Corps of Engineers
Manual. WTI 91-2. 133 pp.
White, T.A., J.A. Allen, S.F. Mader, D.L. Mengel, D.M. Perison and D.T. Tew (eds.). 1991. MiST:
A methodology to classify pre-project mitigation sites and develop performance standards for
construction and restoration of forested wetlands. Results
an EPA-sponsored workshop. Region IV Wetlands Planning Unit. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 85 pp.
WU. 1993. Installing monitoring wells/piezometers in wetlands. Waterways Res. Prog. Note HY lA
3.1 14pp.
oAgaffey\wetlands\mitbank L fin
Mitigation Bank Plan
Page 48