20070832 Ver 1_Complete File_19990831

E TRIANGLE GROUP
August 27, 1999 J4 fl AUG 3 1 ^ ^ ^
Mr. Scott McLendon
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
RE: FINAL Plan for Restoration, Enhancement, & Preservation of Wetland Ecosystems at
Lukens Island Wetland Mitigation Bank and DRAFT MBI
Dear Mr. McLendon:
Lukens Island Land & Timber (LILT) and THE TRIANGLE GROUP, INC. (TTG) are pleased
to submit the Final Plan for the LIWMB. In addition, we are submitting a Draft Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI) for review by the MBRT. A Draft Conservation Easement will be
submitted under separate cover.
As discussed in our May 27, 1999 letter, LILT reserves the right to monitor the proposed
enhancement areas within the LIWMB to determine whether additional restoration credits are
warranted. Any additional restoration credits resulting from this monitoring effort will be
subject to the success and monitoring criteria outlined for restoration areas in the Final Plan.
We look forward to receiving your comments on the Draft MBI and conservation easement.
Pleas do not hesitate to call us if you have any further questions.
Sincerely, /.?
Douglas A. reese
THE TRIANGLE GROUP, INC.

4
NEW JERSEY NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q24 Research Building 1 P.O. Bog 551
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Centennial Campus New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
[phone] 9 Fax: [phone] Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] 0 Fax: [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
[phone] • Fax: [phone]
HE TRIANGLE GROUP
CC: Mr. John Ward, Lukens Island Land & Timber
409 Pollock Street, P.O. Drawer F
New Bern, NC 28563
Ms. Kathy Matthews, U.S.E.P.A., Region IV, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Mr. John Hefner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Ms. Cherry Green, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30345
Mr. Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Mr. John Domey, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Mr. Larry Hobbs, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, Wetland Restoration Program
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Ms. Kelly Williams, NCDENR, Division of Coastal Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Mr. William Wescott, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
146 Chesterfield Drive
Washington, NC 27889
Dr. Doug Frederick, Triangle Wetland Consultants, L.L.C.
P. O. Box 33604
Raleigh, NC 27636
Encl.
Agreement to Establish the Lukens Island Wetland
Mitigation Bank in Carteret County, North Carolina
This Mitigation Banking Instrument Agreement ("MBI") is made and entered into on the day of
, 1999, by and between Lukens Island Land and Timber, LLC (LILT) (collectively,
"Sponsor"); and the U. S. Army USACE of Engineers ("USACE"), U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency ("USEPA"), U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), National Marine Fisheries Service
('NMFS"), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ("NCWRC"), North Carolina Division
of Water Quality ("NCDWQ"), and North Carolina Division of Coastal Management ("NCDCM"),
collectively, the Mitigation Bank Review Team ("MBRT").
WHEREAS, the purpose of this MBI is to establish the Lukens Island Wetland Mitigation Bank
("LIWMB") providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts separately
authorized by Section 404 Clean Water Act permits in appropriate circumstances; and
WHEREAS, Sponsor is the record owner of that certain parcel of land containing approximately
3,257.39 acres located in Carteret County, North Carolina, more fully described in the Final Flan
for Restoration, Enhancement, & Preservation of Wetland Ecosystems at Lukens Island
Wetland Mitigation Bank ("Plan") and by the attached survey. The Plan and survey are attached
and incorporated herein by reference as Appendices A and B respectively; and
WHEREAS, the agencies comprising the MBRT agree that the LIWMB site is a suitable mitigation
bank site, and that implementation of the Plan should result in net gains in wetland functions and area
at the LIWMB.
NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this MBI that the following
provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this MBI.
General Provisions
1. The goal of the LIWMB is to restore, enhance, and preserve forested wetland ecosystems and
their associated functions and values to compensate in appropriate circumstances for
unavoidable wetland impacts authorized by Section 404 Clean Water Act permits in
circumstances deemed appropriate by the USACE after consultation with the other members
of the MBRT.
2. The parties to this MBI recognize and understand that, where practicable, on-site, in-kind
compensatory mitigation is preferred, unless use of the LIWMB is determined by the USACE
to be environmentally preferable.
3. Use of credits from the LIWMB to offset wetland impacts authorized by Clean Water Act
Section 404 permits is in compliance with the Clean Water Act and implemeirting regulations,
in addition to the following statutes, regulations, and policies.
A. Federal
a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. § 1251,
et seq., including specifically Section 401(a);
b. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.G. § 403, et sue.;
C. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C., 661 et seMc .);
d. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.G. § 4321 et sq.,
including the Council on Environmental Quality's implementing regulations,
40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508;
e. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977);
f Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation
Banks, 60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (Nov. 28, 1995);
g. Department of the Army, Section 404 Permit Regulations, 33 C.F.R.
Parts 320.330), and policies for evaluating permit applications to discharge
dredged or fill material;
h. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Regulations,
23 C.F.R. Part 777, concerning Mitigation of Environmental Impacts to
Privately Owned Wetlands;
i. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Section 404 Regulations, 40 C.F.R.
Parts 230-233 (guidelines for specification of disposal sites for dredged and
fill material);
j. Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army concerning the Determination of
Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
(February 6, 1990);
B. North Carolina
a. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 02H.0500;
b. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 02B.0100 and r. 02B.0200; and
c. North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, N.C, GEN. STAB'. § 143-214.8
et Seq.
4. The USACE is responsible for making final permit decisions pursuant to Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including final
determinations of compliance with the USAGE permit regulations and the Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines. The USACE has been responsible for conducting all meetings with state and
federal resource/regulatory agencies and Sponsor for establishing the LIWMB. The USACE
will determine the amount of compensation needed for a given Department of the Army
Section 404 permit, including permits under the Nationwide Permit program. In this MBI,
the MBRT has established the total number of restoration-equivalent credits which may
become available for sale from the LIWMB upon implementation of all activities as descrbed
in this MBI, including but not limited to the terms of Appendix A. In the case of permit
applications and compensatory mitigation required solely under the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification rules of North Carolina, the NC Department of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) will determine the amount of credits that can be withdrawn from the LIWMB.
5. Modifications to this MBI may be proposed by any MBRT member or by Sponsor. Any
proposed modification shall be made in writing and submitted to all MBRT members and
Sponsor. All MBRT members and Sponsor must approve, in writing, the proposed
modification for it to take effect.
6. Any MBRT member can withdraw from this MBI with ten (10) days advance written notice
to all other MBRT members and Sponsor. Member withdrawal shall not affect any prior sale
of credits and all remaining parties shall continue to implement and enforce the terms of this
NMI. Any independent legal rights or review authority as to specific Section 404 permit
applications possessed by a withdrawing party will, however, remain in full force and effect.
7. The terms and conditions of this MBI shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of the
parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, assigns, and legal representatives.
8. This MBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter
hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.
9. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this MBI are held to be invalid,
illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability will not
affect any other provisions hereof, and this MBI shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal
or unenforceable provision had not been contained herein.
10. This MBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of North Carolina
and the United States as appropriate.
11. This MBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or more counterparts,
all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
12. Any delay or failure of the Sponsor shall not constitute a default hereunder to the extent that
such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or condition beyond the Sponsor'
reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its ability to perform its obligations
hereunder including: (i) acts of God, lightning, earthquake, fire, landslide, drought,
hurricane, storm, flood, or interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or other taking by
any governmental body; (iii) change in applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance or permit
condition, or the interpretation or enforcement thereof; (iv) any order, judgment, action or
determination of any federal, state or local court, administrative agency or government body;
or (v) the suspension or interruption of any permit, license, consent, authorization or
approval. If the success of Sponsor is affected by any such event, Sponsor shall give written
notice thereof to the MBRT as soon as is reasonably practicable and f n ther shall attempt
diligently to remove such condition.
13. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories hereof,
their successors and assigns shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof. No party or third
party other than Sponsor shall have any property rights to the LIWMB, except as otherwise
expressly provided herein.
14. The MBRT shall be chaired by the representative from the USACE, Wilmington District. The
MBRT shall review monitoring and accounting reports as more fully described herein below.
In addition, the MBRT will review proposals for remedial actions proposed by Sponsor or
any of the agencies represented on the MBRT. The MBRT's role and responsibilities are
more fully set forth in Sections II(C)(3&6) of the Federal Guidance on Mitigation Banking
[See 60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (Nov. 29, 1995)]. The MBRT will work to reach consensus on all
required actions.
15. -------- insert new credit calculation and sale policy for all banks within this service area ------
Mitiaation Plan
16. The LIWMB is located on a peninsula north of Open Grounds Farms between the South River
and Turnagain Bay in Carteret County, NC. A more detailed description of the baseline
conditions on the site is contained in the Plan.
17. Sponsor will perform the work described in the Proposed Actions Section of the Plan,
including hydrologic modifications and plantings. The purpose of the work and the objective
of the LIWMB is to restore the ecological functions, values, and area of natural forested
wetland community types in specified area of the LIWNIB, enhance the ecological functions
and values of existing forested wetland community types, and preserve existing wetland
community types.
18. Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation activities as specified in the Plan, and for the overall operation and management
of the LIWMB. Sponsor shall monitor the LIWMB for at least seven (7) years as described
in the Regulatory Release Section of the Plan, or until such time as the MBRT determines that
the success criteria described in the Plan have been met, whichever period is longer.
19. Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the terms of this MBL
20. Sponsor shall provide to each member of the MBRT the reports described in the Regulatory
Release Section of the Plan.
21. The USACE shall review said reports and provide a written response. At any time, after
consultation with Sponsor and the MBRT, the USACE will direct Sponsor to take remedial
action at the LIWMB. Remedial action required by the USACE shall be designed to achieve
the success criteria specified in the Plan. All remedial actions required shall include an
implementation schedule, which shall take into account physical and climactic conditions.
22. Once all success criteria as described in the Plan have been met, as reasonably determined by
the MBRT, the MBRT shall provide written notice to that effect to Sponsor stating that: (a)
all required success criteria have been met; (b) Sponsor permanently is released from all
further monitoring, remedial measures or the ecological performance obligations with regard
to the LIWMB; and (c) Sponsor's security obligations as specified in this MBI fully have been
satisfied. Thereafter, Sponsor shall have no further obligations whatsoever with regard to the
LIWMB except that, if any credits remain unsold or otherwise finally accounted for, Sponsor
shall continue to have sole control over the sale of any such remaining mitigation credits, and
likewise shall continue to be required to provide all related mitigation credit accounting
reports as specified in this MBI until all such credits are sold or otherwise finally accounted
for.
23. At any time prior to the completion of all success criteria as defined in Paragraph 21 above,
Sponsor may determine voluntarily that remedial action may be necessary to achieve the
required success criteria. In such instance, Sponsor shall provide notice of its proposed
remedial action to all members of the MBRT. No significant remedial actions shall be
undertaken by Sponsor without the express concurrence of the USACE, in consultation with
the MBRT.
Use of Mitigation Credits
24. The Geographic Service Area ("GSA") is the defined area wherein the LIWMB can
reasonably be expected to provide appropriate compensation for impacts to wetland and/or
other aquatic resources. The GSA for the LIWMB shall include the Lower Neuse hydrologic
Unit (03020204) in North Carolina on the North and South sides of the Neuse River. The
location map of the Lower Neuse Hydrologic Unit !030202041 is attached and incorporated
Merin by reference as Appendix C. Adjacent service areas may be considered for use by the
MBRT on a case-by-case basis.
25. The Plan is intended to result in the following number of wetland mitigation credits.
Additional credits, as specified, are subject to the results of additional hydrologic monitoring
at the LIWMB as described in the Plan and approval by the MBRT.
26. Successful implementation of the Plan will result in the creation of the following types of
compensatory wetland mitigation:
• 311.44 acres of restored longleaf and pond pine savannas
• 907.36 acres of preserved forested wetland community types including 300 foot riparian
buffers along Brown Creek, Broad Creek, and Little Creek, pond pine woodlands, mixed
pine flats, mixed pine/hardwood flats, longleaf and pond pine savannas, and nonriverine
wet hardwood forest and small stream swamp
• 882.80 acres of enhanced forested wetland community types as described in the Plait
r 1,155.80 acres of restored and/or enhanced forested wetland community types as
determined by hydrologic monitoring data and approval by the MBRT and as described
in the Plan
Wetland Mitigation Credit Calculations for LIWMB
Cover category & activity Discount Credits
:
[1 ratio
Preservation and management of existing natural 6
907.3 10:1
comet types inclu ' ri arian buffers 90.74
Restoration of ditched, drained pine plantations z 90.74 1:1
Enhancement of ditched, degraded natural community 882.80 4:1
t s 3 ' 220.70
Restoration of ditched, drained pine plantations 220.70 1:1
Enhancement of ditched, degraded natural community 4:1
es (residual enhancement areas) 1155.80 To be
Restoration of effectively drained, degraded natural 1:1 Determined s
commuiu s adacent to primary collector ditches 4
Total credits available (plus additional credit as warranted by monitoring 311.44
well data) =
' total area of preservation = 907.36 ac
2 total area of ditched drained pine plantations (restoration areas) = 311.44 ac
3 total area of ditched, degraded natural community types (enhancement areas) = 2038.60 ac minus area of effectively
drained wetlands
a total area of effectively drained, degraded natural community types adjacent to primary collector ditches will be
determined by monitoring well data
s based on monitoring well data from December 1999 through May 2000
27. It is anticipated by the parties that use of mitigation credits shall be "in kind;" that is, that
the above described types of wetlands will be used to offset the same type of wetland
impacts.
28. It is anticipated by the parties that in most cases in which the USAGE, after consultation with
members of the MBRT, has determined that mitigation credits from the LIWMB may be used
to offset wetland impacts authorized by Section 404 permits, for every one acre of impact,
one mitigation credit will be debited from the LIWMB. Deviations from the one-to-one
compensation ratio may be authorized by the USACE on a case-bywcase basis where justified
by considerations of functions of the wetlands impacted, the severity of the impacts to
wetlands, whether the compensatory mitigation is in kind, and physical proximity of the
wetland impacts to the LIWMB Site. In all cases, a minimums of one-to-one ratio of wetland
impacts (acres) to wetland restoration (acres) must be met.
29. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using mitigation
credits from the LIWMB to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all decisions
concerning the amount and type of such credits to be used to offset wetland and water
impacts authorized by Department of the Army permits shall be made by the USACE,
pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and implementing regulations and guidance, after notice of
any proposed use ofthe LIWN1 B to Sponsor and all members of the N BRT, and consultation
with same regarding such use. In the case of compensatory mitigation required solely under
Section 401, water quality certification, the NCDWQ will notify Sponsor and the MBRT of
such use and the proposed credit withdrawal.
30. The LIWMB Sponsor shall be entitled to sell fifteen percent (15%) of the LIWMB's total
mitigation credits (46.72 credits plus additional credits as determined by hydrologic
monitoring and approval of the MBRT) immediately upon completion of all of the following:
a.) Recordation of a conservation easement offering permanent, perpetual conservation use
of the LIWMB.
b.) Execution of this MBI by all partners whose names appear as signatories.
c.) Delivery of the security required in Paragraph 35 of this NMI.
31. Subject to Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all required implementation and
success criteria and monitoring, additional mitigaiton credits will be available for sale by
Sponsor on the following schedule:
Credit Release Schedule for LIWMB
Milestone Percent Credits 2
release
MBRT approval of plan, execution of MBI, and 15% 46.72
recordation of conservation easement
Following completion of implementation phase and 20% 62.29
monitoring for one o season i
Following year 3 of monitoring phase and MBRT approval 10% 31.14
of annual report
Following year 4 of monitoring phase and MBRT approval 10% 31.14
of annual report
Following year 5 of monitoring phase and MBRT approval 10% 31.14
of annual report
Following year 6 of monitoring phase and MBRT approval 10% 31.14
of annual report
Final approval of project by MBRT 25% 77.87
TOTALS 1100% 1311.44
'Credits will be released by the M)3RT only if monitoring data indicate the success of hydrologic modifications and
plantings within restoration areas. Hydrologic success is defined in the plan and planting success is defined as survival
of 85% of the planted species following one growing season.
2 Individual credits represent a combination of one acre of restoration plus either 10 acres of preservation or 4 acres of
enhancement. Additional restoration credits may be approved in areas determined to be drained, following hydrologic
monitoring from December 1999 through June 2000
32. The above schedule assumes acceptable survival and growth of planted vegetation and
attainment of wetland hydrology as described under the success criteria in the Regulatory
Release Section of the Plan, and further assumes a determination by the MBRT of success as
defined in the Plan prior to release of the final 25% of mitigation credits. In circumstances
deemed appropriate by the USACE and/or NCDWQ, enhancement or preservation credits
may be purchased form the LIWMB and coupled with the purchase of restoration-equivalent
credits from another mitigation bank or banks to assure maintenance of applicable restoration-
to-actual wetland impact ratios.
33. Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures for maintaining accurate records of debits made
from the LIWMB that are acceptable to the MBRT. Such procedures shall include the
generation of a debit report by Sponsor documenting all credits used at the time they are
debited from the LIWMB. Debit reports shall be provided to each member of the MBRT
within 30 days of the date of credit use. In addition, Sponsor shall prepare an Annual
Monitoring Report, to be provided to each MBRT member within thirty (30) days of the end
of each calendar year during the specified monitoring period and commencing with the year
of execution of this MBI. The Annual Monitoring Report will document all credits used and
the balance of credits remaining. Sponsor's reporting obligations hereunder shall end upon
the sale of all credits or termination of this MBI, whichever event first occurs.
34. Sponsor may request addition of other properties to the LIWMB. In such event, the terms
and conditions of any proposed property addition shall be set forth in an amended mitigation
banking instrument that will be subject to separate review and, if appropriate, approval by the
MBRT.
35. If monitoring of the LIWMB under this NMI establishes that mitigation and restoration as
required under the MBI has failed or only partially succeeded, corrective measures shall be
required to assure that success criteria are being met. If, as a result of maintenance and
monitoring reports, it is determined that success criteria are not being met, the MBRT shall
provide notice to Sponsor who then shall prepare an analysis of the cause of the failure,
propose corrective actions and specify a time frame for implementing corrective actions.
Minor corrective measures do not require a formal notification process and may be
accomplished as a part of routine maintenance; such measures shall be identified in the next
subsequent monitoring report. If satisfactory corrective actions are not taken by Sponsor
after formal written notice from the MBRT, then the MBRT is entitled to give notice that the
agreed-upon corrective actions have not been satisfied and that the MBRT intends to draw
on the security provided for in this MBI to carry out the required corrective action. Under
such circumstances the MBRT also is entitled to, in its sole discretion, notify Sponsor of the
immediate suspension of further sale of credits from the LIWMB. Upon completion of
required remedial action(s) to the satisfaction of the MBRT, as documented in written notice
from the MBRT to Sponsor, credit sales automatically shall be allowed to resume, subject to
any additional requirements reasonably specified by the MBRT in the written notice.
if there are repeated fitilures by Sponsor in complying with the success standards for success
under the terms of this MBI, the MBRT reserves the right to declare a material default under
the terms of Sponsor's security and said security shall be used to replace lost wetland
functions and otherwise fulfill the terms of the wetland restoration plan required by this MBI.
Final release of Sponsor's obligations hereunder shall occur when the MBRT reasonably
determines that all success standards have been met and all mitigation credits have been
debited from the LIWMB. There may or may not be excess enhancement and/or preservation
credits remaining following final debiting of mitigation credits. Any remaining excess
enhancement and/or preservation credits may thereafter be sold by Sponsor, but only in
conjunction with additional, USACE-approved use by the permit applicant of other
mitigation credits within the same watershed.
Proyerty. Disposition
36. Sponsor shall grant a conservation easement, in form acceptable to the MBRT, sufficient to
protect all of the LIWMB. The easement shall be perpetual, preserve all natural areas,
prohibit all construction, and prohibit any activity that would materially alter the biological
integrity or functional and education value of wetlands within the LIWMB, consistent with
the Plan. The purpose of the easement will be to assure that future use of the LIWMB will
result in the restoration, protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the ecological
functions, values, and area of the wetlands and wildlife habitat described in the Plan.
]Financial Assurances
37. Sponsor shall provide the USACE, on behalf of the MBRT, with financial assurances, in a
form acceptable to the USACE, sufficient to assure completion and management of all
remaining activities. Sponsor presently proposes to satisfy this requirement by providing a
Letter of Credit issued by a FDIC-insured financial institution in an amount equal to the
estimated cost of completing all remaining maintenance and monitoring costs required under
this MBI as set forth on Appendices D and E, attached and incorporated herein. Sponsor's
final, executed security assurances shall be provided to the USAGE prior to any approval by
the MBRT or acceptance by Sponsor, of any compensation for the sale, or anticipated sale
of any of the mitigation credits specified in this MBI. Sponsor's security obligations shall
terminate and be released imtnediately after the MBRT determines, in writing, that all success
standards as stated in the Plan have been complied with.
Miscellaneous
38. All notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at their
respective addresses, provided below:
Sponsor.
Mr. John Ward
Lukens Island Land and Timber, L.L.C.
449 Pollock Street
P. O. Drawer F
New Bern, NC 28563
USAiCE:
Mr. Scott McLendon.
U.S. Army USAGE of Engineers
Wilmington District Regulatory Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
USE RA:
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S, Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta., GA 30303-8960
USFWS•
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
NMFS:
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516
NCWRC:
W. William Wescott
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
146 Chesterfield Drive
Washington, NC 27889
NCDCM:
Ms. Kelly Williams
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
NCDW
Mr. Larry Hobbs
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
NCDWQ:
Mr. Larry Hobbs
North Carolina. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
By:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Date:
By: Date:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
By: Date:
National Marine Fisheries Service
By:
NC Division of Water Quality
Date:
By: Date:
NC Division of Coastal Management
By., Date:
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
By:
Date:
Sponsor - Lukens Island Land and Timber, L.L.C.
By: Date:
Sponsor - Lukens Island Land and Timber, L.L.C.
By: Date:
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Final Plan for Restoration, Enhancement, & Preservation
of Wetland Ecosystems at Lukens Island Wetland
Mitigation Bank
Appendix B: Property Survey and Legal Description
Appendix C: Map - General Service Area
Appendix D: Estimated Construction Costs
Appendix E: Estimated Maintenance and Monitoring Costs
1

1
L
1
1
I
FINAL
Plan for Restoration, Enhancement & Preservation
of Wetland Ecosystems at
Lukens Island Wetland Mitigation Bank
Carteret County, NC
Prepared for:
Lukens Island Land and Timber, L.L.C.
409 Pollock Street
P.O. Drawer F
New Bern, NC 28563
Prepared By:
r

COMWLTAM
Triangle Wetland Consultants, LLC
A subsidiary of THE TRIANGLE GROUP, INC.
Research Building 1, Centennial Campus
1041 Capability Drive, Suite 312
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27606
[phone]
FAX [phone]
August 1999

1

1
L

C
1

E

I

0

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This plan describes the proposed establishment and monitoring protocol for the Lukens Island
Wetland Mitigation Bank (LIWMB). The LIWMB will be used to offset unavoidable wetland
losses associated with projects requiring Clean Water Act, Section 404 dredge and fill permits
within the approved geographic service area.
Lukens Island has a very interesting history of occupation and resource exploitation. Although it
' is referred to as an island, the area is actually a peninsula surrounded on three sides by Turnagain
Bay, South River, and the Lower Neuse River. The area is connected to the Open Grounds
' Farms, formerly the Open Grounds pocosin. Before European settlement in the early 1700's,
Lukens Island was occupied by native Americans who hunted and fished in the area. Access to
Lukens Island was primarily by water, since the large Open Grounds pocosin posed a formidable
' barrier to land access.
European settlers produced naval stores, timber, and agricultural products from the peninsula
' until the early 1930's when the area was abandoned due to a lack of markets and poor
accessibility. Former owners of Lukens Island include Roper Lumber Company in the late
1930's, International Paper Company in the late 1970's, and Weyerhaeuser Company in 1984.
Weyerhaeuser sold their interest in Lukens Island to Henderson Timberlands Ltd. in 1991.
Currently, the majority owner of Lukens Island is Lukens Island Land and Timber, L.L.C.
(LILT).
' Ditching, fire suppression, and intensive timber management have altered the natural ecosystems
on Lukens Island. From 1991 through 1997, Henderson Timberlands has conducted extensive
' harvesting operations on Lukens Island. Henderson Timberlands clearcut most of the mature and
old growth pine, high graded mixed pine stands, and selectively cut mature baldcypress and
t Atlantic white cedar from hardwood stands.
' 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
Lukens Island is located on a peninsula north of Open Grounds Farms between the South River
' and Turnagain Bay in Carteret County, NC (Latitude 34°57'30" N and Longitude 76°32'00" S)
(Figure 1). Lukens Island encompasses a total area of approximately 10,100 acres with
approximately 7,500 acres owned by Lukens Island Land and Timber (LILT) and approximately
' 2,600 owned by other private entities. The proposed Lukens Island Wetland Mitigation Bank
(LIWMB) will encompass approximately 3,257.39 acres (excluding 49.96 acres of roads) of
interior land holdings recently acquired by LILT including riparian buffers along Brown Creek,
' Broad Creek, Little Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Turnagain Bay (Figure 2).
' The LIWMB contains a variety of plant community types including pine plantation, recent
clearcuts, mixed wet pine flatwoods, mixed pine/hardwood flats, pond pine woodland,
nonriverine wet hardwood forest, and coastal plain small stream swamp (Peet and Allard, 1993;
' Schafale and Weakely, 1990; Stout and Marion, 1993). Additional plant community and habitat

?I

I

J
11

I I

L

l

7
Point
C 1- n vl? ... v ..
P t.e In li y ? ..
-I_'. C
sar dv s.? .. ? ?. ? °_ ? ?v°_ ??"?( 1 -,_: (III KItT I()INI •?
Pnim II„?J - '? ) 111 MILIfAHl-it 5l ltV\Il(7?
,
11-11 nly
f?' rv x__1 ?<ve ono. .v.y,.n d _
a
If ?-
C nu ?
I ? P
L?_ Pl
fy I _ _.
t 1
West
T "I O
Pours
9
Loran Bay
P nr
?i ? h/vr kl -"
\ Auv
J
(
I ? I ?- ? I i ..._ .. _. - I(S - N 1 onaLW I lhf< I ?n,gc h,- .^
T
r
? J q
,. ... `i'-..
l GA
12
ACCESS ROAD I s
?._ OPEN( (GROUNDS i i r -(?
L.._._... .,. ._.I , I _ . /
I' ? I ? t` i i I ? I I nr mmo' / ?? 1 L(1??? l
i
TOWER 5 °
1 GATE
1
f ----
J?k
I I -? I
,
,7 Pit,, 9,4 Mnr.h
I..,,, noni° Gr
70
G-I Wall,
( t D( O
h LLI{ Ill \\ I f f P
? / qr v I ?, ? Ysp I h
TIL; 7:z
s?f ^, pp,,d,
/Pnmr n . snir ? . ? I ? Fl f /
C
Figure 1: Project Location Map
Lukens Island Wetland Mitigation Bank, Carteret County, NC
Base map source: North Carolina Atlas & Gazetteer, DeLorme Mapping Co.
SCALE: 1" = 12,500'

i
r

1

H

0

- BLOCK 3A
I ,.
g11A
N"_ .
a -
Figure 2: Project Limits Map
Lukens Island Wetland Mitigation Bank, Carteret County, NC
Base map source: South River, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle SCALE 1" = 3,100'

h
L,

F

L'

J

0

i

' types present on Lukens Island but not within the proposed bank include small depression ponds,
xeric pine savanna dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and turkey oak (Quercus laevis),
estuarine fringe forest, maritime evergreen forest, and extensive areas of brackish marsh.
Overall, the island contains a very diverse assemblage of plant community and habitat types.
Much of the land currently owner by LILT on the northeastern side of Lukens Island has been
' identified as possessing "Exceptional Functional Significance" by the NC Division of Coastal
Management (Appendix A).
Natural community types within the LIWMB have been degraded by the installation of ditch
systems (2,350.04 ac), conversion to pine plantations (344.76 ac), poorly planned timber
harvesting activities during 1991-1997 (1,376.83 ac), and suppression of natural fires. Most of
the lands within the proposed LIWMB have been identified as non-wetland (i.e. drained pine
plantation), unable to evaluate, or possessing "Substantial Functional Significance" by the NC
Division of Coastal Management (Appendix A).
Wetland mitigation credits will be generated in the LIWMB by:
' • Restoration of natural wetland community types by conversion of ditched and drained
pine plantations to wet pine flats dominated by native canopy species (311.44 ac).
' Restoration activities will include ditch plugging to restore wetland hydrology, road removal,
culvert removal, regeneration of natural community types, and implementation of a fire
management plan. Monitoring well data indicate that these areas have been effectively
' drained.
• Enhancement and restoration of ditched pine and hardwood community types by
regeneration of natural community types, restoration of wetland hydrology,
1 implementation of a fire management plan, and ditch plugging (2,038.60 ac). Wetland
hydrology will be monitored at selected locations. Restoration credit will be derived from
additional areas that have been effectively drained.
• Preservation of existing natural community types including mixed pine flats, pond pine
woodlands, mixed pine/hardwood flats, nonriverine wet hardwood forest, and coastal
' plain small stream swamp (907.36 ac).
2.1 Existing Hydrology:
' The LIWMB is located at the eastern (i.e. downstream) limit of the Lower Neuse hydrologic unit
(03020204) which encompasses approximately 1,120 square miles in Carteret, Craven, Jones,
' Lenoir, and Pamlico Counties, NC and includes the Lower Neuse estuary and the Trent River
watershed (U.S. Geological Survey, 1975).
' The interior portion of Lukens Island is a broad, poorly drained flat with several natural, low
gradient streams draining into South River and Tumagain Bay. The primary water source for the
wet flats is precipitation. Hardwood flats, depressions, and small streams receive direct
' precipitation and limited shallow lateral flow. Natural drainage from the interior portion of the
site flows directly into tidal creeks and the Lower Neuse estuary. Approximately 30% of the
LIWMB drains east into Tumagain Bay through Broad Creek and an unnamed tidal creek,
4

5

H

approximately 30% drains north into Brown. Creek, and approximately 40% drains west into the
South River through Little Creek.
In the early 1970's, a network of primary collector ditches (road ditches) and secondary lateral
ditches was installed to facilitate access to and production of timber resources (Figure 3). The
drainage network has altered the natural hydroperiod of approximately 2,350 acres of wetland
areas, accelerated storm runoff from the site into the Lower Neuse estuary, and effectively
drained interior portions of the site. Hydrologic monitoring within Block 3A from January 1999
' through July 1999 indicates that wetland hydrology is not present. The pine plantations within
Block 3A were dertermined to be drained (i.e. not jurisdictional wetlands) based on a field
inspection USACE personnel in April 1999.
There are approximately 128,200 feet (24.3 miles) of primary collector ditches and 156,600 feet
(29.7 miles) of secondary lateral ditches within the LIWMB (Figure 3). There are 80,480 feet of
primary collector ditches adjacent to the enhancement areas. Based on the density, size, and
integrity of the existing ditch system within ditched degraded natural community types or
enhancement areas (2,038.60 acres), LILT believes that there has been a substantial hydrologic
' impact to these areas. Many of the ditched degraded natural community types, particularly those
areas adjacent to primary and lateral ditches, may not be jurisdictional wetlands.
LILT will implement a monitoring program within representative enhancement areas to
determine the extent of drainage adjacent to primary ditches within enhancement areas and the
amount of additional restoration credit appropriate for these areas. Automatic monitoring well
transects will be placed perpendicular to primary ditches (i.e. parallel to lateral ditches) at
representative sites within the enhancement areas. We will seek concurrence from the USACE
' on the location of monitoring wells prior to installation. Transects will be located approximately
300 feet from the lateral ditches. Three well transects will be located within each of the three
representative soil series (Arapahoe, Deloss, Wasda) mapped within the enhancement areas.
' Three monitoring wells will be established along each transect at 50 feet, 100 feet, and 150 feet
from the primary ditch. A total of 9 automatic monitoring wells will be installed and maintained
from December 1999 through May 2000. Background precipitation and monitoring well data for
December 1999 through May 2000 will be analyzed and used to determine the amount of any
additional restoration credits. If monitoring well data indicate that wetland hydrology is present
at all monitoring well locations, no additional restoration credits will be justified. Wetland
' hydrology is defined as soil saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 20
consecutive days between February 28 and November 30.
' Material excavated from ditches was used to construct existing roads. The primary ditches range
from 5 to 15 feet wide and 2 to 6 feet deep depending on topographic position. The primary
1 ditches are connected by a series of culverts extending under the existing road system. A series
of secondary lateral ditches was constructed perpendicular to the primary ditches and drain into
the primary ditches. The lateral ditches are approximately 2 to 4 feet wide and 1 to 3 feet deep.
' The lateral ditches are spaced at intervals of approximately 600 feet. A series of culverts connect
the primary ditches and discharge water from the LIWMB site. The primary outlet culverts are

I

1

N
ky w?? ?4 ? ,..yea i ?,? >>,}X'•„1??,.y±,a7'r,.,
f t n /?y ?`. .J
Legend
primary collector ditch / canal
w?_ = secondary lateral ditch
- i = primary outlet culvert
Figure 3: Drainage Ditch Map
Lukens Island Wetland Mitigation Bank, Carteret Count,
Base map source: NCDFR Aerial Photo, 3-23-97
SCALE: I" = 2,600'
r,

L

V

1

located in natural bottomlands (Figure 3). In some cases (i.e. Little Creek, Brown Creek), the
bottomland has also been ditched or channelized to promote accelerated flow from the site.
2.2 Existing Soils:
Soil types mapped within LIWMB include Arapahoe fine sandy loam, Augusta loamy fine sand,
Deloss fine sandy loam, Leon sand, Ponzer muck, Tomotley fine sandy loam, and Wasda muck
(Goodwin, 1987) (Figure 4). The Arapahoe, Augusta, Deloss, Tomotley, and Wasda series are
mapped on low marine and stream terraces throughout the LIWMB (Table 1). The Arapahoe
series is a very poorly drained soil formed in moderately coarse textured sediments. The
Arapahoe series is extensively mapped throughout the LIWMB and is characterized by weak soil
profile development with a dark colored surface horizon (Soil Survey Staff, 1990). The Augusta
series is a somewhat poorly drained mineral soil formed in moderately fine textured sediments,
but is not extensively mapped throughout the LIWMB. The Deloss series is a very poorly
drained soil formed in moderately fine textured sediments. The Deloss series is extensively
mapped throughout the LIWMB and is characterized by an illuvial accumulation of silicate clay
in the subsoil with a dark colored surface horizon (Soil Survey Staff, 1990). The Tomotley series
is a poorly drained soil formed in moderately fine textured sediments. The Tomotley series is
characterized by an eluvial horizon (a light colored surface horizon with a loss of silicate clay)
with an illuvial accumulation of silicate clay in the subsoil and a dark colored surface horizon
(Soil Survey Staff, 1990). The Wasda series is a very poorly drained soil formed in moderately
fine textured sediments overlain by thin organic layers. The Wasda series is extensively mapped
throughout the LIWMB and is characterized by organic surface horizons (10-15 inches) with
weak profile development and dark colored mineral subsoil (Soil Survey Staff, 1990). The Leon
series is a poorly drained soil formed in coarse textured sediments, but is not extensively mapped
within the LIWMB. The Ponzer series is mapped on low marine terraces and are very poorly
drained. The Ponzer series formed in moderately thick beds of organic material and are
characterized by a thick organic surface horizon (15-25 inches) with a very dark colored, mucky
subsoil.
2.3 Existing Plant Community Types:
The existing plant communities within the LIWMB are representative of both natural
communities and communities resulting from human disturbance (Table 2). Human disturbance
has directly altered the natural communities within LIWMB by ditching, bedding, and conversion
to pine plantations and indirectly altered natural communities by suppression of natural fires,
modification of hydrology, and timber harvesting. Recent timber harvesting (1991-1997) has
resulted in high grading or clearcutting of 1,376.83 acres of natural forest community types.
Existing plant communities within LIWMB include recent clearcuts or high graded stands, pine
plantations, mixed pine flats, pond pine woodlands, mixed pine/hardwood flats, nonriverine wet
hardwood forest, and coastal plain small stream swamp (Figure 5). Descriptions of natural
community types generally follow those presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
7

17
L ,

n
I
I

1

d

11

L?

G

11

J

0

Table 1: Summary of soil mapping units within
Lukens Island Wetland Miti ation Bank, Carteret Co., NC
Map Soil type Soil Subgroup Hydric Depth & Estimated
Symbol status 1 Duration of Extent
High Water
Table 2
Ap Arapahoe fine Typic Hydric 0 to -12 in. 1,507 ac +/-
sandy loam Huma ue is (Nov. - May (46%)
Ag Augusta loamy Aeric Non hydric -12 to -24 in. 35 ac +/-
fine sand Ochra uults (Dec. - Mar.) (1%)
De Deloss fine sandy Typic Hydric +12 to -12 in. 1,024 ac +/-
loam Umbra uults (Nov. - Apr.) (31
Dm Deloss mucky Typic Hydric +12 to -12 in. 15 ac +/-
loam Umbra uults (Nov. - Apr.) (0.5%)
Ln Leon sand Aeric Hydric -6 to -18 in. 15 ac +/-
Alaquods (Mar. - Sep.) (0.5%)
PO Ponzer muck Terric Hydric 0 to -12 in. 115 ac +/-
Medisa rists (Nov. - Ma) (4°/q)
TM Tomotley fine Typic Hydric 0 to -12 in. 81 ac +/-
sandy loam Endoa uults (Nov. - Apr.) (2%)
Ws Wasda muck Histic Hydric +6 to -12 in. 465 ac +/-
Huma ue is (Nov. - May) (14%)
' Hydric soil list for North Carolina 2 Based on soil taxonomy for undrained condition, not field verified
Recent Clearcuts & High Graded Stands (1,376.83 ac): Many areas within the LIWMB have
been altered by recent (i.e. 1991-1997) timber harvesting activities. Most of the mature longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris) and pond pine (Pinus serotina) stands have been clearcut. The mature pine
component within many of the mixed pine/hardwood stands has been removed. Most of the
large diameter baldcypress and Atlantic white cedar have been selectively harvested from
hardwood stands within LIWMB. However, many of the mixed pine stands containing residual
longleaf and pond pine could be naturally regenerated through the use of prescribed fire.
Loblolly Pine plantation (344.76 ac): The dominant overstory tree species is loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda). The loblolly pine plantations within Block 3A (311.44 ac) have been ditched,
bedded, and drained, however, a small plantation within Block 12 (33.32 ac) has not been
ditched. The existing plantations are approximately 18 years old. Fire has been excluded and the
dense understory is dominated by woody tree and evergreen shrub species including sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer r. ubrum), red bay (Persea borbonia), loblolly bay
(Gordonia lasianthus), red titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia),
American holly (Ilex opaca), gallberry holly (Ilex coriacea), and inkberry holly (Ilex glabra). The
non-woody understory may include giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), netted chain fern
(Woodwardia aereolata), Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), cinnamon fern (Osmunda
9

F
1

H

' cinnamomea), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), wild grape (Vitus sp.), and greenbriar
(Smilax sp.).

ri

Table 2: Summary of existing plant communities and wetland types within Lukens Island
Wetland Mitigation Bank, Carteret Co., NC
Plant community Estimated Associated Wetland HGM
descri tion 1,2 area 2 soil series type 3 class 4
Recent clearcut & high 1,376.83 ac All series various Various
graded stands
Loblolly Pine 344.76 ac 5 Arapahoe, Deloss, Non Organic &
plantation Ponzer wetland Mineral soil flat
Intermediate aged, 621.65 ac Arapahoe, Leon, PF04E Mineral soil flat
mixed pine flats Wasda, Deloss
Mature, pond pine 334.68 ac Arapahoe, Wasda, PF04E Organic &
woodland Deloss, Ponzer Mineral soil flat
Mixed pine/hardwood 242.59 ac Deloss, Wasda PFO1/4E Mineral soil flat
flats Tomotley
Nonriverine wet 336.88 ac Wasda, Deloss PFO1C/F Depressional,
hardwood forest & Headwater riverine,
coastal plain small Mineral soil flat
stream swam
'follows Schafale and Weakley (1990); 2 based on 1998 color infrared aerial photography and limited ground
truthing; 3 follows Cowardin et al. (1979); 4 follows Brinson (1993) and Smith et al. (1995) 5 loblolly pine
plantation is located in Block 12 (33.32 ac) (not ditched) and Block 3A (311.44 ac) (ditched)
' Intermediate aged, mixed pine flats (621.65 ac): This community type occurs on somewhat
poorly to poorly drained mineral soils on broad interstream divides. A ditch network has been
installed throughout some of these sites and timber has been selectively harvested from many of
' the natural pine stands prior to 1991. Timber harvest has resulted in complete removal of mature
longleaf pine within most stands. The dominant pine species within this community type are
pond pine (Pinus serotina) and loblolly pine, although some stands contain pole-sized longleaf
' pine. Mapped soil series include Arapahoe, Deloss, Leon, and Wasda. Natural fire frequency is
moderate to high; however, the exclusion of fire from these sites has resulted in poor
regeneration of longleaf pine, development of a dense woody understory, and establishment of
' fire intolerant species such as loblolly pine in the overstory. In areas where fire has been
excluded, the understory is dominated by sweetgum, red maple, and a variety of evergreen shrub
species (Persea-Gordonia-Ilex). In areas recently burned by wildfires, a mixture of low growing
evergreen shrub species and herbaceous species dominates. The herb stratum may contain
residual populations of wiregrass (Aristides stricta), wildflower species (predominantly
Asteraceae), and a variety of endemic insectivorous plants (Sarracenia - Dionaea - Drosera) and
' orchids (Cleistes - Calopogon - Habenaria).

10

i

D
0

i7
0

1

I

I
I
I

Nisti
Loblolly Pine Plantation
Mature, Pond Pine Woodland
Recent Clearcut Or High Graded Stand
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest & Small Stream Swamp
Intermediate Aged, Mixed Pine Flat
0 Mixed Pine-Hardwood Flat
' 1 0 1 2 Miles
Figure 5: Existing Plant Community Types - Lukens Island Wetland Mitigation Bank.

C
H

Mixed pine/hardwood flats (242.59 ac): This community type occurs on wet sites where
natural fire frequency was low or on sites where natural fires have been excluded. In addition,
this community type has resulted from recent selective harvest of mature pine stands. The
residual stands contain a high proportion of hardwood species including swamp blackgum,
sweetgum, and red maple with abundant loblolly pine regeneration in the understory. The mature
pine component has been removed from many of these stands. Associated soil series include
Deloss, Tomotley, and Wasda. These stands represent a transition between pine dominated and
hardwood dominated community types.
Mature, pond pine woodlands (334.68 ac): This community type occurs on very poorly drained
organic and mineral soils on broad interstream divides. This community type appears to be the
most prevalent natural community type within LIWMB and adjacent lands. Large tracts of
mature pond pine woodlands have been harvested over the last ten years, however, there are
several relatively mature "reference" stands remaining within the LIWMB. Typical soil series
include those formed in organic muck such as Ponzer or very poorly drained mineral soils such
as Arapahoe, Deloss, and Wasda. Natural fire frequency is low to moderate with natural fires
occurring at intervals of 3 to 5 years (Christensen, 1981; Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The
overstory is dominated by pond pine with an evergreen shrub understory. Typical understory
species may include red bay, loblolly bay, red titi, sweet pepperbush, gallberry holly, inkberry
holly, and fetterbush (Lyonia lucida).
Nonriverine wet hardwood forest & Coastal plain small stream swamp (336.88 ac): These
hardwood dominated community types occur on very poorly drained sites at the head of natural
drainages, on broad interstream divides, and in small depressions. A ditch network extends
throughout some of these sites and has modified the natural hydroperiod. In addition, large
diameter cedar and baldcypress have been selectively removed from these stands. Soil series
primarily include Deloss and Wasda. Natural fire frequency is low for both of these community
types. The overstory tree species common in nonriverine wet hardwood forest include
sweetgum, red maple, yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora),
and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Understory trees and shrubs may include red bay,
loblolly bay, red titi, sweet pepperbush, American holly, gallberry holly, inkberry holly, and dog
hobble (Leucothoe axillaris). The non-woody understory may include giant cane, netted chain
fern, Virginia chain fern, cinnamon fern, poison ivy, wild grape, and greenbriar.
The coastal plain small stream swamp occurs on very poorly drained sites primarily in the
headwaters of Brown's Creek within the LIWMB. The overstory tree species which dominate
this type include swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), red maple,
baldcypress (Taxodium distichum), green ash, black willow (Salix nigra), and sweetgum. The
understory species may include: red bay, sweet pepperbush, red titi, inkberry holly, red maple,
fetterbush, and dog hobble. Understory ferns and vines may include netted chain fern, Virginia
chain fern, cinnamon fern, greenbriar, and wild grape.
12

7
J

H

li

' 2.4 Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, & Preservation:
' Credits will be generated within the LIWMB through restoration, enhancement, and preservation
of wetlands within the site. The Federal guidance for the establishment, use, and operation of
mitigation banks (Federal Register, 1995) defines wetland restoration, enhancement, and
' preservation as:
? Restoration - Re-establishment of previously existing wetland or other aquatic resource
character and function(s) at a site where they have ceased to exist, or exist only in a
substantially degraded state.
? Enhancement - Activities conducted in existing wetlands or other aquatic resources to
achieve specific management objectives or provide conditions which previously did not exist,
and which increase one or more aquatic functions.
' ? Preservation - The protection of ecologically important wetlands or other aquatic resources
in perpetuity through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms.
' The proposed wetland restoration sites within LIWMB include 311.44 acres of loblolly pine
plantation within Block 3A (Figure 6) and additional areas adjacent to primary ditches within
enhancement areas. The amount of additional restoration area and credit will be determined
through hydrologic monitoring. Based on the classification and morphology of the mapped soil
series within this area and natural community types present on similar relatively undisturbed
sites, we assumed that the pre-disturbance natural community types were jurisdictional wetlands
similar to those described in previous sections of this report. Unpublished botanical studies
within the region and reconnaissance of Open Grounds Pocosin prior to agricultural conversion
indicate that the soil series present within LIWMB predominantly supported pond pine
' woodlands (Arapahoe, Deloss, Ponzer series) interspersed with hardwood community types
(Wanda series) and longleaf pine savannas (Arapahoe, Augusta, Leon series) (C. Frost, personal
communication; R. Peet, personal communication; J. Stanton, personal communication).
Based on the size extent and integrity of the ditch network within Block 3A and site specific
well data, the USACE determined that the loblolly pine plantation in Block 3A was effectively
' drained (i.e. non-wetland). Therefore, the proposed actions will be directed at re-establishing the
character and function(s) of previously existing wetland and natural community types at this site.
' Additional monitoring wells will be placed adjacent to primary ditches within enhancement
areas. Data from the additional monitoring wells will be used to determine whether additional
restoration credits are warranted for these areas.
' The proposed restoration measures include:
? removing 3,100+ feet of existing roads
? filling & plugging 11,000 feet primary ditches
? modifying culverts and installing broad based dips to promote flow through natural
' bottomlands
? removing 95% of the existing loblolly pine plantations and leaving approximately 5 residual
trees per acre for restoration of characteristic wet flat habitat functions
13

I I

0
0

I
0

k

?1,

' 1 0 1 2 Miles
' Figure 6: Proposed Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation Areas - Lukens Island
Wetland Mitigation Bank

J

J

E

F

? planting longleaf pine and pond pine on suitable sites within Block 3A
? implementing a short term prescribed burning program to restore natural community function
and structure and long term fire management protocols to ensure a natural fire regime.
The proposed wetland enhancement sites within LIWMB include all areas, excluding restoration
areas, which have been modified by installation of a ditch network (2,038.60 ac) (Figure 6).
Based on the installation of drainage features and suppression of natural wildfires, the habitat
structure and functions and water quality functions within these sites have been impaired.
Enhancement credits are proposed for all ditched sites outside of the core restoration area within
Block 3A. However, LILT reserves the right to seek additional restoration credits based on the
results of 1999-2000 monitoring data within selected enhancement areas.
The proposed wetland enhancement measures include:
? removing sections of existing roads
? plugging primary ditches and plugging lateral ditches by constructing fire lines through
interior portions of Blocks 4, 6, 7, and 12
? modifying culverts and installing broad based dips to promote flow through natural
bottomlands
? thinning within existing mature pond pine woodlands (334.68 ac) as necessary to enhance
habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and reduce fuel
loads prior to implementation of the prescribed burning program
? implementation of long term fire management protocols to restore natural community
function and structure
The proposed preservation sites include all remaining sites within the LIWMB that have not been
ditched (907.36 ac) (Figure 6). The proposed wetland preservation measures include
implementation and recordation of a conservation easement approved by the MBRT. There will
be limited ditch plugging in primary ditches adjacent to preservation areas and a small loblolly
pine plantation (33.32 ac) in Block 12 will be thinned to promote development of large diameter
canopy trees. There will be no intentional prescribed burning Within preservation areas,
however, natural wildfires or prescribed fires that burn into preservation areas will not be
suppressed.
Adjacent landowners will not be directly affected by the proposed activities. There is only one
landowner immediately adjacent to the LIWMB on the south side (adjacent to Blocks 3A, 4, and
12). The remainder of the adjacent land is owned by LILT. Proposed hydrologic improvements
(i.e. ditch plugging, etc.) will not directly affect the adjacent landowner. The adjacent property is
drained by a separate ditch system and no modifications are proposed to ditches or roads
common to the properties (i.e. canal along Little Creek & unnamed tributary). Proper
precautions and procedures will be implemented to ensure that prescribed fires do not burn into
adjacent properties.
15

fl

G

V

I

2.5 Ecological Processes and Functions:
A variety of ecological processes and functions can be attributed to the existing and proposed
wetland types within the LIWMB. These functions are directly related to the geomorphic-
landscape setting and hydrologic attributes of the wetland types (Brinson, 1993). Lukens Island
is a large peninsula surrounded on three sides by estuarine wetlands directly connected to tidal
waters. Land use and management practices on Lukens Island directly influence the water
quality in adjacent downstream estuarine wetlands. Landscape level wetland restoration and
enhancement activities proposed in the LIWMB will directly benefit the adjacent estuarine
wetlands and tidal waters. In addition, the landscape level habitat restoration (i.e. wet pine
flatwoods and savanna restoration) is of sufficient size to support multiple populations of RCW
(Porter and Labisky, 1986; Hooper et al., 1980).
' The proposed activities associated with the LIWMB will result in restoration or enhancement of
characteristic wetland functions for existing wetland types such as primary productivity,
biogeochemical transformations, hydroperiod, habitat or physiognomic structure, and habitat
' connectivity and interspersion (i.e. landscape support) (Rheinhardt et al., 1997; Rheinhardt and
Brinson, 1998).

J
E

2.5.1 Functional Impact of Intensive Forest Management
The installation of ditch networks associated with road construction has altered hydrology and
associated wetland functions within the LIWMB. The characteristic hydroperiod of the natural
wetland types varies from seasonally saturated (mineral soil flats) to semipermanently flooded
(headwater riverine) (Table 3). A fluctuating seasonal hydroperiod promotes alternating cycles
of aerobic and anaerobic soil conditions and increases the biogeochemical transformations such
as organic matter decomposition, dissolved carbon export, nutrient mineralization, and
denitrification (Brinson et al., 1981; Mulholland, 1981; Reddy and Patrick, 1975). The
characteristic hydroperiod within extensive mineral and organic soil flats results in short term
surface water storage and long term subsurface water storage to support baseflow augmentation
in headwater riverine systems and estuaries. The presence of a ditch network increases peak
runoff rates, decreases the retention time of precipitation and surface water, alters natural
groundwater flow patterns, and increases the mean depth to the seasonal water table (Crownover
et al., 1995; Maki et al., 1980; Skaggs et al., 1980; WRP, 1993). The latter changes result in:
? decreased dissolved carbon export and food chain support due to decreased contact time
between shallow groundwater and the soil matrix/organic matter
? increased primary productivity and transpirational losses due to soil drainage and reduction of
anaerobic soil conditions
? increased nitrogen mineralization and decreased denitrification due to soil drainage
? decreased short term surface water storage and long term subsurface water storage resulting
in decreased baseflow augmentation
? habitat interspersion of uplands and wetlands
16

J

?I

u

E

I I

Table 3: Characteristic hydroperiod for wetland types within LIWMB
HGM class i Classification 2 Hydroperiod Duration 3
Mineral soil flat
I PF04E, PFO1 C,
PF04B Seasonally inundated to
saturated >5% to 25%
Organic soil flat PF04E Seasonally inundated to
seasonally saturated 12.5% to 25%
Depressional PF01C Seasonally inundated 12.5% to 25%
Headwater riverine PFO1F Regularly inundated or
saturated 25% to 75%
1 Smith et al., 1995; 2 Cowardin et al., 1979; 3 Environmental Laboratory, 1987
Intensive forest management including fire suppression, site preparation (i.e. bedding), plantation
establishment, and clearcut harvesting can alter a variety of wetland functions including primary
productivity, biogeochemical transformations, hydroperiod, habitat structure and physiognomy,
and habitat connectivity and interspersion.
Drainage, bedding, and high density plantation establishment have a compounding effect.
Drainage and bedding allow for the establishment of fast growing pine species on previously wet
sites, thus increasing primary productivity and tree density. The basal area of relatively mature
(i.e. >25 yrs) natural longleaf and pond pine stands ranges from 30 ft2/ac in longleaf pine savanna
and pond pine pocosin to 120 ft2/ac in dense stands. The density of trees greater than 5 inches in
similar stands ranges from 50 to 200 trees/ac (McClure and Knight, 1984; Swartz, 1907). The
basal area of relatively mature loblolly pine plantations may range from 125 ft2/ac to 150 ft2/ac,
and density may range from 200 to 600 trees/ac (Baker and Balmer, 1983; McClure and Knight,
1984). The increased primary productivity results in increased water loss due to transpiration
and increased depth to the seasonally high water table. Therefore, on wet flat sites dependent
upon precipitation as the sole source of hydrology, it is possible to convert wetlands to non-
wetlands by ditching, bedding, and high density plantation establishment.
Biogeochemical transformations are affected by fire suppression, clearcutting, and drainage.
Drainage lowers the seasonally high water table and limits anaerobic conditions within the soil.
Reduced soil anaerobiosis may alter ecological processes such as denitrification and
mineralization. Although drainage effects may lead to increased mineralization, suppression of
natural fires results in decreased mineralization and increased carbon storage in litter and fine
woody debris. Clearcutting results in short term alteration of biogeochemical functions.
Clearcutting increases solar radiation reaching the forest floor and decreases transpiration losses.
Typically, there is an increase in short term nutrient and sediment losses from clearcut sites
(Binkley and Brown, 1993; Lockaby et al., 1997; Riekerk, 1989).
Habitat functions are directly affected by clearcutting, conversion (plantation establishment), and
fire suppression. The effects of clearcutting on habitat functions are obvious. Short rotation,
17

!I

n

I I

intensive silviculture reduces stand diversity, cavity tree availability, and vertical/horizontal
stratification. Failure to maintain streamside buffers results in fragmentation of habitat and
reduced connectivity. Fire suppression favors the development of a dense woody understory.
Natural, fire maintained longleaf pine savannas contain very high plant species diversity (Frost et
al., 1986; Walker and Peet, 1983). Due to the decline of open, fire maintained flatwoods habitat
throughout North Carolina, there are now over 87 species of rare vascular plants dependent upon
remnants of this habitat type (Walker, 1993). Of the 36 listed species of vascular plants once
recorded in Carteret County, 23 are dependent upon wet pine flat habitat and all listed species are
herbaceous (Table 4). Fire suppression favors development of woody understory species and
greatly reduces the presence of characteristic herbaceous species.
There are 1 state listed and 3 federal listed vertebrate species dependent upon wet pine flat
ecosystems in Carteret County, NC (Table 5). There are 36 species of mammals, 34 amphibian
species, 38 reptilian species, and 86 bird species including the red cockaded woodpecker
associated with longleaf pine ecosystems throughout the Southeast (Engstrom, 1993; Guyer and
Bailey, 1993).
Additional game species favored by pine and pine/hardwood ecosystems include bobwhite quail
(Colinus virginianus), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger)
(Sharpe, 1998; Still and Baumann, 1989; Loeb and Lennartz, 1989). Additional game species
such as whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and black bear (Ursus americanus) will be
favored by management for wet pine flatwoods/savanna with herbaceous understory and pond
pine woodlands with low shrub understory. The latter community types will provide additional
grazing habitat and soft mast production.
2.5.2 Functional Uplift of the Proposed Project
The restoration and enhancement activities associated with the proposed LIWMB will result in
uplift of existing water quality and habitat functions. Elimination of channelized flow within
ditches and restoration of flow through natural hardwood bottomlands and small streams will
increase water quality functions. The proposed ditch plugging and filling will result in increased
short term surface and subsurface water storage and subsequent increase in the duration and
elevation of the seasonally high water table. The increased retention time of surface and
subsurface water on broad interstream flats will result in reduced peak flows and augmented
baseflow within natural streams and bottomlands. Increased retention time between will also
facilitate a variety of biogeochemical transformations such as denitrification and dissolved
' organic carbon export. Reduced nitrogen export and increased carbon export will benefit
downstream estuaries and food chains in South River and Turnagain Bay.
' Modification of existing culverts, installation of broad based dips, and removal of selected roads
will promote flow through natural bottomlands and small streams. Restoration of low velocity
flow through natural bottomlands will increase biogeochemical transformations such as carbon
' export, dentrification, and phosphorus retention (Brinson et al., 1981; Mulholland, 1981; Reddy
and Patrick, 1975).
18
0
1

i

I'

i
L

F

E
Table 4: Summary of rare vascular plant species recorded from Carteret County,
NC within habitat types similar to those existing or pro osed at LIV;NM 1
Plant Species Common Name Habitat Type' Rank 3 Ind. st 4 Form 5
A alinis a lla scale-leaf erardia pine savannas SR FACW AN+F
A alinis vir ata branched erardia pine savannas SR FAC ANF
A alinis lini olia flaxleaf erardia pine savannas SR FACW PNF
Ascle ias edicellata savanna milkweed pine savannas Sc FACW PNF
Cladium mariscoides twig rush Coastal bogs SR OBL PNEG
C erus tetra onus four-angled flatsed a Brackish marsh SR FAC+ PNGL
Eleocharis cellulose Gulf coasts ikerush Brackish marsh SR OBL PNGL
Eleocharis robbinsii Robbins' s ikerush Coastal boas SC OBL PNGL
Eleocharis rostellata beaked s ikerush Brackish marsh SR OBL PNGL
E thrina herbacea coralbean open sand woods SR UPL PNF
Dionaea musci ula Venus flytrap wet flatwoods FSC FACW PNF
Ludwi is lanceolata lanceleaf seedbox Brackish marsh Sc OBL NF
Hibiscus aculeatus comfortroot pine savannas SC FACW PNF
L simachia as eruli olia rou -leaf loosetrife Savanna/ ocosin FE OBL PNF
Malaxis s icata Florida adder's mouth Swamps SR OBL PNF
Peltandra sa itti olia s oonflower Coastal bogs SR OBL PNEF
Pin icula umila small butterwort low inelands SR OBL APNF
Platanthera inte a yellow fringeless orchid pine flatwoods ST OBL PNF
Pol ala hookeri Hooker's milkwort Savannas SC FACW ANF
Pol ovum hirsutum hairy smartweed Savannas SR OBL PNF
Rhexia cubensis W. Indies meadow-beau low inelands SR FACW PNEF
Rh nchos ora breviseta short-bristled beaksed a Coastal bogs SC OBL PNGL
R nchos ore lobularis Small's beaksed a low inelands SR FACW PNGL
R nchos ora odorata fragrant beaksed a Swam forest SR OBL PNGL
Scleria baldwinii Baldwin's nutrush low inelands SC FACW PNGL
Scleria eor Tana Georgia nutrush low inelands SR FACW PNGL
Scleria verticillata savanna nutrush Pinelands SC OBL ANGL
Schoeno lectus acutus hardstem bulrush Marsh SR OBL PNEG
Solida o ulchra Carolina goldenrod pine savannas FSC OBL PNF
Solida o leavemvorthii Leavenworth's goldenrod Savannas/ ocosin SC FAC+ PNF
Solida o verna Spring-flower goldenrod Savannas/ ocosin FSC OBL PNF
S iranthes laciniata lace-lip ladies' tresses Cypress swamps SC FACW PNEF
S iranthes lon ilabris giant spiral orchid wet savannas SC FACW PNF
To teldia labra Carolina asphodel Savannas/ ocosin FSC FACW PNF
X ris brevi olia shortlf yellow-eyed ass Savannas SR OBL PNEF
X ris abelli ormis savanna ellow-e ed ass moist savannas SC OBL PNEF
' Source: NC Natural Heritage Program, 1998; 2 Habitat information from Radford et al., 1968; 3 Rank codes: SC
= state candidate, SR = state rare, ST = state threatened, FSC = federal species of concern, FT = federal threatened,
FE = federal endangered; 4 Source: Reed (1988); 5 Form codes: A = annual, E = emergent, F = forb, G = grass, GL
' = grasslike, N = native, P = perennial; + = parasitic
r]
19

fl

1

F

C

Table 5: Summary of rare vertebrate species recorded from Carteret County, NC
within habitat typ es similar to those existing or proposed at LIWMB 1
Animal Species Common Name Habitat Type e Rank 3
Aimo hila aestivalis Bachmans sparrow Open pine woods FSC
Alligator mississi iensis American alligator Brackish marsh FT
Anhin a anhin a anhin a Swamps & marshes SR
Botaurus lenti inosus American bittern Brackish marsh SR
Circus aneus northern harrier Grasslands SR
Coturnico s noveboracensis yellow rail Brackish marsh SR
Crotalus adamanteus E. diamondback rattlesnake Dry pine flatwoods SR
E etta caerulea little blue heron coas tal marshes SC
E retta thula snowy egret coastal marshes SC
E retta tricolor tricolored heron coastal marshes SC
Laterallus 'amaicencis black rail brackish marsh SR
Picoides borealis red cockaded woodpecker mature pine savanna FE
Ple adis alcinellus loss ibis brackish marsh SC
Sistrurus miliarius pygmy rattlesnake pine flatwoods SR
Ursus americanus black bear forests, swamps SR
Felis concolor cougar Eastern cougar woods, deep swamps FE
Heterodon simus Southern ho ose snake wire ass flats FSC
1 Source: NC Natural Heritage Program, 1998; 2 Habitat information from Stokes, 1996; Behler and King, 1988;
Collins, 1959; 3 Rank codes: SC = state candidate, SR = state rare, ST = state threatened, FSC = federal species of
concern, FT = federal threatened, FE = federal endangered
' The application of prescribed fire, elimination of fire suppression (for natural wildfires), and
conversion of loblolly pine plantations will ultimately result in a substantial increase in habitat
functions. The importance of natural fires to the maintenance of pine flatwoods community types 1s
' well documented. Due to fire suppression and conversion of longleaf pine, extensive areas of pine
flatwoods habitat have been degraded throughout the southeastern U.S. The majority of the state and
federal rare plants listed for Carteret County, NC are herbaceous plants dependent on pine flatwoods
habitat (Table 4). In addition, many of the listed animal species utilize this habitat including the
endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW). The proposed activities within the LIWMB will
promote the development of suitable habitat for RCW and other endemic pine flatwoods species.
' The proposed thinning and burning within existing mature, pond pine woodlands will provide
nesting and foraging habitat for RCW. Application of prescribed fire within adjacent areas will
promote the development of additional foraging habitat. Conversion of loblolly pine plantations will
' also provide additional RCW habitat, although development of suitable nesting habitat for RCW
within restoration areas may require several decades.
1
3.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION
' The Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act (16 USC 1344), as described in 40 CFR
Part 230, states that unavoidable wetland loss resulting from filling activities may be offset by
' effective mitigation actions. According to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
20
1

n

n

I?

11
0
I I

mitigation actions should include avoidance, minimization, restoration, enhancement and
compensation for unavoidable impacts. After all practical attempts to avoid and minimize wetland
' losses have been accomplished, compensatory mitigation in any of the forms (i.e. wetland creation,
restoration, enhancement, and/or preservation) should be developed.
As identified in the Memorandum of Agreement between the USACE and USEPA (November 15,
1989), wetland restoration is the most desirable form of mitigation. Creation is the second most
desirable form, and is generally deemed more desirable than enhancement or preservation of
' wetlands. Acquisition of existing wetlands (preservation) is favored for corridor protection and as a
means to hedge against future destruction or unfavorable habitat impacts. Ideally, compensatory
mitigation should be in-kind and on-site to provide for functional replacement. Wetland areas at or
adjacent to project sites have historically been created, restored, enhanced or protected to compensate
for impacted wetland functions and values. However, in areas with significant long-term
' development pressures, the quantity and quality of the wetlands that can be successfully restored
and/or created around the periphery of a wetland impact site may be limited. Therefore, off-site
mitigation may be the best alternative.
3.1 Proposed Actions
Wetland mitigation credits will be derived from restoration, enhancement, and preservation of
natural wetland types within LIWMB (Table 6). Approximately 311 acres within Block 3A were
ditched, bedded, and converted to loblolly pine plantations. An additional 33 acres within Block
' 12 was bedded and converted to loblolly pine plantation. The drained pine plantations within
Block 3A will be restored to natural wetland types by removal of loblolly pine, hydrologic
modifications, planting with native pine species, and prescribed fire. Additional areas (2,038
' acres) have been ditched, but not converted to pine plantation. Hydrologic improvements,
thinning, and prescribed burning will be conducted within these enhancement areas. The
remaining plant communities within the LIWMB (907 acres), including important riparian
' corridors along Brown Creek, Little Creek, Broad Creed, and an unnamed tributary to Turnagain
Bay, will be preserved as an integral part of the bank.
3.1.1 Proposed Hydrologic Improvements
The effect of ditch systems and road construction on natural flow patterns within LIWMB will be
' reduced by plugging/filling ditches, removal of certain road sections, installation of broad based
dips, and modification of culverts at selected locations. The goals of the proposed hydrologic
modifications are to reduce/eliminate flow through man-made channels and ditches, retain
precipitation and decrease the depth to the mean water table, and restore natural flow patterns.
' There will be no new ditch construction within the proposed LIWMB. There are
approximately 128,200 feet of primary collector ditches and 156,600 feet of secondary lateral
ditches (Figure 3). Assuming that the average top width, bottom width, and depth of primary
' ditches is 1 lft, 3ft, and 4ft, respectively, it would require approximately 133,000 cubic yards of
material to fill the primary ditch system. It would be impractical and prohibitively expensive to
fill the entire primary ditch system.
21

0
n
0

i?

1

0

L

0
F

Table 6: Existing Plant Community Types and Proposed Activities within LIWMB
Existing plant Proposed Proposed activities
community a area
Recent clearcuts
Blocks 3A, 4, 6, 7, 12 Enhancement Plug ditches, remove road sections, install culverts,
prescribed burn
Block 12, riparian buffer Preservation No fire suppression
Pine plantation
Block 3A Restoration Plug ditches, remove road sections, install culverts,
harvest loblolly pine, plant longleaf/pond pine,
prescribed burn
Block 12 Preservation Thin loblolly pine, no fire suppression
Mixed pine flats
Blocks 3A, 4, 6, 12 Enhancement Plug ditches, remove road sections, install culverts,
and prescribed burn
Block 6 Preservation Prescribed burn
Block 12, riparian buffer Preservation No fire suppression
Mixed pine/hardwood
Blocks 4, 12 Enhancement Plug ditches, remove road sections, install culverts,
and prescribed burn
Block 12, riparian buffer Preservation No fire suppression
Pond pine woodlands
Blocks 4, 6, 7, 12 Enhancement Thin stands as necessary, Plug ditches, remove road
sections, install culverts, and prescribed bum
Nonriv. wet hardwood
forest/small str. Swamp
Blocks 4, 6, 7, 12 Enhancement Plug ditches, remove road sections, install culverts
Block 12, riparian buffer Preservation No fire suppression
' Areas determined by plant community mapping using January 1998 color mtrarecl aerial photography ?Iin
800ft), digitization, and polygon measurement using GIS. Average road width was assumed to be 25 ft.
LILT proposes to install 110+ ditch plugs within primary ditches. The ditch plugs would be
located at the junction of secondary lateral ditches with the primary ditch (Figure 7). The ditch
plugs would be constructed according to NRCS standards and would be approximately 100 feet
' in length (Figure 8). Additional ditch plugs would be installed if necessary to restore natural
flow patterns and hydrology. All ditch plugs will be stabilized and planted with woody
vegetation.
At each specified ditch plug location, ditches will be filled according to the following protocol:
' ? Existing ditch will be excavated to remove vegetation and organic material and provide a
mineral soil contact for backfilled material
22
t
w

I

1?
II
!J

0
Cl
u
1

r

I I

I I

n
a

I

rI

FIB
e

I

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3. Replace organic material .
• replace 6-12 inches of
stockpiled organic material
• add required lime & fertilizer
• stabilize organic material with
seed mix and/or woody
plantings
ditch width = 5 - 15 feet
Ditch Plug Length
• major ditch plugs = 300 feet
• intermediate ditch plugs = 100 feet

11 ?
1
1. Excavate & clear organic material '
• excavate exisitng organic material from ditch
• excavate to mineral soil
• stockpile organic material
Approximate ditch bottom = 2 - 5 feet
NOT TO SCALE
Typical Ditch Plug
Approximate width = 50-75 feet
Approximate
ditch depth
= 2 - 6 feet
2. Backfill & compact
• backfill ditch with available
onsite material
• use clay - sandy clay loam
material if possible
• fill 100 to 300 feet of ditch
• compact backfilled material
Approximate depth
Depth of mean high below existing road
water = 18 to 24 inches Low flow channel surface = 4-6 feet
at deepest point
i•r•r• ti.ti.ir fti:
ti•Yti•ti•b
•r.r.r.?.r.r. t.tif{':{rtif'r'r - '?
? •L ti.SirLKfh• r.r.f.i r•r•
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
? r r•r•r• ti L L YY'
1 .r.r r•r•r• ?.
ti.ti.ti•ti.ti•i• ti•ti.tifti?ti .r.r.r -
? •r•r•r.r.r• r•r•r.r•r•}' ?
q•ti•YYh.ti.ti. L.4•ti•ti.•.-
Aft%
Geo-grid stabilized crossing
Geo-grid staked in
place with iron rods • 12-18 inches thick
• 12-15 feet wide
Geo-textile fabric • constructed from
placed to stabilize geo-grid compartmentalized
geo- grid
Existing road elevation • geo-grid filled with crushed
Typical Broad Based Dip gravel or marl
Figure 8: Typical Ditch Plug & Broad Based Dip
Lukens Island Wetland Mitigation Bank
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
h
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

0

d
? Excavated organic material will be stockpiled
? Ditch plug location will be backfilled with available onsite material (preferably clay to sandy
clay loam texture) to an elevation 12-18 inches above the surrounding natural topography or
to the elevation of the adjacent road
? Stockpiled organic material will be spread over ditch plug to a depth of 3-6 inches
? Fertilizer and lime will be spread over ditch plug at rates dictated by soil test results
? Ditch plug will be stabilized by seeding with a herbaceous seed mix and/or planting with
native woody plant species at 6ft x 6ft spacing
There will be no new road construction within the proposed LIWMB. Selected sections of
roads will be excavated and removed from natural hardwood flats and bottomlands where
practical. Approximately 1,300 feet of existing road will be removed within a natural hardwood
bottomland between Block 3A and 4, and approximately 1,800 feet of existing road will be
removed from a hardwood flat between Block 4 and 6 (Figure 7). The majority of the road
system will remain intact to provide access to Lukens Lodge and to provide interior access to
LIWMB. A stable, high water access route must be maintained to Lukens Lodge for delivery of
fuel and supplies, hunting access, security, and emergency access. Interior access to the bank is
required for implementation of the prescribed burning program and monitoring. At locations
where road removal is not practical, natural flow patterns through hardwood flats and
bottomlands will be restored by filling adjacent ditches, installing broad based dips, and
modifying culverts under existing roads (Figures 7 and 8).
There are four primary outlets from the LIWMB. In most cases, the primary outlets coincide
with natural bottomlands and small streams. The outlet at the unnamed tributary to Turnagain
Bay in the southeastern corner of the LIWMB is not located in a natural bottomland, but is
located at a constructed canal along an ownership boundary. Since the canal forms the property
boundary, it can not be filled. LILT proposes to place ditch plugs in the interior ditch and
remove the existing culverts draining to the outlet canal at this location (Figure 7). A broad
based dip (Figure 8) will be constructed at the location of the natural bottomland. The purpose of
the major ditch plugs is to prohibit channelized or ditch flow into the drainage canal. The
purpose of the broad based dip is to promote flow from the LIWMB through natural streams and
bottomlands.
The existing outlets at Brown Creek and Broad Creek will be replaced with broad based dips and
ditch plugs will be placed in the interior ditch. An additional broad based dip and ditch plugs
will be constructed in a natural bottomland on the west side of Block 3A (Figure 7). The purpose
of the ditch plugs is to prohibit channelized or ditch flow into Brown Creek, Broad Creek, and
Little Creek. The purpose of the broad based dip is to promote flow from the LIWMB through
the natural stream and associated hardwood forest. The invert elevations of the proposed broad
based dips will be constructed at the same elevation as the associated stream channel.
The outlet and drainage canal at Little Creek is also located along an ownership boundary. Since
the South River Road provides an important access route to Lukens Lodge, LILT proposes to
install ditch plugs and modify culverts at this location (Figure 7). The purpose of the major ditch
plugs is to prohibit channelized or ditch flow from LIWMB into Little Creek. The purpose of the
25

I, J

H

LI

n
I-
L

H
culvert modifications is to eliminate backwater on the upstream side of the culvert and promote a
natural hydroperiod in the adjacent hardwood flat.
Shallow groundwater monitoring wells will be established within the restoration areas according
to guidelines outlined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station
(WRP, 1993). Well data will be used to document hydrologic restoration and functional uplift
within restoration areas. Functional uplift within enhancement areas will be measured by plant
community criteria. A discussion of the monitoring protocol is contained in the Regulatory
Release Section of this report.
3.1.2 Proposed Soil Modifications
Project success is dependent on the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology within
restoration areas. Most of the soil series within LIWMB are considered hydric (Table 1). Hydric
soils within the restoration areas have been modified and drained and will be restored by the
proposed hydrologic and plant community modifications.
3.1.3 Proposed Plant Community / Habitat Types
The lower coastal plain of North Carolina was once dominated by extensive pine flatwoods and
swamps. Pine flatwoods represented the major forest type in the region prior to European
settlement (Johnson and Gjerstad, 1998; Peet and Allard, 1993; Stout and Marion, 1993). Pine
flatwoods in North Carolina were dominated by longleaf pine and pond pine. Species
composition and stand characteristics sorted out along topoedaphic gradients according to
moisture and fire frequency (Stout and Marion, 1993). Today, longleaf pine is nearly absent
from the Neuse River in central North Carolina northward, despite the fact that this species once
dominated much of the Coastal Plain of northeastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia
(Peet and Allard, 1993). One of the primary objectives of the LIWMB is to restore a landscape
level mosaic of wet pine flatwoods and savanna community types interspersed with hardwood
dominated swamps. An indirect effect of this landscape level community restoration effort will
be the creation and enhancement of habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker.
The proposed plant communities include both fire dependent, pine dominated and hardwood
dominated types (Figure 9). The proposed plant community types include pond pine woodland,
mixed pine flat, mixed pine/hardwood flat, longleaf and pond pine savanna, nonriverine wet
hardwood forest, and small stream swamp (Table 7). The pond pine woodland and longleaf and
pond pine savanna types are fire dependent. The characteristic understory species data for the
longleaf & pond pine savanna community were obtained from Peet and Allard (1993) and Peet
(1998).
Within the proposed restoration areas, the existing loblolly pine overstory will be removed.
Longleaf and pond pine will be planted in a 70/30 mixture (70% longleaf / 30% pond) on
existing beds throughout the restoration areas at a density of 520 trees/ac (6ft x 14ft spacing).
Typically, the longleaf and pond pine seedlings used by TWC are produced from North Carolina
26
I?

1
?I
._-1
0

N
..ML
Mixed Pine Flat & Savanna
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Flat V
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest & Small Stream Swamp
Longleaf & Pond Pine Savanna
1 0 1 2 Miles
Figure 9: Proposed Plant Community Types - Lukens Island Wetland Mitigation Bank.

1

n
C

1

1

H

Table 7: Proposed Plant Community Types, Lukens Island Wetland Mitigation Bank,
Carteret County, NC
Proposed plant Dominant Dominant understory species Area
Community oversto species ac
Pond pine woodland Pinus serotina Gordonia lasianthus, Magnolia virginiana, 1,631.68
Acer rubrum, Persea palustris, Cyrilla
Preservation = 51.19 ac racemeiora, Lyonia lucida, Lyonia
Enhancement = 1,580.49 ac mariana, Myrica cerifera, Ilex coriacea, flex
glabra, Gaylussacia frondosa, Gaylussacia
dumosa, Aronia arbutifolia, Clethra
alnifolia, Arundinarea gigantea, Zenobia .
ulverulenta
Mixed pine flat Pinus palustris Gordonia lasianthus, Magnolia virginiana, 515.34
Pinus serotina Acer rubrum, Persea palustris, Cyrilla
Preservation = 344.32 ac Pinus taeda racemeiflora, Lyonia lucida, Myrica cerifera,
Enhancement = 171.02 ac Ilex coriacea, Ilex glabra, Gaylussacia
frondosa, Clethra alnifolia, Arundinarea
i antea
Mixed pine/hardwood flat Pinus taeda Myrica cerifera, Ilex opaca, Ilex 468.31
Liquidambar styraciua glabra„Clethra alnifolia, Arundinarea
Preservation = 271.59 ac Acer rubrum gigantea, Symplocos tinctoria, Lyonia
Enhancement = 196.72 ac Nyssa biflora lucida, Andropogon sp.
N ssa lvatica
Longleaf & pond pine Pinus palustris Vaccinium crassij7oium, Gaylussacia 372.03
savanna 1,2, 3 Pinus serotina frondosa, Gaylussacia dumosa, Ilex glabra,
Myrica cerifera, Aronia arbutifolia, Aristida
Preservation = 60.59 ac stricta, Andropogon sp., Carphephorus sp.,
Enhancement = 0 ac Cleistes divaricata, Dicanthelium sp.,
Restoration = 311.44 ac Pityopsis graminifolia, Polygala lutea,
Pteridium aquilinum, Rhexia alifanus,
Vaccinium tenellum, X ris caroliniana
Nonriverine wet hardwood Nyssa bii fora Magnolia virginiana, Persea palustris, 270.03
forest & small stream Nyssa aquatica Cyrilla racemeiflora, Lyonia lucida, Ilex
swamp 1 Taxodium distichum opaca, Ilex glabra, Clethra alnifolia,
Acer rubrum Arundinarea gigantea, Leucothoe axillaris,
Preservation = 180.56 ac Liquidambar styraciflua Woodwardia areolata, Smilax sp.
Enhancement = 89.47 ac Magnolia vir iniana
Source: 1Schafale and Weakley, 1990;1 Peet and Allard, 1993;' Peet, 1998
' Coastal Plain seed sources. Seedlings will be planted in the winter or spring on existing beds
following initial burning and herbicide application.
' Prescribed fire will be utilized within restoration and enhancement areas to promote natural
community establishment. Restoration areas will be burned prior to planting, but will not be
burned again until seedlings are of sufficient size to survive a ground fire. Following
implementation and monitoring, restoration areas will be burned at a frequency of 1-3 years.
Enhancement areas will be burned biennially during the implementation and monitoring period.
Following completion of the implementation and monitoring, enhancement areas will be burned
' at a frequency of 3-5 years. Prescribed fire and/or naturally occurring fires will promote the
28

0

1

I?

J

I!

establishment of a diverse mosaic of fire dependent, natural community types within the
restoration and enhancement areas.
3.3 Reference Plot Establishment
Wetland restoration and enhancement efforts within LIWMB will focus on natural fire maintained
pine ecosystems. Therefore, reference plots for the longleaf & pond pine savanna and pond pine
woodland community types will be established within relatively undisturbed mature examples of
these natural communities. Reference plots will be located in relatively undisturbed community types
on Lukens Island and public lands in the region. Suitable longleaf/pond pine stands at Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuge were evaluated for use as reference stands (Table 8). At least two suitable
reference stands will be located for the longleaf & pond pine savanna and pond pine woodland
community types (4 total). One reference plot for each type will be representative of a relatively
mature community and one plot will be representative of an immature community. Reference stands
must be located outside of established ditch systems in order to establish baseline hydrologic
standards for regulatory release. Hydrologic. characteristics of reference stands will be monitored
using shallow (<40 in) automatic recording wells (daily data). All reference stands will be located
using GPS and a reference stand map will be prepared for submission with the first annual monitoring
report.
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of the approved plan for the LIWMB will occur over a period of 1-3 years
depending on weather conditions for prescribed burning, advance credit sales, contractor
availability, and other factors. Monitoring will commence following implementation and
continue for a period of seven (7) years or until all success criteria are met. Implementation of
the proposed restoration and enhancement activities will generally follow the attached schedule
(Table 9).
4.1 Forest Management
Forest management and prescribed burning are necessary components of the implementation and
conservation plan for LIWMB. The overall objectives of forest management within the LIWMB
will be to promote the establishment of the specified forest types, perpetuate existing natural
forest types, and enhance habitat for RCW. The bank sponsor has forfeited considerable future
timber value and income by harvesting existing loblolly pine plantations and placing restrictions
on future timber harvest within the LIWMB. There will be no forest harvesting or thinning
within the LIWMB following completion of the implementation phase.
Forest management activities to be employed at the LIWMB include thinning within 334.68 ac of
mature pond pine woodlands, prescribed burning within restoration and enhancement areas, and
artificial and natural regeneration. Thinning will be used to reduce the basal area of existing
mature pond pine woodland to favor RCW habitat and mechanized harvesting will be used to
remove loblolly pine plantations. Existing loblolly pine plantations within Block 3A (restoration
29

1

1

11
7
L..J

J

i

u

P

Table 8: Preliminary Reference Plot Data from Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Species Average
Density
(stems/ac) Average
Diameter
(in) Average
Height
(ft) Average
Cover
(%) Importance
Value
Tree Stratum
Pinus alustris 30 12.42 --- --- 55.7
Pinus serotina 1 27.5 8.58 --- --- 44.3
Sap lin Stratum
Acer rubrum 35 1.14 --- --- 24.9
Magnolia vir iniana 10 1.38 --- --- 13.5
Pinus serotina 15 1.25 --- --- 15.3
Persea borbonia 17.5 1.21 --- --- 16.3
Li uidambar styraciflua 7.5 1 --- --- 9.9
Ilex o aca 2,5 1 --- --- 7.4
Myrica hetero hylla 10 1.25 --- --- 12.7
Shrub / Seedling Strat um
Ilex labra 9252 --- 3.00 --- 13.86
Lyonia lucida 18600 --- 2.42 --- 23.60
Ilex coriacea 4144 -- 3.25 --- 8.45
Myrica cerifera 482 --- 1.25 --- 2.01
Pinus serotina 675 --- 4.00 --- 5.47
Aronia arbutifolia 96 --- 2.00 --- 2.47
Vaccinium co mbosum 5011 --- 2.33 --- 8.34
Magnolia vir iniana 578 --- 4.50 --- 5.95
Persea borbonia 578 --- 3.67 --- 4.97
Clethra alnifolia 3084 --- 3.50 --- 7.57
Cyrilla racemiflora 1927 --- 3.50 --- 6.28
M rica hetero h lla 96 --- 5.00 --- 6.00
Rhus vernix 289 --- 4.00 --- 5.04
Herbaceous Stratum
Aristida stricta --- --- --- 0.50 ---
Pteridium a uilinum --- --- --- 7.75 ---
Andro o on s p. --- --- --- 0.05 ---
Les edeza s p. --- --- --- 0.03 ---
Arundinaria i antea --- --- --- 0.03 ---
Vaccinium crassifolium --- --- --- 0.28 ---
30

I
I
I
I
F
I
I
I
I
I
H
11
I
I
11
I
I
I
I

0

Table 9: Proposed implementation phase for LIWMB
Season Proposed activities
Winter-spring Locate reference plots, install monitoring wells
Summer-fall Harvest pine plantations (Block 3A), thin pine plantation (Block 12), thin
natural and pine stands as necessary (Blocks 4 & 7)
Summer Initial prescribed burning within all restoration/enhancement areas
(excluding nonriverine wet hardwood forest and small stream swamp
types)
Summer-spring Site preparation for planting, planting in Block 3A
Summer Fill/plug ditches, install culverts and broad based dips, remove roads
Fall Begin monitoring phase, re are annual report
' areas) and Block 12 (preservation area) will be harvested. Approximately 5-10 residual trees per
acre will be left within harvested pine plantations in Block 3A. Residual trees ranging in
diameter from 6 to 8 inches will provide immediate wildlife habitat benefits as snags and nest
trees and may provide large diameter cavity trees in the future. The basal area of the loblolly
pine plantation within Block 12 will be reduced by 65%. Thinning within this stand will
promote the development of an open forest with large diameter trees. Existing mature pond pine
' stands within Blocks 4 and 7 will be thinned to a residual basal area of 40-60 ft2/ac. Only stands
with basal area greater than 60 ft2/ac will be thinned. Thinning conducted within these stands
' will remove the smallest trees (< 9 in diameter). The largest diameter trees will remain as
residuals. The purpose of thinning in mature pond pine stands is to facilitate the prescribed
burning program and to enhance habitat for RCW. Prescribed fire is difficult to control in dense
' V e stands with tall understory vegetation. The ideal basal area for RCW colony sites is 50-80
ac (Hooper et al., 1980, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992).
4.2 Prescribed Fire
Wildfires have significantly influenced the natural plant community types of eastern North
' Carolina. The importance of fire in the maintenance of certain southeastern U.S. wetland
ecosystems has been well documented (Christensen, 1981; Garren, 1943; Kirby et al., 1988), and
fire may be an important factor for successful regeneration of mixed oak stands (Abrams, 1992;
' Watt et al., 1992). Pine flatwoods represented the major forest type in the southeastern Coastal
Plain prior to European settlement (Stout and Marion, 1993). In eastern North Carolina, the
dominant pine species included longleaf pine on sites ranging from wet to xeric and pond pine on
' wet sites. The area of longleaf pine forest in the Southeastern U.S. has declined from 60 million
acres around the time of European settlement to less than 3.8 million acres in 1985 (Outcalt and
' Sheffield, 1996). Some estimates place the loss of open, fire maintained longleaf pine savannas
at greater than 98% (Noss et al., 1995; Frost et al., 1986). The remaining area of longleaf pine
forest in Carteret County, NC is estimated at 10,800 acres with 8,800 acres on National Forest
' lands and 2,000 acres on forest industry lands (Outcalt and Sheffield, 1996). The addition of
31

11

0

u

300+ acres of enhanced and restored longleaf & pond pine savanna within the LIWMB
represents a substantial addition to the longleaf pine resource within the county and the region.
The decline of natural pine flatwoods community types can be attributed to the exclusion of
natural wildfires and conversion to faster growing pine species such as loblolly pine and slash
pine (Pinus elliottii). In the absence of fire, longleaf pine flats and savannas are invaded by less
fire tolerant pine species such as loblolly pine and hardwoods. Fast growing pines and
hardwoods colonize the open understory of savannas and reduce the diversity and abundance of
characteristic herbaceous species, particularly wiregrass (Aristida stricta). Populations of
insectivorous plants such pitcher plant (Sarracenia sp.) and Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula)
are negatively affected by a dense understory (Roberts and Oosting, 1958; Schnell, 1980).
Foraging habitat and colony sites for RCW are also negatively affected by tall (> 15 ft)
understory species (Henry, 1989). In the absence of fire, pond pine woodlands will develop into
to bay forest. Pond pine is replaced as the dominant overstory species by loblolly bay (Gordonia
lasianthus) (McKevlin, 1996; Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Restoration of longleaf pine ecosystems and wet pine flatwoods requires repeated burning.
Annual or biennial burning is preferred to establish herbaceous understory vegetation and less
frequent fires are required for the establishment of low shrub understory vegetation (Glitzenstein
' et al., 1998; Streng et al., 1996; Waldrop et al., 1992). Growing season fires are more effective at
controlling undesirable woody understory vegetation (Streng et al., 1996; Waldrop et al., 1992).
The effects of fire on the density and regeneration of longleaf pine is not clearly understood
' (Glitzenstein et al., 1995). However, Grelen (1978) and Maple (1977) suggest that early spring
fires may accelerate the height growth of fire resistant longleaf pine seedlings.
' The objective of prescribed burning within the LIWMB is to promote the establishment of fire
dependent community types, primarily pond pine woodlands and longleaf & pond pine savannas
within the restoration and enhancement areas. The target fire frequency within longleaf & pond
i pine savanna is 1-3 years and the target fire frequency within pond pine woodlands is 3-5 years.
The specific goals of initial prescribed burns will be to:
• reduce hazardous fuel loads (winter burns)
' • dispose of residual logging debris
• prepare sites for regeneration of longleaf pine and pond pine (both artificial and natural
regeneration)
' • improve habitat for endemic plant and wildlife species specifically RCW
• reduce competing hardwood vegetation
• improve grazing habitat for wildlife species
' • perpetuate and establish fire dependent species (longleaf pine, pond pine, herbaceous species)
• improve nutrient cycling functions
' Prior to prescribed burning, the contractor will coordinate with the North Carolina Forest
Service to ensure that all safety issues have been adequately addressed. Prescribed burning
' plans will be prepared prior to burning within the LIWMB and an annual prescribed burning
32

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
0
' report will be submitted to the MBRT (Appendix B). The plans will evaluate and outline the
proper weather conditions for the planned fire, existing fuel loads, establishment of control lines,
types of firing techniques to be employed, smoke management considerations, personnel and
equipment requirements, and coordination with state and local agencies (Bickford, 1996; USDA
Forest Service, 1989). Following the prescribed burn, an evaluation report will be prepared. The
' evaluation report will become part of the Mitigation Implementation Plan (MIP) and will be
submitted to all members of the MBRT as part of the annual report. The evaluation reports will
' provide written documentation of fire management activities and progress toward the
establishment of the desired community types.
' 4.3 Conservation Easement
A suitable third parry (i.e. nonprofit land conservancy or government agency) will be located to
' hold the conservation easement for the LIWMB. The conservation easement will contain
language to ensure that the entire LIWMB will be managed according to the approved plan and
protected in perpetuity.
5.0 REGULATORY RELEASE
' The LIWMB will be determined to be successful once wetland hydrology is established within
restoration areas and the vegetation success criteria are met within restoration and enhancement
areas. Monitoring data will be collected for a period of seven (7) years or until all success
criteria are achieved. Annual reports will be submitted to the MBRT prior to the end of each
calendar year during the monitoring period. The annual reports will document prescribed
' burning and implementation activities for the previous year, document the plant community
conditions within restoration and enhancement areas, and document the hydrologic data within
restoration areas and reference plots. The annual report will also include a proposed plan of
action for the following year including maintenance activities and prescribed burning.
' 5.1 Hydrologic Criteria
Wetland hydrology will be determined by data obtained from automatic and manual monitoring
' wells placed within the approved restoration areas. Automatic monitoring wells will be
established within restoration areas at a density of 1 automatic well per 100 acres (4 wells within
Block 3A with additional wells in other areas determined to be drained). Manual wells will be
' established within restoration areas at a density of 1 manual well per 25 acres (13 wells within
Block 3A with additional wells in other areas determined to be drained). All monitoring wells
will be located using GPS technology. A monitoring well map will be prepared and included
' with the first annual monitoring report for the LIWMB. Daily data will be collected from
automatic wells throughout the entire year and weekly data will be obtained from manual wells
annually beginning February 1 through July 1 throughout the monitoring period. The growing
' season is defined as February 28 through November 30 (275 days). The USACE will be
consulted during selection of monitoring well locations.
33
0
I

0

7

11

1

n

1

Additional restoration areas/credits resulting from 1999-2000 monitoring data collected within
enhancement areas will be monitored according to the protocols outlined in the latter paragraph.
Wetland hydrology will be established if well data from restoration areas indicates that the
water table is within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12.5% of the growing season.
The water table must be present within 12 inches of the soil surface for 34 days during the
growing season (12.5%) with at least 20 consecutive days.
Hydrologic data from reference sites will be used to compare the hydroperiod of natural,
relatively undisturbed pine flats with the hydroperiod of the restored wetlands. Monitoring well
data from reference sites will not be used to verify the success of the proposed wetland
restoration.
5.2 Vegetation Criteria
Successful restoration of longleaf & pond pine savannas and pond pine woodlands is dependent
upon the restoration of characteristic overstory species (i.e. longleaf and pond pine in restoration
areas) and the use of prescribed fire to restore characteristic groundcover species. Establishment
of characteristic overstory species in restoration areas will be determined by growth and survival
of planted species and evaluation of undesirable tree species such as loblolly pine. Characteristic
groundcover species in longleaf & pond pine savannas include low shrub species (< 3 ft) and
herbaceous plants (Table 7). Characteristic groundcover species in pond pine woodland include
low shrub species (Table 7).
Vegetative success criteria will be evaluated by systematic and random sampling within
restoration and enhancement areas (Table 10). Permanent vegetation plots will be established
within restoration areas at a density of 1 plot per 10 acres (31 total plots within Block 3A) and
within enhancement areas at a density of 1 plot per 50 acres (41 total plots). Plots will be located
in the field using GPS technology. A map depicting all plots will be included in the first annual
monitoring report for LIWMB.
Permanent plots will be systematically located at all proposed monitoring well locations.
Additional permanent plots will be randomly located throughout the restoration and enhancement
areas (Figure 10). Vegetative sampling data collected following the first growing season will be
analyzed using species-area curves or other statistical methods to determine whether the
proposed number of plots is adequate.
The proposed sampling methodology for inventory plots is discussed in detail by Peet et al.
(1998). This sampling methodology has been developed, tested, and modified in North Carolina
by the North Carolina Vegetation Survey (NCVS). An abbreviated discussion of the procedure
follows. The standard observation unit will be a 10 x 10 meter module (0.01 ha). Generally, each
plot will consist of a 2 x 5 array of modules (0.10 ha). The 2 x 5 array is the recommended size
for description of forest communities (Peet et al., 1998), however, smaller arrays may be used in
areas with homogeneous overstory vegetation or dense understory. Within each array, woody
stem presence, cover, and diameter will be recorded within each module. Depending on
34

0

0

E,

C

11

Table 10: Summary of vegetative success criteria for LIWMB
Proposed Parameter Success criteria
area
Restoration Fire history At least two prescribed fires (one growing season
Areas burn) within 5 years
Overstory composition Average importance value (IV)' of target canopy tree
species (longleaf pine and pond pine) will be 60 or
greater for sampled lots
Overstory survival 70% survival of target species (i.e. 364 trees/acre
composed of longleaf and pond pine at least five
years old)
Overstory growth Average height of targetspecies = 5 ft
Understory height Average height of understory vegetation < 3ft
Understory composition Herbaceous species coverage = 20%
Enhancement Fire History At least two prescribed fires (one growing season
Areas burn) within 5 years
Overstory composition Average importance value (IV) of existing and
potential target canopy tree species (i.e. longleaf and
pond pine) will be 60 or greater
Understory height Average height of understory vegetation < 6ft
HIV = [(estimated % cover of target species / total % cover of potential canopy species x 1 uu1 + tkesnmaLeu ueusiLy
of target species / total density of potential canopy species) x 1001 / 2
2IV = [(estimated % cover of target species / total % cover of potential canopy species) x 1001 + [(estimated density
of target species / total density of potential canopy species) x 100] + [(estimated basal area of target species / total
basal area of potential canopy species) x 1001 / 3
coverage of herbs and bryophytes, these strata will be sampled using a subset of modules or
nested quadrats within modules. Plot and site data will be recorded for each array including soil
morphology, aspect, slope, elevation, topographic position, canopy height, evidence of recent
fire, and total estimated cover of the vegetative strata (trees, saplings, shrubs, herbs, vines, and
bryophytes).
Plant community and hydrologic monitoring will continue for a period of seven years or
until all success criteria have been met, whichever is longer.
35

H

0

7

I
Figure 10 - Proposed monitoring plot & well locations
Lukens Island Wetland Mitigation Bank, Carteret County, NC
Restoration areas =
Enhancement areas =
Monitoring well / vegetation plot = . T
Vegetation plot =A
SCALE: 1 inch = 3,300 fleet ...LLL

U
1

1

FJ

6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
During development of this project, policies regarding credit assignment in wetland mitigation
banks were modified. Wetland mitigation banks and projects approved prior to this agreement
and all North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program projects will be required to provide two
credits from a bank or project for every acre of permitted wetland impacts. Based on the
modified policy regarding credit calculations, the LIWMB will be required to provide only one
credit for each acre of permitted wetland impact.
Based on guidance provided by the MBRT, the credit calculations for the LIWMB have been
revised. Each credit includes one acre of restoration (1:1) and either four acres of enhancement
(4:1) or ten acres of preservation (10:1). The modified credit calculations for the LIWMB are
summarized in Table 11 and result in a minimum of 311.44 credits total of 911.83 credits.
Credits will be released according to the schedule outlined in Table 12).
LILT reserves the right to monitor additional areas currently identified as enhancement areas in
order to determine whether wetland hydrology is present and if additional restoration credit is
justified.
Table 11: Proposed credit calculations for LIWMB
Cover category & activity Area Discount Credits
(acres) ratio
Preservation and management of existing natural 907.36 10:1
community types including riparian buffers 1 90.74
Restoration of ditched, drained pine plantations 2 90.74 1:1
Enhancement of ditched, degraded natural community 882.80 4:1
types 3 220.70
Restoration of ditched, drained pine plantations 220.70 1:1
Enhancement of ditched, degraded natural community 4:1
types (residual enhancement areas) 1155.80 To be
Restoration of effectively drained, degraded natural 1:1 Determined s
community es adjacent to primary collector ditches 4
Total credits available (plus additional credit as warranted by monitoring 311.44
well data =
' total area of preservation = 907.36 ac
2 total area of ditched drained pine plantations (restoration areas) = 311.44 ac
3 total area of ditched, degraded natural community types (enhancement areas) = 2038.60 ac minus area of
effectively drained wetlands
4 total area of effectively drained, degraded natural community types adjacent to primary collector ditches will be
determined by monitoring well data
5 based on monitoring well data from December 1999 through May 2000
37

1

u

Fl

r -
L
7.0 SERVICE AREA
The LIWMB is located at the eastern (i.e. downstream) limit of the Lower Neuse hydrologic unit
(03020204) which encompasses approximately 1,120 square miles in Carteret, Craven, Jones,
Lenoir, and Pamlico Counties, NC and includes the Lower Neuse estuary and the Trent River
watershed (U.S. Geological Survey, 1975). The proposed service area for the LIWMB would
include the Lower Neuse hydrologic unit. Credits may be sold outside of the service area on a
' case by case basis if approved by the MBRT.
C

L!

i?
J

Table 12: Credit Release Schedule for LIWMB
Milestone Percent Credits 2
release
MBRT approval of plan, execution of MBI, and 15% 46.72
recordation of conservation easement
Following completion of implementation phase and 20% 62.29
monitoring for one growing season i
Following year 3 of monitoring phase and MBRT 10% 31.14
approval of annual report
Following year 4 of monitoring phase and MBRT 10% 31.14
approval of annual report
1
Following year 5 of monitoring phase and MBRT 10% 31.14
approval of annual report
Following year 6 of monitoring phase and MBRT 10% 31.14
approval of annual report
Final approval of project by MBRT 25% 77.87
TOTALS 1100% 1311.44
'Credits will be released by the MBRT only if monitoring data indicate the success of hydrologic modifications and
plantings within restoration areas. Hydrologic success is defined in the plan and planting success is defined as
survival of 85% of the planted species following one growing season.
z Individual credits represent a combination of one acre of restoration plus either 10 acres of preservation or 4 acres
of enhancement. Additional restoration credits may be approved in areas determined to be drained, following
hydrologic monitoring from December 1999 through June 2000
38

1

i

11

11

8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Abrams, M.D. 1992. Fire and the Development of Oak Forests. Bioscience 42(5):346-353.
Baker, J.B. and W.E. Balmer. Loblolly Pine. Pages 148-152 in R.M. Burns (ed), Silvicultural
Systems for the Major Forest Types of the United States. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Agricultural
Handbook No. 445. Washington, DC.
Behler, J.L. and F.W. King. 1988. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Repiles
and Amphibians. A.A. Knopf, New York, NY.
Bickford, J. 1996. Prescribed Fires as a Management Tool for Southern Pine Forests. University of
Florida, Web page http://grove.ufl.edu/%7Ejwb/prescr.html.
Binkley, D. and T.C. Brown. 1993. Management Impacts on Water Quality of Forests and
Rangelends. U.S.D.A. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical
Report RM-239. Fort Collins, CO.
Brinson, M.M., A.E. Lugo, and S. Brown. 1981. Primary Productivity, Decomposition, and
Consumer Activity in Freshwater Wetlands. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12:123-161.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program, Technical Report WRP-
DE-4, 79 pp. plus appendix.
I

Christensen, N.L. 1981. Fire Regimes in Southeastern Ecosystems. Pages 112-136 in H.A. Mooney,
T.M. Bonnicken, N.L. Christensen, J.E. Lotan, and W.A. Reinsers (eds.), Fire Regimes and
Ecosystem Properties. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-26, Washington,
DC.
Collins, H.H. 1959. Complete Field Guide to American Wildlife. Harper & Brothers Publishers,
New York, NY.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services
Program, Biological Report FWS/OBS-79/31, 103 pp.
Crowover, S.H., N.B. Comerford, D.G. Neary, and J. Montgomery. 1995. Horizontal Groundwater
Flow Patterns Through a Cypress Swamp-Pine Flatwoods Landscape. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
59:1199-1206.
39

I

1

I

Engstrom, R.T. 1993. Characteristic Mammals and Birds of Longleaf Pine Forests. Pages 127-138
in S.M. Hermann (ed.), Proceedings of the 18th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, The
Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Restoration, and Management. Tall Timbers Research, Inc.
Tallahassee, FL.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Federal Register. 1995. Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Mitigation
Banks. Federal Register 60(43):12286-12293.
Frost, C.C., J. Walker, and R.K. Peet. 1986. Fire-Dependent Savannas and Prairies of the
Southeast: Original Extent, Preservation Status, and Management Problems. Pages 348-356 in D.L.
Kulhavy and R.N. Connor (eds.), Wilderness and Natural Areas in the Eastern United States: A
Management Challenge. Center for Applied Studies, School of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State
University, Nacogdoches, TX.
Garren, K.H. 1943. Effects of Fire on Vegetation of the Southeastern United States. Botanical
Review 9:617-654.
Glitzenstein, J.S., W.J. Platt, and D.R. Streng.1998. Effects of Fire Regime and Habitat on Tree
Dynamics in North Florida Longleaf Pine Savannas. Ecol. Mono. 65(4):441-476.
Glitzenstein, J.S., D.R. Streng, D.D. Wade, and W.J. Platt. 1998. Maintaining and Restoring
Species Diversity in Longleaf Pine Groundcover: Effects of Fire Regime and Seed/Seedling
Introductions. Pages 72-75 in J.S. Kush (ed), Proceedings of the Longleaf Pine Restoration
Symposium, Longleaf Alliance Report No. 3, Andalusia, AL.
Goodwin, R.A. 1987. Soil Survey of Carteret County, North Carolina. U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service in cooperation with U.S. Forest Service, North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service,
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Serfice, and Carteret County Board of Commissioners.
Washington, D.C. 155 pp. plus appendices.
Grelen, H.E. 1978. May Burns Stimulate Growth of Longleaf Pine Seedlings. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Research Note SO-234, New Orleans, LA
Guyer, C. and M.A. Bailey. 1993. Amphibians and Reptiles of Longleaf Pine Communities. Pages
139-158 S.M. Hermann (ed.), Proceedings of the 18th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, The
Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Restoration, and Management. Tall Timbers Research, Inc.
Tallahassee, FL.
Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.
40
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

' Hooper, R.G., A.F. Robinson, and J.A. Jackson. 1980. The Red-Cockaded Woodpecker: Notes on
Life History and Management. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southeatern Region, General Report SA-
GR-9, Atlanta, GA.
Johnson, R. and D. Gjerstad. 1998. Landscape-Scale Restoration of the Longleaf Pine Ecosystem.
Restoration and Management Notes 16(1):41-45.
Kirby, R.E., S.J. Lewis, and T.N. Sexson. 1988. Fire in North American Wetland Ecosystems and
Fire-Wildlife Relations: An Annotated Bibliography. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological
Report 88(1), Washington, DC.
Lockaby, B.G., R.H. Jones, R.G. Clawson, J.S. Meadows, J.A. Stanturf, and F.C. Thornton. 1997.
Influence of Harvesting on Functions of Floodplain Forests Associated with Low-Order Blackwater
Streams. For. Ecol. Mgmnt. 90:187-194.
Loeb, S.C. and M.R. Lennartz. 1989. The Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger) in Southeastern Pine-
Hardwood Forests. Pages 142-148 in T.A. Waldrop (ed.), Proceedings of Pine-Hardwood Mixtures:
A Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southeastern
Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report 5E-58, Asheville, NC.
' Maki, T.E., A.J. Weber, D.W. Hazel, S.C. Hunter, B.T. Hyberg, D.M. Flinchum, J.P. Lollis, J.B.
Rognstad, and J.D. Gregory. 1980. Effect of Stream Channelization on Bottomland and Swamp
Forest Ecosystems. Water Resources Research Institute Report No. 147. Raleigh, NC.
Maple, W.R. 1977. Spring Burn Aids Longleaf Pine Seedling Height Growth. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Research Note SO-228, New Orleans, LA.
McClure, J.P. and H.A. Knight. Empirical Yields of Timber and Forest Biomass in the Southeast.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research Paper SE 245.
Asheville, NC.
' McKevlin, M.R. 1996. An Old-Growth Definition for Evergreen Bay Forests and Related Seral
Communities. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Reprot SRS-
3, Asheville, NC.
Mulholland, P.J. 1981. Organic Carbon Flow in a Swamp Stream Ecosystem. Ecol. Mono.
51(3):307-322.
NC Natural Heritage Program. 1998. Carteret County Rare Species List, January 1998.
NCDEHNR, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh,
NC.
1 Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and M.J. Scott. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A
Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Biological Survey, Biological Report 28, Washington DC.
41

1
G

t
1

Outcalt, K.W. and R.M. Sheffield. 1996. The Longleaf Pine Forest: Trends and Current
Conditions. U.S.D.A: Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Resource Bulletin SRS-9,
Asheville, NC.
Peet, R.K. and D.J. Allard. 1993. Longleaf Pine Vegetation of the Southern Atlantic and
Eastern Gulf Coast Regions: A Preliminary Classification. Pages 45-81 in S.M. Hermann (ed.),
Proceedings of the 18th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem:
Ecology, Restoration, and Management. Tall Timbers Research, Inc. Tallahassee, FL.
Peet, R. K., T. R. Wentworth, and P. S. White. 1998. A Flexible Multipurpose Method for
Recording Vegetation Composition and Structure. Castanea 63(3):262-274.
Peet, R.K. 1998. Unpublished longleaf pine community data for the North Carolina Coastal Plain.
Porter, M. L. and R. F. Labisky. 1986. Home Range and Foraging Habitat of Red-Cockaded
Woodpeckers in Northern Florida. J. Wildl. Manage. 50(2):239-246.
Reddy, K.R. and W.H. Patrick. 1975. Effect of Alternate Aerobic and Anaerobic Conditions on
Redox Potential, Organic Matter Decomposition and Nitrogen Loss in a Flooded Soil. Soil Biol.
Biochem.7:87-94.

1

Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(26.2), Washington, DC.
Rheinhardt, R.R., M.M. Brinson, and P.M. Farley. 1997. Applying Wetland Reference Data to
Functional Asessment, Mitigation, and Restoration. Wetlands 17(2):195-215.
Rheinhardt, R.R. and M.M. Brinson. 1998. Interim Functional Assessment Model for Southeastern
Coastal States. Preliminary model presented at a multistate, multiagency, multidisciplinary
workgroup composed of NRCS, USACE, USFWS, and NCDWQ in Elizabeth City, NC, October 6,
1997.
Riekerk, H. 1989. Influence of Silvicultural Practices on the Hydrology of Pine Flatwoods in
Florida. Water Res. Res. 25(4):713-719.
Roberts, P.R. and H.J. Oosting. 1958. Responses of Venus Fly Trap (Dionaea muscipula) to
Factors Involved in Its Edemism. Ecol. Mono. 28(2):193-218.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
325 pp.
42
J
1

11

11

Schnell, D.E. 1980. Effects of Simultaneous Draining and Brush Cutting on a Sarracenia L.
Population in a Southeastern North Carolina Pocosin. Castanea 45:249-261.
1 Schwarz G.F. 1907. Long leaf Pine in Virgin Forest, A Silvical Study. John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY.
Sharpe, T. 1998. The Sandhills Quail Mystery. Wildlife in North Carolina 62(2):9-12.
Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam, T.J. Sheets, and J.S. Barnes. 1980. Effect of Agricultural Land
Development on Drainage Waters in the North Carolina Tidewater Region. Water Resources
' Research Institute Report 159. Raleigh, NC.
Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An Approach for Assessing
Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional
Indices. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-9, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
1 Soil Survey Staff. 1990. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. SMSS Technical Monograph No. 19,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Still, H.R. and D.P. Baumann. 1989. Wild Turkey Activities in Relation to Timber Types on the
Francis Marion National Forest. Pages 137-141 in T.A. Waldrop (ed.), Proceedings of Pine-
Hardwood Mixtures: A Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report 5E-58, Asheville, NC.
Stokes, D.W. and L.Q. Stokes. 1995. Stokes Field Guide to Birds, Eastern Region. Little, Brown &
Company, New York, NY.
Stout, I.J. and W.R. Marion. 1993. Pine Flatwoods and Xeric Pine Forests of the Southern
(Lower) Coastal Plain. Pages 373-445 in W.H. Martin, S.G. Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht (eds.),
' Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States, Lowland Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Streng, D.R., J.S. Glitzenstein, W.J. Platt, and D.D. Wade. 1996. Effects of Fire Frequency and
Season on Longleaf Pine Groundcover Vegetation: Results of three Studies. Pages 149-151 in J.S.
Kush (ed.), Proceedings of the First Longleaf Alliance Conference, Longleaf Alliance Report No. 1,
Anadalusia, AL.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1989. A Guide for Prescribed Fire in Southern Forests. U.S.D.A. Forest
' Service, Southern Region, Technical Publication R8-TP-11, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. DRAFT Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Procedures Manual for
' Private Lands. Memo to all Field Supervisors, FWS, Southeast Region, October 7, 1992.

43
I-"1
?I
I

1

1

U. S. Geological Survey. 1975. State of North Carolina, Hydrologic Unit Map -1974. Department
of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Water Resources Council.
Reston, VA.
Waldrop, T.A., D.L. White, and S.M. Jones. 1992. Fire Regimes for Pine-Grassland Communities
' in the Southeastern United States. For. Ecol. Mgmnt. 47:195-210.
Walker, J and R.K. Peet. 1983. Composition and Species Diversity of Pine-Wiregrass Savannas of
' the Green Swamp, North Carolina. Vegetatio 55:163-179.
Walker, J. 1993. Rare Vascular Plant Taxa Associated with Longleaf Pine Ecosystems: Patterns in
Taxonomy and Ecology. Pages 105-125 in S.M. Hermann (ed.), Proceedings of the 18'h Tall
Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Restoration, and
Management. Tall Timbers Research, Inc. Tallahassee, FL.
Watt, J.M., D.H. Van Lear, and J.G. Williams. 1993. Fire in Oak Ecosystems. Pages 507-510 in
' Proceedings of the Seventh Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report SO-93, New Orleans, LA.
WRP. 1993. Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Wetland Research Program Technical Note HY-IA-
3.1, 14 pp.
1

E
44

11

1

Appendix A
South River Watershed
Overall Wetland Rating Map
North Carolina Div. of Coastal Mgmnt.
Iirl

1

45

1

1

334
/'
18 7-'
`, '
"
q 8 3
.5
?n
South River
Overall Wetland Rating
W

This map comprises information from
multiple sources. Refer to the legend
for source scale of each feature.
This map is for illustrative purposes
only and should not be used for
regulatory decisions. DCM assumes no
liability for damages caused by inacc-
uracies in this map or supporting data.
Water (1r 100k) - \Incc
Exceptional Functional Significance Area
Bour
k> Substantial Functional Significance r \Cou
Beneficial Functional Significance Bour
Non wetland (1:10
linable to Evaluate \'vYat

to Watershed if Wetland Lost
Unit Boundary (1:24k) -
For more information contact the
NC Division of Coastal Management.
Created 01 Dec 98
(1 24k) ry +1 NC State Plane Coordinate System
_??, Zone 4901, NAD 27
1
u
n

1
Appendix B
Template for Prescribed Burning Plans

46

t

1

11

PRESCRIBED BURNING PLAN Purpose
County
Season Date burned Block Squares
Compartment Block Acres Tons/ac
Location Total tons
-
NCFS District Channel Zone SSA
Call VFDs Soil Type
' Tower In charge
Planned start time
' • GENERAL INFORMATION:
Landowner
' Total acres in site Est. miles of line to plow
Purposes: Site Prep. Haz. Red. Sil. Pur. Wildl. Bab.
' • PRE-BURN PLANNTNG:
Objective - (be specific - tell what is to be accomplished)
Overstory species Ave. Ht.
' Understory species
Fine fuels .Litter depth
Special problem areas to be liven additional consideration
Acceptable weather parameters,
' Burning Category 3 3 4 5 readiness plan
NCFS personnel contacted Comments Wind directions
Velocity High temp. Rel. hum.
' Unacceptable weather parameters;
' Special instructions:
List of manpower and equipment needs:
' Fire Boss Notify District and Adjoining landowners
' ON SITE WEATHER: Source
High temp. Rel. Hum. ?,Q Wind direction
Wind velocity mi/V Chance of precip. %
' SMOKE MANAGEMENT AND RELATED INFO:
Fire danger readings (FFM, build-up & readiness plan) are only given during fire season
' Mixing height Transport winds Burning cat.
Night smoke dispersal Readiness plan
Fine fuel moisture for previous day
Build-up for previous day (above 40-45 expect ground fire in organic soils)
Test fire behavior. desirable undesirable (explain)
' actual start time Burn complete

1

11

Ci

Distance inside line to be mopped-up
Critical areas to be given special attention: utility poles Snags logs RCW trees
' other
Follow-up checks (Date) _ Time
' Special instructions
POST BURN EVALUATION:
' Burn objectives
Satisfactory
Partially met.
' Unsatisfactory
Hazard reduction, silvicultural and/or wildlife habitat improvement
Scorch ht, ft.

u

1

L_J

7-
L

H

1
11

F

C?

1
1
Appendix C
Vegetation Sampling
Data Sheet
47
1

F?

n
fl

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
JJ
al O

CL
ro `
v
41
O

-+aa)o4j
O al N
•O w W ?C VIA
O O JJ U C JJ
E
EnEn.OJJC
w c m ro •-1
OO
A
G
AOJJ
JJ JJ JJ aJ r4 •M
c ro -+ ar 3
a1U30lM
°
J
M
E
WO
i-
a0
a
rn JJ o dJ
c w ro
^
a, a) m>q0
w r4 `-' U N -•i
ro w a? JJ to
EUalya!
to c
m ?O1 m
C N
.+ JJ JJ U
3 of y C a7 Ot
0 0) .14 _4 Q 4)
10
rn
am o
7
C
O JJ O O
•8
E CO O
1
J
c
0
E .•I w ^ W U O!
W fl O
W
p
n .I
w
x y c O•-+ N
N a??,O •Oc
iJ v •-+ a, v
04 ro c •V 01-1 dJ
W -•r u U •m -i C

? v •? v as m
.4.)
'O A 'fl
u
E+ to
G
l
a o
m m C
3
a c
`° a
?
s
(a 0
I 4 -4 •u
O OA
w'.4 N•.4A N
41
"
04 4.) C U m
63 mwoo?4
O x0C 444 9
a
U
x
E
a
O
z
w W

z c
O O
.. ..
Ea A
? ro J? +r
H U -+ -?

`? x
w o o
> v ? r ar
..-1
^ro
v •-1
U

tc u1 U G.
yy aw c N
ro
A ?+
u 4)
cA
JJ L
N O
.a
r er 'O >,
.11+ W? N C
N w ro
14 O
c ?O

ep? r4 N1 IM O JJ (o
E ?+
N
co M O N ^
w• as w > .
O a) U
E N JJ
M ?N -i aT ? a)
?
er r4 N1 M O U
C C .•.
O al O c
y o
trrW
0 fu 41

M? JN rl Isr w JJ
w
? b?
C +? a)
fu >
o .+ w
.-1 ya .. JJ w
toM0
v
w
()
wa)4J
>, w •-1
bJ O w
JJ
uUa?
o d
O
I 41
•
Y
N ? ?M x ?+ •1•r
o w mw
-+ c o
O >,
- N U •u W

O? C ?+
-41 1" C 01 'O 7
,a w 41
N JJ ro

Z U w
ro ?o V ?7 v
.a D
J b
L
ro a o
N W Z -/ JJ
M
C C7 E ? C +?
a) V1 H H O ro
(? p p ? a a H
m
,y JJ
G

.pq a a,
14 N JJ O E
w 0 41 04
.F+ -4 -4 -W N w N a r-4
U >w m Q QO+(a m w w

ro o •• m o w o rn w w JJ W-4 c W
A o >,•.4 b .4 . •r \ \ V) ;J w •? JJ

G 2 O A o ro N a) N CT >, u O O al O
al O O GL .-+ 4 r4 aJ 3:10 04 o 'O Op M .•+ w> U
47 •.+ ?? ro Z? Q, o 0.- mw m o a) 0 to •., ro
•.a JJ JJ }J > ro O 4J -•r E O 0,4 -•a JJ W W M -•r
y
( ro 11111
w m o a
-1 m -d O

W
4
(n
H x
N
JJ
G

O O I

i+ JJ .. ..
C
O
W
c

"
}roj

.

E
ro
w
H

.

JJ
o
-4
GL

.

v
JJ
to
O

.

a
ra
ro
a)
a

o

a a)
A
E
v
E C
O

O

J

-O.1

O

J
°
m
tT
W
>

•
_
E

JJ

A
?
o
c
ro
U ?
N
Y 1

(

w

>>,,
w
dJ
o
-a
C.

to
v

w

w

•?
N
aJ
0
.-r
N

z

E
C

A
W
w
x

a

?
A

N

)

•
?,
voi

-+

o
N N

a

r=
rn

W
•
a!
7
•O
o
E

k

4
-•i
Ox

E
-a
•-q
w

.
JJ
A

N

a!
w
m
w
w a)
E

w
w

41

C
••+
0
o
JJ
o
A
.GL

4J
c

a)

ri

4
U
o
w

m

c

• 4
m
a)
m

1

,
ro

o
m

O
O

II

??J

1
w
0
I
b ?
P4 E4
a
m
5
,4
1:L
R1
y
A
to
4
H
a
A
W
H
I rn
1 ?
?4
?i
z
H
a
a
U
a
z
? m
o 4j
0
H
H
H
W
pC7
D
d
2
n
d
1
C

A
b
1
0

I
to

0
M

1
N

I
O I H
N
---
I
ri

t
0
t

I
N

?
N
LM
N
1
ri

U
ri
t
O

N N
A V

W
0
b
0
U
j U

i f r
y
N m E
•.1
U

a U?
0
r
0
r

7
F7
L

0

0
1

' z
0
ct
m
c+
-h
o
-s
N
N
M
J.
N
cn
x
.A
" J•
n
fD
N
n

I
u

r
VEGETATION OF NC -- PRESENCE/COVER DATA page _ of _
Team Plot Leader Date Depth
C'

1

'J

0

r