20081203 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20090505

1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0?_ 1a0
PLUM CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Brunswick County, NC
Lumber River Basin
Cataloging Unit: 03040207
EEP Project Number D06040-A
Prepared for.,
ewn
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan and As-Built Baseline Report
FINAL
L r L9 __ ? Submitted
JUL April 2009
DENR - WARR QUALITY
VVLANDS AND STORMNATER SWCH
-9-9 -- ' '"010 D
APB ? 2.009
iC ECOSYSTF_m
5MOANCEMENT PROGRAM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Prepared for.,
ern
NCDENR
Prepared by:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Manager:
Michael O'Rourke
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
LJI

1

1
1

The Louis Berger Groin Inc Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
1. Executive Summary/Project Abstract ...............................................................1
2. Project Background, Goals, Objectives, and Attributes ..................................2
2.1. Location and Setting ..........................................................................................2
2.2. Project Goals ................................................................................................... ..2
2.3. Project Objectives ............................................................................................ ..4
2.4. Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach ........................................ ..4
2.4.1. Project Structure ....................................................................................... ..4
2.4.2. Restoration Type and Approach ............................................................... ..5
2.5. Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data .................................................. ..7
2.5.1. Project History .......................................................................................... ..7
2.5.2. Project Contacts ....................................................................................... ..8
2.5.3. Attribute Data ........................................................................................... ..8
3. Success Criteria ................................................................................................ ..9
3.1. Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability ............................................... ..9
3.2. Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 10
3.2.1. Hydrology ................................................................................................. 10
4. Monitoring Plan Guidelines .............................................................................. 11
4.1. Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 11
4.1.1. Wetland .................................................................................................... 11
4.1.2. Stream ...................................................................................................... 11
4.2. Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 11
4.2.1. Digital Photos ........................................................................................... 15
4.2.2. Other Parameters ..................................................................................... 15
4.2.3. The Watershed ......................................................................................... 15
5. Maintenance and Contingency Plans .............................................................. 15
6. References ......................................................................................................... 17
FIGURES

1
1
Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map ............................................. ..................................3
Figure 2: As-Built Plans/Monitoring Plan View ........................ ..................................6
Figure 3: Planting Zones ................................................... .................................13
Figure 4: Site Contour ....................................................... .................................14
TABLES
Table 1: Project Components ............................................ ...................................7
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History ...................... ...................................7
Table 3: Project Contact Table .......................................... ...................................8
Table 4: Project Attribute Table ......................................... ...................................8
APPENDICES
Appendix A Vegetation Data
Appendix B Photographs
Appendix C Sealed As-built Drawings
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan

1

The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
1. Executive Summary/Project Abstract
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) is proposing to restore approximately 77 acres of
nonriverine wetland (1:1 restoration ratio) and to enhance approximately six acres of
wetland (2:1 enhancement ratio) in order to provide 80 nonriverine wetland mitigation units
within the 89 acre Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Site. The Site is located in Brunswick
County in the Lumber River Basin, USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040207. The project is being
implemented through the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program's (NCEEP) Full
Delivery Process.
The goals of the Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Site are to re-establish wetland functions at
' the Site by restoring wetland hydrology, plant community composition and structure, and
wildlife habitat. The project will increase surface water residence time which will improve
groundwater recharge and floodwater storage. In order to achieve these goals, Berger has
plugged three central ditches located within the Site, drum chopped the existing vegetation
to remove the loblolly pine, broken up straight planting beds, and replanted the Site with
woody wetland plant species native to the area.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Berger will monitor the Site's wetland hydrology and vegetation for a period of five years.
For the first three years of monitoring, vegetative success will be achieved if sample plots
demonstrate that 320 native woody plant species per acre have survived. In Year 4, the
native woody plant species per acre success density will be 288 per acre. In Year 5, 260
native woody plant species per acre is the success criteria. Hydrology will be considered
successful by two possible metrics, per the USACE wetland delineation manual. One criteria
provides for hydrologic success if the soil is ponded, flooded, or saturated within 12 inches
of the soil surface continuously for at least 12.5 percent of the growing season, assuming
normal precipitation. The second alternative measurement of success would be to attain
ponded, flooded, or saturated conditions within 12 inches of the soil surface continuously
between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season, provided the hydric soil and hydrophytic
vegetation wetland criteria are also met.
After the five year monitoring period and after the success criteria have been met, Site
management will be transferred to The Nature Conservancy. The Site is in a conservation
easement held by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) and protected from development activities.
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
2. Proiect Background, Goals, Objectives, and Attributes
2.1. Location and Setting
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) is restoring the Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation
Site (Site) in Brunswick County, North Carolina to provide the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) with approximately 80 non-riverine
wetland mitigation units needed to compensate for projects occurring within the
Lumber River Basin. The Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Site an 89-acre site located
in the Carolina Flatwoods ecoregion of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain (Griffith et al.,
2002). The Site occurs in the Lumber River Basin: USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040207
and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) subbasin 03-07-59 (Figure 1).
As shown the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle of Bolivia, the Site is topographically flat
with elevations of approximately 50 feet above mean sea level. Boggy Branch, which
drains to the Lockwoods Folly River, flows along the eastern side of the Site. Land
use immediately surrounding the Site is mostly silviculture with timber stands of
varying ages in rotation. The Green Swamp Game Land is located to the northwest of
the Site. A swine operation is located to the southeast of the Site.
2.2. Proiect Goals
Wetlands provide many benefits and are a natural solution for improving water quality.
One important function wetlands provide within the greater watershed is connecting
area hydrologic flows through moderating groundwater, surface water and
floodwaters. The goals of the proposed Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Project are to
re-establish wetland functions at the Site by restoring wetland hydrology, plant
community composition and structure, and wildlife habitat. The project will increase
surface water residence time which will improve groundwater recharge. Much of the
water budget is influenced by precipitation, as surface flow enters the site from
adjoining parcels. A longer residence time will lead to improved biochemical treatment
resulting in improved water quality. Restoration of native wetland vegetative
community will enhance floral and faunal habitat diversity benefiting both terrestrial
and aquatic wildlife. Overall the wetland restoration goals of the Plum Creek Wetland
Mitigation Site include the re-establishment of the following wetland functions:
Groundwater recharge,
Organic matter decomposition, and
Suitable wildlife and aquatic habitats.
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan 2
mere. f j
«b -
y ?
-03040206030010
x .
Reference Site
f- r
1
f
F
Ln'r Project Site
?'7 I i .' - ,? k . _ "•`? V ? It
r a f ,d _ 1 - ?t j 1 - .1. - - ..?. .?x.
' O M f l t ' 7 `"
03040207020020
l #

Town of Supply 1

a
in Access Road
rd?i
Project Site soma
m?
\o
1
r a
coke l'
N
?d7
ao
!o
?° ;? " I Cam A
> f; Y
41
y
z r` i "IA
T
J
4'03040207020030`
.rK
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
3040207020060 Miles
---
i i.. j Directions to the Site. From Raleigh, take 1-40 E. Take the 1-140/US-17 exit, Exit 416 A-B, toward TOPSAIL ISLAND/
- f NEW BERN/ MYRTLE BEACH (0.2 mi). Merge onto 1-140 W/US-17 S via Exit 416Atoward SHALLOTTE/MYRTLE
t -17 S toward MYRTLE BEACH/CAROLINA BEACH 6.8 mi . Merge onto US-17 S/
BEACH (ZO mi). Merge onto US
( )
OCEAN HWY E(THOMAS J HARRELSON HWY toward SHALLOTTE/MYRTLE BEACH (17.5 mi). Turn RIGHT onto
RANDOLPHVILLE RD NE (0.5 mi). Turn LEFT onto GALLOWAY ROAD and proceed to RED RUN TRAIL. Take the
first LEFT and follow it (bear left at each fork) until it T's another dirt road. This is the southwest corner of the Site.
ie subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private
ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies
or their designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
tivity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with EEP
egend N North Carolina Brunswick County
Project Easement Boundary F* Reference Site Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Site
0 0.5 1 2 EEP Project No. D06040-A
HUC 14 Boundary Miles Project Vicini y Map
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. FIGURE 1
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Roads Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map: Bolivia, NC
' The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A

2.3. Proiect Objectives
To achieve the wetland mitigation goals, Berger anticipates restoring a minimum of 77
acres of drained wetlands and enhancing six acres of existing, modified wetlands.
Four of the remaining six acres located to the east of Boggy Branch will remain as
upland (See Figure 1). The remaining two acres are part of linear strips that parallel
the west ditch and Boggy Branch. The drainage effect of the channels is expected to
' limit the re-establishment of wetland hydrology in these areas and will remain as
upland buffer. These two acres are designated as Planting Zone 2, further discussed
in Section 4.2 and shown on Figure 3.
The original wetland was ditched, drained, and bedded to support loblolly pine
production. The Site is bounded by deep drainage ditches to the west and south, and
' two ditches cross the width of the tract. Boggy Branch flows along the east side of the
Site and is a tributary to Lockwoods Folly River. The west ditch drains to Clark
Branch, another tributary to Lockwoods Folly River. The southern ditch connects the
west ditch with Boggy Branch.
In order to achieve project goals, the following objectives were implemented:
• The lateral ditches and southern ditch were plugged. The west ditch and
Boggy Branch were left intact to prevent hydrologic trespass on adjoining
' properties (Figure 2).
• Existing vegetation was sheared, drum chopped, and left on Site to promote
organic matter decomposition. There was no re-grading of the Site.
• Habitat benefits on Site will be achieved for both terrestrial and aquatic species
' by increasing micro-habitat diversity and vegetation diversity.
Restoring this wetland will immediately benefit the wildlife of the region by expanding
' wetland habitats for a variety of species including larger keystone species that require
large corridors such as black bear (Ursus americanus). Managed by The Nature
Conservancy, the Green Swamp Nature Preserve is located 0.5 miles to the north of
' the Site. The Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Site will connect and expand habitat
within the area. Similarly, the restored wetland may provide habitat for some
threatened and endangered species listed for Brunswick County such as the wood
' stork (Mycteria Americana), rough-leafed loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia), and
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi). Wildlife habitat will also be improved by the
creation of small vernal pools within the wetland matrix. These features will provide
' fish free environments for amphibian reproduction, openings for wildlife foraging, and
improve overall habitat diversity within the Site.
2.4. Proiect Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
2.4.1. Project Structure
' Approximately 83 acres of wet pine flatwoods have been restored and enhanced on
the Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Site. The existing three lateral ditches on Site
were plugged at seven locations (Figure 2) to restore hydrology to the site. The
t
' Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan 4
' The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
western ditch running parallel to the property boundary was left intact to prevent
hydrologic trespass to the adjoining properties. The planting plan has incorporated the
use of native species. Woody seedlings were planted in a naturalized pattern to avoid
creating rows and monotypic stands.
' 2.4.2. Restoration Type and Approach
The Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Site has been a loblolly pine plantation for several
generations of timber. The land was last timbered and replanted approximately 10 to
15 years ago. The Site is situated in a drained coastal plain pocosin (Beaverdam Bay)
in the headwater region of Boggy Branch, which drains to Lockwoods Folly River. The
' site was drained by four separate trapezoidal ditches approximately 6-8 feet wide and
4-6 feet deep.
' The wetland restoration concept for Plum Creek was to restore the pre-existing
hydrology to the drained hydric soils. Groundwater monitoring gauges were installed
and will be monitoring monthly during the growing season. Restoring wetland
' hydrology will be accomplished through plugging the existing ditch network. Soil to
construct ditch plugs was excavated from the Site and the borrow pits were graded to
form small, shallow vernal pools. Existing vegetation was removed by shearing and
' drum chopping. Species were planted to target a pond pine woodland community.

0
1

Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan 5
@Legend
P O Project Easement Boundary
Monitoring Wells
Vegetation Plots
1---- Ditches
- Streams
= Wetlands
Vernal Pools
Ditch Plugs
Photo Stations
1 Photo Station Direction
A
0 125 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
u

n

1

1
I

1

The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
2.5. Project History Contacts, and Attribute Data
2.5.1. Project History
The Plum Creek Site was identified by Berger biologists as a potential restoration site.
A Technical Proposal was submitted to NCEEP in March 2006. The existing
conditions survey was performed and a Categorical Exclusion (CE) was submitted in
February 2007. The CE was approved by the NCEEP in March 2007. The land was
purchased from Plum Creek Timberlands in October 2007. In February 2007, nine
groundwater monitoring gauges were installed at the site to monitor pre-construction
groundwater levels. Also during this time, existing conditions were noted such as
existing wetlands, plant communities, and soil characterizations. In July 2008, the
Restoration Plan was submitted to NCEEP and approved in July 2008. Vegetation
was also cleared in July 2008. Construction occurred in October 2008 and the Site
was planted in December 2008.
Table 1: Project Components
Plum Creek Wetland Restoration
EEP Project Number: D06040-A
Project Total Acres* Type Restoration Comment
Component or Level
Reach ID and Ratio
Planting 77 Non-riverine/ Restoration Pond Pine
Zone 1 Non-riparian 1:1 Woodland
Community
Existing 6 Non-riverine/ Enhancement Pond Pine
Wetland WA Non-riparian 2:1 Woodland
Community
* The remaining acreage is either unsuitable for mitigation or will remain as upland.
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Plum Creek Wetland Restoration
EEP Project Number: D06040-A
Activity or Report Data Collection
Complete Completion or
Delivery
Technical Proposal January 2006 March 2006
Categorical Exclusion January 2007 February 2007
Restoration Plan April 2008 Jul 2008
Existing Vegetation Removal N/A Jul 2008
Construction N/A October 2008
Planting N/A December 2008
Mitigation Plan / As-built (Year 0
Monitoring - baseline
January 2009
Aril 2009
Year 1 Monitoring -- Fall 2009
Year 2 Monitoring -- Fall 2010
Year 3 Monitoring -- Fall 2011
Year 4 Monitoring -- Fall 2012
Year 5 Monitoring -- Fall 2013
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
2.5.2. Project Contacts
Table 3: Project Contact Table
Plum Creek Wetland Restoration
EEP Project Number: D06040-A
Designer The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Prima project design POC Michael O'Rourke (919-866-4421)
Construction Contractor River Works, Inc
4117 Pleasant Garden Road
Greensboro, NC 27406
Construction contractor POC Bill Wright 336-279-1002
Planting Contractor Superior Forestry Services, Inc.
36462 Highway 27
Tilley, AR 72679
Planting contractor POC John Foley (870-496-2442
Nursery Stock Suppliers Division of Forest Resources -
Claridge Nursery (919-731-7988)
Coastal Plain Nurse (252-482-5707)
Monitoring Performers The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Stream Monitoring POC N/A
Vegetation Monitoring POC Ray Bode, PWS (919-866-4420)
Tina Sekula, PWS (919-866-4439)
Wetland Monitoring POC Ray Bode, PWS (919-866-4420)
Tina Sekula, PWS (919-866-4439)
2.5.3. Attribute Data
Table 4: Project Attribute Table
Plum Creek Wetland Restoration
EEP Project Number: D06040-A
Project Count Brunswick Count
Ph sio ra hic Region Coastal Plain
Ecore ion Carolina Flatwoods
Project River Basin Lumber River Basin
USGS HUC for Project 14 digit) 03040207
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project 03-07-59
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan? Yes, Lockwood Folly River Local
Watershed Plan
WRC Class (Warm, Cool, Cold) The entire Lumber Basin is designated as
warmwater.
Percent of project easement fenced or
demarcated? East, west, and south boundaries are
bordered b ditches.
Beaver activity observed during design
phase? No

Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan 8

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Protect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
Table 4: Project Attribute Table
Plum Creek Wetland Restoration
EEP Project Number: D06040-A
Restoration Compon ent Attribute Table
Plum Creek Tract
Drainage area 110 acres
Stream Order Boggy Branch - 1" order
Restored length N/A
Perennial or Intermittent Boggy Branch - Perennial
Watershed type (Rural, Urban,
Developing, etc. Undeveloped
Watershed LULC Distribution 100% Loblolly Pine Plantation
Watershed Impervious Cover (%) 0%
NCDWQ AU/Index Number Boggy Branch - 15-25-1-2-1
NCDWQ Classification C; Sw
303d listed? No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment? Yes
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor N/A
Total acreage of easement 89 acres
Total vegetated acreage within the
easement 89 acres
Total planted acreage as part of the
restoration 85 acres
Ros en Classification of pre-existing N/A
Ros en Classification of as-built N/A
Valle type N/A
Valle slo a N/A
Valle side slope range (e. g. 2-3%) N/A
Valle toe slope ranee. . 2-3% N/A
Cowardin classification PFO
Trout waters designation N/A
Species of concern, endangered, etc?
(Y/N) No
Dominant soil series and characteristics Torhunta Muck Fine Sand Loam
Series Torhunta (To)
Depth 48 inches
Clay % Up to 18%
K 10.04 in/month
T Unknown
3. Success Criteria
3.1. Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
This is no stream restoration component to this project; therefore, morphologic
parameters and channel stability success criteria do not apply.
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
9
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Protect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
3.2. Vegetation
Monitoring will be performed for a minimum of five years or until success criteria are
met as defined in the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Stream Mitigation
Guidelines (2003). Data will be collected each year of the monitoring program for five
years at the same time of year. Success criteria for the plantings will vary depending
upon the monitoring year. For the first three years of monitoring, success will be
achieved if sample plots demonstrate that 320 native woody stems per acre have
survived. In Year 4, the success criteria become 288 native woody stems per acre. In
Year 5, the success criteria are 260 native woody stems per acre.
If the Site does not achieve a woody stem density of 260 stems per acre by the end of
the five year monitoring period, then the monitoring period will be extended additional
years until it can be documented that the remaining forested areas achieve the target
density.
3.2.1. Hydrology
3.2.1.1. Streams
There is no stream restoration component to this project, therefore, stream hydrologic
success criteria does not apply.
3.2.1.2. Wetlands
Hydrology will be monitored in accordance with the USACE guideline: USACE (1987)
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, through the use of monitoring wells
during each growing season for the first five years of the vegetative monitoring, or
until success criteria have been met. Fifteen monitoring wells have been installed at
the Plum Creek Site. Each monitoring well will measure the depth to the shallow
groundwater table.
Hydrology will be considered successful by two possible metrics, per the USACE
wetland delineation manual mentioned above. One criteria provides for hydrologic
success if the soil is ponded, flooded, or saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface
continuously for at least 12.5 percent of the growing season, assuming normal
precipitation. The second alternative measurement of success would be to attain
ponded, flooded, or saturated conditions within 12 inches of the soil surface
continuously between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season, provided the hydric
soil and hydrophytic vegetation wetland criteria are also met. In Brunswick County, the
growing season is typically 249 days, assuming a temperature of above 28 degrees F
and a frequency of 5 of 10 years (NRCS, 2009). The growing season in Brunswick
County typically occurs between approximately March 15 to November 18 in a given
calendar year. As a result, 5 to 12.5 percent of the growing season is 12 to 31 days.
If there are no normal precipitation years
' meet success criteria, Berger will continue
Site shows that it has been inundated o
normal precipitation year.
during the first five years of monitoring, to
to monitor hydrology at the Site until the
r saturated as described above during a
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
10
' The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
In the event there are years of normal precipitation during the monitoring period, and
' the data for that year do not show that the Site has been inundated or saturated within
the upper 12 inches of the soil for at least 5 to 12.5 percent of the growing season, the
USACE may require remedial action. Berger will perform such required remedial
' action, and continue to monitor hydrology at the Site until is has been inundated or
saturated as described above, during a normal precipitation year.
4. Monitoring Plan Guidelines
4.1. Hydrology
' 4.1.1. Wetland
' The groundwater hydrology of the Plum Creek Site will be monitored during the
growing season in accordance with USACE guidelines through the use of shallow
monitoring wells with automatic data loggers. Groundwater data will be collected from
' 15 monitoring wells. Nine wells were established throughout the site to accurately
obtain a representative view of the groundwater hydrology. Six additional wells were
installed in the western central portion of the site, perpendicular the western border
ditch (Figure 2). The purpose of these wells is to show the drawn down effect of the
ditch on the wetland.
' The data collected will be analyzed and evaluated against the performance criteria to
determine whether or not wetland hydrology was established. The performance
criteria defined for the Plum Creek Site requires that continuous soil saturation occur
within the first 12 inches below ground surface for at least 5 to 12.5 percent of the
growing season, which translates to 12 to 31 days under normal weather conditions in
Brunswick County. The locations of these monitoring wells are depicted on Figure 2.
4.1.2. Stream
There is no stream restoration component to this project.
4.2. Vegetation
' The location and quantity of vegetation sampling plots were established through
guidance from the NCDWQ. The sampling plots were installed in a representative
pattern throughout the site following construction. Vegetative data will be collected in
accordance with the methods described in the CVS-EEP protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Vegetative data will be sampled every monitoring year for five years. Survival criteria
of planted woody stems will be 320 stems per acre in Year 3, 288 stems per acre in
' Year 4, and 260 stems per acre at the completion of the project monitoring period at
Year 5.
' Nine vegetation plots were established on Site. All plots are 10 meters by 10 meters in
size. Plots were established at each monitoring well location (See Figure 2). Each plot
is identified by its corresponding well as shown on Figure 2. The plots were
established throughout the Site in order to gain a representative view of the overall
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan 11
The Louis Ber eg r Groff Inc Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
success of the plant community. All plots are located within Zone 1 (Pond Pine
Woodlawn Community). Planting zones are presented on Figure 3. Vegetation plots
were not established in Zones 2 or 3. Zone 2 is anticipated to remain an upland plant
community. No credit will be given for this area; therefore, it is unnecessary to
monitor. Zone 3 represents the vernal pools, which were not planted with any woody
vegetation.
Zone 1 was planted with the following species: pond pine (Pinus serotina), loblolly bay
' (Gordonia lasianthus), and Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides).
Approximately 14,500 pond pines were planted in Zone 1 with a spacing of 16 feet on
center. Approximately 8,500 loblolly bays were planted with a spacing of 23 feet on
' center. Approximately 2,500 cedar trees were planted with a spacing of 38 feet on
center. Zone 2 was planted with the following species: loblolly bay, laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxi?), and yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera). Approximately 300 loblolly bays were planted with a spacing
21 feet on center. Approximately 700 laurel oaks, swamp chestnut oaks, and yellow
populars (each) were planted with a spacing of 11 feet on center. Zone 3 was planted
' with an herbaceous cover consisting of red top (Agrostis albs), annual rye (Lolium
multiflorum), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum).
The CVS-EEP Level 1 will be used for assessing vegetative success. Level 1 is the
inventory of planted stems. The primary purpose being to determine whether
prescribed plants are installed, species are distributed, individuals are spaced, and to
estimate the average number of stems per acre. The baseline data containing
planted trees for restoration projects containing forested community types is typically
collected using protocol Level 1 because natural stems are not established
immediately after construction.
Although Berger is only required to perform a Level 1 assessment under the existing
contract, Berger may perform a Level 2 assessment to more accurately present the
vegetative success if the planted woody stems do not meet their success criteria on a
particular plot. A Level 2 assessment includes an inventory of planted and natural
stems and is applicable to all woody stems (planted and natural in separate
categories) in the plot to assure an accurate assessment of woody-plant restoration
on the site. Use of Level 2 is encouraged for projects containing forested community
types that will rely on natural woody stems for development and success.
The Site was planted December 22 and 23, 2008. As-built vegetation data was
collected on January 7 and 8, 2009. Data from the as-built vegetation sampling can be
found in Appendix A.
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan 12
¦ Legend
=Project Easement Boundary
Ditches
4? Streams
II
Zone 1
C.L d.J Zone 2' upland zone - no mitigation credits, therefore no veg plots necessary
zone 3* vernal pools - no woody species, therefore no veg plots necessary
Vegetation Plots
A
0 125 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
' The Louis Berger Group Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
' 4.2.1. Digital Photos
Eight fixed photo stations were established throughout the Site. These locations are
' presented in Figure 2. In addition to fixed photo stations, a photo of each vegetation
plot will be taken. Vegetation plot photos will always be taken standing at the
southwest corner looking diagonal to the northeast corner. All photos will be taken
' during the monitoring periods.
Photographs were taken at the fixed photo stations and at all the vegetation plots
during the as-built survey. These photos can be found in Appendix B.
' 4.2.2. Other Parameters
' A stream gauge was installed in Boggy Branch, within the property boundaries, for
informational purposes only. The stream gauge will keep records of the level of water
in Boggy Branch. No success criteria are attached to the gauge.
' 4.2.3. The Watershed
' The watershed is currently impacted by silviculture. The Plum Creek Site was
timbered in the past. Adjoining parcels are also used for timber purposes. The
mitigated Plum Creek Site is protected within a conservation easement and site
' management will be passed along to The Nature Conservancy after the five year
success criteria has been met. Because the Site is placed in a conservation
easement, it is protected from development activities.
' 5. Maintenance and Contingency Plans
As stated previously in Section 3.2, vegetation success will be achieved if sample
' plots demonstrate that 320 native woody species per acre have survived by Year 3. In
Year 4, the native woody species per acre success density will be 288 per acre. In
Year 5, 260 native woody species per acre is the success criteria. If the Site does not
' achieve a woody stem density of 260 stems per acre by the end of the five year
monitoring period, then the monitoring period will be extended additional years until it
can be documented that the remaining forested areas achieve the target density.
' In addition, should Berger scientists observe populations of invasive species during
monitoring efforts, species specific control measures and techniques will be enacted
' that may include both mechanical and chemical treatments. Herbicides utilized will be
EPA certified for use in aquatic systems. If necessary to manage invasive species,
Berger staff experienced in invasive species control will oversee all efforts to eradicate
target species while minimizing non-target impacts. Also, only properly licensed
' pesticide applicators will be employed to ensure proper handling, storage, and
application methods are followed for all herbicides.
' Hydrology will be considered successful by two possible metrics, per the USACE
wetland delineation. One criteria provides for hydrologic success if the soil is ponded,
flooded, or saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface continuously for at least 12.5
percent of the growing season, assuming normal precipitation. The second
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan 15
' The Louis Berg Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
alternative measurement of success would be to attain ponded, flooded, or saturated
conditions within 12 inches of the soil surface continuously between 5 and 12.5
percent of the growing season, provided the hydric soil and hydrophytic vegetation
wetland criteria are also met.
' In the event there are years of normal precipitation during the monitoring period, and
the data for that year do not show that the Site has been inundated or saturated within
the upper 12 inches of the soil for at least 5 to 12.5 percent of the growing season, the
' USACE may require remedial action. Berger will perform such required remedial
action, and continue to monitor hydrology at the Site until both sites have been
inundated or saturated as described above, during a normal precipitation year.

1
1

i
0

1

t Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan 16
' The Louis Beer Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
' 6. References
US Army Corps of Engineers, 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared by:
' USACE, NCDWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
' Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat,
' D. R., MacPherson, T.F. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina (map scale
1:1,500,000). U.S. EPA. Corvallis, OR.
' Natural Resources Conservation Service. Climate Information - Wetlands Retrieval
for North Carolina. Brunswick County. Available URL:
http://www.wec.nres.usda.gov/cqibin/q-etwetco.pl?state=nc. Accessed: January
' 15, 2009.
Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP
' Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 Available URL:
http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm.

1

0
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan 17
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
APPENDIX A
VEGETATION DATA
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
Appendix A: Vegetation Plot Attribute Data
Plum Creek Wetland Restoration
EEP Project Number: D06040-A
Plot ID Community Type Planting
Zone ID Associated
Gauge(s) Method CVS
Level
1 Pond Pine Woodland Zone 1 1 CVS 1
2 Pond Pine Woodland Zone 1 2 CVS 1
3 Pond Pine Woodland Zone 1 3 CVS 1
4 Pond Pine Woodland Zone 1 4 CVS 1
5 Pond Pine Woodland Zone 1 5 CVS 1
6 Pond Pine Woodland Zone 1 6 CVS 1
7 Pond Pine Woodland Zone 1 7 CVS 1
8 Pond Pine Woodland Zone 1 8 CVS 1
9 Pond Pine Woodland Zone 1 9 CVS 1
Appendix A: Vegetation Stem Density Per Plot
Plum Creek Wetland Restoration
EEP Project Number: D06040-A
Planted Species Vegetation Plots
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
*Pinus serotina 8 6 6 7 4 9 8 9 5
Gordonia lasianthus 1 4 3 2 4 1 1 4
Chamaec aris th oides 1 1 4 2
Quercus laurifolia 1 1
Total Stems 10 10 10 10 12 10 9 10 11
Density Per Acre 405 405 405 405 486 405 364 405 445
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
Appendix A

C
L

Jan 2009 D
' ID Species char source m
( ) m
( ) ddh Height
7DB
(mm
) (cm)
12 Pinus serotina fl Tu 3.0 _ 2.5 5 25.0
13 Pinus serotina Tu 6.0 2.5 3 26.0
14 Pinus serotina , Tu 9.5 2.5 2 25.0
15 Pinus serotina 1i) Tu 7.0 6.0 4 33.0
' 16 Pinus serotina e Tu 3.0 6.0 3 320
17 Quercus laurifolia (a; Tu 0.5 5.5 3 34.0
18 Pinus serotina Tu 1.0 10.0 27 n

19 Gordonia lasianthus Tu 7.3 1.0 17.0
20 Pinus serotina f Tu 3.0 8,5 3 31.5
21 Pinus serotina Tu 2.0 4.0 4 33.0
THIS YEAR'S DATA
ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
(mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
r i
j

L
C

r?

# stems: 10 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
Species source* X Y ddh Height DBH Vigor* Damage* Notes
(m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Plot 92549-01-1 Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet'
VMD Year (1-5): 1-11 Date: - Role: Notes on lot:
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: 34.066338 Datum: NAD83AV
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E: -78.232747 UTM Zone: I
Coordinate Accuracy (m): I X-Axis bearing (deg): 90
'SUUKut: 1 rl7ansplant, L=Live stake, B=Ball and burlap P=Potted Tu=Tublin R=bare Root M=Mechanically U=Unknown _ P. I
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, I *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DlSeased, VINE
M=missing Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the CEPS-EEP Entrp Tool ver. 2.2.6
Map of stems on plot 92549-01-1

X-axis: 90 ° N # stems:
10
(?/? map
size:
LARGE

0

(0,4) 5m
' *SOURCE: Tr-Transplant L=Live stake B=Ball and burlap P=Potted Tu=Tublina R=bare Root M=Mechanically U=Unknown n
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the C[?S-EEP Fntfy Tool ver. 2.2.6
Plot 92549-01-2
' VMD Year (1-5): ? Date:
Taxonomic Standard:
' Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N:
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:
t Coordinate Accuracy (m):
Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD)
Kole:
votes on
Jan 2009 Data THIS YEAR'S DATA
' map source X Y ddh Height DBH ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species char * (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm) 1(mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
22 Gordonia lasianthus C Tu 0.5 0.5 0 7.5
23 Gordonia lasianthus ht Tu 5.5 " s 0 Q'0
24 Gordonia lasianthus Tu 9.0 2.0 4 15.0
25 Gordonia lasianthus Tu 6.0 6.0 4 13.0
26 Pinus serotina Cc) Tu 1.5 0.5 2 16.0 FE]
27 Pinus serotina d; Tu 2.0 2.0 4 25.0
28 Pinus serotina Tu 0.5 2.0 4 25.0
L
29 Pinus serotina Tu 2.0 6.0 3 27.0
30 Pinus serotina of Tu 2.0 7.5 4 27.0 71
31 Pinus serotina Tu 4.0 9.0 3 26.0 u
' # stems: 10 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
source* X Y ddh Height DBH Vigor* Damage* Notes
Species (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm)
1
1
*SOURCE: Tr--Transplant, L=Live stake, B=Ball and burls P=Potted, Tu=Tubling, R=bare Root, M=Mechanically, U=Unknown p. 3
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the CIS-EEP Ento, Tool ver. 2.2.6
1
Map of stems on plot 92549-01-2 X-axis: 90 ° N 1?tems:
'
0
map
size:
LARGE
'
stn
O
0
(0,0) im
' *SOURCE: Tr-Transplant, L=Live stake B=Ball and burlap, P--Potted, Tu=Tubling, R=bare Root, M=Mechanically, U=Unknown p.
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
I=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the CKS-EEP Entrv Tool ver. 2.2.6
Plot 92549-01-3
' VMD Year (1-5): I? Date:
Taxonomic Standard:
' Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N:
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:
Coordinate Accuracy (m):
Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datas
tcoie
Notes on
Jan 2009 Data r THIS YEAR'S DATA
' map source X Y ddh Height DBH ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species char * (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm) (mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
42 Pinus serotina Tu 1.0 1.0 3 21.5
43 Gordonia lasianthus , Tu 6.0 2.0 13.0
44 ChamaecyTaris thvoides Tu 6.5 3.5 2 19:5
45 Pinus serotina h Tu 6.5 7.0 22.5
' 40 c, 1'u L0 5.0 0 8.0 n
Gordonia lasianthus
47 Pinus serotina ,4,; Tu 0.5 90 4 17.0
X48 Gordonia'lasianthus Cd) Tu 3.0 1.5 4 16.0 L
49 Pinus serotina ?e Tu 4.5 4.5 3 30.0
{
3 16.0
50 Pinus serotina Tu 7.0 5.0
51 Pinus serotina 0 Tu 9.0 3.5 3 22.0
t # stems: 10 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
source* X Y ddh Height DBH Vigor* Damage* Notes
Species (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm)
1
1
1
1
1
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, I *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
I=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the CPN-EEP Entrv Too/ ver. 2.2.6

34.068045 Datum: NAD83
-78.22635 UTM Zo7e: 1 X-Ax
is bearing (deg
Map of stems on plot 92549-01-3
t

X-axis: 90 ° N # stems:
0 m10
ap
size:
LARGE

4)

5m
O
(° O
O
O

(0,0) 5m
*SOURCE: Tr--Transplant, L=Live stake B=Ball and burlap, P=Potted Tu=Tublin , R=bare Root M=Mechanical) U=Unknown p. i
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2 --fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMaI,
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the CVS-EEP Entry Toot ver. 2.2.6

Plot 92549-01-4
VMD Year (1-5): U Date:
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N:
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:
' Coordinate Accuracy (m):
Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datash
tcoie:
rotes on
Jan 2009 Data THIS YEAR'S DATA
'
ID Species map source X Y ddh Height DBH ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
char * (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm) (mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
71 Pinus serotina Tu 8.0 3.0 3. 20.5
72 Pinus serotina o; Tu 5.? 10 3 18.0
73 Gordonia lasianthus 0 Tu 3.5 5.5 4 13.5
74 Pinus serotina -c; Tu 3.0 7.5 3 350 F__
Tu 5.0 9.0 2 12.0
75 Gordonia Ia_sianthus
76 Pinus serotina Tu 6.3 5.5 3 15 0
77 Pinus serotina oe Tu 4.0 10 2 36.0
1 -[
78 Pmus serotina a,.) Tu Ls 1.0 4 31.0
79 Chamaecyparis;thyoides (j Tu 2.0 3.0 1 14.0
80 Pinus serotina O Tu 7.5 3.0 3 20.0
stems: 10 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
source* X Y ddh Height DBH Vigor* Damage* Notes
Species (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm)
1
1
1
1
*SOURCE: Tr--Transplant, L=Live stake B=Ball and burlap, P=Potted Tu=Tublin R=bare Root M=Mechanicall U=Unknown . 7
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
1=unlikely to survive year, 0 dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the C6S-EEP Entn- Tool vet. 2.2.6

14.070267 Datum: NAlls.i
78.227536 UTM Zone: 17
1 X-Axis bearing (deg):

Map of stems on plot 92549-01-4 x-axis: 90 ° N # stems:
1 U m10
ap
size:
' LARGE
14 P,
I
0 O
5m
(010) ni
' *SOURCE: Tr--Transplant, L=Live stake B=Ball and burlap, P=Potted, Tu=Tublin_ R=bare Root M=Mechanically, U=Unknown p 8
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
I=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the CPS-EEP Entry Tool ver. 2.2.6

Plot 92549-01-5
VMD Year (1-5): ? Date
Taxonomic Standard:
' Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N:
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:
t Coordinate Accuracy (m):

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datash
xoie
?r-
vuic? ul1 Nivr.
Jan 2009 Data THIS YEAR'S DATA
' map source X Y ddh Height DBH ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species char * (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm) (mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
91 Gordonialasianthus Tu 2.0 10.0 5 18.5
92 Pinus serotina (?? Tu 6.0 8.5 4 23.0
' 93 Pinusserotina Tu 7.0 4.5 2 22.0
94 Chamaecyparis thyoides?j Tu 6.5 3.5 2 17.5
95 Pinus serotina Tu 3 5 4.5 3 18.0 ?
96 Gordonia lasianthus b Tu 0 5 3.5 3 15.0
97 Pinus serotina ? Tu 4.5 2.5 3 26:0
?-
98 Gordoniai L,iantlw Tu 7.0 0 4 21 0 I
99 Gordonia iaskmthus ( Tu 10.0 6.0 3 15.0
100 Chamaecyparis thyoides fi Tu 3.0 5.5 1 12.0
109 Chamaecyparis thyoides (? Tu 2.0 0.5 2 17.5
102 Chamaecyparis thyoides O Tu 0.5 0.5 1 15.0
# stems: 12 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
source* X Y ddh Height DBH Vigor* Damage* Notes
Species (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm)
1

1
' *SOURCE: Tr-Trans lant L=Live stake B=Ball and burla P=Potted Tu=Tublin R=bare Root M=Mechanical) U=Unknown p. 9
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DlSeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the CVS-EEP Entr_>> Tool ver. 2.2.6
'4.071367 Datum: NAD83
78.228016 UTM Zone: 17
1 X-Axis bearing (deg):
1
Map of stems on plot 92549-01-5 x-axis: 90 ° N 4 stems:
12
map
size:
LARGE
t
O
5m
® J)
(0,0) 5m
1
' *SOURCE: Tr--Transplant, L=Live stake B=Ball and burlap, P=Potted, Tu=Tubling, R=bare Root, M=Mechanically U=Unknown p. l0
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the CKS-EEP Entry Tool ver. 2.2.6

I
Jan 2009 Data
map source X Y ddh Height DBH
ID Species char * (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm)
103 Pinus serotina (a; Tu 0:0 _1.0 4 29.5
104 Pinus serotina ?'? Tu 1.5 2.5 2 21.0
105 Pinus serotina jh) Tu 7.0 ? 1.5 4 27.0
106 Pinus serotina Tu 10.0 2.5 4 21.5
107 Pinus serotina Tu 7-0 3.0 3 25.5
108 Pinus serotina Tu 7.5 5.5 3 32.0
109 Pinus serotina r? Tu 2.5 6.0 3 25O
' 110 Quercus laurifolia Tu i.5 8.5 I M.0
III Pinus serotina Tu 1.5 1.5_ 3 28.0
112 Pious serotina O Tu 3.0 1.5 4 28.0

THIS YEAR'S DATA
ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
(mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
'_J

L-?

# stems: 10 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
source* X Y ddh Height DBH Vigor* Damage* Notes
Species (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm)
1

1

I *SOURCE: Tr-Transplant L=Live sta
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair,
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead,
M=missing.
Plot 92549-01-6 Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet
VMD Year (1-5):
Date: - / / ply. Role: Notes on lot:
F
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: 34.069092 Datum: NAD83/W
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E: -78.23333 UTM Zone: 17
Coordinate Accuracy (m): 1 X-Axis bearing (deg90 j
*DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the CGS-EEP Entry Tool ver. 2.2.6

Map of stems on plot 92549-01-6
' x-axis: 90 ° N ]stems:
map
size:
LARGE

5I77
' O
O
(0,0) 5m
' *SOURCE: Tr-Trans lant L=Live stake B=Ball and burlap, P=Potted Tu=Tublin_- R=bare Root M=Mechanicall U=Unknown p. 11
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the CVS-EEP Entry Tool ver. 2.2.6
Plot 92549-01-7
VMD Year (1-5): T Date:
Taxonomic Standard:
' Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N:
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:
' Coordinate Accuracy (m):
hole:
votes on
Jan 2009 Data THIS YEAR'S DATA
map source X Y ddh Height DBH ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species char * (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm) (mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
124 Pinus serotina t Oe Tu 2.5 3.5 3 18.0
125 Pinus serotina h1 Tu 6.5 3.5 3 33.0
' 126 Pinus serotina -d-) Tu 2.0 7.0 3 21.0
I Piwj, >,rotina hi 0.5 I.s 3 27.0
128 Pinus serotina f, Tu 2-0 _15 4 32.0
129 Pinus serotina I Tu 4.5 4.5 4 22.0
130 C lordonia lasianthus Tu 8.0 5.0 3 14.0
l uw< unnina l u 1.5 6.5 3 18.0
132 Pinus serotina h; 1 u 0.5 7.0 3 21.0
4 stems: 9 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
' Species source* X Y ddh Height DBH Vigor* Damage* Notes
(m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm)

CIS

L

' *SOURCE: Tr-Transplant L=Live
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=4
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead,
M=missing.
Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD)

{4.069445 Datum: NAD83,
78.231294 UTM Zone: 17
1 X-Axis bearing (deg):
3ke B=Ball and burlap, P=Potted Tu=Tublin R=bare Root M=Mechanicall U=Unknown p. 1:
*DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the CuS-EEP Entry Tool ver. 2.2.6
1
Map of stems on plot 92549-01-7
i
1
X-axis: 90 ° N # stems:
map
size:
LARGE

5m a
0
0 0

o
(0,0) 5m
1
' *SOURCE: Tr-Transplant L=Live stake B=Ball and burls P=Potted Tu=Tublin R=bare Root M=Mechanical) U=Unknown P. 1.
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 5= air, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT,MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Primed in the (TS-EEP Entry Toot ver. 1.1.6

Plot 92549-01-8
' VMD Year (1-5): 111 Date:
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
' Latitude or UTM-N:
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:
' Coordinate Accuracy (m):
Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD)
tcote:
T-
wiw V11 PIUL.
Jan 2009 Data THIS YEAR'S DATA
' map source X Y ddh Height DBH ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species char * (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm) 1(mm) (em) (cm) sprout
144 Pinus serotina @ Tu 1.5 1.5 4 15.5
145 Pinus serotina 0 Tu 2.0 5.0 3 27.0 0
146 Pinus serotina Tu 7.5 3.0 7 40
147 Puiusserotinai Tu 7.5 4 23.0 i7
148 Pinus serotina J Tu 8S 2u n i
149 Gordonia lasianthus h, Tu 7.5 4_? 0 7-0
L _I
150 Pimi crotm.j Tu 3 n n 4 J ?-
151 Pinus serotina 0 Tu 4.3 ..o 4 28.0
1
152 Pinu, >cntinu d Tu 2 _ Sn n
153 Pinus serotina hl Tu 1.5 3.5 4 24 u _l
' # stems: 10 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
source* X Y ddh Height DBH Vigor* Damage* Notes
Species (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm)

' *SOURCE: Tr-Transplant L=Live sta
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair,
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead,
M=missing.

'4.068375 Datum: NAD83
78.230937 UTM Zone: 17
1 X-Axis bearing (deg):
Sall and burlap, P=Potted Tu=Tubling R=bare Root M=Mechanically U=Unknown p l
*DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the 0'S-EEP Entry Tool ver. 2.2.6

Map of stems on plot 92549-01-8
1
1
J
X-axis: 90 ° N # stems:
10
ap
m01
size:
LARGE
19 i

M

(0,0) jm
' *SOURCE: Tr-Transplant L=Live stake B=Ball and burlap P=Potted Tu=Tublin, R=bare Root M=Mechanically U=Unknown p l t
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
I=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the CI'S-EEP Entry Toot ver. 2.2.6

Plot 92549-01-9
VMD Year (1-5): T Date:
Taxonomic Standard:
' Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N:
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:
' Coordinate Accuracy (m):
Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD)
Kole:
votes on
Jan 2009 Data THIS YEAR'S DATA
' map source X Y ddh Height DBH ddh eight DBH Rero- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species char * (m) (m) (mm) (em) (cm) (mm) H (cm) (cm) sput
164 Gordonia lasianthus O Tu 0.0 5.0 4 13.0
165 Chamaecyparis thyoides Tu 1.0 6.0 2 14.0
166 Pinus serotina d? Tu 3.0 5.5 4 X0.0
167 Pinus serotina O Tu 3.5 10.0 3 74.0 rr
168 Chamaecyparis thyoidcs T u 615 10.0 0 100
169 Pinus serotina Tit 6.5 6.0 3 25.0 ?ll
170 Gordonia lasianthus o) Tu 4.5 6.5 13.0
' 171 Gordonia lasianthus 0 Tu 10.0 6.0 3 110
-
172 Plnus serotina Tu 9.0 1.5 _ 3.0 -?
173 Pinus:serotina ?C6 Tu 33 0.0 2 18.0
' 174 Gordonia lasianthus © Tu 5.5 1 u.0 0 9.5
4 stems: 11 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
' Species source* X Y ddh Height DBH Vigor* Damage* Notes
(m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm)
1

34.067904 Datum: NAD83,
-78.233005 UTM Zone: 17
1 X-Axis bearing (deg):
-?iUUKC L: I r-I raps lant L=Live stake B=Ball and burls P=Potted Tu=Tubling R=bare Root M=Mechanically, U=Unknown p. I
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Primed in the CIS-EEP Entry Tool ver. 2.2.6
r
r Map of stems on plot 92549-01-9
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
X-axis: 90 ° N # stems:
map
size:
LARGE

® 0

0
(0,0) im
1
1 *SOURCE: Tr--Transplant, L=Live stake B=Ball and burlap, P=Potted Tu=Tublina R=bare Root M=Mechanicall U=Unknown . I
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown ANIMal,
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other. Printed in the CVS-EEP Entry Tool ver. 2.2.6
r
1

1

APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Protect
EEP Project Number D06040-A
Photograph Stations
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
Appendix B
The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A

Photo Station 6: View looking west
December 22, 2008
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan Appendix B
Photo Station 2: View looking east
December 22, 2008
Photo Station 1: View looking north
December 22, 2008
Photo Station 4: View looking east
December 22, 2008
Photo Station 3: View looking east
December 22, 2008
Photo Station 5: View looking east
December 22, 2008
' The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A
1
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
Appendix B

Photo Station 8: View looking north
December 22, 2008
Photo Station 7: View looking east
December 22, 2008
The Louis Berger roupInc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A

?1

11
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
Appendix B

The Louis Berger Group Inc Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Proiect
EEP Project Number D06040-A

fr
Veg Plot 1
January 7, 2009
qrc ?
t p u
aye ? .',
k,
Veg Plot 3
January 8, 2009

w X65

.f

x

Veg Plot 5
January 8, 2009
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
y.
Veg Plot 2
January 7, 2009
Veg Plot 4
January 8, 2009

Veg Plot 6
January 7, 2009
Appendix B
The Louis Beer Group, Inc. Plum Creek Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project Number D06040-A

Veg Plot 9
January 7, 2009
Veg Plot 8
January 7, 2009
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan Appendix B
Veg Plot 7
January 7, 2009
APPENDIX C
SEALED AS-BUILT PLANS
Existing
Wetland WA
(Approx 6 acres)
ll?j?d \ ?
?V P 5
PC R 1
Boggy Branch
This area not
suitable for
mitigation.
(Approx 4 acres)
PS
Ca VP 3
I Z3 VP1
PS 1 -
v
0 125 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
¦ Legend
J Project Easement Boundary
t O Monitoring Wells
- Vegetation Plots
' - Ditches
Streams
Wetlands
Vernal Pools
Ditch Plugs
tr Photo Stations
-? Photo Station Direction
.il North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Site
Brunswick County
EEP Project No. D06040
As-Built Plans / Monitoring Plan View
The Louis Berger Group Inc.
1001 W
d
A
s
i
400 FIGURE 2
a
e
venue,
w
e
Raleigh, NC 27605 Aril 2009
?A"nR
Boggy Branch

Legend N
jProject Easement Boundary
' Vernal Pools - dug 1 foot below existing elevation
Ditch plugs - at grade with existing elevation
Ditches
' Streams
®-- s foot contour intervals 0 125 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
1 foot contour intervals
North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Progran
Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Site
Brunswick County
EEP Protect No. D06040
Site Contours
JEJ The Louis Berger Group, Inc. FIGURE 4
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27605 April 2009