20070245 Ver 5_More Info Received_20150921

Southern environmental Group, Inc.
53 15 5outk College Road, 5wte E S
Wilmington, NC 2841 2 J
910452.271 1
a 6 V�
25 August 2015
US Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Mr. Brad Shaver
Wilmington District Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Brad.shaver a,usnic.mil
NC Division of Water Resources
Attn: Ms. Joanne Steenhuis
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Joanne. steenhuisaamederinvov
[SEGiProjki #1000102]
D,nr��
R�
SEP 2015
DENR VFT-- RESOD DES
401 &BUFFER PERMITTING
1
RE: Marine Special Operations Command ( MARSOC), Stone Bay Rifle Range Compensatory
Mitigation Resolution and Individual Permit Modification
USACE Action ID #: 2007 286 037
DWQ Project #: 2007 0245
Dear Mr. Shaver and Ms. Steenhuis,
With this correspondence, Southern Environmental Group, Inc. (SEGi), on behalf of the US Marine Corps
(USMC) - Camp Lejeune, is responding to the agencies' request for additional information to complete the
USMC's application to modify the Department of the Army (DoA) Individual Permit (IP) and the Division of
Water Resources' (DWR) Major Water Quality Certification (WQC) for the MARSOC facility. The requested
information specifically relates to the non- compliance of the failed wetland restoration, which was required as
part of the FY07 and FY08 development plan.
During the 11 August, on -site meeting between yourselves and Marty Korenek (USMC Camp Lejeune
Natural Resources Manager), the following was discussed:
I . The on -site, pennittee responsible, warm water stream, mitigation component of the IP, for FY07
and FY08 (i.e. 87 linear feet), has been met;
2. The on -site, permittee responsible, riparian wetland, mitigation component of the IP, for FY07
and FY08 (i.e. 0.14 acre), has not been met;
3. The USACE and DWR agreed to allow the USMC to purchase credits, through the Greater Sandy
Run Area Mitigation Bank (GSRAMB), at a 1:1 ratio, which would be sufficient to offset the
riparian wetland restoration deficiency; and
4. The USMC will submit a letter of resolution to the USACE and DWR.
In total, 0.14 acre of riparian wetland restoration was to be successfully completed, in order to offset the
impact of 0.14 acre of riparian wetlands associated with the MARSOC FY07 and FY08 development plan. To
date, and based upon SEGi's delineation and subsequent USACE verification of the north and south riparian

wetland restoration sites, 0.12 acre of riparian wetland restoration has successfully taken place within the
north mitigation site (see Attachment 1 - Wetland Delineation Sketch Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
MARSOC - North Mitigation Site), while virtually no restoration has taken place within the south mitigation.
The table below denotes the proposed mitigation for the north and south mitigation sites, the as -built acreages
and the difference between the two:
Site Proposed (AC) As -Built (AC) A (AC)
North 0.10 0.12 0.02
South 0.04 0.0 (0.04)
Total 0.14 0.12 (0.02)
Table 1. Mitigation Proposed vs. As -Built Acreage for the North and South Sites
Note "( )" denote a deficit
According to the MARSOC On -Site Wetland Monitoring Plan, the riparian wetland restoration success criteria
are defined as follows:
1. Achieve a dominance of wetland hydrology, as indicated by the evidence of overbank flooding;
2. Achieve a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, defined as a vegetation community where more than
50% of all dominant species are facultative (FAC) or wetter, excluding FAC- plants.
3. Achieve a dominance of hydric soils, as indicated by the evidence of hydric soils within select soil
profiles.
SEGi has performed monitoring of the north and south mitigation sites, for the past five years. Since the
commencement of the monitoring (December 2010), the south side of the south mitigation site lacked
indications of hydrology. The 2011 monitoring event revealed hydrology was still lacking, with very little
shrub species mortality. It was anticipated, as the site matured, groundwater flow and precipitation would
illicit the development of an acceptable hydrologic regime for this side of the site. However, this was not the
case, as is evident in the lack of any indication of hydrology, during your last field inspection. For your
convenience, copies of the 2010 through 2014 monitoring reports have been attached to this correspondence
as Attachment 2.
Therefore, the USMC is proposing to purchase 0.02 acre of riparian wetland restoration credit from the
GSRAMB, to offset the 0.02 acre of failed restoration area. Should the agencies accept this proposal,
cumulative mitigation for the FY07 and FY08, as well as the previously authorized and proposed impacts
associated with the connector road, would be as follows:
Phase
FY07 & FY08
Connector Rd.
Fulfilled On -site
Wetland
Restoration (AC)
0.12
Fulfilled Riparian
Wetland
Restoration Credit
(AC)
0.0
0.13
Proposed Riparian
Wetland
Restoration Credit
(AC)
0.02
0.09
Fulfilled On -site
Stream Restoration
(LF)
87
It is Table 2 Cumulative Compensatory Mitigation for Phases FY07 & FY08 and the Connector Road
Total per Phase
(AC / LF)
0.14 /87
0.22
It is SEGI's hope that the information found within and attached to this correspondence will satisfy the
agencies' request for a solution to the issue of non - compliance, as it relates to the failed wetland restoration at
the south mitigation site and the stabilization of the drainage features along the MARSOC Connector Road.
However, if there are either questions, concerns or a need for additional information, please feel free to call
me at 910.452.2711.
Thank you in advance for your time and assistance with this project. SEGi and the USMC..look forward to
hearing from you both.
.O

50uthem Environmental Group, Inc.
53 15 South College RoaJ, Suite 1—
Wilmington, NC 28+12
910.+52271 1
Best Regards,
Dana A. Lutheran
SEGi Regulatory Specialist
Cc: Mr. Marty Korenek (martin.korenek iNsmc.mil)
Ms. Karen Higgins — NC DWR 401 & Buffer Unit (Karen.hivp-ins (a,ncdenr.izov) + 2 hard copies
Enclosures (2)
��J

MARSOC Mitigation Kesolution and individual Permit Modification (8/25/15) 5EGi AOI
51.G
Attachment 1
Wetland Delineation Sketch Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune MARSOC - North Mitigation Site

99�. '�� t�' � c... `1i'�� �� "" � �,•• s -' �,���9'�" i _E1, -.0' f }�. °y�a n4'' r �x �
i3s•Y'
wn
�, � -�y -''.,� - fi � � lam' 6.. � Li ,iii �x � = R.'' �'e sr P, ••- .z.�+i
- yea'•' f",�- �-i �/aar` � .� r � l"! '�y' ,„� c ,•X•�- n�"' % { ^.,..,#`i: •.1,,.,,:Y'a�.�-,•k.` . Cii'� �
,"` «. �Y.:.fY ` �i } (� `-` J�- �'"• "�i'� a 'Rju Fti cL.�a• u �'• !e}� . °�'as'n,.'`'^'k "a: g�.''`: a.C;' ' b ' °.`
_
' r Sn.e 1 "VJrNc °�q a a'ys"
_ � :�
sm' h � �VYY � `Q k °`ry� � "'s' (� ;�� " —� �C��� Lip � - •�?��1�' O �' .ie�.'i .q.,,... ��;d -.. v•k��. v• �` ¢
a
7 � �
,r,•4 �e� � "yr��ia _c �Z �� `� � <a '�h, "�'ft�'- •� ! .c � KE � _ 4� i � ^ -�,�,� - '� a� �,�
� •4x' eu'��p s yt. ..1. •��t f � r`�A�Y �J Y.i ti �:i' fV'i5�'. (`LY 4 -r.� du"T7�� r...... v � �u �1 F tis 9i' Ads'. � �' ^ry, �•.�' o
�q� a- ::t ``� t' ` :G�"`1, �1~t "� fir. �' "�.n,� -*,`� � '� ..,��, fmi, �" •3 't�' - ., "� &��� •' -" `;�,. n� ",�
� `' i3E?A� ,�_7 TC"\., i31t' "i. Py� �� � A `� '-: `\ i ;:.4 + '` Q °'' •� 97 r` 'p, ;
.+�
'.:�*�
�'�. re er,Y rsppa�
0 �c-''� ^Approximate
Creation Area ay 'rs
o 0:12 acre "s',' o s o �'° -f
€7yr{� -•fl ©� ca °,� 0 65 StopT9" ".,4✓
AC,j��` �.,F'tT "5 "" •'4'..� 'p "+ ��e CP.' �`.4, c g• ,�.. G7,c
Al • y 3f � 1.e �jC'', a�'1 � 2. ''- - "� `.9 - �; q =�
'Ln 'AS 'gyp .'in t � env ��. i o �•,. a .. � 4,,,�
.mss, '" � '�,. �� �„y ••c ':: � -•;Y•': "i;. � ,��� � u� a ;� �- �*' : � � .,
�, 3 { �• + ��t,,�> 3 �, c,
� fit+ -° �,�� �, � l� ,�n� -�a •.� g, «. ;.„
�w, �A
a � r .o p x•'15 ° � �, "�, ([�Sh���y�xpy ��qc�'G" o � '�
"+� {•� Ct �p � j' `X Cl � L qty ^ "� ""
�`. °��"` J �f 4'?y4� �" '�C.i�E�� /e p�,y3 O €, i4�9 yid, t1 §f)y,•� q ,n -
i°r'c
c� s t �.�q ^•,
J �' U'- ��7_ � .,t.. �'�- '4c! �' ^ -+ �, iC3k,® �avn,TO q '- •� .�;,, • '.e39 ;i F � -
P"
i1'r : �. ;:M{ ; t °' i*�Y, -�y, ;' r� +`„>n�- +'i.'l�Y;'"•9d?Ir`;•ii;, , 7 e%',;*? tR c`','``''( ®..%q'
°.Wetland Ureavon Y ' '�,�• �5,� �
I r � - �4.*$: �,•." i;3.j. -�` 41'; ;' .., _� a,�s� � � c��.
_.._.. APProX:rChannel'Location"'
7 11W
Wetland Delineation Sketch
Map Source: Bing maps N 0 12.525 50 75 100 Marine s Cor Base Cam Le eune
Project #: 010- 001.01 , reef p p
5/2e12011 A 1 inch =77 feet MARSOC -North Mitigation Site
Sneads Ferry, Onslow County, N.C. S�`�'

MAK50C Mitigation 1Zesolution and individual Permit Modification (8/25/15) 5EC3i Ab
Attachment 2
MARSOC On -site Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Reports
(2010 — 2014)

MARSOC
On -site Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report
(USACE Action ID #: 2007 - 00286- 067/DWQ Project #: 2007 -0245)
Prepared For:
The United States Marine Corps Base — Camp Lejeune
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Prepared By:
The Whiting -Tuner Contracting Company
Baltimore, Maryland
and
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
Wilmington, NC
Monitoring Date: 20 December 2010

o, o -oo i .o i MAKSOC Monitoring Keport
Table of Contents
SSG►
Section Title Page
I. Project History and Current Status ............................................. ............................... 3
A. Permitting ............................................................... ............................... 3
B. Mitigation ............................................................... ............................... 3
H. Mitigation Site Details .......................................................... ............................... 3
Ill. North and South Site Mitigation Success Criteria ........................ ............................... 3
IV. Monitoring Data ................................................................. ............................... 3
A. North Mitigation Site .................................................. ............................... 4
B. South Mitigation Site ................................................. ............................... 5
C. North and South Rifle Range Road Creek Crossings ............ ............................... 7
D. Impact Area QQ ....................................................... ............................... 7
E. Impact Area D 1 ...................................................... ............................... 8
F. Impact Area P 1 ........................................................ ............................... 8
G. Sedimentation Impacts ............................................... ............................... 8
V. Data Summary .................................................................. ............................... 8
A. North and South Mitigation Sites .................................. ............................... 8
B. North and South Rifle Range Road Creek Crossings ............ ............................... 8
VI. Conclusions ....................................................................... ............................... 8
Appendix
Number Description Page
A North Mitigation Site Photographs i
B South Mitigation Site Photographs ii
C North and South Rifle Range Road Culvert Weir Photographs iii
Figures
Number Description Page
1 North Mitigation Site iv
2 South Mitigation Site v
2

o 1 o -oo i .o i MAK50C Monitoring }wort 5r-Gi
I. Project History and Current Status
A. Permitting
MARSOC was issued a provisional permit on 9 October 2007, which preliminarily authorized the discharge
of fill material into an estimated 12.5 acres (Ac.) of wetlands and 12,800 linear feet (LF) of unnamed
tributaries to Stone Bay, which abuts the New River, a navigable water of the U.S. These calculations were
based upon the best information available during the preparation of the conceptual layout of the complex.
During the permit process, it became necessary to separate the project into three phases: Phase I —
Headquarters; Phase II — Road Realignment; and Phase III — Y07 -Y08 Development. Under these three
permits, more specifically the IP dated 16 October 2008, the Applicant was authorized to permanently
discharge fill into 4.36 Ac. of wetlands and 3,040 LF of tributaries.
On 2 August 2010, the United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) modified the individual permit to
ensure accurate accounting of all impacts associated with the MARSOC project. Cumulatively the project
impacted 4.34 acres of wetland and 1,447 linear feet of tributary.
B. Mitigation
To compensate for the impacts, the Applicant was required to make payment to the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) for 2,166 linear feet of warm water stream restoration and 0.47
acre of non - riparian wetland restoration credit, as well as the restoration of 87 linear feet of stream and 0.14
acre of riparian wetland, located within the MARSOC project site.
As part of the on -site stream and riparian wetland restoration, the Applicant is required to submit initial
planting response reports and annual monitoring reports for both mitigation areas, to take place for a period
of five years. The first annual monitoring report for the North Mitigation Site was submitted to the Corps
and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) on 23 December 2009, by Spangler
Environmental, Inc. This report did not contain any specific vegetative monitoring data or permanent
photographic station details. Within this report you will find the initial planting response for the South
Mitigation Site and the annual monitoring report for both areas, with details regarding locations of
permanent plots and photographic stations.
H. Mitigation Site Details
The goal of the project is to provide compensatory in -kind mitigation to offset unavoidable wetland and stream
impacts necessary to facilitate the construction of the MARSOC project.
III. North and South Site Mitigation Success Criteria
For success criteria, please reference the MARSOC On -Site Wetland Monitoring Plan, submitted to the USACE
on 25 March 2008.
IV. Monitoring Data
Two 0.01 acre (11.8' radius) circular vegetation monitoring plots were established at each of the two on -site
mitigation sites (North Site and South Site). The plots were established on both sides of the channel. The center
points of the monitoring sites were marked in the field by PVC tubing. All woody vegetation was counted, both

o 1 o -oo 1.o 1 MAK50C Monitoring Ke -port
SEG►
planted and naturally recruited. Quantitative assessment of herbaceous cover was also assessed, as was species
diversity.
A. North Mitigation Site
This site was monitored by Spangler Environmental, Inc. and a monitoring report was submitted to the
USACE on 23 December 2009. According to the report, because of stabilization repairs and replanting in
these areas, no specific vegetative or soils data were collected during the 2009 monitoring. Therefore,
permanent data plots were established during the 2010 monitoring (see Figure 1 — North Mitigation Site).
The 2010 monitoring and all future monitoring will utilize the photographic locations, shown in the
Spangler Environmental, Inc., 6 October 2009 submission of the Completion of North Mitigation Area
Sediment Repair/Restoration report (see Appendix A — North Mitigation Site Photographs).
Plot #1: West side of creek
Lat. /Long.: N34.5864 W77.4430
Table 1: Plot #1 summar}
Common Name
Sweetbay magnolia
Willow oak
Winged elm
of planted vegetation
Scientific Name # of plants
Magnolia virginiana 2
Quercus phellos 2
Ulmus alata 1
Total 5
There is a mix of hydrophytic vegetation that has colonized this plot. There is an estimated coverage of
approximately 50 percent of the ground surface by hydrophytic vegetation. The dominant vegetation in this
plot includes beak rushes (Rhyncospora spp.), little blue stem (Schizachyrium scoparium), and caric sedge
(Carex spp.). There is also a large number of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) seedlings present in this plot and
across the site. They cover approximately 5 percent of the plot area. They are very small in size, due to the
wetness of the area. There are several stems of naturally recruited wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) that were
noted within the plot area.
A hand auger was used to dig a soil pit in this plot to inspect the hydrologic condition of the soil, and to
allow evaluation of the boring hole for the presence of water.
The soil profile revealed a dominance of hydric soil colors near the surface, but from 5 inches and deeper,
an orange soil color, more suited to uplands, was dominant. This could be attributed to the fact that during
the restoration of the road crossing, brighter chroma soils, found deeper in the wetland soil profile, were
now near the surface. Over time, this layer may develop more characteristics of a wetland soil profile.
The plot area had a shallow surface water presence, of approximately 0.5 inch in depth. The water table
was at the surface, in the boring hole. No odor was detected in the soil, but there was evidence of water
stained leaves. No other hydrologic indicators were noted.
The area appears to be stable. Several sections of silt fence, which can be seen in the Spangler photos, have
been recently removed, and the soil appears to be stabilizing well. The stream channel through the site is
stable, with no visible evidence of heavy erosion or scouring of the banks or channel. The banks are almost
entirely vegetated. Judging by bent vegetation inside the banks, there is evidence of high flow events in the
channel, but no evidence of over bank flooding could be found.

o 1 o -oo 1.o 1 MAK50C Monitoring Report
Plot #2: East side of creek
Lat. /Long.: N34.5864 W77.4429
Table 2: Plot #2 summary ofplanted vegetation
Common Name Scientific Name
Willow oak
Sweetbay magnolia
Quercus phellos
Magnolia virginiana
Total
# of plants
1
5E-Gi
This plot is much more densely vegetated by natural recruitment vegetation than Plot 1. There is 100
percent aerial coverage by all vegetation. The dominant vegetation in this plot includes broomsedge
(Andropogon virginiana), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus), soft rush (Juncos effuses), beak rushes
(Rhyncospora spp.), caric sedge (Carex spp.), and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). There is also a
large number of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) seedlings present in this plot and across the site. They cover
approximately 70 percent of the plot area, and are larger than in Plot 1. This site is drier, in comparison, to
Plot 1. There are also stems of naturally recruited wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), groundsel tree (Baccharis
halimifolia), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) noted within the plot area.
A hand auger was used to dig a soil pit in this plot to inspect the hydrologic condition of the soil, and to
allow evaluation of the boring hole for the presence of water.
The soil profile in this plot was dominated by low chroma 2.5Y sandy clay loam soils. The upper 6 inches
had many 7.5YR 5/8 mottles, with a reduction to few 7.5YR 5/8 mottles 6 inches and deeper. The presence
of sandy clay loam soils can be attributed to the fact that during the restoration of the road crossing, soils
found deeper in the wetland soil profile are now near the surface on account of excavation of the upper
horizons.
There was saturation on the surface of the ground, but no water was observed in the boring hole within 12
inches of the surface. The perched surface water could be attributed to the clay layer at the surface. No
odor was detected in the soil, but water stained leaves were observed. No other hydrologic indicators were
noted.
There may be a need to control the quantity of loblolly pines and sweetgum in the upcoming growing
season.
B. South Mitigation Site
For this monitoring site, please reference Figure 2 — South Mitigation Site and Appendix B — South
Mitigation Site Photographs.
The log cross vane shown on the attached site plan (see Figure 2 — South Mitigation Site) was not installed.
The USACE and DWQ concurred that this structure was unnecessary in this stream system during our field
meeting on 30 November 2010.

O 10-00 1 .O 1 MAK50C Monitoring }wort
5E-Gi
planted and naturally recruited. Quantitative assessment of herbaceous cover was also assessed, as was species
diversity.
A. North Mitigation Site
This site was monitored by Spangler Environmental, Inc. and a monitoring report was submitted to the
USACE on 23 December 2009. According to the report, because of stabilization repairs and replanting in
these areas, no specific vegetative or soils data were collected during the 2009 monitoring. Therefore,
permanent data plots were established during the 2010 monitoring (see Figure 1 — North Mitigation Site).
The 2010 monitoring and all future monitoring will utilize the photographic locations, shown in the
Spangler Environmental, Inc., 6 October 2009 submission of the Completion of North Mitigation Area
Sediment Repair/Restoration report (see Appendix A — North Mitigation Site Photographs).
Plot #1: West side of creek
Lat. /Long.: N34.5864 W77.4430
Table 1: Plot #1 summary
Common Name
Sweetbay magnolia
Willow oak
Winged elm
of planted vegetation
Scientific Name I # of plants
Ii Magnolia virginiana 1 2
Quercus phellos 2
Ulmus alata I 1
Total 5
There is a mix of hydrophytic vegetation that has colonized this plot. There is an estimated coverage of
approximately 50 percent of the ground surface by hydrophytic vegetation. The dominant vegetation in this
plot includes beak rushes (Rhyncospora spp.), little blue stem (Schizachyrium scoparium), and caric sedge
(Carex spp.). There is also a large number of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) seedlings present in this plot and
across the site. They cover approximately 5 percent of the plot area. They are very small in size, due to the
wetness of the area. There are several stems of naturally recruited wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) that were
noted within the plot area.
A hand auger was used to dig a soil pit in this plot to inspect the hydrologic condition of the soil, and to
allow evaluation of the boring hole for the presence of water.
The soil profile revealed a dominance of hydric soil colors near the surface, but from 5 inches and deeper,
an orange soil color, more suited to uplands, was dominant. This could be attributed to the fact that during
the restoration of the road crossing, brighter chroma soils, found deeper in the wetland soil profile, were
now near the surface. Over time, this layer may develop more characteristics of a wetland soil profile.
The plot area had a shallow surface water presence, of approximately 0.5 inch in depth. The water table
was at the surface, in the boring hole. No odor was detected in the soil, but there was evidence of water
stained leaves. No other hydrologic indicators were noted.
The area appears to be stable. Several sections of silt fence, which can be seen in the Spangler photos, have
been recently removed, and the soil appears to be stabilizing well. The stream channel through the site is
stable, with no visible evidence of heavy erosion or scouring of the banks or channel. The banks are almost
entirely vegetated. Judging by bent vegetation inside the banks, there is evidence of high flow events in the
channel, but no evidence of over bank flooding could be found.

o 1 o-oo 1.o 1 MAK50C Monitoring Report Sr-Gi
Plot #2: East side of creek
Lat. /Long.: N34.5864 W77.4429
Table 2: Plot #2 summary o `planted vegetation
Common Name Scientific Name # of plants
Willow oak Quercus phellos 1
Sweetbay magnolia Magnolia virginiana 1
Total 2
This plot is much more densely vegetated by natural recruitment vegetation than Plot 1. There is 100
percent aerial coverage by all vegetation. The dominant vegetation in this plot includes broomsedge
(Andropogon virginiana), wool grass (Schpus cyperinus), soft rush (Juncos effuses), beak rushes
(Rhyncospora spp.), caric sedge (Carex spp.), and dog fennel (Eupatoriunz capillfolium). There is also a
large number of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) seedlings present in this plot and across the site. They cover
approximately 70 percent of the plot area, and are larger than in Plot 1. This site is drier, in comparison, to
Plot 1. There are also stems of naturally recruited wax myrtle (Morelia cerifera), groundsel tree (Baccharis
halimifolia), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciva) noted within the plot area.
A hand auger was used to dig a soil pit in this plot to inspect the hydrologic condition of the soil, and to
allow evaluation of the boring hole for the presence of water.
The soil profile in this plot was dominated by low chroma 2.5Y sandy clay loam soils. The upper 6 inches
had many 7.5YR 5/8 mottles, with a reduction to few 7.5YR 5/8 mottles 6 inches and deeper. The presence
of sandy clay loam soils can be attributed to the fact that during the restoration of the road crossing, soils
found deeper in the wetland soil profile are now near the surface on account of excavation of the upper
horizons.
There was saturation on the surface of the ground, but no water was observed in the boring hole within 12
inches of the surface. The perched surface water could be attributed to the clay layer at the surface. No
odor was detected in the soil, but water stained leaves were observed. No other hydrologic indicators were
noted.
There may be a need to control the quantity of loblolly pines and sweetgum in the upcoming growing
season.
B. South Mitigation Site
For this monitoring site, please reference Figure 2 — South Mitigation Site and Appendix B — South
Mitigation Site Photographs.
The log cross vane shown on the attached site plan (see Figure 2 — South Mitigation Site) was not installed.
The USACE and DWQ concurred that this structure was unnecessary in this stream system during our field
meeting on 30 November 2010.

o i o-oo i .o i MAZSOC Monitoring Keport
Initial Vegetative Response
5E.G
The South Mitigation Site was planted during the week of October 25, 2010, by Jackson Landscaping.
There were several substitutions to the approved plant list. The plants that were replaced included coastal
doghobble, American holly, sweetbay magnolia, fetterbush, and switch cane. The substitutions were wax
myrtle, pepperbush, red chokeberry, and broom sedge.
The plants were planted generally according to hydrologic preference. The plants, although having just
entered winter dormancy, appear healthy and viable, showing strong buds with no obvious dieback.
Plot #1: South side of creek
Lat. /Long.: N34.5781 W77.4476
Table 3: Plot #1 summary of planted vegetation
Common Name
Scientific Name
# of plants
Red bay
Persea palustris
1
Wax myrtle
Morella cerifera
1
Titi
Cyrilla racemiJlora
23
Virginia sweetspire I
Itea virginiana I
15
Pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
6
Red chokeberry I
Aronia arbutifolia
14
Red maple
4cer rubrum
1
Total 1 61
This mitigation site, having been only recently planted, has yet to show signs of recruitment of native
wetland species. The ground cover currently consists of whatever mix of species were in the hydroseed
mixture, which was used to stabilize the site after grading.
A hand auger was used to dig a soil pit in this plot to inspect the hydrologic condition of the soil, and to
allow evaluation of the boring hole for the presence of water.
The soil profile revealed a wide array of colors and textures, most likely caused by the recent disturbance of
the area from final grading. The first 2 inches consisted of low chroma fine sandy loam, underlain by
another 2 inches of high chroma sandy clay loam. Under this layer are 2 more inches of low chroma fine
sandy loam, underlain by low chroma sandy clay loam down to 14 inches and greater.
Beginning at 10 inches from the surface, there was capillary fringe noted in the soil, but no free water in the
boring hole. Few redoximorphic features were noted within 6 -8 inches from the surface, but may be due to
recent disturbance of the soil. No other hydrologic indicators were noted.
The site appears to be stable. The stream channel is stable with no visible evidence of heavy erosion or
scouring of the banks or channel. The banks are almost entirely vegetated. Judging by bent vegetation
inside the banks, there is evidence of high flow events in the channel, and some evidence of flooding on the
north bank of the creek.
6

o 1 o -oo i .o i MAK50C Monitoring }wort
Plot #2: North side of creek
Lat. /Long.: N34.5782 W77.4476
Table 4: Plot #2 summaiy of planted vegetation
Common Name
Scientific Name
# of plants
Red bay
Persea palustris
1
American elm
Ulmus americana
1
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
17
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginiana
23
Pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
3
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
( 18
Broomsedge
Andropogon virginicus
9
Total
72
5r.Gi
This mitigation site, having been only recently planted, has yet to show signs of recruitment of native
wetland species. The ground cover currently consists of a mix of herbaceous species in the hydroseed
mixture, which was used to stabilize the site after grading.
In this plot, a hand auger was used to dig a soil pit, which was used to inspect the hydrologic condition of
the soil, and to allow evaluation of the boring hole for the presence of water.
The soil profile had the appearance of a natural soil profile that would be encountered in this type of
wetland. The first 5 inches consisted of low chroma fine sandy loam, underlain by 7 inches of higher value
low chroma fine sandy loam. From 12 to 15 inches and below, it continues with low chroma sand, with
common lower value areas in the ped.
Saturation was noted 15 inches from the surface. Other hydrologic indicators noted were water stained
leaves, and drift deposits. No other hydrologic indicators were noted.
C. North and South Rifle Range Road Creek Crossings
The north and south creek crossing slopes and channels of Rifle Range Road have been attended to, due to
the instability of portions of the slopes and sediment movement in the channels. These creeks have been
routinely monitored one year. To date, work to stabilize the banks has included planting of herbaceous
wetland plants and woody shrubs and trees along the slopes of the channels directly adjacent to the road
crossings, paying special attention to sloughing areas of soil. These eroding areas will continue to be
watched, and planting will take place, as discussed, during our 30 November 2010 field meeting with the
USACE and NCDWQ. One foot tall concrete weirs have been installed on both ends of each culvert at
each crossing to allow sediment buildup within the culverts (see Appendix C - North and South Rifle Range
Road Culvert Weir Photographs).
D. Impact Area QQ
Impact Area QQ has been stabilized and planted with herbaceous wetland vegetation. The base of the
slopes surrounding the wetland area is being monitored routinely to determine if rock or wetland plants will
be needed.

O 10 -001 .o MAK50C Monitoring KeporL
E. Impact Area D1
5E.Gi
Impact Area DI has been stabilized. This area is scheduled to be planted with wetland trees and shrubs
during the winter /spring of 2011.
F. Impact Area PI
Impact Area P1 was inspected during our 30 November field meeting with the USACE and DWQ. An area
of sedimentation was noted in this area, and has since been removed.
G. Sedimentation Impacts
All other temporary impacts mentioned in the accepted USACE Permit Modification section 3 dated 30
August 2010 have been addressed. There areas have become stable and are showing strong and appropriate
natural regrowth by native vegetation.
V. Data Summary
A. North and South Mitigation Sites
The North Mitigation site appears overall healthy and stable, and moving towards a successful mitigation
site. Data from the two data plots reveal several issues worth noting. At this time, Plot 1 shows adequate
numbers of planted species per acre. However, species diversity in Plot 1 is lower than the target success
criteria. Natural recruitment appears to be helping in this regard, and it may meet the criteria in the next
monitoring period. While the viability and diversity of woody planted vegetation in Plot 2 is low, overall
coverage and diversity is high. Supplemental planting on both sides of the creek may be necessary to
satisfy the Corps requirement for number of trees per acre. Dog fennel appears to be a possible threat to the
east side of the creek, as they outcompete and shade out smaller trees and shrubs, and could become
widespread and dominant, if not controlled. Sweetgum seedlings could also pose a threat of becoming too
dense and overtaking the area. The success criterion for hydrology is currently being met at this site. The
soils are marginally hydric at this time, but will develop more prominent hydric soils characteristics as the
site matures, based on the hydrologic regime observed at this site.
The South Mitigation Site has been planted for two months. The vegetation has responded well to planting.
The north half of the site has met the success criteria for hydrology. The south bank of the site is not
currently meeting the success criteria. Hopefully, the surface and groundwater regime will develop
favorably in this area as the soils settle and the site matures. The soils within the South Site appear to
satisfy the hydric soil criteria.
B. North and South Rifle Range Road Creek Crossings
The north and south creek crossings, at Rifle Range Road, will continue to be inspected periodically for
stability. Prior to undertaking any work in these areas, such as to maintain or repair either creek, as well as
any supplemental plantings of these areas, Corps and NCDWQ personnel will be notified.
V1. Conclusions
The second annual monitoring for the North Mitigation Site, the initial vegetative response and first annual
monitoring for the South Mitigation Site, located at MARSOC, United States Marine Corps Base — Camp

o t o-oo 1.o 1 MAK50C Monitonng Kcport
Lejeune, were performed on 22 December 2010. This site's monitoring data shows the west side to be exhibiting
coverage by woody vegetation with sufficient stem numbers, but inadequate diversity of planted species. The
North Site has good coverage by volunteer native herbs and woody vegetation. Because of marginally hydric soil
colors, resulting from construction of the site, the soils composition is still developing to meet the hydric soil
parameter. After removal of the roadbed and culvert, soils were excavated into horizons of the soil with high
chroma colors, and as the site matures, the soils may begin to show natural evidence of hydric soil formation after
repeated and sustained hydrologic influence. The North Site is satisfying the parameters for wetland hydrology
through ponding, presence of a high water table, and presence of water stained leaves.
The South Mitigation Site was planted October 2010. The initial vegetative response monitoring shows that the
plants are responding well to planting and no dead or dying plants were observed. The site is satisfying the
hydrologic parameter on the north side of the creek, as evidenced by indications of overbank flooding and water
stained leaves, noted during monitoring. The soils within the South Site appear to satisfy the hydric soil criteria.
However, the south bank is lacking any of the indicators of hydrology. As the site matures, hopefully
groundwater sheet flow and precipitation from rainfall will illicit the development of an acceptable hydrologic
regime for this side of the site.

o 1 o oo 1 o 1 MAR50C. Monitoring Report
Appendix A
North Mitigation Site Photographs
5E-Gl

12/22/2010 MARSOC - North Mitigation Site Photo Point 1: Facing south
12/2212010 MARSOC - North Mitigation Site Photo Point 2: Facing west

12/22/2010 MARSOC - North Mitigation Site Photo Point 3: facing soutn
12/22/2010 MARSOC - North Mitigation Site Photo Point a: facing norm

o 1 o -oo 1.o 1 MARSOC Monitoring Report
Appendix B
South Mitigation Site Photographs
SE-G

12/22/2010 MARSOC - South Mitigation Site Photo Point 1: Facing east
1212212010 MARSOC - South Mitigation Site Photo Point 2: Facing north

12/22/2010 MARSOC - South Mitigation Site Photo Point 3: Facing west
121222/2010 MARSOC - South Mitigation Site Nrhoto Nomt a: racing soum

o 10-00 1.o 1 MAK50C Monitoring Report
Appendix C
North and South Rifle Range Road
Culvert Weir Photographs
iii

12/27/2010 MARSOC, North Crossing, Rifle Range Road Weir Structure
12/27/2010 MARSOC, North Crossing, Upstream, Rifle Range Road Weir Structure

Q)
D
t5
2
fC
O
W
N
Q)
C
f0
(D
4)
N
a
m
C
N
N
O
U
L
7
O
U
O
a
Q
0
T
O
N
n
N
N
T
a�
U
a
(9
O
N
m
G
f0
(9
N
N
o_
C
N
0
U
L
7
O
U
O
Q
0
T
O
N
ti
N
N
T

o 1 o -oo i .o 1 MAR50C Monitoring RPFort
Figure 1
North Mitigation Site
f

l
GRADING PLAN P- D " ,/ / t
Figure 1 - North Mitigation Site
TPA
A, Data Sample Point
Photo Point
/ PROPOSED CDYTOUs
��77--�� --•Tn PROPOSED STREA SLR Lf.
SED
PROPO R[TLRaRT PESTORRTx7R . cj—
LOC YAW
Ci Pool
.R K— C. —R-.a TY MW. 81 T.Caaaml
R�M
App Nd1( TVP I
1 w
•e1L 4s b1Y iM FI Iwlr.s 1
VERTICAL SCAI.F MOR,ZOWTAL SCAR
1' !O' I' — 10'
N
5
r
v
WR
W PCP
c"Ift m
ML - ROEI
efl�ar w. e
SECI,
t
i
RESTORED KTLRMS
RPPRO %. LOCRT I p [xKTwC it PROPOSED SIRE IY
K
M' R[I tT0 p REUOI'CDI
10
I I
/�
1
MOPOSED WROE
`EXKTMO WROE
S
O
0 10
20 Td 40 s0 w TO 00 So IDD
b 120 110 IRO 150
SECTION A -A'
S
1
\
tss
�
GRADING PLAN P- D " ,/ / t
Figure 1 - North Mitigation Site
TPA
A, Data Sample Point
Photo Point
/ PROPOSED CDYTOUs
��77--�� --•Tn PROPOSED STREA SLR Lf.
SED
PROPO R[TLRaRT PESTORRTx7R . cj—
LOC YAW
Ci Pool
.R K— C. —R-.a TY MW. 81 T.Caaaml
R�M
App Nd1( TVP I
1 w
•e1L 4s b1Y iM FI Iwlr.s 1
VERTICAL SCAI.F MOR,ZOWTAL SCAR
1' !O' I' — 10'
N
5
r
v
WR
W PCP
c"Ift m
ML - ROEI
efl�ar w. e
SECI,
t
i

o i o-oo 1.o 1 MARSOC Monitoring Report
SE-61
Figure 2
South Mitigation Site
iv

w
n1
1. .
�
0 6 30 n to ri !e los Qo 115 ISO
SECTION A -A'
GRADING PLAN
A Data Sample Point
O Photo Point
cmr.+e CONTOLIRS
RRO"= CONTOURS
PIIOWAD STREAM - 7S.3 U.
M10PO'AO rtnAN0 RESTORAfCM - 0.01 *era.
l�1 `OC CROSS -rut
�� ►ooh
M1�
4111' \y�� hmM1 Tlw 1M
II' fww Its M :wi.� 14M.ey
4i .� P.f 1.1 fM II;�r ..M.♦
�y.s �..+yn 61..► tJ M Cw
Ora v.
Figure 2 -South Mitigation Site
yyyyyy ''VERTICAL. SCALE HORIZOWAt SCALE
70'
t
IN
r
t
N
f
N U
W�.
i
«e, ryl
C0,1,1RU(,pr
vlr .

MARSOC
On -site Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report
(USACE Action ID #: 2007 - 00286 - 067 /DWQ Project #: 2007 -0245)
Prepared For:
The United States Marine Corps Base — Camp Lejeune
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Prepared By:
The Whiting -Tuner Contracting Company
Baltimore, Maryland
and
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
Wilmington, NC
Monitoring Date: 21 December 2011

010- 001.01 MAK5OC Monitoring Report
Table of Contents
SE.G�
Section Title Page
I. Project History and Current Status ............................................. ............................... 3
A. Permitting ............................................................... ............................... 3
B. Mitigation ............................................................... ............................... 3
II. Mitigation Site Details .......................................................... ............................... 3
III. North and South Site Mitigation Success Criteria ........................ ............................... 3
IV. Monitoring Data ................................................................. ............................... 3
A. North Mitigation Site .................................................. ............................... 4
B. South Mitigation Site ................................................. ............................... 5
C. North and South Rifle Range Road Creek Crossings ............ ............................... 7
D. Impact Area QQ ....................................................... ............................... 7
E. Impact Area DI ...................................................... ............................... 7
F. Impact Area PI ........................................................ ............................... 7
V. Data Summary .................................................................. ............................... 7
A. North and South Mitigation Sites .................................. ............................... 7
B. North and South Rifle Range Road Creek Crossings ............ ............................... 8
VI. Conclusions ....................................................................... ............................... 8
Appendix
Number Description Page
A North Mitigation Site Photographs i
B South Mitigation Site Photographs ii
C North and South Crossing Photographs iii
Figures
Number Description Page
I North Mitigation Site iv
2 South Mitigation Site v
2

o, o -oo I .o i MAK50C Monitoring Keport
I. Project History and Current Status
A. Permitting
MARSOC was issued a provisional permit on 9 October 2007, which preliminarily authorized the discharge
of fill material into an estimated 12.5 acres (Ac.) of wetlands and 12,800 linear feet (LF) of unnamed
tributaries to Stone Bay, which abuts the New River, a navigable water of the U.S. These calculations were
based upon the best information available during the preparation of the conceptual layout of the complex.
During the permit process, it became necessary to separate the project into three phases: Phase I —
Headquarters; Phase 11 — Road Realignment; and Phase III — Y07 -Y08 Development. Under these three
pennits, more specifically the IP dated 16 October 2008, the Applicant was authorized to permanently
discharge fill into 4.36 Ac. of wetlands and 3,040 LF of tributaries.
On 2 August 2010, the United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) modified the individual permit to
ensure accurate accounting of all impacts associated with the MARSOC project. Cumulatively the project
impacted 4.34 acres of wetland and 1,447 linear feet of tributary.
B. Mitigation
To compensate for the impacts, the Applicant was required to make payment to the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) for 2,166 linear feet of warm water stream restoration and 0.47
acre of non - riparian wetland restoration credit, as well as the restoration of 87 linear feet of stream and 0.14
acre of riparian wetland, located within the MARSOC project site. These sites are referred to herein as the
North and South Mitigation sites.
As part of the on -site stream and riparian wetland restoration, the Applicant is required to submit initial
planting response reports and annual monitoring reports for both mitigation areas, to take place for a period
of five years. The first annual monitoring report for the North Mitigation Site was submitted to the Corps
and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) on 23 December 2009, by Spangler
Environmental, Inc. This report did not contain any specific vegetative monitoring data or permanent
photographic station details. Within this report you will find the annual monitoring report for both the
North and South Mitigation sites, with details regarding locations of permanent plots and photographic
stations, as well as updates on select impact areas within the project.
H. Mitigation Site Details
The goal of the project is to provide compensatory in -kind mitigation to offset unavoidable wetland and stream
impacts necessary to facilitate the construction of the MARSOC project.
III. North and South Site Mitigation Success Criteria
For success criteria, please reference the MARSOC On -Site Wetland Monitoring Plan, submitted to the USACE
on 25 March 2008.
IV. Monitoring Data
Two 0.01 acre (11.8' radius) circular vegetation monitoring plots were established at each of the two on -site
mitigation sites (North Site and South Site). The plots were established on both sides of the channel. The center
points of the monitoring sites were marked in the field by PVC tubing. All woody vegetation was counted, both
planted and naturally recruited. Quantitative assessment of herbaceous cover was also assessed, as was species
diversity.

o 10-00 1.o 1 MAK50C Monitaring Kerort
A. North Mitigation Site
This 0.10 -acre site was monitored by Spangler Environmental, Inc. and a monitoring report was submitted
to the USACE on 23 December 2009. According to the report, because of stabilization repairs and
replanting in these areas, no specific vegetative or soils data were collected during the 2009 monitoring.
Therefore, permanent data plots were established during the 2010 monitoring (see Figure 1 — North
Mitigation Site). The 2010 monitoring and all future monitoring will utilize the photographic locations,
shown in the Spangler Environmental, Inc., 6 October 2009 submission of the Completion of North
Mitigation Area Sediment Repair/Restoration report (see Appendix A —North Mitigation Site Photographs).
Plot #1: West side of creek
Lat. /Long.: N34.5864 W77.4430
Table 1: Plot 91 summary of planted trees and shrubs
�.. �`v� ttCommonrtNamem � Scien if c Name.,'•' � * 4 €
Sweetbay magnolia Magnolia virginiana 2 2
Willow oak Quercus phellos 2 2
Winged elm Ulmus alata 1 1
Wax myrtle Morelia cerifera 1*
Total 5 6
*Plant was noted as volunteer in 2010, rootball was noted this year.
Table 2: Plot #1 summary of volunteer trees and shrubs
W, 'Gonimori Name x,;;: `''x ` #Scientifi'c rNa rie z ,, El'. 04 # ?of PC
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 1
Loblolly pine Pinus taeda 24
Wax myrtle Morelia cerifera 8
Total 33
The planted trees in this plot are marginally healthy. The willow oaks are showing only basal growth.
There is a mix of hydrophytic vegetation that has colonized this plot. There is an estimated coverage of
approximately 60 percent of the ground surface by hydrophytic vegetation. The site was seeded in the
spring of 2011 with a'wetland seed mix to increase the diversity and ground coverage in this area. There is
a large number of what appears to be either black eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta) or coreopsis ( Coreopsis
areolata). The dominant herbaceous vegetation in this plot includes beak rushes (Rhyncospora spp.), little
blue stem (Schizachyrium scoparium), caric sedge (Carex spp.), and yellow eyed grass (Xyris spp.).
A hand auger was used to dig a soil pit in this plot to inspect the profile and hydrologic condition of the soil,
and to check the depth of the shallow water table. The soil profile revealed 2 inches of 10YR 2/1 sand.
From about 2 inches and deeper, the dominant soil color was 70% IOYR 6/3 loamy sand with 30% IOYR
6/8 mottles. The shallow water table was observed at a depth of 6 inches, with saturation noted at about 4
inches. No odor was detected in the soil, but there was evidence of water stained leaves.
The area continues to maintain overall stability. There are two very large pine trees that have fallen into the
site from the northwest edge as a result of Hurricane Irene. They don't appear to have killed any of the
planted trees, and the needles have browned out, and should fall soon. Light should infiltrate the limbs
come spring. The stream channel through the site is stable, with no visible evidence of heavy erosion or
scouring of the banks or channel. The banks are almost entirely vegetated. Judging by bent vegetation
inside the banks, there is evidence of high flow events in the channel, with overbank flooding likely.

o I o-oo I .o 1 MAR50C Monitoring Report
Plot #2: East side of creek
Lat. /Long.: N34.5864 W77.4429
Table 3: Plot #2 summary of planted trees and shrubs
"41`RK °'Common Namesr`, ~;5`cientificNarrie °a ; =-k.# ofy' lant'si2U:10: #of 1_an_ ts201'ljr
�:�.���.�,_�. -. ,__rs , �._��,,...__,_.� .,._, r �_ ��_- Kw,. ,�_�s.,�.._,,..- �,_�>�- �._,�.�. � >zyw,.a.P
Sweetbay magnolia Magnolia virginiana 1 1
Willow oak Quercus phellos 1 3*
Total 2 4
Sr-Gi
*Stems were missed in 2010 monitoring event. Not volunteer.
Table 4: Plot 42 summary of volunteer trees and shrubs
'�.t° 2:' - •b�r�'^�•Yi a�,c-s .�.a -n:.w:z:, �: -- .� °•�;.s::: ��r �. •,�.,- r: > -- = -« .tY � =._w- ..._.._ -, �T:
°�;�, ���ComrriorirtName�f ���� ;� <$cleritlfic3lVameM:' ;M:��� : #of�,plants= 20;11�`:�
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciva 31
Loblolly pine Pinus taeda 28
Wax myrtle Morella cerifera 7
Groundsel tree Baccharis halimifolia 1
Total 67
There is 100 percent aerial coverage by all vegetation. The dominant vegetation in this plot includes
broomsedge (Andropogon virginiana), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus), soft rush (Juncus effuses), beak
rushes (Rhyncospora spp.), caric sedge (Carex spp.), and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), with the
addition of yellow jasmine vine (Gelsemium sempervirens) this year.
A hand auger was used to dig a soil pit in this plot to inspect the profile and hydrologic condition of the soil,
and to check the depth of the shallow water table. The soil profile in this plot was characteristic of a
wetland soil profile, with low chroma sand for the first several inches of the soil surface, with the color
10YR 2/1, and 10YR 6/1 sandy clay loam to a depth greater than 12 inches. No water was observed in the
bore hole within 12 inches of the surface.
B. South Mitigation Site
For this 0.04 -acre monitoring site, please reference Appendix B — South Mitigation Site Photographs and
Figure 2 — South Mitigation Site.
The log cross vane shown on the attached site plan (see Figure 2 — South Mitigation Site) was not installed.
The USACE and DWQ concurred that this structure was unnecessary in this stream system during our field
meeting on 30 November 2010.
Plot #1: South side of creek
Lat. /Long.: N34.5781 W77.4476
Table 5: Plot #1 summary ofplanted trees and shrubs
;.O�,a.,�z, :.<; • .:v� -,Y�_.��:�;=� ` r_��,.'��,�,• rrn•. ..rr «:., - a:N;-,— �- f.;y.,�`,Qy {, +,M, la.,<-- ,,,.�..;.;;.. r � -7;y z r��, -r �.,_.•hr � � .f
-FCC , A morr;Naine.; :. ,.�.y _ , ZZr�� =�a Sc�entific��Name�•� y� t#51of nlants•;201'0.•- #.;of °�lant_sr20:11' °`�
,. _ ..,,. �.- F'l�m :+.Ya i4�'S'..b.'�. ,.. ,-. .r .0- 12- .?i. /d _e�Tr. .,�. ^.` <•.K,sa'_-c.:.i r,. � .��- a.,✓.. 4r -F ...,..u,
Red bay Persea palustris 1 l
Wax myrtle Morella cerifera l l
Titi Cyrilla racemiora 23 0
Virginia sweetspire I Itea virginiana 15 9
Pepperbush I Clethra alnifolia 6 1

o i o -oo i .o 1 MAK50C Monitoring Keport SSG 1
Red chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia 14 14
Red maple I Acer rubrum 1 0
Total 61 26
There has been a die -off of several of the planted species, with titi and sweetspire being the most dramatic.
The titi may not be suited to this soil type as saplings. Older specimens may fare better. The sweetspire
may have died off from lack of hydrology. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor website
( htto:// drouahtnionitor .unl.edu /arcliive.html), Southeastern North Carolina suffered a period of extreme drought
conditions during this past summer, from early July, to late August, which may have attributed to the die -
off. The other plants appear healthy, and thriving. There is 100 percent groundcover by herbaceous
vegetation, consisting mainly of the stabilizing seed mix planted during the initial planting period. There is
almost no colonization from native wetland species to date.
A hand auger was used to dig a soil pit in this plot to inspect the hydrologic condition of the soil, and to
allow evaluation of the boring hole for the presence of water. The first 3 inches consisted of 80% l OYR 3/1
sandy loam with 20% 10YR 4/2 mottled loamy sand down to greater than 12 inches. No water table was
noted within 12 inches of the soil surface.
From observation of bent vegetation inside the banks, there is evidence of high flow events in the channel,
and some evidence of flooding on the north bank of the creek. The stream channel has evolved somewhat,
with scour of the south bank observed. This most likely occurred as a result of heavy rains from Hurricane
Irene.
Plot #2: North side of creek
Lat. /Long.: N34.5782 W77.4476
Table 6: Plot 42 summary oftlanted vegetation
�a;_Commo>.NameMM,,n.r,i .arµ,g ScieiitfcName?ri`i# of`ylantsa20,10 Ak# of Pants 20.11
.....,.n....,.r.,
Red bay Persea palustris 1 1
American elm Ulmus americana 1 1
Titi Cyrilla racemiflora
Virginia sweetspire Itea virginiana
Pepperbush I Clethra alnifolia
Red chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia
Broomsedge I Andropogon virginicus
Total
17 2
23 8
3 3
18 16
9 I 8
72 39
There has been a die -off of several of the planted species, with titi and sweetspire being the most dramatic.
The titi may not be suited to this soil type as saplings. Older specimens may fare better. The sweetspire
may have died off from lack of hydrology. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor website
( httn:// drouehtmonitor .uni.edu /archive.html), Southeastern North Carolina suffered a period of extreme drought
conditions during this past summer, from early July, to late August, which may have attributed to the die -
off. The other plants appear healthy, and thriving. There is 100 percent groundcover by herbaceous
vegetation, consisting mainly of the stabilizing seed mix planted during the initial planting period. There is
almost no colonization from native wetland species to date. Several stems of smartweed (Polygonum
hydropiperoides) were noted.
In this plot, a hand auger was used to dig a soil pit, which was used to inspect the hydrologic condition of
the soil, and to allow evaluation of the boring hole for the presence of water.

o i o-oo i .o i MAK50C Monitoring Keport
The soil profile had the appearance of a natural soil profile that would be encountered in this type of
wetland. The upper 12 inches consisted of 80% 10YR 3/1 sandy loam with 20% IOYR 4/2 mottles.
Saturation was noted at about 12 inches from the surface. Other hydrologic indicators noted were water
stained leaves and drift deposits.
C. North and South Rifle Range Road Creek Crossings
The north and south creek crossing slopes and channels of Rifle Range Road have remained stable since last
monitoring. The herbaceous planting have thrived on both the banks and within the channels (see Appendix
C — North and South Crossing Photographs). The planted trees and shrubs placed along the banks appear to
be healthy and growing. The concrete weirs have helped to slow down water, and have managed to capture
sediment within the culverts. The log vains placed within the upstream section of the south crossing were
taken down to one log high, and are stable. There is only minor bank sloughing observed upstream of the
south crossing. All old areas of sloughing have stabilized. There is excellent herbaceous colonization
within both stream channels, and consists of various sedges, duck potato (Sagittaria latifolia), and rattle box
(Ludwigia spp.).
D. Impact Area QQ
Impact Area QQ has been stabilized and planted with herbaceous and woody wetland vegetation. The base
of the slopes surrounding the wetland area is being monitored routinely to determine if rock or wetland
plants will be needed.
The planted vegetation is thriving. No die -off has been observed in any of the planted specimens. The areas
of open soil around the edges were seeded with a wetland seed mix in the spring, and several coreopsis
were observed during the summer. The bases of the slopes are currently stable. As the slopes are well
established, no change to this area is expected over the next season.
E. Impact Area DI
Impact Area Dl has been planted with wetland trees and shrubs including willow oak and wax myrtle. The
ground surface is stabilized by centipede grass sod.
F. Impact Area Pl
Impact Area PI has been routinely monitored throughout the year, and has remained stable throughout the
growing season.
V. Data Summary
A. North and South Mitigation Sites
The North Mitigation site appears overall healthy and stable, and moving towards a successful mitigation
site. Plot 1 shows adequate numbers of planted species per acre. There has been a strong recruitment by
native hydrophytic vegetation, which should ensure that the site meets the vegetative criteria at the end of
the required monitoring period. While the diversity of woody planted vegetation in Plot 2 is low, overall
coverage and diversity on the east side of the creek is high. Supplemental planting on both sides of the
creek may be necessary to satisfy the Corps requirement for number of planted trees per acre. Natural
recruitment of sweetgum seedlings seems to have stopped. As these trees mature, thinning of the numbers
should take care of dominance within the mitigation area. The success criterion for hydrology is currently
being met at the North Mitigation site. The soils are marginally hydric at this time, but will develop more
prominent hydric soils characteristics as the site matures, based on the hydrologic regime observed at this
site.

o 10-00 1.o i MAK50C Monitoring }wort
SEGi
The South Mitigation Site appears to be stable. There has been a die -off of several of the planted shrubs.
The site is still meeting the required trees per acre requirement of the mitigation plan. The north half of the
site has met the success criteria for hydrology. The south bank of the site is not currently meeting the
success criteria. Hopefully, the surface and groundwater regime will develop favorably in this area as the
soils settle and the site matures. The soils within the South Site appear to satisfy the hydric soil criteria.
B. North and South Rifle Range Road Creek Crossings
The north and south creek crossings, at Rifle Range Road, will continue to be inspected periodically for
stability. All slopes and channels have stabilized, aside from one area of bank sloughing upstream of the
south crossing. The hydrophytic trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation that were planted at these
locations in the spring of 2011 have adapted well to planting, and are thriving. There is good natural
recruitment of native hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation at both locations.
VI. Conclusions
The third annual monitoring for the North Mitigation Site and second annual monitoring for the South Mitigation
Site, located at MARSOC, United States Marine Corps Base — Camp Lejeune, were performed on 21 December
2011. The North Mitigation Site's monitoring data shows the site to be exhibiting coverage by woody vegetation
with sufficient stem numbers, but inadequate diversity of planted species. The North Mitigation Site has good
coverage by volunteer native herbs and woody vegetation. Because of marginally hydric soil colors, resulting
from construction of the site, the soils composition is still developing to meet the hydric soil parameter. After
removal of the roadbed and culvert, soils were excavated into horizons of the soil with high chroma colors, and as
the site matures, the soils may begin to show natural evidence of hydric soil formation after repeated and
sustained hydrologic influence. The North Mitigation Site is satisfying the parameters for wetland hydrology
through ponding, presence of a high water table, and presence of water stained leaves.
The South Mitigation Site's monitoring data show partial success of the site to date. There was a small die -off of
planted shrubs, but overall, the plants are thriving. The site is satisfying the hydrologic parameter on the north
side of the creek, as evidenced by indications of overbank flooding and water stained leaves, noted during
monitoring. The soils within the South Site appear to satisfy the hydric soil criteria. However, the south bank is
lacking any of the indicators of hydrology. As the site matures, hopefully groundwater sheet flow and
precipitation from rainfall will illicit the development of an acceptable hydrologic regime for this side of the site.
The North and South Crossings, and Impact Areas QQ, Dl, and P1 are currently stable and could be considered
successfully restored. All planted vegetation is thriving, and slopes and channels are overall stable.

o 10-00 i o 1 MAK50C Monitoring Report
Appendix A
North Mitigation Site Photographs
SE-6i

12/21/2011 MARSOC - North Mitigation Site Photo Point 1: Facing south
12/21/2011 MARSOC - North Mitigation Site Photo Point 2: Facing west
-.ems fur:;,�
•
k
^
,i,
12/21/2011 MARSOC - North Mitigation Site Photo Point 1: Facing south
12/21/2011 MARSOC - North Mitigation Site Photo Point 2: Facing west

12/21/2011 MARSOC - North Mitigation Site Photo Point 3: Facing south
12/21/2011 MARSOC - North Mitigation Site Photo Point 4: Facing north

_,. .• 1 .`�f�M"�`a� %r' � �wr �� _ t'�'+k ±�xr� iJ,l �_ ^.} _ � f �, i � K �Lyr
F;iR 3'. _`�1� �_Y�1e IeFI�� '�,.',• _ § +4 '1 7'7'� � )> '4 f :. ,� .
O.J
,,. .r �I.�r►,;�,;; ��. ,w •� y . "BfT i."'s "fir,'`•, M
}�''.: ifs
. � �fi+�fi.: "da-!�c�la. ±IRlu �Y�'.f���.'L7�. .af!:L'C•:.sr�94��..�I t( . r� /!,�
g
12/21/2011 MARSOC - North Mitigation Site Stream Channel facing downstream
12/21/2011 MARSOC - North Mitigation Site. Fallen pines

o 10-00 1.o 1 MAK50C Monitoring Report
Appendix B
South Mitigation Site Photographs

12/21/2011 MARSOC - South Mitigation Site Photo Point 1: Facing east
12/21/2011 MARSOC - South Mitigation Site Photo Point 2: Facing north

12/21/2011 MARSOC - South Mitigation Site Photo Point 3: Facing west
12/21/2011 MARSOC - South Mitigation Site Photo Point 4: Facing south

_ s
,y • � .. rty Y. !r
J 41
� r
IQ
12/21/2011 MARSOC - South Mitigation Site, Stream channel, facing downstream

o 10-00 i .o i MAK50C Monitoring Kcrort
5E-G1
Appendix C
North and South Crossing Photographs
uu

MARSOC South Crossing, Upstream
MARSOC South Crossing, downstream

'W 0- ♦ .
MARSOC North Crossing, upstream
MARSOC North Crossing, downstream