20070747 Ver 1_Complete File_20020715

r J

-..
>ssY .•
W
y

V - N : cli4'it Q

O

i

t Colo

o Q
m o- Z L
C
o Q Q
43
' h V C m
.? , o s
(A
' bA
W 4 .
2 L
a J W a co d
W y
J Sod Q

OM
`
'
J _ ?
r I?
O
W ATF?4
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
July 15, 2002
Mr. David Lekson
Washington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Lekson:
200.70747
Re: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank
. Craven County
We have received your 19 June 2002 letter seeking comments of the 23 May 2002 letter from Green
Vest requesting a change in the wetland credit ratio. DWQ has no objection to this change as long as each
credit sold has at least one unit of restoration or creation.
I can be reached at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions.

t R. Dorney
Water Qualit3
JRD/bs
cc: Washington DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
?rogram
S:\2002 CertificationsTlat Swamp Wetland Mitigation.doc LNI
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands

IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 199911312
See Distribution
Dear Mr. ey:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
June 19, 2002
'k
L
S
This correspondence is in reference to the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream
Restoration Bank that is being developed by GreenVest (formerly the Triangle Group) on
a 386 acre tract of land located off of Dover Road, near the community of Dover, adjacent
to Flat Swamp, in Craven County, North Carolina. The purpose of this correspondence is
to provide you with a copy of a letter I received from Dr. Doug Frederick, Bank Sponsor,
requesting modification of the wetland credit structure within the bank (see attached).
Pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the mitigation banking instrument (NMI) entitled Agreement to
Establish the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank in Craven County,
North Carolina, please review the attached proposal and provide me with your written comments
within 30 days of your receipt of this correspondence. Only after all comments have been
received and satisfactorily addressed, will a final decision be rendered regarding this MBI
modification request.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact
me at the Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 22.
!:?a' I ?- . LL-"'
David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Chief, Washington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure
r ?
s
-2-
DISTRIBUTION:
Copies Furnished (with enclosure):
Mrs. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section
USEPA/EAB
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Mr. Howard Hall
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Jo n Dorney
ater Quality Section
ivision of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Bennett Wynne
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
901 Laroque Avenue
Kinston, North Carolina 28501
r
-3-
Mrs. Kelly Williams
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dr. Douglas J. Frederick
Triangle Group
1001 Capability Drive, Suite 312, Research 1
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
ti
s- c
-rV
May 23, 2002
Mr. David Lekson, Chairman
Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank MBRT
US Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Dave,
We are trying to update the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank in an attempt to
promote and implement the project. As you know, we have not sold any credits nor have
we placed a conservation easement on the properly. At the time the MBI was approved,
the "credit value" for restoration was: 2 acres of restoration = 1 restoration credit.
Similarly, the credit value for enhancement was 4 acres of enhancement = 1 enhancement
credit. These numbers were the current thinking of the agencies at the time and assumed
the "improved credits" would be used on a 1:1 ratio for impacts. This thinking has now
changed among the Agencies. Now, my understanding of the credit ratios is: 1 acre of
restoration - 1 restoration credit (1:1 ratio) and 2 acres of enhancement = 1 enhancement
credit (2:1 ratio). This revision apparently gives more flexibility to the regulatory
agencies for assigning appropriate mitigation ratios for an impact. GreenVest would like
to officially update the total number of credits from the Flat Swamp Bank so we are
better able to promote and implement this project. I assume, you as Chair of the Flat
Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank could make this request to the MBRT to update this
Bank consistent with the current credit ratios.
The Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank has 318.34 acres of PC fields that would be
restored and 47 acres of enhanced forested wetlands composed of Wet Pine Flatwoods (8
ac) and Nonriverme Wet Hardwood Forest (39 ac). Using the new ratios of 1:1 for
restoration and 2:1 for enhancement, the revised credit total would be: 318.34 restoration
credits and. 23.5 enh-ncement credits for a total of 341.84 nonriverine wetland credits.
I can easily make the revisions to the MBI and the Plan to reflect this once I have your
input and the approval of the MBRT. Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
'p ? .._
Douglas J. Frederick
Vice President
An C6?21 Strategic Partner

Cc: Doug Lashley, President
Bryan-Brice,Esq
New Jersev
1930 East Marlton Pike
Suite 016
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
[phone]
Fax [phone]
North Carolina
Research Building l
Centennial Campus
1001 Capability Drive, Suite 312
Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Pennsylvania
P. O. Box 551
New Cumberland, PA 17070
[phone]
Fax [phone]
www.greenveste2.com
oF w a r?qQ?
o ?
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
June 14, 2001
Dr. Doug Frederick
The Triangle Group
Research Building 1
Centennial Campus
1001 Capability Drive, Suite 312
Raleigh, NC 27606
Dear Dr. Frederick:
Thank yotr for your recent letter requesting information on issues associated with
the value of wetland mitigation credits and the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank Project.
Although there are similarities between the Wetlands Restoration Program and private
mitigation banks, there are also significant differences that prevent direct comparison of
the two entities. These similarities and differences are included in the response to your
request for information. I have taken the liberty of summarizing your letter into a series of
questions for which I have provided a response. If I have not captured all of your
questions please let me know.
Question: What does the NCWRP charge per acre of restored wetland?
Response: The Schedule of Fees used by the NCWRP was adopted by the Environmental
Management Commission and became effective on August 1, 1998 (15A NCAC 2R
.0402). As stated in your letter the charge per acre for non-riparian wetlands is $12,000
and for riparian wetlands is $24,000.
Question: Does the NCWRP have input into determining compensatory mitigation
requirements of Section 404 permits and 401 Water Quality Certifications?
Response: The NCWRP is a non-regulatory program and has no input into the mitigation
requirements of Section 404 permit and/or 401 Water Quality Certifications.
Compensatory mitigation requirements for these permits are established by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the Division of Water Quality in consultation with other natural
resource agencies.
Question: Does the NCWRP use enhancement, creation or preservation to satisfy
compensatory mitigation requirements?
Response: No, all compensatory mitigation requirements assumed by the NCWRP to date
have been for restoration. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between
NCWRP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, preservation and enhancement may be
used if the sites are specifically identified in advance by NCWRP and referenced in the
Z s?'ArA
NCD,9 R
Customer Service Division of Water Quality 1619 Mail service center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Wetlands Restoration Program [phone] Fax: [phone]
1 wo 623-7748
?r
permit. The NCWRP is considering the use of enhancement and preservation but has not
submitted a specific request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Question: What constitutes a "credit" for the NCWRP.
Response: The NCWRP does not measure mitigation in credits.. The NCWRP provides the
amount and type of mitigation as specified in the Section 404 permit and/or 401 Water
Quality Certification.
Question: Have the credits been determined accurately for the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank.
Response: The credits awarded to the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank have been established by
the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) coordinated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. By signing the MBI, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) indicates that it
concurs with the other members of the MBRT on the number of credits awarded to the Flat
Swamp Mitigation Bank. The "WRP formula" referenced in your letter is used internally by
DWQ and is the basis of the DWQ recommendation to the MBRT concerning the number of
credits in a proposed mitigation bank. As with all issues considered by the MBRT, the
Division generally accepts the majority opinion of the MBRT as long as it is consistent with
the rules and policies of the Division.
Question: "...how can I estimate the "value" of the wetland mitigation in he Flat Swamp
Mitigation Bank using the statute prices being charged by WRP as the standard?"
Response: The NCWRP Schedule of Fees is based on the actual costs of restoration. It
would not be appropriate to use a Schedule of Fees that is based on the cost of restoration to
determine the value of a "credit" that includes enhancement and/or preservation. The
NCWRP has no role in setting the price of a credit for a private mitigation bank.
Question: Will the NCWRP consider purchasing some or all of the credits in the Flat Swamp
Mitigation Bank?
Response: The NCWRP strongly supports the private mitigation banking industry and will
always consider the purchase of credits from private banks if credits are needed to satisfy the
compensatory mitigation requirements of permits assumed by the NCWRP and the
appropriate credits are available. To avoid competing with private mitigation banks the
current policy of the NCWRP is not to accept the compensatory mitigation requirements of
permits within the service area of an approved bank. Currently the NCWRP has not accepted
any compensatory mitigation requirements for non-riparian wetlands within the service area
of the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank and therefore is not in the market for credits at this time.
I hope this response provides the answers that you needed, if not please let me know.
Good luck with the implementation of Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank.
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Ferrell
Program Manager
E TRIANGLE GROUP
March 22, 2001,Aa egg 2001
Mr. Ron Ferrell
NC WRP
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Dear Ron,
.M >E
?
I need some information and your opinion on the current status of wetland credits in NC.
I talked to Mac this morning and he gave me much of what I need but I would like to get
a written response back from you.
I asked Mac how the WRP sold wetland mitigation through the in-lieu fee program and
he confirmed that an applicant buys "by the acre of restored wetlands" at the going price
established by statute e.g. $12,000 / acre for nonriverine wetlands, $24,000 / acre for
riverine wetlands etc. I assume that the Corps and the State would agree at the time of
permit action, what the ratio of mitigation to impact would be. Assuming that an
applicant impacted 10 acres of nonriverine wetlands and the agreed upon ratio was 2:1,
then if the applicant was allowed to go to WRP, he would need to purchase 20 acres of
nonriverine wetland restoration. Or, he could possibly use a combination of enhancement
or preservation as long as there were 10 acres of restoration or creation. Am I OK so far?
Several mitigation banks in the state have MBI's that quantify wetland mitigation as
"credits", made up of combinations of restoration, enhancement and preservation. The
idea by the agencies was that these "credits" could satisfy impacts on a 1:1 basis
assuming the ratio was not greater than 2:1. For example, our Flat Swamp Mitigation
Bank Project has a total of 165.05 nonriverine restoration credits composed of 153.30
credits from restoration (306.59 restored acres / 2) plus 11.75 nonriverine restoration
credits composed of 11.75 restored acres plus 47 enhancement acres. There are a total
of 339 acres of restored wetlands on the project and 47 acres of enhanced wetlands.
Using the WRP formula, we come up with the same number of credits = 165.05 with this
combination of restoration and enhancement.
My question to you is, given the different standards of measuring "mitigation" between
banks and the WRP, how can I estimate the "value" of the wetland mitigation in the Flat
Swamp Mitigation Bank, using the statute prices being charged by WRP as the standard?
If the WRP is selling acres of restored wetlands, it would seem to me that to make the
comparison to Flat Swamp, one would have to use the number of acres restored = 339
plus the number of acres enhanced = 47 and price accordingly. If enhancement is based
on a 4:1 ratio, then there should be an additional 11.75 credit / acres of mitigation
NEW JERSEY NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q16 Research Building 1 P.O. Box 551
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Centennial Campus New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
[phone] • Fax: [phone] Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] 9 Fax: [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
[phone] 9 Fax: [phone]
Mr. David Lekson
January 11, 2000
Manager-Washington Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, Corp of Engineers
P. O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889
Re: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration MBI, Phase I
Restoration and Enhancement Plan
Dear Mr. Lekson,
This letter is in response to The Triangle Group's November 24, 1999 letter, the
December 1999 version of the Flat Swamp Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI), and
the Phase I Restoration Plan. Prior to the issuance of the above MBI, the Division of
Water Quality had expressed concerns over several issues related to Phase I
implementation, namely:
1. the use of flashboard risers for controlling on-site hydrology, 0•,r?
2. the practice of bedding the vegetation,
3. recommended vegetation success criteria,
4. recommended hydrology success criteria, and
5. projected construction and maintenance costs.
All of these issues will be covered in this letter related to the recent proposals by The
Triangle Group (hereafter referred to as the bank sponsor).
Comments on the NMI
The first issue the Division would like to address is the calculation of Bank credits
in Item #27. The MBI proposed 318.34 restoration acres and 47 acres of enhancement.
The Division of Water Quality calculated the same number of credits as the bank sponsor
(165.05), however, the method by which this number was arrived was different. There is
an important distinction here because the method affects the makeup of the credit. The
Division has displayed our method below.
Using Formula #2 from your May 5, 1999 memorandum the calculations are as
follows:
Restoration (R)= 318.34 acres
Enhancement (E)= 47 acres
# of credits = R/2 + (EAR * R/2) = 318.34/2 + (47/(4*318.34) * 318.34/2)
= 159.17 + (.037 * 159.17) = 165.05 credits.
Therefore, given the number of credits (165.05), the credit makeup for Phase I of the Flat
Swamp Bank is as follows:
1 credit = 1.93 acres of restoration and .285 acres of enhancement
318.34 acres restoration / 165.05 total credits = 1.93 acres restoration per credit
47 acres enhancement / 165.05 total credits = .285 acres enhancement per credit
The second issue is including 9000 feet of stream restoration in the NMI. The
position of the Division of Water Quality is that a stream restoration plan approved by the
MBRT must exist if that phase of the project is included in the MBI.
The third issue is related to the construction costs listed in Appendix D for Phase I
of the wetland restoration plan. These costs are significantly lower than the costs
reported in the August version of the MBI. The Division believes the construction costs
for the wetland restoration in the August (1999) MBI, ($295,000), is a more accurate
estimate of the construction costs. Unless a detailed justification to support the lower
cost is presented, the Division recommends utilizing the cost estimate from the August
EBB.
Comments on the Mitigation Plan
In Section 3.1 Proposed Actions, the bank sponsors propose to permanently plug
ditches. However, in Figure 3, the photo shows two areas where flash-board risers are to
be installed. The Division understood that only permanent ditch plugs were to be
installed. Please explain this discrepancy.
Section 3.1.3 discusses the plant communities and the proposed actions for
bedding the planted vegetation. The Division is not in favor of bedding the vegetation.
However, we do feel that the crown should be removed from the fields and the fields
should be ripped as planned. Certainly it is desirable to have microtography on the
restored wetland site. The ripping of the fields in addition to removing the crown will
likely produce significant microtopography.
The Division of Water Quality believes that the hydrologic success criteria
should be based on a comparison between the reference wetland and the restored site.
The bank sponsors have proposed for their hydrologic success criteria a minimum
growing season of 8% for these wetland types. While the Division feels this growing
season (8%) is more in line with the true hydroperiod of these wetlands, the Division
would rather the sponsors pattern their success criteria on the reference wetland. In
addition, the Division recommends that the sponsor utilize at least 10 automatic recording
wells for the 318 acres of non-riverine wetland restoration, and at least 2 automatic
recording wells in the enhancement area. The Division approves of utilizing three
automatic wells for the reference sites.
The vegetative success criteria covered in Section 6.2 proposes annual survival
and growth and cumulative survival and growth over 5 years. The cumulative growth
criteria are standard vegetative success criteria with the survival of 300 stems per acre of
"preferred species" and the average height after 5 years is equal to at least 6 feet. The
species composition was left open for later determination by the MBRT. The Division
approves the above criteria for vegetative success, however, how will success be
measured after each monitoring year? The Division recommends survivability, average
height, and basal area be used as annual measures of success.
The monitoring proposal includes sampling 25 -1/10 acre plots. This translates to
sampling 0.7% of the site. The Division recommends 25 -3/10 acre plots for a sampling
total of 2.2% of the site.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Mac Haupt
Implementation Coordinator
Wetlands Restoration Program
Cc: Dr. Doug Frederick
The Triangle Group
1001 Capabilitly Drive
Research Building I, Centennial Campus
Raleigh, NC 27606
Kathy Matthews
USEPA
Wetlands Regulatory Section, Region IV
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Brad Shaver
DWQ-WRO
934 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Kelly Williams
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Howard Hall
USFWS
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Ron Sechler
NMF S
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516
Bennett Wynne
NCWRC
901 Laoque Ave.
Kinston, NC 28501
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 26, 2000
Mr. David M. Lekson
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Lekson:
RECEIVED
JUN 26 'eM
NC WETLANDS
RESTORATION
Enclosed is a signed approval sheet for the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) for the Flat
Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank, Craven County, North Carolina. This
approval signifies that we believe that the site has potential as a wetland mitigation bank in
accordance with the broad outline put forward in the MBI. Our approval of the MBI does not
indicate our approval of the final, detailed mitigation plan which is now under development. We
look forward to working with you and other members of the Mitigation Bank Review Team on
this wetland mitigation bank.
Sincerely,
Attachment
?X-` lj?
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
FWS/R4:HHall:5/26/0:WP:C:mbi letter.500
cc:
Dr. Douglas J. Frederick, The Triangle Group, Raleigh, NC
Kathy Matthews; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, GA
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries Service, Beaufort, NC
Bennett Wynne, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Kinston, NC
Kelly Williams, NC Division of Marine Fisheries
Mac Haupt, NC Division of Water Quality

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM January 12, 2000
TO: David Lekson
Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Bennett Wynne
Habitat Conservation Program
SUBJECT: Revised Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration MBI and Flat
Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank: Phase I - Nonriverine Wetland Restoration and
Enhancement Plan.
Overall, we consider the subject documents to be well prepared. We do, however, have a
few reconunendations.
MBI
1. Identify the anticipated future landowner (Coastal Land Trust) in the Property
Disposition section.
Phase I - Wetland Mitigation Plan
1. On page 16, delete what we suspect is an unintentional redundancy (1. & 2.) at the top
of the page.
2. On page 15, modify the last sentence of the first paragraph to read: "Preferred species
include the species listed above for planting plus those hard mast species recruited
through natural regeneration.
Thank you for the opportunity to further comment on the development of this mitigation
bank. If you have questions regarding these comments, please call me at [phone].
Cc: Kathy Matthews, USEPA RECENED
Howard Hall, USFWS
JAN 31 2000
NC WETLANDS
RESTORATION
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank
Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mac Haupt, NCDWQ
Kelly Williams, NCDCM
Doug Frederick, The Triangle Group
1/12/00
F
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. David Lekson
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Office
P. O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Lekson:
January 21, 2000
0 2gp0
This provides the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Flat Swamp
Wetland and Stream Restoration Mitigation Banking Agreement (MBI) and the Phase I plan for
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank (nonriverine wetland restoration and enhancement). Both
documents, sent under a cover letter dated November 24, 1999, were prepared by The Triangle
Group. The Service provided comments on preliminary plans by letter dated September 10,
1999.
The cover letter notes that the mitigation effort will be divided into two phases, a nonriverine
wetland restoration and enhancement phase and a stream restoration phase. The Service has no
objection to this division. The Service is pleased that the Coastal Land Trust has indicated a
willingness to hold the conservation easement. However, Item 36 of the MBI does not specify
the easement holder. The Service recommends that all arrangements with the easement holder be
finalized and that this parry be named in the MBI.
The Service's September 1999 letter expressed concern that the flow of water from adjacent
property owned by the Weyerhaeuser Corporation into the bank could be interrupted after the
five-year monitoring period. The MBI notes that after this period the bank sponsors are
permanently released from all further monitoring, remedial measures, or ecological performance
obligations on the bank site. The cover letter states that Weyerhauser currently has no plans to
restrict water flow off their property into the bank site. This statement does not provide long
term assurances that the existing water flow would continue. This land could be sold to a party
that may hold or divert the water flowing into the bank. Water balance data, Table 3 of the
mitigation plan, indicate that some wetland characteristics may be maintained by precipitation,
but it is unclear whether precipitation alone would sustain the wetland characteristics of the area
in the absence of surface water inputs. The Service believes that unless the desired hydrology
can be maintained entirely by precipitation, a certain level of assurance should be provided by
the bank. If the desired wetland hydrology requires surface water inflows from Weyerhaeuser
land and the company truly has no intentions of restricting this water flow, a legally binding
easement should be placed on the off-site property that would assure adequate surface flows for
the bank.
The issue of bedding for reestablishing natural vegetation has not been resolved. The current
plan proposes low bedding of 6-12 inches to provide favorable planting sites for trees and shrubs
w.
and to simulate the natural, irregular topography of natural wetlands. The letter of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), dated December 9, 1999, states that such low bedding
is not appropriate for this project. -The Service agrees. The proposed bedding could adversely
affect the restoration of a natural hydrology by creating some areas that are too wet and other
areas that are too dry. Vegetation can be reestablished by selecting species that are adapted to
the water regime that will occur on the site. The Service believes that the best solution is to
delay the final, permanent restoration of hydrology until planted species have become established
and able to tolerate the wetter hydroperiod. While this approach would delay the start of the
formal monitoring period, and thus the sale of credits, the advantages of enhanced establishment
of desirable species and a reduced risk of replanting some species could prove more economical
in the long term.
Wet flat hardwoods naturally contain a diversity canopy trees, including as many as four species
of oaks (Harms et al. 1998). The Service expressed a desire that the restored plant community
have species diversity, especially among mast producing trees. We offered a sample vegetation
success criteria that would ensure diversity of tree species. The current plan mentions that four
"mature, nonriverine wet hardwood stands in the vicinity of the project and on similar soils"
were sampled for overstory trees. This effort found that 79% of the overstory consisted of
sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
These trees are designated as facultative (FAC) wetland species (Reed 1988). However,
sweetgum is listed as FAC+, indicating a slightly greater affinity for occurrence within wetlands.
Water oak (Quercus nigra) and willow oak (Q. phellos) together constituted only 12% of
overstory species. The Service questions whether these species represent the canopy
composition of an undisturbed wet hardwood flat or a community of species that invaded these
sites after logging. Schafale and Weakley (1990, p. 203) state that a North Carolina coastal
plain, nonriverine, wet hardwood forest may have swamp laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), swamp
chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), and cherrybark oak (Q. pagoda) among other species. Water and
willow oak are not mentioned for this community. If canopy trees in local reference sites do not
represent a true undisturbed condition sought in the proposed bank, the list of preferred species
should be based on sites at greater distances or based on published data.
The mitigation plan (Section 3.1.3) does not adequately address the Service's concerns regarding
the diversity of canopy trees. Based on the reference sites, longleaf (Pinus palustris) and pond
pine (P. serotina); willow, water, and overcup oak (Q. lyrata); green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica); and swamp blackgum (N.yssa sylvatica var. biflora) have been selected for
planting. Red maple, sweetgum, and loblolly pine are expected to become established by natural
recruitment. Three species of shrubs plus various wetland hollies (Ilex spp.) would be planted.
The "preferred species for the bank are those " ... listed above for planting plus those species
recruited through natural regeneration." It is unclear whether naturally regenerated trees are
limited to the three species expected to colonize the area or simply any plant that grows on the
site. If there is no clearly-defined limit on the species that may occur by natural regeneration,
then essentially any species that takes hold would become, by definition, a preferred species of
the bank.
Even if "preferred species" are limited to those mentioned in the plan, there is a significant
problem with the vegetation success criteria. If two species of hollies are included, there would
be a total of 15 preferred species (7 planted trees, 3 expected tree colonizers, and 5 shrubs).
Planting would establish 454 stems/acre, but the species composition is not provided. The plan
states that successful vegetation would consist of 300 trees/acres of "preferred species" at the end
of five years, but gives no criteria for the species composition. While it appears that shrubs
would not be included in the final count (defined as trees/acre), this is not entirely clear since
preferred species include planted species, and shrubs would be planted. Based on this broad
criterion, trees on the site after five years could consist of 290 stems/acre of red maple and 10
stems/acre of sweetgum. This would leave the successfully "restored" wetland forest without a
single species of oak.
The Service recommends that certain terms and procedures of the vegetative restoration be
defined. First, there should be a list of preferred, or approved, canopy trees. This group should
not include species that will constitute the understory or shrub layer of the mature plant
community. Furthermore, some trees which naturally occur in a reference wetland, but occupy a
very wide range of habitats, e.g., red maple, should not be included among preferred canopy
species. Preferred trees for restoration should be those species that are highly characteristic of
the wetland community that forms the goal of the restoration effort. Second, any or all of the
preferred species may be selected for planting or allowed to colonize the site naturally.
The Service believes that some changes should be made to the list of seven trees proposed for
planting. For example, longleaf pine is a desirable upland species. It is classified as a facultative
upland species with a tendency toward wetter sites (FACU+). It was not found in the four, wet
hardwood reference sites and is not listed by Schafale and Weakley (1990, p. 203) as a tree of
nonriverine, wet hardwood forests. Longleaf pine and pond pine (FACW+) are not likely to
thrive side by side within the bank. Longleaf pine could be replaced in the restoration area by
one or more of such species as swamp laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), American elm (Ulmus
americana), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), or American beech (Fagus grandifolia).
The Service recommends that the bank sponsors reconsider their goals for the canopy trees and
develop a list of 6-8 trees that are sought in the canopy of the restored wetland at maturity.
The most critical aspect of the vegetative restoration effort will be the success criteria. There
must be some criteria to ensure a diversity of trees in the canopy of the restored wetland forest.
The Service recommends that vegetative success be based on canopy trees and not include
shrubs. Two of the three trees expected to naturally colonize the area, sweetgum and red maple,
are aggressive invaders of disturbed sites and could overwhelm the oaks that are valuable from a
wildlife perspective. We reiterate our recommendations of September 1999 that vegetative
success should require a mean density of 400 trees/acre at the end of the fifth year. Half of the
these trees (200 trees/acre) must be the preferred species. The other half may be the natural
colonizers. No single species must constitute more than 20% of the surviving tree stems. While
bank sponsors have said that this 20% rule is impractical, it would seem that with 6-8 planted
trees and three expected colonizers this 20% limit on a single species should not be difficult to
achieve, unless several of the planted species experience severe mortality. While the Service
strongly endorses the criteria given above, we will consider other criteria for ensuring a diversity
of desirable canopy trees. However, the Service cannot accept vegetative success based on the
mere presence of 300 trees/acre of any and all species established on the site after five years.
The Service also recommends that all reports on site vegetation indicate whether the plant
communities meet the standard set for jurisdictional wetlands in the Corps' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
Item 24 of the MBI states that the site may be used for research purposes pending approval of
research plans by the Mitigation Bank Review Team. Our September 1999 comments did not
object to using the site for observational research on the restoration effort. However, we remain
concerned about any research that would involve manipulation of the hydrology or vegetation..
within the area. The Service recommends that this item be expanded to contain a brief statement
that research would be limited to observational projects and would not involve alterations of
conditions on the site. This stated restriction in the MBI would save time for potential
researchers and members of the MBRT by avoiding the development and review of projects that
are inappropriate for the bank.
Section 7 of the plan and Item 27 of the MBI discuss the creation of mitigation credits for both
Phase I (nonriverine areas) and Phase II (riverine areas). The Service concurs with the
calculation of credits for Phase I which is the focus of the current plan. However, Item 29 of the
MBI is confusing in that debits from the bank are given as mitigation credit or credits followed
by "acre" or "acres" in parentheses. We believe that all debits from the bank will be strictly on
the basis of mitigation credits and that actual acres will be not involved. The use of both terms in
discussing debits should be explained.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please continue to advise
this office on the planning effort for this site. If you have any questions or comments, please
contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by e-mail at < [e-mail] >.
Sincerely,
?C? ?C i d •
.10 z:Z4?
Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Literature cited:
Harms, W. R., W. M. Aust, and J. A. Burger. 1998. Wet flatwoods. pp. 421-444. in M. G.
Messina and W. H. Conner. (eds.) Southern Forested Wetlands: Ecology and
Management. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Fl. 616 pp.
Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Region
2). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88(26.2). 124 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC 325pp.
FWS/R4:HHall:January 21, 2000:WP:A:fs mitig.100
cc:
Doug Frederick, The Triangle Group, Raleigh, NC
Mac Haupt, N. C. Division of Water Quality, Wetland Restoration Program, Raleigh, NC
Brad Shaver, N. C. Division of Water Quality, Washington, NC
Kathy Matthews, U.S. EPA, Atlanta, GA
Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort, NC
Kelly Williams, NC Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh, NC
Bennett Wynne, NCWRC, Kinston, NC
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
.n Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
IN REPLY REFER TO April 24, 2000
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 199911312
See Distribution
Dear Mr. upt.
This correspondence is in reference to the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream
Restoration Bank that is being developed by the Triangle Group on a 386 acre tract of land
located off of Dover Road, near the community of Dover, adjacent to Flat Swamp, in Craven
County, North Carolina. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a final draft of the
mitigation banking instrument and to request your agency's signature on this document.
Pursuant to 60 FR 228, p.58610, 3. Agency Roles and Coordination, "No agency is required
to sign a banking instrument; however, in signing a banking instrument, an agency agrees to the
terms of that instrument." Please review the attached document carefully and provide me with
notification as to your intentions within 30 days of your receipt of this letter. If I do not receive
notification from you within this time frame I can only assume that you do not intend to sign the
banking instrument.
For your information, our review of the instrument has been completed and we are forwarding
the document to our South Atlantic Division Office in Atlanta, Georgia, for their review. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, is poised to sign the mitigation banking
instrument pending approval by our Division office.
Thank you again for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact
me at the Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 22.
Sincerely,
?1? 4- az,0-6?
David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Chief, Washington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure
-2-
DISTRIBUTION:
Copies Furnished (with enclosure):
Mrs. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Howard Hall
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Mac Haupt
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626
Mr. Brad Shaver
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
I . I
' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WAYNE MCDEVITT-
SECRETARY '_:•?

KERRT.STEYENs -J
DIRECTOR

I

FAX COVER SHEET
TO:
Fax number
FROM:
Phone number -3 --5 7
?°?'1'
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Total of. pages including cover sheet
Message:
DWQ/Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Phone Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SO% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
• ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
" NCDENR DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
January 11, 2000
Mr. David Lekson
Manager-Washington Regulatory Field Office
JAMES B. HUNT°JR.
Wilmington District, Corp of Engineers
GOVERNOR P. O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889
BILL "O`MAN'
' Re: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration MBI,
° SECRETARY Phase I Restoration and Enhancement Plan
Dear Mr. Lekson,
KERR T. STEVENS
DIRECTOR This letter is in response to The Triangle Group's November 24, 1999
letter, the December 1999 version of the Flat Swamp Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI), and the Phase I Restoration Plan. Prior to the issuance of
the above MBI, the Division of Water Quality had expressed concerns over
several issues related to Phase I implementation, namely:
1. the use of flashboard risers for controlling on-site hydrology,
2. the practice of bedding the vegetation,
3. recommended vegetation success criteria,
4. recommended hydrology success criteria, and
5. projected construction and maintenance costs.
All of these issues will be covered in this letter related to the recent proposals
by The Triangle Group (hereafter referred to as the bank sponsor).
Comments on the NMI
The first issue the Division would like to address is the calculation of
Bank credits in Item #27. The MBI proposed 318.34 restoration acres and 47
acres of enhancement. The Division of Water Quality calculated the same
number of credits as the bank sponsor (165.05), however, the method by
which this number was arrived was different. There is an important
distinction here because the method affects the makeup of the credit. The
Division has displayed our method below.

WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
1619 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1619
website: h2o.encstate.ne.us PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
.Y
Using Formula #2 from your May 5, 1999 memorandum the calculations are as follows:
Restoration (R)= 318.34 acres
Enhancement (E)= 47 acres
# of credits = R12 + (EAR * R/2) = 318.34/2 + (47/(4*318.34) * 318.34/2)
= 159.17 + (037 * 159.17) = 165.05 credits.
Therefore, given the number of credits (165.05), the credit makeup for Phase I of the Flat
Swamp Bank is as follows:
1 credit =1.93 acres of restoration and .285 acres of enhancement
318.34 acres restoration / 165.05 total credits = 1.93 acres restoration per credit
47 acres enhancement / 165.05 total credits = .285 acres enhancement per credit
The second issue is including 9000 feet of stream restoration in the MBI. The
position of the Division of Water Quality is that a stream restoration plan approved by the
MBRT must exist if that phase of the project is included in the MBI.
The third issue is related to the construction costs listed in Appendix D for Phase I
of the wetland restoration plan. These costs are significantly lower than the costs reported
in the August version of the MBI. The Division believes the construction costs for the
wetland restoration in the August (1999) MBI, ($295,000), is a more accurate estimate of
the construction costs. Unless a detailed justification to support the lower cost is
presented, the Division recommends utilizing the cost estimate from the August MBI.
Comments on the Mitigation Plan
In Section 3.1 Proposed Actions, the bank sponsors propose to permanently plug
ditches. However, in Figure 3, the photo shows two areas where flash-board risers are to
be installed. The Division understood that only permanent ditch plugs were to be installed.
Please explain this discrepancy.
Section 3.1.3 discusses the plant communities and the proposed actions for
bedding the planted vegetation. The Division is not in favor of bedding the vegetation.
However, we do feel that the crown should be removed from the fields and the fields
. r
should be ripped as planned. Certainly it is desirable to have microtography on the
restored wetland site. The ripping of the fields in addition to removing the crown will
likely produce significant microtopography.
The Division of Water Quality believes that the hydrologic success criteria should
be based on a comparison between the reference wetland and the restored site. The bank
sponsors have proposed for their hydrologic success criteria a minimum growing season
of 8% for these wetland types. While the Division feels this growing season (8%) is more
in line with the true hydroperiod of these wetlands, the Division would rather the sponsors
pattern their success criteria on the reference wetland. In addition, the Division
recommends that the sponsor utilize at least 10 automatic recording wells for the 318
acres of non-riverine wetland restoration, and at least 2 automatic recording wells in the
enhancement area. The Division approves of utilizing three automatic wells for the
reference sites.
The vegetative success criteria covered in Section 6.2 proposes annual survival
and growth and cumulative survival and growth over 5 years. The cumulative growth
criteria are standard vegetative success criteria with the survival of 300 stems per acre of
"preferred species" and the average height after 5 years is equal to at least 6 feet. The
species composition was left open for later determination by the MBRT. The Division
approves the above criteria for vegetative success, however, how will success be
measured after each monitoring year? The Division recommends survivability, average
height, and basal area be used as annual measures of success.
The monitoring proposal includes sampling 25 -1/10 acre plots. This translates to
sampling 0.7% of the site. The Division recommends 25 -3/10 acre plots for a sampling
total of 2.2% of the site.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
441
Mac Haupt
Implementation Coordinator
Wetlands Restoration Program

Cc: Dr. Doug Frederick
The Triangle Group
1001 Capabilitly Drive
Research Building I, Centennial Campus
Raleigh, NC 27606
Kathy Matthews
USEPA
Wetlands Regulatory Section, Region IV
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Brad Shaver
DWQ-WRO
934 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Kelly Williams
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Howard Hall
USFWS
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Ron Sechler
NMFS
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516
Bennett Wynne
NCWRC
901 Laoque Ave.
Kinston, NC 28501
TRANSMIT MESSAGE CONFIRMATION REPORT i
i
NAME:DWQ NCWRP
TEL :[phone]
DATE:07/06'00 15:32
TRANSMIT: 98311121 DURATION ?. PAGE SESS i RESULT
I TYPE : MEMORY TX MODE E - 14 04'17 10 771 1 OK I

a ;rte

NCDENR

.JPMr.-t R. F{LNTJR. :'-i:'1
6avEYeNOR ?: ??

W?r+4 h7ca?rnrrSsaesr?ier ?,.
-Z'
K,BRR'C ST6YLNL. ', .`.3
f
5q
.7?
:.i
is. CAFtOt-INA DEA-ARTMENT OF-
- i.
? wl

>i
r•;
7,r--wNENVIRONMEKT ANO NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISTON OF WATER QUALITY
FAX COVER SHEET
TO:
Fax number
FROM:
Phone number ' ;S I-
sUg,TEC7-. Cc.?.wt ?.. 3
bATE.
't'otal of pages including cover sheet
Message:
DWQ/Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Phone Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
PN EQu•L OIPdATUNfTV / AWW112-PTIVE ^'Vrj v? F,MPLOTGR - soy MAIC"GUED/10% *CST-GONSUM6R 1
The Triangle Group, Inc.;
o? /M
919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:18PM; Page 1
E -TRIANGLE GROUP
Research Building I
Centennial Campus
1001 Capability Drive, Suite 312
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
[phone] b Fax_, [phone]
FAX COVER SHEET
DATE: 0117 J? G/ 6
# PAGES:
TO.-
FROM: G lJl (!` (` L Q ?? G?
RE;
{{ o
f- k-S irtte
1
o k.?: C-
??-

T141 innan:s.:,n if im.yuded for the sole use of UK iodivi i d .id entity is wWi* it is addressed and may eauein iaminmion Ilni is p(SWw of, eoaf *'did, -W "qrw fivrn
disclosure under apptieubie law You are herby notified iMi any d1aeemint6oe, dieinbnlion, or #4ykaifon of This irensmisaboo by sOmaaM ahe , chan iM iNanded iidd.eswa or
%4 dpi?rialed tidail is slrietty prohibued if your rmopt Of INS Uansmission is in efew, please noiity this firm wwniidi I* at (414) 3711- V P4 Mid Had Ik Wilinsl irim"Mion io
us by return mail at Ito above addros
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.;
E TRIANGLE G
919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:19PM; Page 2
LIP
THE FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK
PHASE I - FINAL PLAN
Nonriverine Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
Craven County, North Carolina
Prepared By:
^HE TRIANGLE GROUP
1001 Capability Drive
Research Building #1 - Suite 312
Centennial Campus
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
July 12, 2000
NEW JERSEY NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suitc Q10 Research Building 1 P.O. Box 551
Chewy Hill, New.)erscy 08003 Centennial Campus New Cumberland, Nntnaylvania 17070
[phone] • Vax: [phone] 1001 Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Roleip, North. Ca.robnA 27606
[phone] 0 Fax= (5119) 831-1121
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:19PM;
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Site Description
2.1 Hydrology
2.2 Soils
2.3 Existing Plant Communities
2.4 Ecological Processes and Functions
2.4.1 Functional Uplift of the Proposed Project
3.0 Mitigation
3.1 Proposed Actions
3.1.1 Hydrology
3.1.2 Soils
3.1.3 Plant Communities
4.0 Wetland Mitigation
4.1 Reference Plot Establishment
5.0 Implementation
6.0 Regulatory Release
6.1 Hydrologic Criteria
6.2 Vegetative Criteria
7.0 Credit Total and Release Schedule
8.0 Literature Cited
Page 3
l
1
1
4
4
8
10
10
10
10
12
14
15
16
16
17
17
17
18
21
ii
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:19PM; Page 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Conceptual Plan describes the proposed actions for establishment of the Flat
Swamp Mitigation Bank (FSB) - Phase I - Nonriverine Wetland Restoration and
Enhancement, for offsetting unavoidable wetland losses associated with projects
requiring Clean Water Act Section 404 Dredge and Fill permits within the proposed
General Service Area (GSA).
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
Flat Swamp Creek originates south of Fort Barnwell, north of Dover Bay and east of
Dover Road in Craven County, North Carolina. Flat Swamp Creek is a tributary of the
Neuse River and flows east, intersecting Core Creek before emptying into the south side
of the Neuse River. The FSB is located in the headwaters of Flat Swamp Creek (Latitude
35 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds N and Longitude 77 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds E).
(Figure 1). It is accessible via Dover road to the west and Jamestown Road to the east.
The FSB encompasses extensive areas of cleared and drained wetlands currently in
agricultural production and forestry. Total area of the FSB is 386 acres, which includes
339 acres of prior-converted (PC) agricultural land and 47 acres of partially drained
forested wetlands (Figure 2). The FSB is adjacent and directly north of Dover Bay that is
currently being restored as mitigation for the Global TransPark Project near Kinston. The
FSB is also adjacent to lands being managed for timber production by forest industry and
private individuals. Based on the remaining forested wetlands on the tract and adjacent
areas, the FSB once supported a rich diversity of habitats including wetflat hardwoods
and pine, swamp hardwoods, cypress and riverine hardwoods along the historic Flat
Swamp Creek channel. Much of this habitat has been destroyed or altered during the past
15 - 20 years as result of the ditching, draining, channelization and road building
associated with the conversion of the land to agriculture production.
2.1 Hydrology:
The FSB is located in the Neuse Hydrologic Unit (03020202), in Craven, Pitt, Lenoir,
and Green and Wayne counties (US Geological Survey, 1975). The Neuse River in this
area is classified as Partially Supporting by the State of North Carolina. The factors for
this classification include intensive agriculture and other point and nonpoint sources of
pollution within the hydrological unit and upstream. The FSB is adjacent and upstream
to the Lower Neuse Hydrologic Unit (03020204), which includes Support - Threatened
areas in the Neuse and Pamlico Sounds. The entrance to Pamlico Sound is a particularly
degraded area because it is the Neuse River terminus and at this location, the water
becomes slow and stagnant. Extensive fish kills due to low oxygen levels and Pfsteria
outbreaks have become commonplace during the summer in this area and the recent
flooding has been extremely damaging to this region of the state.
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:19PM; Page 5
y ( _ /
K-?> 410
` .( ?nty,t ` r°Rr, J!?(? fyy,,,.ru, m_t n ?• , _Y _ l.rlc . I
FS ? / ? y; -?.' :" • t J?? _ -- ??+I'$i ds ?f -ray S`° ---- ? }?
1R r a? pC ?^l? f'<I ? •.' f -, ? I I ? ?6? .. '?°?? _ VrMrrtwM ?1I,., -- , 8?
/< t? ? i ' ?"'n- , • vlgg _!swti -,? `Jr i xn °ini ? ! 0 ?` aa„ / j?D ?+ ;.
???h?.rcM Il /? 117 1 Ar,gRA. /g _4^?• •.?•- 3?. "--F•o_;4,. c?r. •?~ :qy ,I ? It0 8 t l" ?/
Fr Rrd.?IA '-••\ P) ?^ 1ftN NTfJI F ?•- ? °••711 .??_ / ? ( '\\.? ,' ?•' .?,?.•'A rN '?/' "•!7c -
r
LI in M',
_ RA_ \ t.rr. >V ?? ._ - ?• f. .t _. _ IrG,y /' •/ .jam _ I i
1 `% ,i$sUrn„-n„ " w:Ci n., tna °m ' 1?p, ?•,,e,? _.. '_ar+.. •. ,?? .-? Qo ! `, f ,''i `.\.w( `! . ... J .
. 1..'. ???•. /f .?A° ..? G
11 -Vna .RiiyWi /rri.l.
Y. '; O.ddic + -,.Jf7j
- ?._ a .a.?`?,?? - R? 'r- _? ?' /?? ??yP1\f?`?_.•1 ;
wi-
??,r 1`^1? .y. - - n ° w..: ? ? ,.` ... 1.. •,' ? ` (?1 0?l'"?-?'`' 8 ' Fon Ih,rawcll? • ? en cmr'ry??y/?[??r. ? . '' f \
w7b?-_
1-4 1
y, L Arr. C Z \ 8' 4 Zf 11 r
-C jA?
IV.
u,•o,vrlo.n ?.... r Site 49
w
.. vas c ? ? ?£C
Mlll
1
?-•?p i?? . `fir ?,'," ? `? r. .-'?? ?:": .._?",. -- r- - -.?-J,•,_ - ? - .. ,
\•F 1 - i 1 1 % . I?. . ?' ? ,.... ! '•?_!nr, y,..., - ? Ikw CNy .'? c° 6
,
.
.°•Lr? ??___1 •?u /' •ll; .1 ,. ? •: y? ( .. . ?YV'+Mi? ?l'?j, _.,: _71?_ •V •,.
,
t
Q A- EI 77L.........pV?1 nl
-_AYy .I ?>;, 1 ... - h_.... - / 'rt ':• 1!~ _ t :.: is -
¢;.,M"` ...: ?`'?i ,....'nor' ?? '..:.rr_.v?,..i.m•1,,.:
\!M??ac.. =.?o _ IS'1'-. <r - , i 1. .. - l , •IL:..: , , .. ',•. - ?. ' U ?':.? o ..?,;,?, ??'??t,,?
i
61 "
a ? ?._-? ? /..•, Y...3 N• :..,..: .. ??jy '.? ?.,y ?•/./ ?'?.?_ F• ..;.ten'^?`'•. `-Lti•'??? .•C, r Yro
j? -?..?- t:r°K ?„ ,-_.r;C? a.rrexn .: Yfl I f..... •r??N7 F?',?, j.l^I ':? i ? ? `
r I
N-J
'p
Figure 1: Project Locatton Map
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank
Base map source- North Carolina Atlas & Gazetteer, DeLome Mapping Co.
SCALE: Y inch = 12,500 feet
2
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:20PM; Page 6
/ * Y
x raa ' %?,
i• '
1
'
n,
Y9 6•.
! Flat Swamp Creek -
Site X1A5
1 ' k K..
I '.: I! ._,?, ? a:. ...? 'J? nt. ?i.l Id y' Wr. nu .I•. ? 'IU
e
Yx:= •
.a.
}
r ,
Y'M
y... ..? i1W ?..
fligniv 2.-h 64,ft Map
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank
Bswe map a*urov; Fort Amu,Y9119 ABC 7.5 rainuto quwjvj;1v
SCALE: 1 inch = 3,100 feet
3
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:20PM; Page 7
The primary hydrologic inputs to the FSB tract are precipitation and groundwater
discharge. The tract is in the headwaters of Flat Swamp Creek and therefore has a large
influence on the water quantity and quality downstream. Historically, the entire area was
forested and undisturbed which maintained very high water quality in Flat Swamp Creek.
Now, much of this headwater area is cleared and ditched resulting in more rapid surface
runoff and an increased risk of sediment and nutrient pollution going into Flat Swamp
Creels and eventually the Neuse River (Figure 3).
Rased nn aerial photography and field inspection, the historic channel of Flat Swamp
Creek bisected the southern and northern portions of the FSB tract (Figure 3). Currently,
the creek channel is confined to a roadside ditch that crosses the property from west to
east; exits on the southeast side and eventually reaches the existing Flat Swamp Creek.
channel approximately one-half mile from the property. A small portion of the drainage
from the FSB exits the tract on the northeast side via a roadside ditch and eventually
reaches another tributary to Flat Swamp Creek,. Drainage within the tract is controlled by
4 flashboard risers. The entire ditch and drainage system currently existing within the
FSB is connected with adjacent parcels to the north and west but there are no water
control structures on these parcels and water flows freely through the FSB. Our proposed
modifications to restore wetland hydrology to the agricultural fields will have no impact
on any adjacent landowners.
2.2 Soils:
Soils mapped within the FSB include Torhunta and Pantego Series, which are both,
classified as hydric soils (Figure 4). These soils typically are poorly drained and are
found in broad interstream flatwoods situations and along slow moving Coastal Plain
streams. Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam is formed in loamy sediments and is
frequently ponded during wet periods (USDA, 1989). The upper part of the surface layer
is black mucky fine sandy loam about 3 inches thick, The lower horizon to a depth of 18
inches is very dark gray fine sandy loam. Infiltration is medium and surface runoff is
slow. Torhunta soils are extremely acid to strongly acid except where lime has been
added to the surface.
Pantego mucky fine sandy loam is also frequently ponded during wet periods (USDA,
1989). The surface layer is a black mucky fine sand about 10 inches thick with a lower
horizon of very dark gray and grayish brown fine sandy loam. Infiltration is medium and
runoff is very slow. Pantego soils are extremely to strongly acid except when lime has
been added. A summary of the soil mapping units, their hydric status and depth and
duration of water table is shown in Table 1.
2.3 Existing Plant Communities:
The existing plant communities within the FS8 Are representative of both .natural
communities and communities resulting from human disturbance (Table 2). Only about
12 percent (47 acres) of the tract is currently in forest cover with the remaining 88
4
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:21PM; Page 8
5
rigure s: Aerial rnow - summ.su.g ,,,?a u u, Q?.•••
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank
Craven County, NC
SCALE: 1 inch = 1000 feet
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:21PM; Page 9
6
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank
Craven County, NC
%CALE: 1 inch = 3100 feet
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:22PM; Page 10/26
percent (339) acres in agricultural fields. The main agricultural crops grown on this tract
since clearing have been corn, soybeans, and cotton and forage grasses. The extensive
clearing, ditching, channelization and road building have eliminated or significantly
altered the natural plant communities. However, based on sampling of the forested
portion of the tract, the natural plant communities include wet pine flatwoods,
nonriverine wet hardwood forest and coastal plain small stream swamp. Descriptions of
natural plant community types generally follow those presented by Schafale and Weakley
(1990).
Table 1: Summary of Soil Mapping Units Within the Flat Swamp
Mitigation Bank Craven County, North Carolina.
Depth and
Duration of
Map Soil Hydrie High Water Estimated
Symbol Soil Type Sub rou Status a/ Table b/ Extent %
To Torhunta Thermic Hydric 0 -18 inches 24
mucky fine typic Nov - April
sand loam 'hum uept.q
Pa Pantego Umbric Hydric 0 - 18 inches 76
mucky fine paleaquults Nov - April
sand loam
a/ Hydric soils list for North Carolina
b/ Based on soil taxonomy for undrained conditions
Wet Pine Flatwoods and Non Riverine Wet hardwood Forest.
These community types occur on somewhat poorly to poorly drained sites on broad
interstream divides. These sites support second growth forests and have been influenced
by road building and accelerated drainage via nearby perimeter field ditches and creek
channelization. Soil series include Torhunta and Pantego. Fire has been excluded and
this has resulted in the development of a very heavy woody understory. Overstory
species in the wet pine flatwoods type in primarily loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and mixed
hardwoods. Dominant overstory tree species in the non-riverine wet hardwood forest
includes sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red
maple (Ater rubrum), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Q. phellos), laurel oak (Q_
laurifolia), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), cherrybark oak (Q. pagodifolia) and
swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvahca van biflora). Subcanopy woody species include:
loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), red bay (Persea borbonia), American holly (Ilex
decidua), gallberry holly (Ilex coriacea), inkberry holly (I. glabra) and sweet pepperbush
(Clethra alnffoha). Non-woody understory species include giant cane (A?-undinaria
gigantea), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), Virginia chain fern (W. virginica)
and cinnamon fern (Osmunda einnamomea). Woody vines include: poison ivy
(Toxieodendron radicans), wild grape (Vitus spp.) and greenbriar (Smilax spp.).
7
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:23PM; Page 11/26
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp:
This community type occurs on very poorly drained sites on both Pantcgo and Torbunta
series soils within natural drainages in the FSB. This type was more extensive in the
project area before it was cleared, graded, ditched and converted to agriculture. The
overstory tree species that dominate this type include: swamp black gum, red maple,
baldcypress (Taxodium distichum var. distichum), green ash, black willow (Salix nigra)
and sweetgum. The understory species include: red bay, sweet pepperbush, inkberry
holly, and sweetgum. Understory terns and vines include: netted chain fern, Virginia
chain fern, cinnamon fern, greenbriar, poison ivy and wild grape.
Table 2: Summary of Existing Plant Communities and Wetland Types Within
the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank
Plant Estimated Mitigation Wetland Type HGM Type /e
community Area Activity /b
Description /a
Agricultural 339 ac, Restoration Various Mineral Flat
Fields PC
Wet Pine 8 ac. Enhancement PF04E Mineral Flat
Flatwoods
Nonriverine 39 ac. Enhancement PFO 1 E Mineral Flat
Wet Hardwood
Forest
a/ follows Schafale and Weakley (1990); b/ follows Cowardin et at, (1979);
c/ follows Brinson (1993).
2.4 Ecological Processes and Functions,
A variety of ecological processes and functions can be attributed to the wetland types
within the proposed FSB. These functions are directly related to the
geomorphic/landscape setting and hydrologic attributes of the wetland types (Brinson,
1993). The characteristic hydroperiod of these wetland types varies from seasonally
saturated (mineral and organic flats) to semipermanently flooded (small stream swamp).
The fluctuating hydroperiod promotes alternating cycles of aerobic and anaerobic soil
conditions and increases the potential primary productivity, organic matter
decomposition, nutrient mineralization and denitrihcattion functions (Brinson et al., 1981;
Mulholland, 1981; Reddy and Patrick, 1975). Prior to conversion, the characteristic
hydroperiod within the extensive mineral soil flats resulted in short term surface water
storage and long term subsurface water storage to support base flow augmentation in this
headwater riverine system. Now the presence of a ditch network increases peak runoff
8
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:23PM; Page 12/26
rates, decreases the retention time of precipitation, and surface water, alters natural
groundwater flow patterns and increases the mean depth to the seasonal water table
(Crownover et al., 1995; Maki et al., 1980; Skaggs et al., 1980; and WRP, 1993).
The agricultural conversion activity also results in the following:
1. Decreased dissolved carbon export and food chain support due to decreased
contact time between shallow groundwater and soil matrix / organic matter.
2. Increased primary productivity and transpirational losses due to soil drainage and
reduction of anaerobic soil conditions.
3. Increased nitrogen mineralisation and decreased denitrification due to soil
drainage.
4. Decreased short-term surface water storage and long-term subsurface water
storage resulting in decreased base flow augmentation.
5. Habitat interspersion of uplands and wetlands.
Seasonally saturated wetlands are usually located at relatively higher landscape positions
and exhibit high subsurface water storage functions. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
wetlands are located at relatively low landscape positions and exhibit floodflow retention
functions. The degree of microrelief across the wetland types will determine the degree
of surface water retention and the amount of sediment and nutrient trapping within the
wetlands. The short-term surface water retention results in increased contact time
between organic matter and surface water and increased carbon export functions.
Because of the conversion to agriculture, most of the original functions of these wetlands
have been lost. In addition to the above-described functions, other functions such as
biogeochemical transformations and habitat functions have similarly been adversely
affected or eliminated. For example; there has likely been a large increase in sediment
and nutrient export from this site into Flat Swamp Creek. There is no longer a natural
occurrence of fire on the site. This affects biogeochemical functions and wildlife habitat
value. Due to the decline of open, fire-maintained tlatwoods habitat throughout North
Carolina., there are now over 87 species of rare vascular plants dependent upon remnants
of this habitat type (Walker, 1993). There are 36 species of mammals, 34 amphibian
species, 38 reptilian species and 86 bird species including the red cockaded woodpecker
associated with longleaf pine ecosystems throughout the Southeast (Engstrom, 1993;
Guyer and Bailey, 1993). Additional game species favored by wet pine and pine
hardwood ecosystems include bobwhite quail (C'olinus virginianus), wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo) and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) (Sharp, 1998; Still and Baumann,
1989; Loeb and Lennartz, 1989), Additional game species such as whitetail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and black bears (Ursus americanus) will be favored by
restoration and maintenance of wet pine flatwoods, nonriverine hardwood forest and
small Coastal Plain swamp forest. In addition, all of these wetland types provide grazing
and browsing habitat and soft mast production.
9
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:24PM; Page 13126
2.4.1 Functional Uplift of the Proposed Project.
The wetland mitigation activities associated with the proposed FSB will result in an uplift
of existing water quality and habitat functions. Elimination of channelized flow within
ditches and restoration of flow through natural creeks will increase water quality
functions. The proposed ditch plugging and filling will result in increased short-term
surface and subsurface water storage and. subsequent increase in the duration and
elevation of the seasonally high water table. The increased retention time of surface and
subsurface water on the broad interstream flats will result in reduced peak flows and
augmented base flow within Flat Swamp Creek. Increased retention time will also
facilitate a variety of biogeochemical transformations such as denitrification and
dissolved organic carbon export. Reduced nitrogen export and increased carbon export
will benefit downstream areas in flat Swamp Creek and the Neuse River.
3.0 MfflGATION
The Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines of the clean Water Act (16 USC 1344), as described in
40 CFR Part 230, states that unavoidable wetland loss resulting from filling activities
may be offset by effective mitigation actions. According to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, mitigation actions should include avoidance, minimization,
restoration, enhancement and compensation for unavoidable impacts, After all practical
attempts to avoid and minimize wetland losses have been accomplished; compensatory
mitigation in any of the forms (i.e, wetland creation, restoration, enhancement, and/or
preservation) should be developed.
3.1 Proposed Actions:
3.1.1 Hydrology:
The first step in restoring hydrology will be to demonstrate that under the 1987 Corps
Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) that criteria for soil saturation, e.g. soils
saturated to the surface for 5% or more of the growing season in most years have been
achieved. This site will first be modeled using Drainmod (Skaggs et at., 1991) to
demonstrate the potential for achieving jurisdictional wetland status. A water balance has
been prepared which shows excess moisture during much of the growing season (Table
3). In addition, automatic recording wells will be placed in representative areas of the
prior converted (PC) agricultural fields (restoration areas), forested enhancement areas
and reference areas to collect hydrology data beginning in the winter of 2001. The
growing season for the project area begins approximately March 18 and ends on
November 14 or 240 days. We expect the restored wetland areas will likely exceed soil
10
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.;
4-q
0
d
N
? a
O
U
O p
^O
o a
o ?
a
U? O
?,,, 3 ago
?w
n
U v
c? 0
?CQN
U
919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:24PM; Page 14126
O p *? A
«4
a
b?
. R No
?. 5 000
41
en V3
O }" N
c ° 3 OD u
00
79
O
i2 g
a El
00 C12
7R ?R 14-
00 00
C Qy 3 Q?
all
u
s U ~ ,M
_, o a
1544
I{ F-? p0„ II ? ? II v, II II
^CV M R ?/1 t0 t-
oC
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:25PM; Page 15/26
saturation > 5% of the growing season but we will use soil saturation data from the
reference areas as a basis for hydrologic success criteria.
Our plan for hydrological modifications includes ditch plugging, filling ditch segments
and vegetating permanent ditch plugs (Figure 5). Permanent ditch plugs will be used for
establishing final water levels on the site. Ditch plugs that conform to Natural Resource
Conservation Service Guidelines will be used to permanently reestablish the natural
hydrology of the site (Appendix -- Ditch Plugs Cross Section).
At each specified ditch plug location, ditches will be filled according to the following
protocol:
1. Existing ditch will be excavated to remove vegetation and organic material and
excavated organic material will be stockpiled
2. Ditch plug location will be backflled with available onsite material (preferably
clay to sandy clay loam) to an elevation 12 inches above the surrounding natural
topography or to the elevation of the adjacent road. Ditch plugs will be a
minimum of 104 feet in length and all areas will be graded and compacted
following placement of material.
3. Stockpiled organic material will be spread over ditch plugs to a depth of 3 - 6
inches
4. Fertilizer and lime will be spread over ditch plugs at rates dictated by soil test
results
5. Ditch plugs will be stabilized by seeding with herbaceous seed mix and / or
planted with native woody plants species at a 6 ft x 6 ft spacing.
All automatic monitoring wells (10 wells in the restoration area, 2 wells in the
enhancement area and 3 wells in the reference areas ?= 15 wells total) will be installed
according to guidelines outlined by the U S Array Corps, Waterways Experiment Station
(WRP,1993). Well data will be used to document hydrologic restoration within the
drained agricultural field areas, forested enhancement area and natural conditions in the
reference areas.
3.1.2. Soils:
Project success is dependent on the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology
within the restoration areas. All soil series within the FSB are considered hydric
(Table 1).
12
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:25PM; Page iblzu
13
Figure 5: Locations of Ditch Plugs, Culverts and Reserved Corridor
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank
Craven County, NC
Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:26PM; Page 17/26
However, the hydrie soils within the existing agricultural fields have been effectively
drained. Also, by definition, Prior Converted (PC) fields are considered non-wetlands.
The modeling efforts we are proposing (Drainmod) plus the monitoring of shallow
groundwater over the 5-year monitoring period will demonstrate the reestablishment of
wetland hydrology to these areas. We have no plans for amelioration of soils within the
FWB considering their present hydric status.
3.1.3 Plant Communities;
The FSB is being designed to restore and enhance a mixture of natural. wetland plant
Qmmunities including wet pine flatwoods, nonriverine wet hardwood forest and Coastal
Plain small stream swamp (Phase H). Much of this restoration effort will be directed at
the nonriverine wet hardwood forest which is one of the most threatened community
types on the coastal plain (Peacock and Lynch, 1982a). All natural wetland community
types will be restored and enhanced by planting representative overstory and understory
species within the 339-acre agricultural fields combined with the reestablishment of a
natural hydrologic regime for these areas. Prior to planting, the sites will be prepared by
ripping to a 16-inch depth to eliminate any restrictive subsurface pans. In areas where
significant field crowns occur, these will be removed by grading as part of site
preparation activities. Deep ripping will provide favorable planting sites for the woody
trees and shrubs and will also simulate the natural, irregular topography of natural
wetlands. In addition to the cultivation activities, randomly located depressions, 3 - 20
feet long, 2 - 6 feet wide and 1 - 2 feet deep will be constructed to simulate naturally-
occurring ephemeral ponds and depressions. These have been shown to be very valuable
to reptiles and amphibians as well as other animals.
Overstory and understory plant species naturally occurring in wet pine flatwoods and the
nonriverine wet hardwood forest communities are described on page 7 of this Plan and
cited in Table 2. In addition to those listed species, we have sampled 4 mature and
relatively undisturbed, nonriverine wet hardwood stands in the vicinity of the project and
on similar soils. We determined average overstory species composition (%) within these
stands to be as follows: sweetgum -- 42 %, red maple - 23%, loblolly pine -14%, green
ash -12%, water oak, willow oak and other oaks- 7% and other hardwoods (yellow
poplar (Lfrfodendron tulipffera), elm (Ulmus spp.) - 2%. Undisturbed wet flat hardwood
stands are known to contain a diversity of canopy tree species including several red and
white oak species which provide critical mast to numerous wildlife species (Harms et al.,
1998). Seharale and Weakley (1990) state that North Carolina coastal plain, nonriverine
wet hardwood forests may contain swamp laurel oak, chestnut oak and cherrybark oak in
addition to water and willow oak.. Based on this information and data, we propose to
plant the following canopy species which characterize natural reference stands and
provide enhanced diversity and wildlife habitat value: swamp laurel oak, swamp
chestnut oak, cherrybark oak, willow oak, water oak, overcup oak, and swamp blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica var biflora). We expect natural recruitment of sweet gum, red maple,
green ash, loblolly pine and other seral species. Understory species will include:
waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), loblolly bay, red bay and various wetland hollies (Ilex spp).
All woody plantings will be contingent on availability of seedlings. If all species are not
14
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4;26PM; Page 18/26
available, suitable substitutes will be proposed for consideration by the MBRT. All
planting will be done during; the dormant season using bare-root, 1-0 seedlings planted at
454 stems / acre. This density planting will provide insurance for unexpected mortality
and attainment of a minimum of 300 trees / acre of preferred species at the end of the 5
year monitoring period. Preferred species include the species listed above for planting
plus those species recruited through natural regeneration. Species composition success
criteria will be patterned after data from undisturbed reference stands. However, our
planting strategy is designed. to simulate undisturbed mature, forested community types
and to increase the proportion of species valuable for wildlife. This objective may
require post-planting selective removal of invasive species in order to maintain a
desirable proportion of preferred species.
4.0 WETLAND MITIGATION:
Credits will be generated within the FSB through restoration of agricultural fields and
enhancement of existing forested wetlands. The Federal Guidance for the Establishment,
Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (Federal Register, 1995) defines wetland
restoration, enhancement and preservation as follows:
Restoration - Re-establishment of previously existing wetland or other aquatic resource
character and function(s) at a site where they have ceased to exist or exist only in a
substantially degraded state.
Enhancement - Activities conducted in existing wetlands or other aquatic resources to
achieve specific management objectives or provide conditions which previously did not
exist, and which increase one or more aquatic functions.
Preservation - The protection of ecologically important wetlands or other aquatic
resources in perpetuity through the implementation or appropriate legal and physical
mechanisms.
The proposed wetland restoration sites within the FSB include 339 acres of prior
converted (PC) agricultural fields that are currently classified as non-wetlands. Out of
the 339 acres, 20.66 acres comprising a 100 ft wide corridor encompassing the proposed
Flat Swamp Creek restoration area will be withdrawn and will be included in Phase 11 of
this project (Figure 5). Phase it involves the restoration of the historic Flat Swamp Creek
channel. Total area for wetland restoration is 318.34 acres. Based on existing hydric
soils and examination of forest areas adjacent to these fields, all 339 acres were likely
jurisdictional wetlands prior to conversion. Our proposed actions will be directed at
restoring the character and function of previously existing wetlands and natural forested
community types on these fields.
15
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:26PM; Page 19126
The proposed wetland restoration measures include:
1. Filling and plugging approximately 2044 linear feet of primary and lateral ditches
at designated locations (Figure 5).
2. Stabilizing and vegetating permanent ditch plugs.
3. Preparation of the site using ripping and excavation of ephemeral pools.
4. Planting selected hardwoods and woody understory species to restore target
wetland community types
The proposed wetland enhancement measures include:
1. Filling and plugging primary and lateral ditches in and adjacent, to forested
enhancement areas at designated locations (Figure S).
2. Stabilizing and vegetating permanent ditch plugs.
4.1 Reference Plot Establishment:
Reference plots for the pine flatwoods, nonriverine wet hardwood forest and Coastal
Plain swamp (Phase II) community types will be located in undisturbed areas as close to
the FSB as possible. At least one reference plot will be located for each community type.
Adjacent lands will be evaluated with a preference for public trust lands. One reference
plot for each type will be located. Reference plots will be undisturbed and have no
ditching nearby that may influence their hydrologic status. Hydrologic characteristics of
reference stands will be monitored using shallow (< 40 itch) automatic recording wells
(daily data). The location of all proposed reference wells will be selected by the Triangle
Group and approved by the MBRT prior to data collection.
5,0 IN1 LEMENTATION
Implementation of this project will occur immediately after approval of the Final
Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). Assuming obtaining
approvals during the fall of 1999, fieldwork will commence immediately to locate
reference plots and install monitoring wells. Field data collection will begin concurrently
for the reference plots during the fall. Site preparation for planting the agricultural fields
will also occur during the fall; that is normally the dry season. Seedlings will be ordered
during the fall of 1999 in order to plant during the winter and early spring of'2000.
16
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:27PM; Page 20126
6.0 REGULATORY RELEASE
The FSB will be determined to be successful once wetland hydrology is established
within the restoration areas and the vegetation success criteria are met within restoration
and enhancement areas. Monitoring data will be collected for a period of 5 years or until
all success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer. Annual Reports will be submitted
to the MBRT prior to the end of each calendar year, documenting plant community
conditions within the restoration areas and documenting hydrologic data within the
restoration areas and reference plots. The Annual Report will also include a proposed
plan of action for the following year including maintenance activities and a contingency
plan.
6.1 Hydrologic Criteria:
Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well data
collected within the FSB project area and approved reference plots. Automatic recording
wells will be, established within restoration areas at a density of I automatic well per 31.8
acres (10 wells total) and 2 wells located in the enhancement area. In addition, one
automatic recording well will be established in each reference stand (3 wells total). Daily
data will be collected from automatic wells throughout the year and over. the 5-year
monitoring period.
Wetland hydrology will be established if well data from restoration areas indicates
that the water table is within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 5 percent of the
growing season (14 consecutive days) or similar to the reference stand, whichever is
greater.
6.2 Vegetation Criteria:
The success criteria for the preferred species in the restoration areas will be based on
annual survival and growth and cumulative survival and growth over 5 years- Survival of
preferred species must be at a minimum 300 stems/ac at the end of 5 years of monitoring.
Height growth must average 6.0 ft. Species composition will be compared with reference
stands and will be subject to review and approval by the MBRT. Average annual height
increment of preferred species will be 1.25 ft./yr over the 5-year monitoring period.
Determining sampling strategy for woody trees and shrubs depends on the size and
uniformity of the plants. The size and spacing of the trees determines plot size and
number of plots (Spurr, 1952). Larger trees whose density per acre is low require larger
plots while smaller trees whose density is higher per unit area are more accurately
assessed using smaller plots. The uniformity of vegetation is also a factor in sampling
design, where high variation in vegetative composition generally requires larger plot
sizes, while more uniform vegetation can be measured accurately with smaller plots
(Spurr, 1952). In addition, if competing vegetation is dense enough to impair visibility,
17
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:27PM; Page 21126
then inaccuracy is introduced into sampling due to missed trees with larger plot sizes
(Avery and Burkehart, 1991). While it is not uncommon in the forest industry to use
small plots to evaluate plantation survival and growth, one-tenth acre plots are
appropriate for evaluating survival and growth at the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank.
Sampling intensity is determined by the precision deemed appropriate for the estimate.
The allowable error of the estimate must be determined by those parties interested
(MBRT). Several factors can contribute to error in the estimate including plot size,
vegetation size, density and uniformity. There are statistical formulas for determining
sampling intensity for a desired allowable error, based on the standard error of the mean
of the sampled population. In order to determine the number of plots needed for the
agreed-upon accuracy of the survival and growth estimate, we propose initially that 50,
one-tenth acre plots be randomly installed at the end of the first growing season on
transeets in the planted area to determine the standard error of the mean of the sampled
population.. An assessment can then be made as to whether or not an acceptable accurate
estimate of survival and growth has been obtained from the data or whether more plots
are needed. The final number of permanent one tenth acre plots will be determined by
the degree of precision deemed appropriate by the MBRT for the survival and growth
estimate, based on the variability inherent in the vegetation. The following data will be
collected at each plot after the first growing season and each year for 4 additional years or
longer if directed by the MBRT; number of individuals by species, height, basal area (if
applicable), and estimated percent cover of all planted species. We propose that 2, one-
tenth acre plots be established in the enhancement area to characterize this forested area.
In addition, we propose to establish a minimum of 3, one-tenth acre plots in the reference
areas. These data will be collected annually to assess vegetation survivability and
development.
7.0 CREDIT TOTAL AND RELEASE SCHEDULE
The proposed credit value and release schedule for the FSB are based on recent
agreements among State and Federal agencies following meetings in April 1999.
As result of those meetings, consensus was reached on wetland credit values and release
of credits for mitigation banks in North Carolina. The combination of mitigation types is
dependent on the specific bank site and the combination of restoration, enhancement and
preservation acres present on a given bank site.
A RESTORA'T'ION CREDIT CAN BE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
I acre of restoration plus 4 acres of enhancement (5 acres total)
or
1 acre of restoration plus 10 acres of preservation (11 acres total)
18
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:27PM;
or
2 acres of restoration (2 acres total)
All of the above combinations satisfy the State of North Carolina requirement of a
minimum of i restoration acre be used to mitigate for each acre of wetland impact.
The FSB contains 339 acres of restoration (318.34 acres - Nonriverinc Wet Pine
Flatwoods and Wet Hardwood Forest and 20.66 acres - Riverine Small Coastal Plain
Stream Swamp "I PLUS 47 acres of enhancement (Nonriverine). Using the formula
suggested by the NCWRP for determining wetland credits, the following is calculated:
Restoration (R) = 318.34 acres
Enhancement (E) = 47 acres
Number of Credits = R/2 + (E/4R * R/2) = 318.34 / 2 + (47 / (4 * 318.34) * 318.34 /2)
= 159.17 + (.037 * 159.17) =165.05 credits
Therefore, given the number of credits (165.05), the nonriverine credit makeup for
Phase I of the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank is as follows-
1 credit = 1.93 acres of restoration and 0.285 acres of enhancement
318.34 acres restoration / 165.05 total credits = 1.93 acres or restoration / credit
47 acres of enhancement / 165.05 total credits = 0.285 acres of enhancement / credit
TOTAL AREA IN THE FSB = 386 acres
"The Riverine Small Coastal Plain Stream Swarnp area (20.66 acres) will be excluded
from the nonriverine wetland restoration project and will be included in Phase II -
Restoration of Flat Swamp Creek which includes an estimated 9000 feet of stream
channel and 50 feet on either side of the channel (9000 ft. X 100 ft. = 20.66 acres)
Page 22/26
19
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:28PM; Page 23/26
proposed for use as Neuse River Buffer credits. This area will be subject to the
conservation easement for Phase I of the project.
Wetland mitigation credits will be released according to the schedule outlined
below:
Milestone Percent
Release
Credits
MBRT approval of Mitigation Plan, execution of MBI
and recordation of conservation easement 15% 24.76
Following Implementation and Year I monitoring and
MBRT approval of Annual Report 10% 16.51
Following Year 2 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual Report 1011/0 16.51
Following Year 3 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual Report 10% 16.51
Following Year 4 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual report 15% 24.76
Following Year 5 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual Report 15% 24.76
Final Approval 25% 41.24
TOTAL: 100% 165.05
20
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:28PM; Page 24/26
8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Avery, T. E. and H.E. Burkhart. 1994. Forest Measurements. Fourth Edition, McGraw-
Hill, Inc. New York
Brinson, M.M., A.E.Lugo and. S. Brown. 1981 Primary Productivity, Decomposition and
Consumer Activity in freshwater Wetlands. Ann. Rev. Syst. 12:123-161.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Array Corps
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program, Tech
Rpt. WRP-DE-4, 79pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Services Program, Biological Rpt. FWS/OBS-79/31, 103 pp.
Crowover, S.H., N.B. Comerford, D.G. Neary and J. Montgomery. 1995. Horizontal
Groundwater Flow Patterns Through a Cypress Swamp-Pine platwoods
Landscape. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 59:1199-1206.
Duane, Thomas, and Luna B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H.
Freeman and Company, San Franciso, California. 815 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Exp. Sta.,
Vicksburg, MS.
Federal Register. 1995. Federal Guidance for Establishment, Use and Operation of
Mitigation Banks, Federal Register, 60(43); 12286-I2293.
Engstrom, R.T. 1993. Characteristic Mammals and Birds of Longleaf Pine Forests. Proc.
18'h Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. S.M. Hermann (ed): The Longleaf
Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Restoration and Management, 'f'all 'l'imbers Research
Inc. Tallahassee, FL.
Guyer, C. and M.A. Bailey. 1.993. Amphibians and Reptiles of Longleaf Pine
Communities. Proc. 18`h Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf., S.M. Hermann (ed):
Harms, W.R., W. M. Aust, and J.A. Burger. 1998. Wet Flatwoods. pp. 421-444, In:
M. G. Messina and W. H. Conner (eds), Southern Forested Wetlands: Ecology
and Management, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fl, 610 pp.
21
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:28PM; Page 25/26
The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem; ecology, Restoration and Management, Tall Timbers
Research Inc., Tallahassee, FL.
Loeb, S.C. and M.R. Lennartz. 1989. The Fox. Squirrel (&iurus niger) in Southeastern
Pine-Hardwood Forests. In: T.A. Waldrop (ed), Proc. Of Pine-Hardwood
Mixtures: A Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type. U.S.D.A. For
Serv. Southeastern For Exp. Sta, Gen Tech. Rpt. SE-58, Asheville, NC
Maki, T.E.. A.J. Weber, D.W, Hazel, S.C. Hunter, B.T. Hyberg, D.M. Flinchum, J.P.
Lollis, J.B. Rognstad and J.D. Gregory. 1980. Effect of Stream Channelization on
Bottomland and Swamp Forest Ecosystems. NC Water Res. Res. Instit. Rpt. 147.
Mulholland, P.J. 1981. Organic Flow in a Swamp Stream Ecosystem. Ecol. Mono.
51(3): 307-322.
Reddy, K.R. and W.H, Patrick. 1975, Effect of Alternate Aerobic and Anaerobic
Conditions on Redox Potential, Organic Matter Decomposition and Nitrogen Loss
in a Flooded Soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 7.87-94.
Schaflale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. N C Nat. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks and
Rec., Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Res., Raleigh, NC, 325 pp.
Sharp, T. 1998. The Sandhills Quail Mystery. Wildlife in North Carolina, 62(2): 9-12.
Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam and J.S. Barnes. 1980. Effect of Agricultural Land
Development on Drainage Waters in the North Carolina Tidewater Region.
Water Res. Res. Inst. R.pt. 159, Raleigh, NC
Skaggs, R, W., D.M. Amatya, R.U. Evans and J.E. Parsons. 1991. Methods for Evaluating
Wetland Hydrology, Paper No. 912590 Presented at the ASAE International
Winter Meeting, Chicago 1L, Dec 1991.
Spurr, S. H. 1952. Forest Inventory. Roland Press, New York.
Still, H.R. and D.P. Baumann. 1989. Wild Turkey Activities in relation to Timber Types
on the Francis Marion National Forest. In: T.A, Waldrop (ed), Proc. Pine-
Hardwood Mixtures; A Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type.
U.S.D.A, Forest Serv., SE For Exp. Sta., Gen Tech. Rpt. SE-58, Asheville, NC
U.S.D.A. 1989. Soil Survey of Craven County, N C. Soil Conser. Serv., 157 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1975. State of North Carolina Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974.
U.S Dep. of Interior., U.S. Geological Survey in Cooperation with the U.S. Water
Res. Council, Reston VA.
22
nt BT The T11rTng1e Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Jul-10-00 4:28PM; Page 26/2.
Walker, J. and R.K. Peet. 1983. Composition and Species Diversity of Pine-Wiregrass
Savannas of the Green Swamp, North Carolina. Vegetatio 55:163-179.
WRP. 1993. Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Exp. Sta., Wetland Res. Prog. Tech. Note HV-IA-3.1, 14
pp-
23
E TRIANGLE GROUP
THE FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK
PHASE I - FINAL PLAN
Nonriverine Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
Craven County, North Carolina
Prepared By:
AHE TRIANGLE GROUP
1001 Capability Drive
Research Building #1- Suite 312
Centennial Campus
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
August'15, 2000
NEW JERSEY NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q16 Research Building 1 P.O. Bog 551
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Centennial Campus New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
[phone] • Fax: [phone] Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] • Fag: [phone]
Raleigh, NorthlCarolina 27606
[phone] • Fax: [phone]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Site Description 1
2.1 Hydrology 1
2.2 Soils 4
2.3 Existing Plant Communities 4
2.4 Ecological Processes and Functions 8
2.4.1 Functional Uplift of the Proposed Project 10
3.0 Mitigation 10
3.1 Proposed Actions 10
3.1.1 Hydrology 10
3.1.2 Soils 12
3.1.3 Plant Communities 14
4.0 Wetland Mitigation 15
4.1 Reference Plot Establishment 16
5.0 Implementation 16
6.0 Regulatory Release 17
6.1 Hydrologic Criteria 17
6.2 Vegetative Criteria 17
7.0 Credit Total and Release Schedule 18
8.0 Literature Cited 21
ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Mitigation Plan describes the proposed actions for establishment of the Flat Swamp
Mitigation Bank (FSB) - Phase I - Nonriverine Wetland Restoration and
Enhancement, for offsetting unavoidable wetland losses associated with projects
requiring Clean Water Act Section 404 Dredge and Fill permits within the proposed
General Service Area (GSA).
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
Flat Swamp Creek originates south of Fort Barnwell, north of Dover Bay and east of
Dover Road in Craven County, North Carolina. Flat Swamp Creek is a tributary of the
Neuse River and flows east, intersecting Core Creek before emptying into the south side
of the Neuse River. The FSB is located in the headwaters of Flat Swamp Creek (Latitude
35 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds N and Longitude 77 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds E).
(Figure 1). The FSB encompasses extensive areas of cleared and drained wetlands
currently in agricultural production and forestry. Total area of the FSB is 386 acres,
which includes 339 acres of prior-converted (PC) agricultural land and 47 acres of
partially drained forested wetlands (Figure 2). The FSB is adjacent and directly north of
Dover Bay. The FSB is also adjacent to lands being managed for timber production by
forest industry and private individuals. Based on the remaining forested wetlands on the
tract and adjacent areas, the FSB once supported a rich diversity of habitats including
wetflat hardwoods and pine, swamp hardwoods, cypress and riverine hardwoods along
the historic Flat Swamp Creek channel. Much of this habitat has been destroyed or
altered during the past 15 - 20 years as result of the ditching, draining, channelization and
road building associated with the conversion of the land to agriculture production.
2.1 Hydrology:
The FSB is located in the Neuse Hydrologic Unit (03020202), in Craven, Pitt, Lenoir,
and Green and Wayne counties (US Geological Survey, 1975). The Neuse River in this
area is classified as Partially Supporting by the State of North Carolina. The factors for
this classification include intensive agriculture and other 'point and nonpoint sources of
pollution within the hydrological unit and upstream. Within Neuse Sub basin 08 in Core
Creek, nonpoint source runoff is identified as the biggest factor affecting water quality.
The Neuse River in this sub basin has Good-fair water quality based on
macroinvertebrate samples near Streets Ferry. The FSB is adjacent and upstream to the
Lower Neuse Hydrologic Unit (03020204), which includes Support - Threatened areas
in the Neuse and Pamlico Sounds. The entrance to Pamlico Sound is a particularly
degraded area because it is the Neuse River terminus and at this location, the water
becomes slow, stagnant and subject to algal blooms. Extensive fish kills due to low
oxygen levels and Pfisteria outbreaks have also become commonplace during the
summer in this area and the recent flooding has been extremely damaging to this region
of the state.
11
I q IIR(FFIEI B,( /. FYYA CANNON R E PO
/ rYOC N° ° `- / rUl / p Slokeat JOE NPDDOCK
? Rp
lr ?,yE R AD ? 'J"e \ 5 IN PEE 'pO.. RD
_ .'P\Y4 9D \?,\`1 \ nunlHrt () ?i ° -_ 1
N "UCIr 90 W¢ nnrhan '\ C;pKWlle YOORE P ZEP'S EanE 1
_ o
°° P,\f OOE PO
Ell
a
lug i J - \ \\ ?yF N0 \\
all
\? Geranennle
°4P, Q lO1,E5
° HI \ `
O inl \ i Y ns N O 1 OE /-<FW \ - a Opt
/ OFS AOOOCK 'RG? ? \
DID sn / RD -\ St Johns C,q'... _ ?? 17N vCP 0.?.
\ (iI NUn (ia0ro I\ PPt0.1GP AD °NFN /
I 118 s
00.° ,. ¢ _ -\\i , ?? °y' / RD ?aK10WY AD
\ `_??tir?y \ 4 ONES Oy.,, 'A ? / IlonnlW, •??
i `1I R v.? e? Q I erly P 118 T 1 a` W P ?I-
ANOtrpA, < `POOPS PO SAW Gi( .?? \? 1 A Y? pN IIGF ? / '0.°
O
<F . nEv° P° e. 4 s°4 En-er I I N,?L C ?
sr e
/ W ii N1 DIIIEL 5 4P T".' c' Iflk? ?-aQ / PU yNlt
0.0 /\\ 11 ;I Ln C._ 0 Iy
P r [i 0 Cdr\ w NE Eox rp // '" N N -.r
"Rh
A aslD. R o I d G \
1 , d nP
\a,?` 11. .E• tiha,nnM1OY / ?/tlinp "Y??___ ?"., / T ''\E 'ENO /3ay, tr r,s lr
rp
RD Maple
-- ? _
ea. 0.O c 1
Wc, t PE EOP
G-i
i "EP _ P?S4 ?., siy'(e \. _ \ NryFR r _ _
\.I lea,h Y,.ifo, ?.? ROWEE( RO - \? r 1 li Dd T
\I41` \,D Q-°o ..w - _ tv o..r c 1\ ?o?\°i00^ e Fort Is:nnw II ussehRa
11 Jam` ?sn -
puxr, cxvwuu °poven Ao a o =n ??'f \ / boW¢° 55 Ap i? d? i v.l a
Lndin `2 9Gr / I - \- _? L,ncl nlf
D W J idxnal ~ o _
o Ares y??,L i a ? e \
uI d?II _ ?e°
fGcoryc? wn ap \\`°4h e \' / --___ F\oPi `O _ ?e
£rApP° -- - - - Site
"e°? J-"" .P (pET - - - ..IAW S4pW\ - - o9 ^'H EH pOPOE.OYt _
ROY Mps N PO i'rr1 w
°A4y lO Y ?? ? _
- p I o y4yN' ? a_'u 1 e CrepA'?G \? - y -
/
Nit C..x-cll ? ? i \ m \ .. - ./= \ c
-? ° I '' - Wln(cr Grcel - v
RUSSELL
1 Wyse °`O t? .\ \\(
rem RD _ ` -:? Afill Cl. o/.R __
aF
Fork \ ??1 Dec A ` 7? r v B,
Oto
/ 70',,
rnndP ° I -
' x
' Ala °s I i ? / '/? ? l ?` _ ? _.
? / V II v ' / D - ve C¢q o ?
!Np I I ? F 7 sYrN ?.;. su G ,
Sr(°HD ` 404 AO /.1J \v? ?-I 1 \ ? NAROEE y. MSE- (YD; ,., ?\ ~ \
0 1'wEDR rA 1S`? ? .. , ? ... i j .cEYEiERr < ?_ I 4
9m+ _t, .Q - I - 1 i \... F? ?\` \\ / P fEG 0,1' RD \ ?. _ 1 -. \. ?4'I
g F\ - -
N o? sN ?? ??? 1 11 li G of ?l?? g RD ,?i,
\ WIll1AYt. Rp-
/
T
COPE IPND FPWY 00 O \ r \I\. 1 I /` \ \yl\\ gO(FpvF
Sy'oi
cp I ? 1 i \ ?oU \\J/ I' I / \ 1/? //\
/ I ??.oo ILA \ P Y` -[` II t.(rJ \ .( -
cr / -r - l v /? l I 1 ??F?S V61'??- ; 'III Il I?F `J? I ? \\,..• Ro,o
AO"0E
Yy
0
O O t. e I
m ?Q,?G YIOD(F %'alp'
58 s r / v_ A `?4.0 4
v/?O s s e RD 41 ,? ?C?yOC11 C A 1_? J I'?? ! A
Figure 1: Project Location Map
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank
Base map source: North Carolina Atlas & Gazetteer, DeLorne Mapping Co.
SCALE: 1 inch = 12,500 feet
2
r

Ce'
C
Cem
I
InI I• ?

1258 X 14.5 /

- 1262,; _
1 C ?
- -? -- - _-_
i
16-

?? - -
15.5

e
m ? -

?
1
.
126 1

i
1261
Site j i Flat Swamp Creek

i--14? /
III
x14.5

?

--
IZ5
, i r w
w

C
I X 19.0 -

Figure 2: Site Map
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank
Base map source: Fort Barnwell, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle
SCALE: 1 inch = 3,100 feet
The primary hydrologic inputs to the FSB tract are precipitation and groundwater
discharge. The tract is in the headwaters of Flat Swamp Creek and therefore has a large
influence on the water quantity and quality downstream. Historically, the entire area was
forested and undisturbed which maintained very high water quality in Flat Swamp Creek.
Now, much of this headwater area is cleared and ditched resulting in more rapid surface
runoff and an increased risk of sediment and nutrient pollution going into Flat Swamp
Creek and eventually the Neuse River (Figure 3).
Based on aerial photography and field inspection, the historic channel of Flat Swamp
Creek bisected the southern and northern portions of the FSB tract (Figure 3). Currently,
the creek channel is confined to a roadside ditch that crosses the property from west to
east; exits on the southeast side and eventually reaches the existing Flat Swamp Creek
channel approximately one-half mile from the property. A small portion of the drainage
from the FSB exits the tract on the northeast side via a roadside ditch and eventually
reaches another tributary to Flat Swamp Creek. Drainage within the tract is controlled by
4 flashboard risers. The entire ditch and drainage system currently existing within the
FSB is connected with adjacent parcels to the north and west but there are no water
control structures on these parcels and water flows freely through the FSB. Our proposed
modifications to restore wetland hydrology to the agricultural fields will have no impact
on any adjacent landowners.
2.2 Soils:
Soils mapped within the FSB include Torhunta and Pantego Series, which are both,
classified as hydric soils (Figure 4). These soils typically are poorly drained and are
found in broad interstream flatwoods situations and along slow moving Coastal Plain
streams. Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam is formed in loamy sediments and is
frequently ponded during wet periods (USDA, 1989). The upper part of the surface layer
is black mucky fine sandy loam about 3 inches thick. The lower horizon to a depth of 18
inches is very dark gray fine sandy loam. Infiltration is medium and surface runoff is
slow. Torhunta soils are extremely acid to strongly acid except where lime has been
added to the surface.
Pantego mucky fine sandy loam is also frequently ponded during wet periods (USDA,
1989). The surface layer is a black mucky fine sand about 10 inches thick with a lower
horizon of very dark gray and grayish brown fine sandy loam. Infiltration is medium and
runoff is very slow. Pantego soils are extremely to strongly acid except when lime has
been added. A summary of the soil mapping units, their hydric status and depth and
duration of water table is shown in Table 1.
2.3 Existing Plant Communities:
The existing plant communities within the FSB are representative of both natural
communities and communities resulting from human disturbance (Table 2). Only about
12 percent (47 acres) of the tract is currently in forest cover with the remaining 88
4
Craven County, NC
SCALE: 1 inch= 1000 feet
Figure 3: Aeriai rnutu - r.ai mar, Llt%,.. u.7 ".-
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank
Craven County, NC
SCALE: 1 inch = 3100 feet

Figure 4: Soils Map
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank
percent (339) acres in agricultural fields. The main agricultural crops grown on this tract
since clearing have been corn, soybeans, and cotton and forage grasses. The extensive
clearing, ditching, channelization and road building have eliminated or significantly
altered the natural plant communities. However, based on sampling of the forested
portion of the tract, the natural plant communities include wet pine flatwoods,
nonriverine wet hardwood forest and coastal plain small stream swamp. Descriptions of
natural plant community types generally follow those presented by Schafale and Weakley
(1990).
Table 1: Summary of Soil Mapping Units Within the Flat Swamp
Mitigation Bank, Craven County, North Carolina.
Depth and
Duration of
Map Soil Hydrie High Water Estimated
Symbol Soil Type Subgroup Status a/ Table b/ Extent %
To Torhunta Thermic Hydric 0 -18 inches 24
mucky fine typic Nov - April
sandy loam humaquepts
Pa Pantego Umbric Hydric 0 - 18 inches 76
mucky fine paleaquults Nov - April
sandy loam
a/ Hydric soils list for North Carolina
b/ Based on soil taxonomy for undrained conditions
Wet Pine Flatwoods and Non Riverine Wet hardwood Forest:
These community types occur on somewhat poorly to poorly drained sites on broad
interstream divides. These sites support second growth forests and have been influenced
by road building and accelerated drainage via nearby perimeter field ditches and creek
channelization. Soil series include Torhunta and Pantego. Fire has been excluded and
this has resulted in the development of a very heavy woody understory. Overstory
species in the wet pine flatwoods type in primarily loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and mixed
hardwoods. Dominant overstory tree species in the non-riverine wet hardwood forest
includes sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red
maple (Acer rubrum), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Q. phellos), laurel oak (Q.
laurifolia), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), cherrybark oak (Q. pagodifolia) and
swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora). Subcanopy woody species include:
loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), red bay (Persea borbonia), American holly (Ilex
decidua), gallberry holly (Ilex coriacea), inkberry holly (I. glabra) and sweet pepperbush
(Clethra alnifolia). Non-woody understory species include giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), Virginia chain fern (W. virginica)
and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea). Woody vines include: poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), wild grape (Vitus spp.) and greenbriar (Smilax spp).
7
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp:
This community type occurs on very poorly drained sites on both Pantego and Torhunta
series soils within natural drainages in the FSB. This type was more extensive in the
project area before it was cleared, graded, ditched and converted to agriculture. The
overstory tree species that dominate this type include: swamp black gum, red maple,
baldcypress (Taxodium distichum var. distichum), green ash, black willow (Salix nigra)
and sweetgum. The understory species include: red bay, sweet pepperbush, inkberry
holly, and sweetgum. Understory ferns and vines include: netted chain fern, Virginia
chain fern, cinnamon fern, greenbriar, poison ivy and wild grape.
Table 2: Summary of Existing Plant Communities and Wetland Types Within
the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank
Plant Estimated Mitigation Wetland Type HGM Type /c
community Area Activity /b
Description /a
Agricultural 339 ac. Restoration Various Mineral Flat
Fields (PC)
Wet Pine 8 ac. Enhancement PF04E Mineral Flat
Flatwoods
Nonriverine 39 ac. Enhancement PF01E Mineral Flat
Wet Hardwood
Forest
a/ follows Schafale and Weakley (1990); b/ follows Cowardin et al. (1979);
c/ follows Brinson (1993).
2.4 Ecological Processes and Functions:
A variety of ecological processes and functions can be attributed to the wetland types
within the proposed FSB. These functions are directly related to the
geomorphic/landscape setting and hydrologic attributes of the wetland types (Brinson,
1993). The characteristic hydroperiod of these wetland types varies from seasonally
saturated (mineral and organic flats) to semipermanently flooded (small stream swamp).
The fluctuating hydroperiod promotes alternating cycles of aerobic and anaerobic soil
conditions and increases the potential primary productivity, organic matter
decomposition, nutrient mineralization and denitrification functions (Brinson et al., 1981;
Mulholland, 1981; Reddy and Patrick, 1975). Prior to conversion, the characteristic
hydroperiod within the extensive mineral soil flats resulted in short term surface water
storage and long term subsurface water storage to support base flow augmentation in this
headwater riverine system. Now the presence of a ditch network increases peak runoff
8
rates, decreases the retention time of precipitation and surface water, alters natural
groundwater flow patterns and increases the mean depth to the seasonal water table
(Crownover et al., 1995; Maki et al., 1980; Skaggs et al., 1980; and WRP, 1993).
The agricultural conversion activity also results in the following:
1. Decreased dissolved carbon export and food chain support due to decreased
contact time between shallow groundwater and soil matrix / organic matter.
2. Increased primary productivity and transpirational losses due to soil drainage and
reduction of anaerobic soil conditions.
3. Increased nitrogen mineralization and decreased denitrification due to soil
drainage.
4. Decreased short-term surface water storage and long-term subsurface water
storage resulting in decreased base flow augmentation.
5. Habitat interspersion of uplands and wetlands.
Seasonally saturated wetlands are usually located at relatively higher landscape positions
and exhibit high subsurface water storage functions. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
wetlands are located at relatively low landscape positions and exhibit floodflow retention
functions. The degree of microrelief across the wetland types will determine the degree
of surface water retention and the amount of sediment and nutrient trapping within the
wetlands. The short-term surface water retention results in increased contact time
between organic matter and surface water and increased carbon export functions.
Because of the conversion to agriculture, most of the original functions of these wetlands
have been lost. In addition to the above-described functions, other functions such as
biogeochemical transformations and habitat functions have similarly been adversely
affected or eliminated. For example, there has likely been a large increase in sediment
and nutrient export from this site into Flat Swamp Creek. There is no longer a natural
occurrence of fire on the site. This affects biogeochemical functions and wildlife habitat
value. Due to the decline of open, fire-maintained flatwoods habitat throughout North
Carolina, there are now over 87 species of rare vascular plants dependent upon remnants
of this habitat type (Walker, 1993). There are 36 species of mammals, 34 amphibian
species, 38 reptilian species and 86 bird species including the red cockaded woodpecker
associated with longleaf pine ecosystems throughout the Southeast (Engstrom, 1993;
Guyer and Bailey, 1993). Additional game species favored by wet pine and pine /
hardwood ecosystems include bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), wild turkey
(MeIeagris gallopavo) and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) (Sharp, 1998; Still and Baumann,
1989; Loeb and Lennartz, 1989). Additional game species such as whitetail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and black bears (Ursus americanus) will be favored by
restoration and maintenance of wet pine flatwoods, nonriverine hardwood forest and
small Coastal Plain swamp forest. In addition, all of these wetland types provide grazing
and browsing habitat and soft mast production.
9
2.4.1 Functional Uplift of the Proposed Project:
The wetland mitigation activities associated with the proposed FSB will result in an uplift
of existing water quality and habitat functions. Elimination of channelized flow within
ditches and restoration of flow through natural creeks will increase water quality
functions. The proposed ditch plugging and filling will result in increased short-term
surface and subsurface water storage and subsequent increase in the duration and
elevation of the seasonally high water table. The increased retention time of surface and
subsurface water on the broad interstream flats will result in reduced peak flows and
augmented base flow within Flat Swamp Creek. Increased retention time will also
facilitate a variety of biogeochemical transformations such as denitrification and
dissolved organic carbon export. Reduced nitrogen export and increased carbon export
will benefit downstream areas in Flat Swamp Creek and the Neuse River.
3.0 MITIGATION
The Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines of the clean Water Act (16 USC 1344), as described in
40 CFR Part 230, states that unavoidable wetland loss resulting from filling activities
may be offset by effective mitigation actions. According to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, mitigation actions should include avoidance, minimization,
restoration, enhancement and compensation for unavoidable impacts. After all practical
attempts to avoid and minimize wetland losses have been accomplished; compensatory
mitigation in any of the forms (i.e. wetland creation, restoration, enhancement, and/or
preservation) should be developed.
3.1 Proposed Actions:
3.1.1 Hydrology:
The first step in restoring hydrology will be to demonstrate'that under the 1987 Corps
Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) that criteria for soil saturation, e.g. soils
saturated to the surface for 5% or more of the growing season in most years have been
achieved. However, specific hydrologic performance criteria will be based on reference
stands. This site will first be modeled using Drain-nod (Skaggs et al., 1991) to
demonstrate the potential for achieving jurisdictional wetland status. A water balance has
been prepared which shows excess moisture during much of the growing season (Table
3). In addition, automatic recording wells will be placed in representative areas of the
prior converted (PC) agricultural fields (restoration areas), forested enhancement areas
and reference areas to collect hydrology data beginning in the winter of 2001. The
growing season for the project area begins approximately March 18 and ends on
November 14 or 240 days. We expect the restored wetland areas will likely exceed soil
10
0
a?
3N
? O
U
w ?
H ?
? U
O ?
0o cis
A
o?
0 0
crsb
t Q?
-u
C's
? O
cd 0
? o°
w ?
.? b
o?^
,,.., 300
U O ?
M cd o
O ?
? N c3
(Fy
°
O O
03
0 a? E
U cd oN
0.1 N
U
ai
E""
r a
a
a
w
h
C
L
u

cn ? r i c o .--?' o N

(71
rl. ? ? c ? c r?? c c,,

cV, r) ?p N

G1 cam, ? ? O _ M ?'?L

C`1
_ rn
C` l
O r? N O ? .-, [? -- N

V
7
C
ti
r

? w
~i ? y
C'S

00 -_ N. ?, 'cam ? ? o

O t? c*, C O O t" O c?

N
d' C ? C ? ? C O rY

C/? C
cd c^ d• v'i ? t? -r_ rT

a?

•
ue fl
O . ? "?
s
, b . a
-

?.
U N
> cd 9:1 N
00 m
C\
40. 914
4-
0 O
N.
00 F;
O W j O

v
?.
a N N
CFJ
4-4
cn
3

c .
> En cd
H ?
N U o o W
a" -?
3
a 03
w
s

j V)
3
o
a a
144 0 a
i
?c •^r?.o•°.n W 3
O s? 00
O? cd
? °` 3 °
N g? d• $a, - ,=+
0 r- 03
> OD y v

n
cd 00
00 to O
U U to
w O\ O ::3 c tn
r-, d •?
C
G U •b y ; .
?p yU Al
Q? ON
4-
^ +L
r
!
U
N

I '
CO oo
r- ° u H
W Q`s' a 0
?? u
C? a?p
-'
W
03 aa
?a? Qcf) fl?. Q4:cnv)

W •- Nr? 4? ? 00
11
saturation > 5% of the growing season but we will use soil saturation data from the
reference areas as a basis for hydrologic success criteria.
Our plan for hydrological modifications includes ditch plugging, filling ditch segments
and vegetating permanent ditch plugs (Figure 5). Permanent ditch plugs will be used for
establishing final water levels on the site. Ditch plugs that conform to Natural Resource
Conservation Service Guidelines will be used to permanently reestablish the natural
hydrology of the site (Appendix - Ditch Plugs Cross Section).
At each specified ditch plug location, ditches will be filled according to the following
protocol:
1. Existing ditch will be excavated to remove vegetation and organic material and
excavated organic material will be stockpiled
2. Ditch plug location will be backfilled with available onsite material (preferably
clay to sandy clay loam) to an elevation 12 inches above the surrounding natural
topography or to the elevation of the adjacent road. Ditch plugs will be a
minimum of 100 feet in length and all areas will be graded and compacted
following placement of material.
3. Stockpiled organic material will be spread over ditch plugs to a depth of 3 - 6
inches
4. Fertilizer and lime will be spread over ditch plugs at rates dictated by soil test
results
5. Ditch plugs will be stabilized by seeding with herbaceous seed mix and / or
planted with native woody plants species at a 6 ft x 6 ft spacing.
All automatic monitoring wells (10 wells in the restoration area, 2 wells in the
enhancement area and 3 wells in the reference areas = 15 wells total) will be installed
according to guidelines outlined by the U S Army Corps, Waterways Experiment Station
(WRP, 1993). Well data will be used to document hydrologic restoration within the
drained agricultural field areas, forested enhancement area and natural conditions in the
reference areas.
3.1.2. Soils:
Project success is dependent on the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology
within the restoration areas. All soil series within the FSB are considered hydric
(Table 1).
12
Craven County, NC
Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet
13
Figure 5: Locations of Ditch Plugs, Culverts and Reserved Corridor
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank
However, the hydric soils within the existing agricultural fields have been effectively
drained. Also, by definition, Prior Converted (PC) fields are considered non-wetlands.
The modeling efforts we are proposing (Drainmod) plus the monitoring of shallow
groundwater over the 5-year monitoring period will demonstrate the reestablishment of
wetland hydrology to these areas. We have no plans for amelioration of soils within the
FWB considering their present hydric status.
3.1.3 Plant Communities:
The FSB is being designed to restore and enhance a mixture of natural wetland plant
communities including wet pine flatwoods, nonriverine wet hardwood forest and Coastal
Plain small stream swamp (Phase II). Much of this restoration effort will be directed at
the nonriverine wet hardwood forest which is one of the most threatened community
types on the coastal plain (Peacock and Lynch, 1982a). All natural wetland community
types will be restored and enhanced by planting representative overstory and understory
species within the 339-acre agricultural fields combined with the reestablishment of a
natural hydrologic regime for these areas. Prior to planting, the sites will be prepared by
ripping to a 16-inch depth to eliminate any restrictive subsurface pans. In areas where
significant field crowns occur, these will be removed by grading as part of site
preparation activities. Deep ripping will provide favorable planting sites for the woody
trees and shrubs and will also simulate the natural, irregular topography of natural
wetlands. In addition to the cultivation activities, randomly located depressions, 3 - 20
feet long, 2 - 6 feet wide and 1 - 2 feet deep will be constructed to simulate naturally-
occurring ephemeral ponds and depressions. These have been shown to be very valuable
to reptiles and amphibians as well as other animals.
Overstory and understory plant species naturally occurring in wet pine flatwoods and the
nonriverine wet hardwood forest communities are described on page 7 of this Plan and
cited in Table 2. In addition to those listed species, we have sampled 4 mature and
relatively undisturbed, nonriverine wet hardwood stands in the vicinity of the project and
on similar soils. We determined average overstory species composition (%) within these
stands to be as follows: sweetgum - 42 %, red maple - 23%, loblolly pine - 14%, green
ash - 12%, water oak, willow oak and other oaks- 7% and other hardwoods (yellow
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), elm (Ulmus spp.) - 2%. Undisturbed wet flat hardwood
stands are known to contain a diversity of canopy tree species including several red and
white oak species which provide critical mast to numerous wildlife species (Harms et al.,
1998). Schafale and Weakley (1990) state that North Carolina coastal plain, nonriverine
wet hardwood forests may contain swamp laurel oak, chestnut oak and cherrybark oak in
addition to water and willow oak. Based on this information and data, we propose to
plant the following canopy species which characterize natural reference stands and
provide enhanced diversity and wildlife habitat value: swamp laurel oak, swamp
chestnut oak, cherrybark oak, willow oak, water oak, overcup oak, and swamp blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica var biflora). We expect natural recruitment of sweet gum, red maple,
green ash, loblolly pine and other seral species. Understory species will include:
waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), loblolly bay, red bay and various wetland hollies (Ilex spp).
All woody plantings will be contingent on availability of seedlings. If all species are not
14
available, suitable substitutes will be proposed for consideration by the MBRT. All
planting will be done during the dormant season using bare-root, 1-0 seedlings planted at
454 stems / acre. This density planting will provide insurance for unexpected mortality
and attainment of a minimum of 300 trees / acre of preferred species at the end of the 5
year monitoring period. Preferred species include the species listed above for planting
plus those species recruited through natural regeneration and excluding red maple,
sweetgum and loblolly pine. Species composition success criteria will be patterned after
data from undisturbed reference stands. However, our planting strategy is designed to
simulate undisturbed mature, forested community types and to increase the proportion of
species valuable for wildlife. This objective may require post-planting selective removal
of invasive species in order to maintain a desirable proportion of preferred species.
4.0 WETLAND MITIGATION:
Credits will be generated within the FSB through restoration of agricultural fields and
enhancement of existing forested wetlands. The Federal Guidance for the Establishment,
Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (Federal Register, 1995) defines wetland
restoration, enhancement and preservation as follows:
Restoration - Re-establishment of previously existing wetland or other aquatic resource
character and function(s) at a site where they have ceased to exist or exist only in a
substantially degraded state. ,
Enhancement - Activities conducted in existing wetlands or other aquatic resources to
achieve specific management objectives or provide conditions which previously did not
exist, and which increase one or more aquatic functions.
Preservation - The protection of ecologically important wetlands or other aquatic
resources in perpetuity through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical
mechanisms.
The proposed wetland restoration sites within the FSB include 339 acres of prior
converted (PC) agricultural fields that are currently classified as non-wetlands. Out of
the 339 acres, 20.66 acres comprising a 100 ft wide corridor encompassing the proposed
Flat Swamp Creek restoration area will be withdrawn and will be included in Phase II of
this project (Figure 5). Phase II involves the restoration of the historic Flat Swamp Creek
channel. Total area for wetland restoration is 318.34 acres. Based on existing hydric
soils and examination of forest areas adjacent to these fields, all 339 acres were likely
jurisdictional wetlands prior to conversion. Our proposed actions will be directed at
restoring the character and function of previously existing wetlands and natural forested
community types on these fields.
15
The proposed wetland restoration measures include:
1. Filling and plugging approximately 2000 linear feet of primary and lateral ditches
at designated locations (Figure 5).
2. Stabilizing and vegetating permanent ditch plugs.
3. Preparation of the site using ripping and excavation of ephemeral pools.
4. Planting selected hardwoods and woody understory species to restore target
wetland community types
The proposed wetland enhancement measures include:
1. Filling and plugging primary and lateral ditches in and adjacent to forested
enhancement areas at designated locations (Figure 5).
2. Stabilizing and vegetating permanent ditch plugs.
4.1 Reference Plot Establishment:
Reference plots for the pine flatwoods, nonriverine wet hardwood forest and Coastal
Plain swamp (Phase II) community types will be located in undisturbed areas as close to
the FSB as possible. At least one reference plot will be located for each community type.
Adjacent lands will be evaluated with a preference for public trust lands. One reference
plot for each type will be located. Reference plots wjll be._undisturbed and have no
ditching nearby that may influence their-hydrologic status. Hydro`1o-gie"characteristics of
reference stands will be rnoriitored using shallow (< 20 inch) automatic recording wells
(daily data). The location of all proposed reference wells will be selected by the Triangre
Group and approved by the MBRT prior to data collection.
5.0 IMPLENWNTATI0,..1`L..-
implementation of this project will occur immediately after approval of the Final
Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). Assuming obtaining
approvals during the fall of 2000, fieldwork will commence immediately to locate
reference plots and install monitoring wells. Field data collection will begin concurrently
for the reference plots during the fall. Site preparation for planting the agricultural fields
will also occur during the fall; that is normally the dry season. Seedlings will be ordered
during the fall of 2000 in order to plant during the winter and early spring of 2001.
16
6.0 REGULATORY RELEASE
The FSB will be determined to be successful once wetland hydrology is established
within the restoration areas and the vegetation success criteria are met within restoration
and enhancement areas. Monitoring data will be collected for a period of 5 years or until
all success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer. Annual Reports will be submitted
to the MBRT prior to the end of each calendar year, documenting plant community
conditions within the restoration areas and documenting hydrologic data within the
restoration areas and reference plots. The Annual Report will also include a proposed
plan of action for the following year including maintenance activities and a contingency
plan.
6.1 Hydrologic Criteria:
Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well data
collected within the FSB project area and approved reference plots. Automatic recording
wells will be established within restoration areas at a density of 1 automatic well per 31.8
acres (10 wells total) and 2 wells located in the enhancement area. In addition, one
automatic recording well will be established in each reference stand (3 wells total). Daily
data will be collected from automatic wells throughout the year and over the 5-year
monitoring period.
Z Wetland hydrology will be established if well data from restoration areas compares
favorably with the wetland reference areas and also meets the Corps wetland hydrology
criteria.
6.2 Vegetation Criteria:
The success criteria for the preferred species in the restoration areas will be based on
annual survival and growth and cumulative survival and growth over 5 years. Survival of
preferred species must be at a minimum 300 stems/ac at the end of 5 years of monitoring.
Height growth must average 6.0 ft. Species composition will be compared with reference
stands and will be subject to review and approval by the MBRT. Average annual height
increment of preferred species will be 1.25 ft./yr over the 5-year monitoring period.
Determining sampling strategy for woody trees and shrubs depends on the size and
uniformity of the plants. The size and spacing of the trees determines plot size and
number of plots (Spurr, 1952). Larger trees whose density per acre is low require larger
plots while smaller trees whose density is higher per unit area are more accurately
assessed using smaller plots. The uniformity of vegetation is also a factor in sampling
design, where high variation in vegetative composition generally requires larger plot
sizes, while more uniform vegetation can be measured accurately with smaller plots
(Spurr, 1952). In addition, if competing vegetation is dense enough to impair visibility,
17
then inaccuracy is introduced into sampling due to missed trees with larger plot sizes
(Avery and Burkehart, 1994). While it is not uncommon in the forest industry to use
small plots to evaluate plantation survival and growth, one-tenth acre plots are
appropriate for evaluating survival and growth at the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank.
Sampling intensity is determined by the precision deemed appropriate for the estimate.
The allowable error of the estimate must be determined by those parties interested
(MBRT). Several factors can contribute to error in the estimate including plot size,
vegetation size, density and uniformity. There are statistical formulas for determining
sampling intensity for a desired allowable error, based on the standard error of the mean
of the sampled population. In order to determine the number of plots needed for the
agreed-upon accuracy of the survival and growth estimate, we propose initially that 50,
one-tenth acre plots be randomly installed at the end of the first growing season on
transects in the planted area to determine the standard error of the mean of the sampled
population. An assessment can then be made as to whether or not an acceptable accurate
estimate of survival and growth has been obtained from the data or whether more plots
are needed. The final number of permanent one tenth acre plots will be determined by
the degree of precision deemed appropriate by the MBRT for the survival and growth
estimate, based on the variability inherent in the vegetation. The following data will be
collected at each plot after the first growing season and each year for 4 additional years or
longer if directed by the MBRT: number of individuals by species, height, basal area (if
applicable), and estimated percent cover of all planted species. We propose that 2, one-
tenth acre plots be established in the enhancement area to characterize this forested area.
In addition, we propose to establish a minimum of 3, one-tenth acre plots in the reference
areas. These data will be collected annually to assess vegetation survivability and
development.
7.0 CREDIT TOTAL AND RELEASE SCHEDULE
The proposed credit value and release schedule for the FSB are based on recent
agreements among State and Federal agencies following meetings in April 1999.
As result of those meetings, consensus was reached on wetland credit values and release
of credits for mitigation banks in North Carolina. The'combination of mitigation types is
dependent on the specific bank site and the combination of restoration, enhancement and
preservation acres present on a given bank site.
A RESTORATION CREDIT CAN BE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1 acre of restoration plus 4 acres of enhancement (5 acres total)
or
1 acre of restoration plus 10 acres of preservation (11 acres total)
18
or
2 acres of restoration (2 acres total)
All of the above combinations satisfy the State of North Carolina requirement of a
minimum of 1 restoration acre be used to mitigate for each acre of wetland impact.
The FSB'contains 339 acres of restoration (318.34 acres - Nonriverine Wet Pine
Flatwoods and Wet Hardwood Forest and 20.66 acres - Riverine Small Coastal Plain
Stream Swamp 1'1 PLUS 47 acres of enhancement (Nonriverine). Using the formula
suggested by the NCWRP for determining wetland credits, the following is calculated:
Restoration (R) = 318.34 acres
Enhancement (E) = 47 acres
Number of Credits = R/2 + (EAR * R/2) = 318.34 / 2 + (47 / (4 * 318.34) * 318.34 /2)
= 159.17 + (.037 * 159.17) =165.05 credits
Therefore, given the number of credits (165.05), the nonriverine credit makeup for
Phase I of the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank is as follows:
1 credit =1.93 acres of restoration and 0.285 acres of enhancement
318.34 acres restoration / 165.05 total credits = 1.93 acres or restoration / credit
47 acres of enhancement / 165.05 total credits = 0.285 acres of enhancement / credit
TOTAL AREA IN THE FSB = 386 acres
1'1 The Riverine Small Coastal Plain Stream Swamp area (20.66 acres) will be excluded
from the nonriverine wetland restoration project and will be included in Phase II -
Restoration of Flat Swamp Creek which includes an estimated 9000 feet of stream
channel and 50 feet on either side of the channel (9000 ft. X 100 ft. = 20.66 acres)
19
proposed for use as Neuse River Buffer credits. This area will be subject to the
conservation easement for Phase I of the project.
Wetland mitigation credits will be released according to the schedule outlined
below:
Milestone Percent
Release Credits
MBRT approval of Mitigation Plan, execution of MBI
and recordation of conservation easement 15% 24.76
Following Implementation and Year 1 monitoring and
MBRT approval of Annual Report 10% 16.51
Following Year 2 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual Report 10% 16.51
Following Year 3 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual Report 10% 16.51
Following Year 4 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual report 15% 24.76
Following Year 5 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual Report 15% 24.76
Final Approval 25% 41.24

TOTAL: 100% 165.05
20

8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Avery, T. E. and H.E. Burkhart. 1994. Forest Measurements. Fourth Edition, McGraw-
Hill, Inc. New York
Brinson, M.M., A.E.Lugo and S. Brown. 1981 Primary Productivity, Decomposition and
Consumer Activity in freshwater Wetlands. Ann. Rev. Syst. 12:123-161.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program, Tech
Rpt. WRP-DE-4, 79pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Services Program, Biological Rpt. FWS/OBS-79/31, 103 pp.
Crowover, S.H., N.B. Comerford, D.G. Neary and J. Montgomery. 1995. Horizontal
Groundwater Flow Patterns Through a Cypress Swamp-Pine Flatwoods
Landscape. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 59:1199-1206.
.N
Dunne, Thomas, and Luna B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H.
Freeman and Company, San Franciso, California. 815 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Exp. Sta.,
Vicksburg, MS.
Federal Register. 1995. Federal Guidance for Establishment, Use and Operation of
Mitigation Banks, Federal Register, 60(43): 12286-12293.
Engstrom, R.T. 1993. Characteristic Mammals and Birds of Longleaf Pine Forests. Proc.
18th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. S.M. Hermann (ed): The Longleaf
Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Restoration and Management, Tall Timbers Research
Inc. Tallahassee, FL.
Guyer, C. and M.A. Bailey. 1993. Amphibians and Reptiles of Longleaf Pine
Communities. Proc. 18th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf., S.M. Hermann (ed):
Harms, W.R., W. M. Aust, and J.A. Burger. 1998. Wet Flatwoods. pp. 421-444, In:
M. G. Messina and W. H. Conner (eds), Southern Forested Wetlands: Ecology
and Management, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fl, 610 pp.
21
The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem; ecology, Restoration and Management, Tall Timbers
Research Inc., Tallahassee, FL.
Loeb, S.C. and M.R. Lennartz. 1989. The Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger) in Southeastern
Pine-Hardwood Forests. In: T.A. Waldrop (ed), Proc. Of Pine-Hardwood
Mixtures: A Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type. U.S.D.A. For
Serv. Southeastern For Exp. Sta, Gen Tech. Rpt. 5E-58, Asheville, NC
Maki, T.E.. A.J. Weber, D.W. Hazel, S.C. Hunter, B.T. Hyberg, D.M. Flinchum, J.P.
Lollis, J.B. Rognstad and J.D. Gregory. 1980. Effect of Stream Channelization on
Bottomland and Swamp Forest Ecosystems. NC Water Res. Res. Instit. Rpt. 147.
Mulholland, P.J. 1981. Organic Flow in a Swamp Stream Ecosystem. Ecol. Mono.
51(3): 307-322.
Reddy, K.R. and W.H. Patrick. 1975. Effect of Alternate Aerobic and Anaerobic
Conditions on Redox Potential, Organic Matter Decomposition and Nitrogen Loss
in a Flooded Soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 7:87-94.
Schaflale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. N C Nat. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks and
Rec., Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Res., Raleigh, NC, 325 pp.
Sharp, T. 1998. The Sandhills Quail Mystery. Wildlife in North Carolina, 62(2): 9-12.
Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam and J.S. Barnes. 1980. Effect of Agricultural Land
Development on Drainage Waters in the North Carolina Tidewater Region.
Water Res. Res. Inst. Rpt. 159, Raleigh, NC
Skaggs, R.W., D.M. Amatya, R.O. Evans and J.E. Parsons. 1991. Methods for Evaluating
Wetland Hydrology. Paper No. 912590 Presented at the ASAE International
Winter Meeting, Chicago IL, Dec 1991.
Spurr, S. H. 1952. Forest Inventory. Roland Press, New York.
Still, H.R. and D.P. Baumann. 1989. Wild Turkey Activities in relation to Timber Types
on the Francis Marion National Forest. In: T.A. Waldrop (ed), Proc. Pine-
Hardwood Mixtures; A Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type.
U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., SE For Exp. Sta., Gen Tech. Rpt. 5E-58, Asheville, NC
U.S.D.A. 1989. Soil Survey of Craven County, N C. Soil Conser. Serv., 157 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1975. State of North Carolina Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974.
U.S Dep. of Interior., U.S. Geological Survey in Cooperation with the U.S. Water
Res. Council, Reston VA.
22
Walker, J. and R.K. Peet. 1983. Composition and Species Diversity of Pine-Wiregrass
Savannas of the Green Swamp, North Carolina. Vegetatio 55:163-179.
WRP. 1993. Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Exp. Sta., Wetland Res. Prog. Tech. Note HY-IA-3.1, 14
pp.
23
W"
E TRIANGLE GROUP
August 18, 2000
MEMO
To: Flat Swamp MBRT
From: Doug Frederick V4
Subject: Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase I - Final Plan
Attached is Final Plan for the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase I - Nonriverine
Wetland Restoration and Enhancement. We have included all written comments
received from MBRT members plus several changes suggested during phone
conversations. In addition, Dave Lekson has reviewed and approved this version. His
instructions to me were to send you this version as "Final" but if you do see something
that must be changed let us know immediately and I will make the change and send the
corrected page(s) to all members. If this version is acceptable, please let Dave and me
know as soon as possible. Once all MBRT members have responded and the Plan is
acceptable, Dave will so notify the MBRT and the Sponsor of approval.
We now have all signatures to the MBI with the exception of NCDWQ. Hopefully, the
changes included in the Plan will allow for the last remaining signature.
Thanks for your interest and help with this project. We are looking forward to getting
started with implementation.
RECEIVED
AUG 22 2000
NC vVETLANDS
RESTORATION
NEW JERSEY NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q16 Research Building 1 P.O. Box 551
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Centennial Campus New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
[phone] • Fax: [phone] Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
[phone] • Fax: [phone]
E TRIANGLE GROUP
THE FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK
PHASE I - FINAL PLAN
Nonriverine Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
Craven County, North Carolina
Prepared By:
A.-I... -,-HE TRIANGLE GROUP
1001 Capability Drive
Research Building #1- Suite 312
Centennial Campus
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
August 15, 2000
NEW JERSEY NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q16 Research Building 1 P.O. Box 551
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Centennial Campus New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
[phone] 0 Fax: [phone] Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Raleigh, NorthlCarolina 27606
[phone] 0 Fax: [phone]
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Mitigation Plan describes the proposed actions for establishment of the Flat Swamp
Mitigation Bank (FSB) - Phase I - Nonriverine Wetland Restoration and
Enhancement, for offsetting unavoidable wetland losses associated with projects
requiring Clean Water Act Section 404 Dredge and Fill permits within the proposed
General Service Area (GSA).
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
Flat Swamp Creek originates south of Fort Barnwell, north of Dover Bay and east of
Dover Road in Craven County, North Carolina. Flat Swamp Creek is a tributary of the
Neuse River and flows east, intersecting Core Creek before emptying into the south side
of the Neuse River. The FSB is located in the headwaters of Flat Swamp Creek (Latitude
35 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds N and Longitude 77 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds E).
(Figure 1). The FSB encompasses extensive areas of cleared and drained wetlands
currently in agricultural production and forestry. Total area of the FSB is 386 acres,
which includes 339 acres of prior-converted (PC) agricultural land and 47 acres of
partially drained forested wetlands (Figure 2). The FSB is adjacent and directly north of
Dover Bay. The FSB is also adjacent to lands being managed for timber production by
forest industry and private individuals. Based on the remaining forested wetlands on the
tract and adjacent areas, the FSB once supported a rich diversity of habitats including
wetflat hardwoods and pine, swamp hardwoods, cypress and riverine hardwoods along
the historic Flat Swamp Creek channel. Much of this habitat has been destroyed or
altered during the past 15 - 20 years as result of the ditching, draining, channelization and
road building associated with the conversion of the land to agriculture production.
2.1 Hydrology:
The FSB is located in the Neuse Hydrologic Unit (03020202), in Craven, Pitt, Lenoir,
and Green and Wayne counties (US Geological Survey, 1975). The Neuse River in this
area is classified as Partially Supporting by the State of North Carolina. The factors for
this classification include intensive agriculture and other point and nonpoint sources of
pollution within the hydrological unit and upstream. Within Neuse Sub basin 08 in Core
Creek, nonpoint source runoff is identified as the biggest factor affecting water quality.
The Neuse River in this sub basin has Good-fair water quality based on
macroinvertebrate samples near Streets Ferry. The FSB is adjacent and upstream to the
Lower Neuse Hydrologic Unit (03020204), which includes Support - Threatened areas
in the Neuse and Pamlico Sounds. The entrance to Pamlico Sound is a particularly
degraded area because it is the Neuse River terminus and at this location, the water
becomes slow, stagnant and subject to algal blooms. Extensive fish kills due to low
oxygen levels and Pfisteria outbreaks have also become commonplace during the
summer in this area and the recent flooding has been extremely damaging to this region
of the state.
available, suitable substitutes will be proposed for consideration by the MBRT. All
planting will be done during the dormant season using bare-root, 1-0 seedlings planted at
454 stems / acre. This density planting will provide insurance for unexpected mortality
and attainment of a minimum of 300 trees / acre of preferred species at the end of the 5
year monitoring period. Preferred species include the species listed above for planting
plus those species recruited through natural regeneration and excluding red maple,
sweetgum and loblolly pine. Species composition success criteria will be patterned after
data from undisturbed reference stands. However, our planting strategy is designed to
simulate undisturbed mature, forested community types and to increase the proportion of
species valuable for wildlife. This objective may require post-planting selective removal
of invasive species in order to maintain a desirable proportion of preferred species.
4.0 WETLAND MITIGATION:
Credits will be generated within the FSB through restoration of agricultural fields and
enhancement of existing forested wetlands. The Federal Guidance for the Establishment,
Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (Federal Register, 1995) defines wetland
restoration, enhancement and preservation as follows:
Restoration - Re-establishment of previously existing wetland or other aquatic resource
character and function(s) at a site where they have ceased to exist or exist only in a
substantially degraded state.
Enhancement - Activities conducted in existing wetlands or other aquatic resources to
achieve specific management objectives or provide conditions which previously did not
exist, and which increase one or more aquatic functions.
Preservation - The protection of ecologically important wetlands or other aquatic
resources in perpetuity through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical
mechanisms.
The proposed wetland restoration sites within the FSB include 339 acres of prior
converted (PC) agricultural fields that are currently classified as non-wetlands. Out of
the 339 acres, 20.66 acres comprising a 100 ft wide corridor encompassing the proposed
Flat Swamp Creek restoration area will be withdrawn and will be included in Phase 11 of
this project (Figure 5). Phase II involves the restoration of the historic Flat Swamp Creek
channel. Total area for wetland restoration is 318.34 acres. Based on existing hydric
soils and examination of forest areas adjacent to these fields, all 339 acres were likely
jurisdictional wetlands prior to conversion. Our proposed actions will be directed at
restoring the character and function of previously existing wetlands and natural forested
community types on these fields.
15
The proposed wetland restoration measures include:
1. Filling and plugging approximately 2000 linear feet of primary and lateral ditches
at designated locations (Figure 5).
2. Stabilizing and vegetating permanent ditch plugs.
3. Preparation of the site using ripping and excavation of ephemeral pools.
4. Planting selected hardwoods and woody understory species to restore target
wetland community types
The proposed wetland enhancement measures include:
1. Filling and plugging primary and lateral ditches in and adjacent to forested
enhancement areas at designated locations (Figure 5).
2. Stabilizing and vegetating permanent ditch plugs.
4.1 Reference Plot Establishment:
Reference plots for the pine flatwoods, nonriverine wet hardwood forest and Coastal
Plain swamp (Phase II) community types will be located in undisturbed areas as close to
the FSB as possible. At least one reference plot will be located for each community type.
Adjacent lands will be evaluated with a preference for public trust lands. One reference
plot for each type will be located. Reference plots will be undisturbed and have no
ditching nearby that may influence their hydrologic status. Hydrologic characteristics of
reference stands will be monitored using shallow (< 20 inch) automatic recording wells
(daily data). The location of all proposed reference wells will be selected by the Triangle
Group and approved by the MBRT prior to data collection.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of this project will occur immediately after approval of the Final
Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). Assuming obtaining
approvals during the fall of 2000, fieldwork will commence immediately to locate
reference plots and install monitoring wells. Field data collection will begin concurrently
for the reference plots during the fall. Site preparation for planting the agricultural fields
will also occur during the fall; that is normally the dry season. Seedlings will be ordered
during the fall of 2000 in order to plant during the winter and early spring of 2001.
16
6.0 REGULATORY RELEASE
The FSB will be determined to be successful once wetland hydrology is established
within the restoration areas and the vegetation success criteria are met within restoration
and enhancement areas. Monitoring data will be collected for a period of 5 years or until
all success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer. Annual Reports will be submitted
to the MBRT prior to the end of each calendar year, documenting plant community
conditions within the restoration areas and documenting hydrologic data within the
restoration areas and reference plots. The Annual Report will also include a proposed
plan of action for the following year including maintenance activities and a contingency
plan.
6.1 Hydrologic Criteria:
Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well data
collected within the FSB project area and approved reference plots. Automatic recording
wells will be established within restoration areas at a density of 1 automatic well per 31.8
acres (10 wells total) and 2 wells located in the enhancement area. In addition, one
automatic recording well will be established in each reference stand (3 wells total). Daily
data will be collected from automatic wells throughout the year and over the 5-year
monitoring period.
Wetland hydrology will be established if well data from restoration areas compares
favorably with the wetland reference areas and also meets the Corps wetland hydrology
criteria.
6.2 Vegetation Criteria:
The success criteria for the preferred species in the restoration areas will be based on
annual survival and growth and cumulative survival and growth over 5 years. Survival of
preferred species must be at a minimum 300 stems/ac at the end of 5 years of monitoring.
Height growth must average 6.0 ft. Species composition will be compared with reference
stands and will be subject to review and approval by the MBRT. Average annual height
increment of preferred species will be 1.25 ft./yr over the 5-year monitoring period.
Determining sampling strategy for woody trees and shrubs depends on the size and
uniformity of the plants. The size and spacing of the trees determines plot size and
number of plots (Spurr, 1952). Larger trees whose density per acre is low require larger
plots while smaller trees whose density is higher per unit area are more accurately
assessed using smaller plots. The uniformity of vegetation is also a factor in sampling
design, where high variation in vegetative composition generally requires larger plot
sizes, while more uniform vegetation can be measured accurately with smaller plots
(Spurr, 1952). In addition, if competing vegetation is dense enough to impair visibility,
17
"LI Y "
-x' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
".
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY
y/Y

KERR T. STEVENS-
DIRECTOR 'S
S
V
.t 1`I-cI , -7 5,^?
lk? ?)O%qc . Ts 41-5 6t (',At c?rl.j *?

FAX COVER SHEET
TO: ??u dC ?? ul So
Fax number S oZ ?{o " s $ Z 3
FROM: TT?t..p4
Phone number l (?? 3 3 3
,t G
SUBJECT: t-?`? Su?oM(? ????7s?J 'J.JA
DATE: 10, 5. 00
Total of r;?, pages including cover sheet
Message: b VI-IL .
is
L of ?Me. ?(? "`)
t 4
DWQ/Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Phone Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
r
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY .. ?,•,;y

KERRT.STEVENS
DIRECTOR ,

FAX COVER SHEET
?f s ?
o ? L
TO : u
Fax number 3 Z.
fJ?
"
y
FROM:
A v
l S c,
- --tt
Phone number 3 3 ' f
SUBJECT:
DATE: w 5
Total of C? pages including cover sheet
Message: r

Lc-4 AA c C( ,?,..j

DWQ/Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Phone Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 30% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
ent -By -T!te Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Oct-11-00 10:56AM; Page 2/2
6.0 REGrTJT,ATORY RELEASE
The FSB will be determined to be successful once wetland hydrology is established
within the restoration areas and the vegetation success criteria are met within restoration
and enhanccmeut areas. Monitoring data will be collected for a period of 5 years or until
all success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer. Annual Reports will be submitted
to the MBRT prior to the end of each calendar year, documenting plaint community
conditions within the restoration areas and documenting hydrologic data within the
restoration areas and reference plots. The Annual Report will also include a proposed
plan of action for the following year including maintenance activities and a contingency
plan.
6.1 Hydrologic Criteria:
Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by autos atie recording gauge data
collected within the FSB project area and approved reference plats. Automatic recording
gauges will be established within restoration areas at a density of 1 automatic gauge per
31.8 acres (10 gauges total) and 2 gauges located in the enhancement area. In addition,
one automatic recording gauge will be established in each reference stand (3 gauges
total).
An effort will be made to identify reference wetland stands of younger age class to more
closely resemble the successional state of the restored area. Daily data will be collected
from automatic gauges throughout the year and over the 5-year monitoring period.
Wetland hydrology will be established if gauge data from;restored areas meets the
average growing; season hydroperiod (at a minimum) of the reference stands. Research
has shown that clear cuts provide less evapotranspiration than mature forested stands.
Therefore, it is reasoned that newly restored wetland sites may exhibit a, longer
jurisdictional hydroperiod its the growing season than the reference wetland (mature
forest) sites. Given that reasoning, to maintain hydrologic success,. the restored area will
not exceed a 125% increase in hydroperiod from the average reference wetland growing
season hydroperiod. For example, if the reference wetland growing season hydroperiod
is 8%, the restored area's hydroperiod for the same time frame could not exceed 18%.
Therefore, hydrologic success would be met if the rest )red area's growing season
hydroperiod is between 8-18%.
6.2 Vegetation Criteria:
The success criteria for the preferred species in the restoration areas will be based on
annual survival and growth and cumulative survival and growth over 5 years. Survival of
preferred species must be at a minimum 300 stems/ac at the end of 5 years of monitoring.
Height growth must average 6.0 fit. Species composition will be compared with reference
17
' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY 77

KERRT.STEVENs
DIRECTOR -
,y
FAX COVER SHEET
TO:

Fax number 2, -2- _ 13 `1 r1
FROM: a ?- T ?t (•??
SUBJECT:
Phone number CA t q, - ?3? _ i? 3 19
sviomli-4 qvjtd WAdic-,
DATE: 10 ` c 3 -6a
Total of oZ pages including cover sheet
Message:
cl t .s I ?uic s ? ? l?-y?
C f 'j Jig, bout cJ
_2
...:::..... ..
v
Tsjj C.
Qv 46 t b-il k G.r (L4 Ah
I k.0., 4 r
u-c c
DWQ/Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Phone Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SO% RECYCLEO/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
HE TRIANGLE GROUP
October 27, 2000
MEMO
To: Dave Lekson
From: Doug Frederick
Subject: Flat Swamp Plan Revisions
t'
Attached is the revised Hydrological Success Criteria (p. 17) plus the new title page for
the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank Plan. I have also attached pages 18-22 which
changed as result of the revisions. This should complete the Final Plan.
I assume you will send copies of these pages to all MBRT members so they can replace
the old pages. I am also enclosing extra copies of the title page so everyone can have
originals for their agency copy.
I will send Mac a copy of these pages directly to facilitate the NCDWQ signature on the
MBI.
Thanks again for your help.
CC: Mr. Mac Haupt, WRP
NEW JERSEY NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q16 Research Building 1 P.O. Box 551
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Centennial Campus New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
[phone] • Fax: [phone] Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
[phone] • Fax: [phone]

HE TRIANGLE GROUP
THE FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK
PHASE I - FINAL PLAN
Nonriverine Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
Craven County, North Carolina
Prepared By:
AHE TRIANGLE GROUP
1001 Capability Drive
Research Building #1- Suite 312
Centennial Campus
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
SO
October 27, 2000
NEW JERSEY NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q16 Research Building 1 P.O. Box 551
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Centennial Campus New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
[phone] 0 Fax: [phone] Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] 0 Fax: [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
[phone] 0 Fax: [phone]
6.0 REGULATORY RELEASE
The FSB will be determined to be successful once wetland hydrology is established
within the restoration areas and the vegetation success criteria are met within restoration
and enhancement areas. Monitoring data will be collected for a period of 5 years or until
all success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer. Annual Reports will be submitted
to the MBRT prior to the end of each calendar year, documenting plant community
conditions within the restoration areas and documenting hydrologic data within the
restoration areas and reference plots. The Annual Report will also include a proposed
plan of action for the following year including maintenance activities and a contingency
plan.
6.1 Hydrologic Criteria:
The hydrologic success criteria for this bank will be met if gauge data from the
restoration areas indicates that the site is saturated within 12 inches of the surface or
inundated for a minimum of 8% of the growing season under normal conditions.
Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording gauge data
collected within the FSB project area and approved reference plots. Automatic recording
gauges will be established within restoration areas at a density of 1 automatic gauge per
31.8 acres (10 gauges total) and 2 gauges located in the enhancement area. In addition,
one automatic recording gauge will be established in each reference stand (3 gauges
total). Additionally, the Bank Sponsor will make an effort to identify reference wetland
stands of a younger age class to more closely resemble the successional state of the
restored area. Daily data will be collected from automatic gauges throughout the year
and over the 5-year monitoring period.
6.2 Vegetation Criteria:
The success criteria for the preferred species in the restoration areas will be based on
annual survival and growth and cumulative survival and growth over 5 years. Survival of
preferred species must be at a minimum 300 stems/ac at the end of 5 years of monitoring.
Height growth must average 6.0 ft. Species composition will be compared with reference
stands and will be subject to review and approval by the MBRT. Average annual height
increment of preferred species will be 1.25 ft./yr over the 5-year monitoring period.
Determining sampling strategy for woody trees and shrubs depends on the size and
uniformity of the plants. The size and spacing of the trees determines plot size and
number of plots (Spurr, 1952). Larger trees whose density per acre is low require larger
plots while smaller trees whose density is higher per unit area are more accurately
assessed using smaller plots. The uniformity of vegetation is also a factor in sampling
design, where high variation in vegetative composition generally requires larger plot
sizes, while more uniform vegetation can be measured accurately with smaller plots
17
(Spurr, 1952). In addition, if competing vegetation is dense enough to impair visibility,
then inaccuracy is introduced into sampling due to missed trees with larger plot sizes
(Avery and Burkehart, 1994). While it is not uncommon in the forest industry to use
small plots to evaluate plantation survival and growth, one-tenth acre plots are
appropriate for evaluating survival and growth at the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank.
Sampling intensity is determined by the precision deemed appropriate for the estimate.
The allowable error of the estimate must be determined by those parties interested
(MBRT). Several factors can contribute to error in the estimate including plot size,
vegetation size, density and uniformity. There are statistical formulas for determining
sampling intensity for a desired allowable error, based on the standard error of the mean
of the sampled population. In order to determine the number of plots needed for the
agreed-upon accuracy of the survival and growth estimate, we propose initially that 50,
one-tenth acre plots be randomly installed at the end of the first growing season on
transects in the planted area to determine the standard error of the mean of the sampled
population. An assessment can then be made as to whether or not an acceptable accurate
estimate of survival and growth has been obtained from the data or whether more plots
are needed. The final number of permanent one tenth acre plots will be determined by
the degree of precision deemed appropriate by the MBRT for the survival and growth
estimate, based on the variability inherent in the vegetation. The following data will be
collected at each plot after the first growing season and each year for 4 additional years or
longer if directed by the MBRT: number of individuals by species, height, basal area (if
applicable), and estimated percent cover of all planted species. We propose that 2, one-
tenth acre plots be established in the enhancement area to characterize this forested area.
In addition, we propose to establish a minimum of 3, one-tenth acre plots in the reference
areas. These data will be collected annually to assess vegetation survivability and
development.
7.0 CREDIT TOTAL AND RELEASE SCHEDULE
The proposed credit value and release schedule for the FSB are based on recent
agreements among State and Federal agencies following meetings in April 1999.
As result of those meetings, consensus was reached on wetland credit values and release
of credits for mitigation banks in North Carolina. The combination of mitigation types is
dependent on the specific bank site and the combination of restoration, enhancement and
preservation acres present on a given bank site.
A RESTORATION CREDIT CAN BE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1 acre of restoration plus 4 acres of enhancement (5 acres total)
or
18 /
1 acre of restoration plus 10 acres of preservation (11 acres total)
or
2 acres of restoration (2 acres total)
All of the above combinations satisfy the State of North Carolina requirement of a
minimum of 1 restoration acre be used to mitigate for each acre of wetland impact.
The FSB contains 339 acres of restoration (318.34 acres - Nonriverine Wet Pine
Flatwoods and Wet Hardwood Forest and 20.66 acres - Riverine Small Coastal Plain
Stream Swamp 1.1 PLUS 47 acres of enhancement (Nonriverine). Using the formula
suggested by the NCWRP for determining wetland credits, the following is calculated:
Restoration (R) = 318.34 acres
Enhancement (E) = 47 acres
Number of Credits = R/2 + (E/4R * R/2) = 318.34 / 2 + (47 / (4 * 318.34) * 318.34 /2)
= 159.17 + (.037 * 159.17) =165.05 credits
Therefore, given the number of credits (165.05), the nonriverine credit makeup for
Phase I of the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank is as follows:
1 credit = 1.93 acres of restoration and 0.285 acres of enhancement
318.34 acres restoration / 165.05 total credits = 1.93 acres or restoration / credit
47 acres of enhancement / 165.05 total credits = 0.285 acres of enhancement / credit
TOTAL AREA IN THE FSB = 386 acres
" The Riverine Small Coastal Plain Stream Swamp area (20.66 acres) will be excluded
from the nonriverine wetland restoration project and will be included in Phase II -
Restoration of Flat Swamp Creek which includes an estimated 9000 feet of stream
channel and 50 feet on either side of the channel (9000 ft. X 100 ft. = 20.66 acres)
proposed for use as Neuse River Buffer credits. This area will be subject to the
conservation easement for Phase I of the project.
19
Wetland mitigation credits will be released according to the schedule outlined
below:
Milestone Percent
Release Credits
MBRT approval of Mitigation Plan, execution of MBI
and recordation of conservation easement 15% 24.76
Following Implementation and Year 1 monitoring and
MBRT approval of Annual Report 10% 16.51
Following Year 2 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual Report 10% 16.51
Following Year 3 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual Report 10% 16.51
Following Year 4 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual report 15% 24.76
Following Year 5 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual Report 15% 24.76
Final Approval 25% 41.24
TOTAL: 100% 165.05
20
8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Avery, T. E. and H.E. Burkhart. 1994. Forest Measurements. Fourth Edition, McGraw-
Hill, Inc. New York
Brinson, M.M., A.E.Lugo and S. Brown. 1981 Primary Productivity, Decomposition and
Consumer Activity in freshwater Wetlands. Ann. Rev. Syst. 12:123-161.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program, Tech
Rpt. WRP-DE-4, 79pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Services Program, Biological Rpt. FWS/OBS-79/31, 103 pp.
Crowover, S.H., N.B. Comerford, D.G. Neary and J. Montgomery. 1995. Horizontal
Groundwater Flow Patterns Through a Cypress Swamp-Pine Flatwoods
Landscape. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 59:1199-1206.
Dunne, Thomas, and Luna B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H.
Freeman and Company, San Franciso, California. 815 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Exp. Sta.,
Vicksburg, MS.
Federal Register. 1995. Federal Guidance for Establishment, Use and Operation of
Mitigation Banks, Federal Register, 60(43): 12286-12293.
Engstrom, R.T. 1993. Characteristic Mammals and Birds of Longleaf Pine Forests. Proc.
18th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf. S.M. Hermann (ed): The Longleaf Pine
Ecosystem: Ecology, Restoration and Management, Tall Timbers Res. Inc.
Tallahassee, FL.
Guyer, C. and M.A. Bailey. 1993. Amphibians and Reptiles of Longleaf Pine
Communities. Proc. 18`h Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf., S.M. Hermann (ed):
Harms, W.R., W. M. Aust, and J.A. Burger. 1998. Wet Flatwoods. pp. 421-444, In:
M. G. Messina and W. H. Conner (eds), Southern Forested Wetlands: Ecology
and Management, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fl, 610 pp.
Loeb, S.C. and M.R. Lennartz. 1989. The Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger) in Southeastern
Pine-Hardwood Forests. In: T.A. Waldrop (ed), Proc. Of Pine-Hardwood
Mixtures: A Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type. U.S.D.A. For
Serv. Southeastern For Exp. Sta, Gen Tech. Rpt. SE-58, Asheville, NC
21
Maki, T.E. A.J. Weber, D.W. Hazel, S.C. Hunter, B.T. Hyberg, D.M. Flinchum, J.P.
Lollis, J.B. Rognstad and J.D. Gregory. 1980. Effect of Stream Channelization on
Bottomland and Swamp Forest Ecosystems. NC Water Res. Res. Instit. Rpt. 147.
Mulholland, P.J. 1981. Organic Flow in a Swamp Stream Ecosystem. Ecol. Mono.
51(3): 307-322.
Reddy, K.R. and W.H. Patrick. 1975. Effect of Alternate Aerobic and Anaerobic
Conditions on Redox Potential, Organic Matter Decomposition and Nitrogen Loss
in a Flooded Soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 7:87-94.
Schaflale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. N C Nat. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks and
Rec., Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Res., Raleigh, NC, 325 pp.
Sharp, T. 1998. The Sandhills Quail Mystery. Wildlife in North Carolina, 62(2): 9-12.
Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam and J.S. Barnes. 1980. Effect of Agricultural Land
Development on Drainage Waters in the North Carolina Tidewater Region.
Water Res. Res. Inst. Rpt. 159, Raleigh, NC
Skaggs, R.W., D.M. Amatya, R.O. Evans and J.E. Parsons. 1991. Methods for Evaluating
Wetland Hydrology. Paper No. 912590 Presented at the ASAE International
Winter Meeting, Chicago IL, Dec 1991.
Spurr, S. H. 1952. Forest Inventory. Roland Press, New York.
Still, H.R. and D.P. Baumann. 1989. Wild Turkey Activities in relation to Timber Types
on the Francis Marion National Forest. In: T.A. Waldrop (ed), Proc. Pine-
Hardwood Mixtures; A Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type.
U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., SE For Exp. Sta., Gen Tech. Rpt. SE-58, Asheville, NC
U.S.D.A. 1989. Soil Survey of Craven County, N C. Soil Conser. Serv., 157 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1975. State of North Carolina Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974.
U.S Dep. of Interior., U.S. Geological Survey in Cooperation with the U.S. Water
Res. Council, Reston VA.
Walker, J. and R.K. Peet. 1983. Composition and Species Diversity of Pine-Wiregrass
Savannas of the Green Swamp, North Carolina. Vegetatio 55:163-179.
WRP. 1993. Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Eng Waterways Exp. Sta., Wetland Res. Prog. Tech. Note HY-IA-3.1, 14 pp.
22

NCD
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
KERR T.? STEVENS
DIRECTOR
,t
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY.
November 3, 2000
Mr. David Lekson
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Lekson:
Subject: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream
Restoration Bank
Action ID No. 199911312
Craven County
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed the final Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI) for the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration
Bank and has determined that it may be acceptable as compensatory mitigation for
impacts to non-riparian wetlands within the designated service area. Enclosed with
this letter is the signature page for the MBI.
Although I have signed the MBI, I would like to relay concerns that staff has
with this proposal. I am offering these comments so that the Corps of Engineers and
other members of the Mitigation Banking Review Team will be informed of the
position that the Division has concerning these matters when reviewing future
proposals to establish mitigation banks.
Hydrological performance criteria: The Division does not support using a
percentage of the growing season as a measure to judge whether the
hydrology of a wetland has been restored. Rather, the Division prefers
comparison of the restored system to the reference wetland system to
determine if the hydrology has been restored.
As is the case with all mitigation banks, the Division's approval of the use of
the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank will be made on a
case-by-case basis during the review of the 401 Water Quality Certification. If you
have any questions concerning these comments please contact Mac Haupt at (919)
733-5314. Also, please send a copy of the signed MBI with all agency signatures to
Mr. Haupt for our records.
Since -'
K/ vens /
cc: John Domey -DWQ 401/Wetlands Unit
Deborah Sawyer -DWQ Washington Regional Office _
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
1619 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1 6 1 9
website: h2o.enr.state.mus PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank - Final Mitigation
Banking Instrument
/r ? o v
Kerr T. teve s D de
Director Division of Water Quality
NC - Department of Environment and Natural Resources

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
JAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN,
SECRETARY
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Kerr T. Stevens /
4 ?
Ron Ferrell ?'
Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream
Restoration Bank
KERB T. STEVENS DATE:
DIRECTOR
November 3, 2000
Attached is the signature page of the final Mitigation Banking
Instrument for the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration
Bank in Craven County and a transmittal letter to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. I have coordinated the review of this proposal with the
Wetlands/401 Unit and the Washington Regional Office and they concur
that the proposed bank will provide acceptable mitigation for the loss of
non-riparian wetlands. Your signature on this document only means that it
can be considered as compensatory mitigation. Use of the bank for a
particular permit must be approved as during the 401 Water Quality
Certification review process.
If you have any questions concerning the Mitigation Banking
Instrument or the review and approval process I am available at your
convenience to discuss. Otherwise, please sign the signature page and the
transmittal letter as indicated and return to me.
cc: John Dorney -DWQ 401/Wetlands Unit
Deborah Sawyer -DWQ Washington Regional Office

WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
1619 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1 6 1 9
website: h2o.enr.state.mus PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN,
SECRETARY
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Kerr T. Stevens
FROM: Ron Ferrell-
SUBJECT: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream
Restoration Bank
DATE: November 3, 2000
Attached is the signature page of the final Mitigation Banking
Instrument for the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration
Bank in Craven County and a transmittal letter to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. I have coordinated the review of this proposal with the
Wetlands/401 Unit and the Washington Regional Office and they concur
that the proposed bank will provide acceptable mitigation for the loss of
non-riparian wetlands. Your signature on this document only means that it
can be considered as compensatory mitigation. Use of the bank for a
particular permit must be approved as during the 401 Water Quality
Certification review process.
If you have any questions concerning the Mitigation Banking
Instrument or the review and approval process I am available at your
convenience to discuss. Otherwise, please sign the signature page and the
transmittal letter as indicated and return to me.
cc: John Dorney -DWQ 401/Wetlands Unit
Deborah Sawyer -DWQ Washington Regional Office

WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
1619 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1 6 1 9
website: h2o.enr.state.nc.us PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
NC " ENR
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR --
'BILLHOLMAN
SECRETARY
KERR.T. STEVENS
DIRECTOR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
November 3, 2000
Mr. David Lekson
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Lekson:
Subject: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream
Restoration Bank
Action ID No. 199911312
Craven County
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed the final Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI) for the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration
Bank and has determined that it may be acceptable as compensatory mitigation for
impacts to non-riparian wetlands within the designated service area. Enclosed with
this letter is the signature page for the MBI.
Although I have signed the MBI, I would like to relay concerns that staff has
with this proposal. I am offering these comments so that the Corps of Engineers and
other members of the Mitigation Banking Review Team will be informed of the
position that the Division has concerning these matters when reviewing future
proposals to establish mitigation banks.
Hydrological performance criteria: The Division does not support using a
percentage of the growing season as a measure to judge whether the
hydrology of a wetland has been restored. Rather, the Division prefers
comparison of the restored system to the reference wetland system to
determine if the hydrology has been restored.
As is the case with all mitigation banks, the Division's approval of the use of
the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank will be made on a
case-by-case basis during the review of the 401 Water Quality Certification. If you
have any questions concerning these comments please contact Mac Haupt at (919)
733-5314. Also, please send a copy of the signed MBI with all agency signatures to
Mr. Haupt for our records.
i
Sincerely,
Kerr T. Stevens
cc: John Domey -DWQ 401/Wetlands Unit
Deborah Sawyer -DWQ Washington Regional Office
t?
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
1619 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1619
website: h2o.enr.state.mus PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank - Final Mitigation
Banking Instrument
Ken T. Stevens Date
Director Division of Water Quality
NC - Department of Environment and Natural Resources
f
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
IN REPLY REFER TO
November 7, 2000
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 199911312
r No?
Dear M/4aupt:
This correspondence is in reference to the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream
Restoration Bank that is being developed by the Triangle Group on a 386 acre tract of land
located off of Dover Road, near the community of Dover, adjacent to Flat Swamp, in Craven
County, North Carolina. Also reference our conversations regarding review of the mitigation
plan for this project. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the final portions of this
plan.
Specifically, I have enclosed a new title page and the revised pages 17-22 of the subject
mitigation plan. With the replacement of these pages, I now consider the mitigation plan for the
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank entitled, Phase I - Final Plan for Nonriverine Wetland Restoration
and Enhancement, dated October 27, 2000, to be complete.
Thank you again for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact
me at the Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 22.
Sincerely,
kk .
David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Chief, Washington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure
RECEIVED
NOV 16 2000
NC WETLANDS
RESTORATI01A
Y,,
-2-
DISTRIBUTION:
Copies Furnished (with enclosure):
Mrs. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Howard Hall
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Mac Haupt
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626
Mrs. Kelly Williams
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
$1 k`,
-3-
Mr. Bennett Wynne
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
901 Laroque Avenue -
Kinston, North Carolina 28501
Copy furnished (w/o encl):
Dr. Douglas I Frederick
Triangle Group
1001 Capability Drive, Suite 312, Research 1
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
i66
I,- it
Mr. David Lekson
Manager-Washington Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, Corp of Engineers
P. O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889
Re: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration MBI, Phase I
Restoration and Enhancement Plan
Dear Mr. Lekson,
This letter is in response to The Triangle Group's November 24, 1999 letter, the
December 1999 version of the Flat Swamp Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI), and
the Phase I Restoration Plan. Prior to the issuance of the above MBI, the Division of
Water Quality had expressed concerns over several issues related to Phase I
implementation, namely:
1. the use of flashboard risers for controlling on-site hydrology,
2. the practice of bedding the vegetation,
3. recommended vegetation success criteria,
4. recommended hydrology success criteria, and
5. projected construction and maintenance costs.
All of these issues will be covered in this letter related to the recent proposals by The
Triangle Group.
Comments on the NMI
The first issue the Division would like to address is the calculation of Bank credits
in Item #27. The MBI proposed 318.34 restoration acres and 47 acres of enhancement.
The Division of Water Quality calculated the same number of credits as the bank sponsor
(165.05), however, the method by which this number was arrived was different. There is
an important distinction here because the method affects the makeup of the credit. The
Division has displayed our method below.
Using Formula #2 from your May 5, 1999 memorandum the calculations are as
follows:
Restoration (R)= 318.34 acres
Enhancement (E)= 47 acres
# of credits = R/2 + (EAR * R/2) = 318.34/2 + (47/(4*318.34) * 318.34/2)
= 159.17 + (037 * 159.17) = 165.05 credits.
Therefore, given the number of credits (165.05), the credit makeup for Phase I of the Flat
Swamp Bank is as follows:
1 credit =1.93 acres of restoration and .285 acres of enhancement
318.34 acres restoration / 165.05 total credits = 1.93 acres restoration per credit
47 acres enhancement / 165.05 total credits = .285 acres enhancement per credit
Included in Item #27 is the starred (*) line, " 9000 credits (linear feet) including the Flat
Swamp creek channel". The Division of Water Quality does not endorse the presence of
9000 linear feet of stream restoration this project.
The Division would like clarification on the first sentence in Item #29. In
addition, the Division would not agree to the presale of 15% of the stream credits upon
signature of this MBI without a Final Stream Restoration Plan approved.
The construction costs listed in Appendix D for Phase I of the wetland restoration
are different (significantly lower) than the costs reported in the August version of the
MBI. The Division supports the construction costs ($295,600) for the wetland
restoration in the August version.
Comments on the Mitigation Plan
In Section 3.1 Proposed Actions, the bank sponsors propose to permanently plug
ditches. However, in Figure 3, the photo shows two areas where flash-board risers are to
be installed. Was this figure left-over from an old version? The Division's impression
was that only permanent ditch plugs were to be installed.
Section 3.1.3 discusses the plant communities and the proposed actions for
bedding the planted vegetation. The Division is not in favor of bedding the vegetation,
however, we do feel that the crown should be removed from the fields and the fields
should be ripped as planned. Certainly it is desirable to have microtography on the
restored wetland site. The ripping of the fields in addition to removing the crown will
likely produce significant microtopography. However, the desired microtography should
mimic the microtopograhy found in the reference wetland stands.
The Division of Water Quality believes that the hydrologic success criteria
should be based on a comparison between the reference wetland and the restored site.
The bank sponsors have proposed for their hydrologic success criteria a minimum
growing season of 8% for these wetland types. While the Division feels this growing
season (8%) is more in line with the true hydroperiod of these wetlands, the Division
would rather the sponsors pattern their success criteria on the reference wetland.
In addition, the Division recommends that the sponsor utilize at least 10 automatic
recording wells for the 318 acres of non-riverine wetland restoration, and at least 2
automatic recording wells in the enhancement area. The Division approves of utilizing
three automatic wells for the reference sites.
The vegetative success criteria covered in Section 6.2 offers annual survival and
growth and cumulative survival and growth over 5 years. The cumulative growth criteria
are standard vegetative success criteria with the survival of 300 stems per acre "preferred
species" and the average height after 5 years is equal to at least 6 feet. The species
composition was left open for later determination by the MBRT. The Division approves
the above criteria for vegetative success, however, how will success be measured after
each monitoring year? Are all stems to average 1.25 feet per year? The Division
recommends the sponsor measure basal area with calipers to measure growth in addition
to average height.
The monitoring scheme which the sponsor's offer includes sampling 25. 1 -acre
plots. This translates to sampling.7% of the site. The Division recommends 25 .3-acre
plots for a sampling total of 2.2% of the site. This would only increase the sampling
radius from 37 feet to 52 feet. What about measuring success for year one? Aside from
survivability, what should be the allowable limits for growth? The sponsor has left the
matter to the MBRT and the Division feels the issue should be resolved before planting
the site.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Mac Haupt
Implementation Coordinator
Wetlands Restoration Program
HE TRIANGLE GROUP
June 3, 1999
MEMO
To: David Lekson, Chairman
and MBRT Members
From: Doug Frederick ?6
Subject: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank
Attached are the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank
Conceptual Plan and MBI for your review. This proposed Mitigation Bank is located in
the Neuse River Watershed (Hydrologic Unit 03020202) on Flat Swamp Creek near
Dover, NC. The project site, which is primarily prior converted (PC) agricultural fields,
is a prime candidate for wetland and stream restoration and when completed, will have a
major impact on improving water quality in Flat Swamp Creek and ultimately the Neuse
River. We feel very good about this project and hope you will likewise see its' merits.
In the interest of moving the review and approval process forward as quickly as possible,
we are providing you with a very detailed Conceptual Plan and an MBI. Based on our
experience with other Bank projects, we know the detail you and the other MBRT
Members expect. However, we also understand that there is considerable more work to
be done before final approval of either the Plan or MBI. At this point, we need your
critical review and suggestions so we can make necessary suggestions and produce a final
MBI ready for signatures. We want this to be a good project that everyone can endorse.
Dave Lekson has tentatively set Tuesday, July 13 as a date for the first MBRT Meeting
for this project. Dave indicated he would confirm the date, time and location with
everyone. The location for the meeting has not been set, but may include a site visit as
part of the meeting. Some MBRT members have seen the site but most have not.
Between now and the MBRT Meeting, we would be glad to give anyone a tour of the site
if requested. Also, please give us your input on the Plan or MBI at any time.
We are looking forward to showing you this project site and getting your comments.
Sincerely,
The Triangle Group
NEW JERSEY NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q24 Research Building 1 P.O. Box 551
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Centennial Campus New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
[phone] 0 Fax: [phone] Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] 0 Fax: [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
[phone] 0 Fax: [phone]
THU 14:43 ID: TEL NO:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVXROWENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FAQ' T RANSMISSIOIV
Date
Office Mcs u - ires
Fax# 515 (.o I CL3
From #Pages (including cover sheet)
Comments: ?1?u? - 1'Cle 7`l?leSe l?' r. - Wi 7l

hP In n n it fn C li it .l .,? , -fY)e ?Yl F"/ d,

#?39 P01 i
t

nn Vo I u n +
iil
a
. L(AR=r' bk
next- L 6ye Sorr
bn -
`Iha, VI IBS f Vej I? ro
P. O. Box 27687,Raleigh,NC 27611-7687/2728 Capital Blvd, Raleigh,NC 27604
PHONE 9X9-733-2293 FAX [phone]

N/M01+
t)
- ---k-JUL-01-'99 THU 14:44 ID: TEL N0: #739 P02
July 2, 1999
David Lekson, P.W.S.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Dear P?t;

e.
z

CAJWA
As you know, I have had a trip scheduled for the week of July 12" for several months. Coastal Management is
interviewing fellowship applicants for a Coastal Services Center intem to work at DCM for two years. This;
"matching workshop" is an important step in the process and both members of our Raleigh wetland staff, Jim
Stanfill and myself. are attending. I have, therefore, read through the Conceptual Plan for the Flat Swamp
Mitigation Bank and am providing a few comments on it and the MBI. I hope to be able to work in a site visit
before the next MBRT meeting and again, I apologize for being unavailable for this one. Please make sure I get
on the list for meeting minutes when they are ready.
This site is mapped as a potential restoration site on DCKs Potential Restoration Site maps and has a habitat
type shown as "wet flats" which encompasses both hardwood and pine flat communities. I think the small
stream swamp also can fit in well with the restored stream channel. It also shows up as a non-wetland area on
our wetland type maps. These maps are for informational purposes only and, though they cannot be used to
delineate wetlands, they have been shown to be relatively accurate.
Comments on the MSS
This MBI is very much like others written by the Sponsor in the past. I have only a few comments and
questions. These comments also include some from our legal counsel, Mary Penny Thompson, in the office of
the Attorney General. She may submit additional comments before the MBRT'meeting.
Item 20: Does the word "climactic" refer to conditions at maturity/climax or to cli tic conditions related to
climate and weather? I am assuming the former.
Item 23: Both references to the Hydrologic Unit number here should be the same, 03020202, 1 think.
Reference to an adjacent HU, 03020204 is made later in the paragraph. This should be corrected.
General: Has there ever been any discussion about hydrologic trespass or any other off-site adverse impact
from a Mitigation Bank and possible lawsuit against both the Sponsor and the MBRT? I think the Sponsor
understands the risk involved in altering a site's hydrology and would be prepared to accept the responsibility
for any off-site impacts should any occur. The MBRT by virtue of approving a plan may find itself sued for this
by a disgruntled landowner and though it may not hold up in court it would be a hassle. I may be overly
North Caroltaa Department of Environment and Natural Resourees Jamas B. Aunt Jr., Covemor • Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Division of Coastal Management Donna D. Mofflu, Director
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina Z7611•7687 • Phone [phone] - http://d=2,cw.stdtc.nc,u3
I
I ?.
k -JUL-01-'99
r# ? iM
i
THU 14:44 ID:
TEL NO:
#?39 P03 1_

cautious and showing my ignorance of legal issues by asking for some discussion on this, but I would appreciate
any response Brooke Lamson might have regarding this matter. Again. this may not even be an issue, since the
MSRT is not actually performing any site modifications.
Mitigation plan
Typographical errors: Woodwardia areo/ata and Osmunda cinnamomea are spelled incorrectly on page 8.
These spellings are according to Radford, era/.
i
f
i;
y
f
a.
l
I i
The final plan should include a Table of Contents as well as a guide to the figures included in the plan. This
makes discussions of the plan in meetings much easier and more efficient. Also, page 4 shows the site on the
Dover USGS quad. It appears from DCM's maps that the site may in fact be on the Fort Barnwell and Cove
City Quads.
General:
The Sponsor has done a good job explaining the ecological functions lost due to agricultural conversion and fire
exclusion on this site in section 2,4. Section 2.4.1 focuses on hydrology and water quality and would be more
complete with some discussion of habitat functions. Implementation of this plan will surely provide habitat
improvements over these several hundred acres so it should at least be mentioned in this section.
I do not have any problems with the proposed credit release schedule or credit ratios at this time. I think some
thought should be given to having different hydrologic success criteria for the Coastal Plain small stream swamp
than for the pine and hardwood flats. I am not sure these wetland communities would necessarily be flooded
for different durations during the growing season, i.e., they may all indeed be saturated within a foot of the
surface for 8% of the growing season, though at different times, but we will need some sort of evidence of the
rivenne aspect associated with the small stream swamp to give riverine credit. The small stream swamp
communities in the Coastal Plain tend to have different flooding frequencies than wet flats and are gencr-ally
"seasonally hooded." They flood pretty frequently for varying durations depending on the frequency of rainfall
events, Wet pine flats, on the other hand, may become quite dry at times, but are considered "seasonally
saturated." The sponsor should give some thought as to how the hydrologic regimes of the riverine and flat
systems will be distinguished. It's clear they will have different plant species, but the MBRT should also be
shown the riverine and non. riverine hydrologic characteristics in the swamp and flats respectively. I am not
proposing the small stream swamp meet any particular flooding frequency or timing since little is known about
the spec&c hydrologic regimes of these communities, let alone restored ones. Rather, I think it's worth putting
some effort into monitoring in such a way that shows the riverine and non-riverine regimes. The hydrologic
success criteria should reflect these differences.
The use of the Compensatory Mitigation Checklist is appreciated and I find it useful as a quick reference for the
bank. This Conceptual Plan is well-written and well-thought-out. It is clear that the Sponsor realizes advance
planning is better for the overall banking process, I appreciate the effort that has gone into this preliminary
document. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kelly Williams
Wetland Restoration Specialist

Am
J .
lw
l
V N

HE TRIANGLE GROUP

MBRT MEETING MINUTES
Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank
?q Craven County, North Carolina
'CO July 13, 1999
Present: David Lekson, USACOE, Howard Hall USFWS, Mac Haupt, NCDWQ, Brad
Shaver, NCDWQ (Washington Regional Office), Tracy Rice, USFWS, Jon Ann Shearer,
USFWS and Doug Frederick, TTG.
Dave Lekson opened the meeting with an introduction and a suggested meeting protocol.
Doug Frederick gave an overview of the project and introductory details including: site
location, ownership, objectives, current status and relationship to adjacent properties.
Dave Lekson outlined the critical issues to be considered, and to reach consensus on,
during the meeting including:
- Credit composition
- Number of credits available
- General Service Area (GSA)
- Final disposition of the property
- Financial assurances
- Accounting procedures
First discussions involved project management strategies, which D. Lel?son suggested,
should go into the Final Mitigation Plan. Also to be included in the Final Plan should be a
Monitoring Section, which is currently referred to in the MBI, plus reference areas which
should be described and located.
Howard Hall opened a discussion on year-by-year monitoring performance criteria for
vegetation. There currently are no annual quantitative criteria for vegetation
performance. Frederick suggested that the 5-year performance goal for vegetation
including survival and height growth be used as a basis for annual reporting. The MBRT
has the opportunity each year to review the Annual Report and to make a judgment
whether the project is on an "acceptable trajectory for success". Each MBRT Member
can make an annual evaluation of success and vote accordingly. If the MBRT decides
NEW JERSEY NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q24 Research Building 1 P.O. Box 551
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Centennial Campus New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
[phone] • Fax: [phone] Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] 0 Fax: [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
[phone] • Fax: [phone]
that performance is less than expected performance, then credit sales can be suspended or
remedial action can be recommended.
Another related issue discussed was the size and distribution of sample plots for
vegetation. Frederick stated that the distribution and number of plots was related to
vegetative diversity on the site and the size of the vegetation being sampled. Tree
survival and height growth were good measures of success plus basal diameter up
through age 3 followed by diameter at breast height when the stems reached 2-3 inches in
diameter. Each site will be different and seedlings and young trees will require a smaller
sample plot compared to larger trees. The MBRT made no new recommendations on
vegetative monitoring.
Sponsor is proposing that flashboard risers be used to temporarily control site hy&ology
while planted seedlings become established. Lekson stated that monitoring for hydrology
typically does not begin until "permanent" hydrological modifications are in place. Other
MBRT participants argued that flashboards would allow the Sponsor to control water
levels and prevent widespread mortality in planted seedlings. No consensus was reached
on this issue. Lekson and Haupt will provide Sponsor with more guidance on this issue
following internal discussions. In all cases, Lekson maintains that there will be 5 years of
monitoring prior to final release.
The MBRT reached consensus on the General Service Area (GSA) for the project:
which is the Middle Neuse Hydrologic Unit (03020202).
The MBRT reached consensus on the number of credits for the project at 175.38 as
proposed in the Plan.
The Sponsor and NCDWQ calculated the total number of credits independently with the
same number resulting. According to Haupt, each credit from this bank would equal 1.93
acres of restoration plus 0.27 acres of enhancement. Sponsor must decide whether to use
the buffer area near the proposed restored stream channel as wetland credits or as buffer
credits. This decision could potentially affect the total number of credits from the
project. Sponsor will decide this and make appropriate changes in the MBI and Plan in
the next revision. Haupt will provide the Sponsor with additional guidance from
NCWRP on this issue.
Haupt questioned whether there was 6100 ft of potential stream restoration in the project.
His opinion was that there was less potential stream restoration length but that a field
visit would be beneficial in making a final determination. A field tour is scheduled for
Thursday, August 12, 1999 at the Dover post Office at 10 AM. All MBRT Member are
invited to attend this tour. In the meantime, it was suggested that the Sponsor provide
additional details and justification for the stream corridor length and location via historic
aerial photos, determining the drainage area, runoff estimates, infiltration rates for soils
on site, annual precipitation and the preparation of a water budget.
Haupt suggested that the Final Plan include details on stream design, cross sections,
stream classification, and inclusion of a reference stream if possible. Haupt will send
Sponsor the latest Guidelines from NCWRP to help in finalizing the Plan. MBRT
suggested that the restored stream segments be referred to a "headwater stream
restoration". The MBRT voted to table the requested stream length (6100 ft) and
restoration credits pending additional data collection and the field tour of the site.
Bennett Wynn suggested that an addition to Item 27 in the MBI be added to state that the
stream restoration credits be used only for "same" order streams being impacted.
The MBRT reached consensus on the release of credits as proposed under Item 30
in the MBI.
The MBRT did not reach consensus on the property disposition issue and requests
that Sponsor propose a more specific recipient(s) or holder of an easement. The
Dover Bay Mitigation Project is adjacent to the Flat Swamp Site and information on the
disposition of that property may be helpful in deciding a final owner, Lekson suggested
that David Franklin be contacted re: the Dover Bay disposition. Sponsor stated that it
would provide this information to the MBRT prior to the August 12 field tour.
Estimated costs in Appendix D were discussed with Haupt stating that he thought these
cost were low. Mac will provide Sponsor with cost data from the WRP that can be used
to modify these cost figures.
MBRT suggested that micro topography additions including ephemeral ponds, swales
and other roughness features be added to increase habitat diversity. Sponsor agreed to
consider adding such features in the Plan.
Overall, this project was well received by the MBRT. The consensus was that the
remaining issues could be addressed prior to or after the field tour and that the MBI could
be signed at that time.
Upon hearing no further discussion, Dave Lekson adjourned the meeting at 3:30 PM.
y ??u
E TRIANGLE GROUP

August 13, 1999
MEMO
cENED
AUG 16 ,1999)
To: Dave Lekson and MBRT Members
From: Doug Frederick 91 t'?
Subject: Flat Swamp Field Tour
NC WETLAN®'S
REDS TORATION
We would like to thank everyone for his or her comments and input during the field tour
of the Flat Swamp Wetland and Stream Mitigation site on Thursday, August 12. Your
comments were constructive and will be helpful as we revise the MBI and Plan.
I am enclosing a substitute page for the MBI (Item 30) that corrects the Stream Buffer
column. We gave you the corrected figures on Thursday but the enclosed page is a more
presentable version.
We would appreciate your comments on the materials we gave you on Thursday and any
additional items you want included in the final MBI and Plan. We will begin the
revisions based on the field tour but your written comments will be necessary for us to
finish the job.
Following MBRT approval of the MBI, we would like to get started on the construction
as soon as possible. Thanks again for your input.
NEW JERSEY NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q24 Research Building 1 P.O. Box 551
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Centennial Campus New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
[phone] 0 Fax: [phone] Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
[phone] • Fax: [phone]
29. The Bank Sponsor shall be entitled to sell fifteen percent (15%) of the Bank's total
restoration credits (24.76 credits) and fifteen percent (15%) of the Bank's stream
restoration credits (1350 credits (linear feet)) immediately upon completion of all of the
following:
a.) Recordation of a conservation easement offering permanent, perpetual conservation
use of the Bank Site.
b.) Execution of this MBI by all partners whose names appear as signatories.
c.) Delivery of the security required in Paragraph 35 of this MBI.
d.) Final mitigation plan approval
30. Subject to Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all required performance
criteria and monitoring, additional restoration mitigation credits will be available for sale
by Sponsor on the following schedule:
Milestone Percent Wetland Stream Stream Total Credit
Release Restoration Restoration Buffer Release
Credits Credits Credits
MBRT approval of Plan, execution 15% 24.76 1350 3.10 24.76 (W)
of MBI, and recordation of 1350.00(S)
conservation easement 3.10 (B)
Following project implementation, 10% 16.50 900 2.07 16.50 (W)
Year 1 monitoring and MBRT 900.00(S)
approval of Annual Report 2.07 (B)
Following year 2 of monitoring 10% 16.50 900 2.07 16.50 (W)
phase and MBRT approval of 900.00(S)
Annual Report 2.07 (B)
Following year 3 of monitoring 10% 16.50 900 2.07 16.50 (W)
phase and MBRT approval of 900.00(S)
Annual Report 2.07 (B)
Following year 4 of monitoring 15% 24.76 1350 3.10 24.76 (W)
phase and MBRT approval of 1350.00(S)
Annual Report 3.10 (B)
Following year 5 of monitoring 15% 24.76 1350 3.10 24.76 (W)
phase and MBRT approval of 1350.00(S)
Annual Report 3.10 (B)
Final approval of project by MBRT 25% 41.27 2250 5.15 41.27 (W)
2250.00(S)
5.15 (B
TOTALS 100% 165.05 9000 20.66 165.05 (W)
9000.00 (SR)
20.66 (B)

August 18, 1999
J
CAIWM
.2521.a&&
David Lekson, P.W.S.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
RECEIVED
AUG 19 1999
NC WETLOC
RESTORVI : C, i
Dear Mr. Lekson:
These comments are in reference to the August 12, 1999 site visit to the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank site.
1. There was some discussion about the signing of the MBI and the completion of the final mitigation plan for
the bank. I believe that because other banks by The Triangle Group have been "in the ground" in the past, the
approval of the mitigation plan has not been an issue except for negotiations with Luken's Island W.M.B. [feel
there are sufficient protections written into the MBI that would allow the MBRT to execute the MBI prior to
the approval of the final mitigation plan as long as members feel the site is worth pursuing as a bank. I feel the
site has merit as a mitigation bank and think that with extensive planning and careful construction, it will succeed
as described so far in meetings and in the preliminary plan. Since credits from the bank cannot be released until
the final mitigation plan is approved, the Division of Coastal Management can sign the MBI once it is complete.
I have forwarded the latest copy to Mary Penny Thompson in the attorney general's office for a legal review.
2. Additions to the MBI:
The MBRT discussed adding language to the MBI regarding two items specifically:
,,?rr?5 a. Should the Sponsor wish to allow graduate student research on the bank site, there will be no
/ ?" alteration to the bank area in anyway including manipulation of hydrologic regimes or plantings,
without first seeking the approval of the MBRT. I feel general data collection activities, insertion of
monitoring wells or devices, etc. should be allowed without MBRT approval. Data collected should
be made available to the MBRT and their respective agencies so that any useful information can be
YtO Rd,?? ,pAsed to improve banking and mitigation on future projects. Furthermore, I would urge the Sponsor as
?f 0 t? well as other MBRT members to consider the use of different "treatments" in small research plots on
the site. This could include the use of different micro-topographic treatments and planting schemes
within those treatment plots. These treatments would either need to be in the approved final
mitigation plan or brought to the MBRT as an amendment to the plan so that changes to the success
iteria could be made to accommodate these types of research activities. Gathering information that
U4 an help the MBRT guide future banks and mitigation projects would be invaluable in my opinion.
Also, depending on the size of any plots with different treatments than the remainder of the bank, I
y?'5y think they should at least meet jurisdictional wetland status, but it may be worth considering not
PO'A t? /requiring them to meet the same success criteria as the rest of the site.
X50 n`? ?%
L , _Q? b. The Sponsor will add language that will address the changing of any remaining Neuse Buffer credits
J? l orth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources James B. Hunt Jr., Governor • Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
,,,?I SSLO S Division of Coastal Management Donna D. Moffitt, Director
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Phone [phone] http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
ce
cc:
Dr. Doug Frederick
The Triangle Group
1001 Capability Drive
Research Building 1, Centennial Campus
Raleigh, NC 27606
Kathy Matthews
US EPA
Wetlands Regulatory Section, Region IV
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Howard Hall
;,USFWS
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
-:.P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Ron Sechler
NMFS
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516
,/ac Haupt
/Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1 6 1 9
Bennett Wynne
NCWRC
901 Laoque Ave.
Kinston, NC 28501
cc:
Dr. Doug Frederick
The Triangle Group
1001 Capability Drive
Research Building 1, Centennial Campus
Raleigh, NC 27606
Kathy Matthews
US EPA
Wetlands Regulatory Section, Region IV
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Howard Hall
., USFWS
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
....P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Ron Sechler
NMFS
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516
, ?'iac Haupt
/Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1 6 1 9
Bennett Wynne
NCWRC
901 Laoque Ave.
Kinston, NC 28501
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Aug-10-99 11:30AM; Page 1/2
AHE TRIANGLE GROUP
M . i Jersey Office;
1930 Ea-.-Viddion Pike
X124
Cherry t. i11; New Jersey 08003
(609) 4119--=r1,18 Fax [phone]
North Carolina Office:
Research Building I
Centennial Campus
1001 Capability Drive, Suite 312
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
[phone] Fax [phone]
FAX COVER SKEET
DATE: t r a
# PAGES: _z _...... _-.... _.
TO: ?''?C u??rC - ?3?-- 53z
FROM:
RE: F L- ?N-7 -5 w VN v--- P
Titit swttarxisaior. is intended for the sol. ., A the tnai•idwl end entity to whim it is addressed and may contain information slim ri pr1Aa#*C tdn(tdtMtMt. end usmol from
dtRlos.ps under epplioaslt law. You r• cby verified that u.y dii-i-fien, dW6b.1it.r., w dyplira.wn of this .renrrrrsswn by sotwe ss.e vthcr 111-41te insatded .dd.ua.. or
11s desideeeed "T is atrial ty prohiniren , ,rr receipt of ibis transmission is m error, pteese notify this !.m .-ediettly et (919) $11.1234 and send the original vuwegvvn sv
or by return mail .t she A.- edmr-s
ent By: The Triangle Group, Inc.; 919 831 1121; Aug-10-99 11:30AM; Page 2/2
• . k
E TRIANGLE GR
August 10, 1999
MEMO
To: Dave Lekson, and MT3RT Mci-nbers
From., Doug Frederick V-
Subject: li'lat Swamp Field Tour
We are plaiuiing to meet everyone at, 10 AM, Thursday, August 12 at the post office in
Dover for the purpose of conducting a field tout- of the site. We are preparing
information on the water budget, stream restoration design and details plus other
information that was suggested at the July 13 MBRT Meeting in Raleigh. In addition, we
have made requested revisions to the MB1 and Plan. The critical issues still to be decided
relate to the stream restoration, use of flashboard risers (vs. permanent plugs), buffer
credits for the 5011: buffer along the restored stream vs requesting riparian wetland
credits, construction costs and final disposition of the property. At the last meeting, we
understood that several of these issues would be discussed internally (CORPS and WRP)
mid that suggestions would be commuiueated to us. !f that has been done, we would
appreciate getting that information today or tomorrow so we can make necessary changes
to the M131 and/or Plan before the Thursday meeting. Another alternative would be to
give us this information at the tinge of the field tour, our objective is to revise the M131
and Plan as quickly and as efficiently as possible following the field tour in order, to move
this project toward approval and implementation-
!f you have any information for us at this time, please fax to (919)-831-123
Thanks, and we will see you on Thursday.
NEW JERSEY NOWTH CAROLyriA PENNSYLYAMA
1930 Ease hlarlu,r, Pilco, Seule X124 Research Building I
Chcrry Ilillo New Jcracy 08003 P-U. Box 551
)9) 489.4018 • Fkx: (flop) 797-696(1 Centennial Ceunpus NOW Cuenherlaucl, Ycnnaylvanis. 17070
1001 Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601;
(919) 7£(2.3792 • lax: (919) 787-,1999
AUG 26 '99 04:35PM
P.1/3
IENT
R Sl
FACSIMILE TRAMSMIVAL HEADE a ow
Pw w. d tw ?. ! AA ?' ?,: ui. puwa?wrN money a t?•
PAX NO.
NAMFJ =-MLEP"07NE VQ lCa
fA1J1•l
pFFICE VSI 1 v E

aATE•T1ME Mt7WM YEAR wEt 18'9 SKMUtU
????? pD@NCE PAW Ih)a ?
?+s?f
spaCa 9arov Aw 4'arhmllelCl?OM? CNr1? 1AM OeN? -?-?
Drl Rm "Is a. m" aZ a commETB
100 '(1 uu 1s?uzsz ??? BOYsa 9211 IRHI) u6 ,sz- ?n
e 1 AUG 26 '99 04:35PM
999 ta: ziPM TWC
HE TRIANGLE GROUP
P. 2/3
FAX; 919 707 4919 FAG'& 2
August 23, 1999
1,Y1[EMO
To: Dave Leksuri and Flat Swamp MBRT Members
Prom, Doug Frederick
Subject: Flat Swamp wetland and Stream Mitigation BaA
As I discussed With you during our phone conversation last Friday (8.20-99), there is
likely going, to be a significant time delay in producing a *"Fined Plata" for the Flat Swamp.
Bank Project prirrr ily because of the requirements for stream restoration. Produoino a
.Final Plan for the wetland restoration portion of the project is not a pmblem and that has
been done. However, to produce a final stream design, a great deal of fieldwork is
required including work onsite e.g. topographic survey, elevations of aulYctts, ditches, etc
plus, off site data collection on a reference stream reach to size and design the created
chanxxel. We see three (3) options for getting to the point where the NMRT Members can
sign the MBI and approve the Plan, which will allow the Sponsor to sell presale credits;
1. MBKT accept a "gecteral plan" for the stream restoration component with the data
necessary for the liittai Plan collected as soon as possible, A firW Plan for the
nonriverine wetland restoration would be provided and the entire area would be
subject to a converyation easement and the entire project would be bonded.
Fresale of all credit types would be approved.
2. Project would be implemented in two phases; nonriverine wetland component
and the stream restoration component. The nonriverine wetland restoration
component would be completed first and the Final Plan for this component would
be approved first. The area comprising the corridor for the stream would be
determined and would be excluded from the first phase of the project. The entire
tract would be subject to conservation easement and all bonds would be in place.
After the necessary data were collected for the sire= restoration and a final
design is approyed, then the presale credits for stream restoration, bulf'er credits
and river ne wetlands credits would be approved for presale.
3. Final Plain for all parts of The project must be completed -Current situation,
NEW JERSET NORTH CARQUWA PENNSYLVANIA
19%) P:ygt 3MIrllon Pike, t°aaitc. Q 2K Resati eh Euildin.q i !'.V. Am 551
cherry 1xill. New Jersey 080.03 center-pia; c4aque Nrw CUM1JVrlu2%4, Pc1tnpY1VJ1 1.J 1?070
(509) •199.4019 - t;Lz: (609) 97-6?66 7tiU1 t?.mahilil? Sri an ?i+3 rh 'i l'J 17171 WO' VfIS; • IF. • r71 FT) e•M •167-P.
Zoo 'd 66£1SLUU 131 d0D?'Stl 9241 .n, HI) 66 ,9z- NY
AUG
g f997
26 '99 04:35PM
te:2tPM TwC
P.3/3
FAX! 919 767 4999 PAGE 3
The strearn, restoration component in this project is unique, We are proposing to create a
stream within an agricultural field where no stream currently exists, The b1storic stream
has been placed in perimeter ditches and bears no rescmblance tv the original channel.
Our proposal involves reconnecting the water sources from off-bite into the created
stream channel, which will flow across the property and then be reconnected to a
roadside ditch, which was originally Flat Swamp Creek. We can easily produce a
"general design" for this created channel including approximate location, shape, cross
sections, elevations, and floodplain width. However, even with "final rkumbrv" from a
reference strcam reach, the exact configuration of the stream will still be uncertaiu.
Mother nature will be the dorninant InSuence as to what this stream finally does and what
it looks like,
Our viost important objectivc in this project is to do an outstanding job and produce high
quality wetlands and strc= restoration, We are confident we can handle the technical
icular,
issues, The logistical and finaacial issucs are potentially more restrictive- In par,
because we are buying this property outright, it is critical we are able to have the pre%ale
credits available to partially pay for the property and, to implement the construction.
Option 1 above would be most favorable to tite Sponsor because it would allow full Sale
of all presale credits. Option 2 would allow immediate presalc of the ncnriverinc wetland
credits only with the remaining stream, buffer and riverxne presale credits available after
the Final Platt for the stream restoration is completed and approved by the NIBRT, This
would delay our income for several months while we collect all the stream data and
produce a final stream restoration plan. Because of reduced cash flow, it may also affect
the implementation schedule. Option 3 which would include producing firw plans for all
cotnponents is the most restrictive to the Sponsor,
Our order of preference is Options 1, 2 and 3.
We would appreciate your input on this so we can revise the MBZ and plan and move this
project forward,
Thanks,
pe-0-1-
HO A 66213LUSZ131 30OVS,7 3£,11 (11H1,166 ,9Z- '0iltl
L°
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL HEADER SHEET
Fa used 1hr 1Q11t. set OW 25-11: thg 0? MOM a C"9•4
NAME/ OFFICE TELEPHONE FAX NO.
CgIN11MNW OFFICE NO. rAf17DVCaN/Canrn?. J
gFF1CE SYMBOL {AUTOMMIC0 n J
A,- E
TO.
CLAsWjUAjmN Pf=EDENCE NO. PAGES oAYE•TIME
rlhe?u41r?D 1Ala
+isidsr)
MONTH YEAR RELE/?8fi'9 gIGNAT1A?lE
?EMA?cs--- rR.?3lR.?? pvy Sf3v? w'
Shea e?ro. For Conernunfeldon? C.Mrbr UM OnN

?a
100 'a 66213LUN:131 900vsn 3211 (nH,l) 66 ,9Z- 'DnV
,22 , Aug 1999 1 a: 21 PM T`WC FAX: 919 7a7 4999 PAC): 2
INHE TRIANGLE GROUP
0?? a
Aubrust 23, 1999
MEl1'IO
To: Dave Lekson and Flat Swamp N4J3RT Members
From: Doug Frederick
Subject: Flat Swamp Wetland and Stream Mitigation 13ank
As I discussed with you during our phone conversation last Friday (8.20-99), there is
likely going to be a significant time delay in producing a-"Final Plan" for the Flat Swamp
Bank Project primarily because of the requirements for stream restoration. Producing a
Final Plan for the wetland restoration portion of the project is not a problem and that has
been done. However, to produce a final stream design, a great deal of fieldwork is
required including work onsite e.g. topographic survey, elevations of culverts, ditches, etc
plus, off-site data collection on a reference stream reach to size and design the created
channel. We see three (3) options for getting to the point where the 1BRT Members can
sign the MBI and approve the Plan, which will allow the Sponsor to sell presale credits:
MBRT accept a "general plan" for the stream restoration component with the data
necessary for the Final Plan collected as soon as possible, A Final Plan for the
nonriverine wetland restoration would be provided and the entire area would be
subject to a conservation easement and the entire project would be bonded.
Presale of all credit types would be approved.
2. Project would be unplemented in two phases: nonriverine wetland component
and the stream restoration component. The nonriverinc wetland restoration
component would be completed first and the Final Plan for this component would
be approved first. The area comprising the corridor for the stream would be
determined and would be excluded from the first phase of the project- The entire
tract would be subject to conservation easement and all bonds would be in place.
After the necessary data were collected for the stream restoration and a final
design is approved, then the presale credits for stream restoration, buffer credits
and riverine wetlands credits would be approved for presale.
3. Final, Plan for all parts of the project must be completed - Current situation.
NEW JERSEX NORTH cAR014INA MNNSYLVANIA
1930 M__19t,rla,•l+0n Pike, Suitq: Q-1A. Research BuildiTig 1 F-0- 0ox 551
Cherry IMI, New Jusey 08003 centc,"ric;1 C=Pus N- Cumn)trlun(l, Pann?ylvolzAa 17070
[609) 7;19.4019 r;L--K. (Gt)9) 797-e?$6 lom canability Tlrivn *1idrr'a117171 O'tI_'le1C . Jr- t7lMl 0'1-? -)A "-I
ZOO 'd 66213LU3Z IRI HUM 3211 (nHI) 66 ,9Z- '9nV

`2 ' Au'g 199'; 1101.21PM TWC
FAX! 919 787 4999 PAGE 3
The stream restoration component in this projcct is unique, We are proposing to create a
stream within an agricultural field where no stream currently exists. The kustoric stream
has been placed in perimeter ditches and bears no resemblance to the original channel.
Our proposal involves reconnecting the water sources from off-site into the created
stream channel, which will flow across the property and then be reconnected to a
roadside ditch, which was originally plat Swamp Creek. We can easily produce a
"general design" for this ereated-channel including approximate location, shape, cross
sections, elevations, and floodplain width. However, even with "fiscal numbers" from a
reference stmam reach, the exact configuration of the stream will still be uncertain-
Mother nature will be the dominant influence as to what this stream finally does and what
it loops like,
Clur most important objective in this project is to do an outstanding job and produce high
quality wetlands and stream restoration, We are confident we can, handle the technical
issues. The logistical and financial issues are potentially more restrictive. In particular,
because we are buying this property outright, it is critical we are able to have the promle
credits available to partially pay for the property and, to implement the construction.
Option 1 above would be most favorable to the Sponsor because it would allow full sale
of all presale credits. Option 2 would allow immediate presale of the nonriverine wetland
credits only with the remaining stream, buffer and rive6ne presale credits available after
the Final plan for the stream restoration is completed and approved by the NORT. 'I`bis
would delay our income for several months while we collect all the stream data and
produce a final stream restoration plant. Because of reduced cash flow, it may also affect
the implementation schedule. Option 3 which would ipclude producing final plans for all
components is the most restrictive to the Sponsor,
Our order of preference is Options 1, 2 and 3.
We would appreciate your input on this so the can revise the M BI and Plan and move this
project forward
Thanks,

200 'd 66213LUN 1HZ Hooysn 3211 (nHI) 66 .9Z- 'Dfld
HE TRIANGLE GROUP
Minutes of the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank Field Review
August 12,1999
Davis Property, Craven County, N.C.
Attendees:
Howard Hall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mac Haupt, N.C. Division of Water Quality, Wetland Restoration Program
David Lekson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries Service
Brad Shaver, N.C. Division of Water Quality
Kelly Williams, N.C. Division of Coastal Management
Bennett Wynn, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Tom Barrett, The Triangle Group
Doug Frederick, The Triangle Group
Kevin Nunnery, The Triangle Group
?r?g9
00-
The meeting began with an overview of the site using USGS 7.5 minute quads
and air photos of the site. Handouts were distributed which included inserts for changes
to the MBI and Mitigation Plan, a 1964 aerial photo of the site, and water budget tables
and graphs for the site.
It was pointed out using the 7.5 minute quads and ditch layout that the watershed
in which the property lies is larger than the property itself, and an estimate of the size of
the watershed to the north and west of the property was given by Triangle as
approximately 650 acres, indicating that water flows from offsite sources across the
proposed project site.
Dave Lekson asked if Weyerhaeuser, which owns the property bordering the site
on the north and west, planned on regulating the hydrology on their property, and if so
would that affect the availability of surface water entering the site from the surrounding
watershed. Triangle responded that it would inquire about Weyerhaeuser's intentions for
water management on their property. Dave Lekson and Mac Haupt mentioned that
flashboard risers were one of the important remaining issues to be resolved in the
Mitigation Plan.
Triangle reviewed 1964 and 1970 air photos of the site with the group. From
these, Triangle submitted their estimates of where stream segments crossed the property
before it was cleared and hydrologically altered for agricultural production. Triangle
then submitted locations for restored stream reaches based on existing off-site ditches that
will provide flow. The group again discussed contacting Weyerhaeuser about their plans
NEW JERSEY NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q24 Research Building 1 P.O. Box 551
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Centennial Campus New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
[phone] • Fax: [phone] Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] 9 Fax: [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
[phone] • Fax: [phone]

for managing their property and what influence the Bank project may have on the water
management in the area.
Triangle inquired about how the number of riverine restoration credits on a site
that includes stream restoration (and also is affected by the Neuse River Rules) is
calculated and how'it could be calculated for the Flat Swamp project. The group
responded that the ultimate design will dictate how many riverine credits will be
generated by the project, based on hydrology, floodplain width and over bank flooding
events.
Dave Lekson stated that language should be added to the MBI pertaining to the
determination of riverine credits for the project.
The final disposition of the property was discussed. It was suggested that the
Wetland Restoration Program might be willing to hold the conservation easement on the
property. Ron Ferrell had made such an offer at previous MBRT meetings. Mac Haupt
said he would inquire further at WRP on the matter.
Triangle stated that research on the site was being considered, which would be
conducted by NCSU graduate students, and that Tom Barrett was looking at the
possibility of studying the site for his research project. Dave Lekson stated that language
should be added to the MBI about the possibility of research onsite and that a description
of the activities thatmight occur on the project site should be included.
The group entered a 20-25 year old, mixed stand on Weyerhaeuser property
adjacent to the first stop and observed the soil profile, mapped as the Pantego series.
Tree species included: sweetgum, green ash, red maple, loblolly pine and some water
oaks. This was a naturally regenerated stand resulting from clearcutting and represents a
typical species mixture for this site.
The field tour continued south along the western boundary of the project property.
Two stops were made to observe ditches conveying water to the site from off the
property. The condition of the culverts, width and depth of ditches, the water levels and
the general direction: of flow were observed.
The fourth stop was in the mixed-forest enhancement area on the southeastern
portion of the property. Organic matter thickness at the soil surface was compared near
the ditch and approximately 100 feet towards the interior of the stand, and the slightly
thicker layer towards the interior was noted. Dave Lekson and Mac Haupt agreed that the
area met enhancement criteria, and also noted that reference plots in the areas visited by
the group would not be preferable. It was mentioned that a flowmeter was needed at the
ditch outlet from the site.
The fifth stop was at the southwestern corner of the property. The group walked
off the project to the edge of Dover bay, observing the vegetation and soils. The rim area
supported a mature stand of longleaf pine with inclusions of wetland areas.
The sixth stop was at the outflow of the site. The perimeter ditch on the east side
of the property was examined, and the presence of fish was confirmed. The absence of a
collector drainage ditch on the east side of the property boundary road (on the neighbor's
property) was also noted at this site. The absence of an off-property ditch adjacent to the
property boundary road indicated that the primary field ditches on the neighbors property
drained to the east and away from the project. It was agreed that manipulation of the
drainage ditch onsite adjacent to the boundary road should have minimal or no effect on
the hydrology of neighboring property.
After a brief stop at a crossing over Flat Swamp offsite, the group reassembled at
the Dover post office for a recap of items discussed during the meeting. Mac Haupt
queried Triangle on the estimated location of stream reaches before the site was altered.
Ron Sechler asked how jurisdictional hydrology would be restored to the site (assuming
that restored stream segments would be partially draining the site). Triangle explained
that all parallel and perimeter ditches would be plugged, redirecting and retaining not
only precipitation that falls onsite but also surface flow coming from offsite. The
possibility of restoring microtopography and ephemeral pools to the site were mentioned,
Triangle indicated a willingness to install such features. Ron Sechler asked if this project
would lend itself to water quality monitoring, as a water quality project. Triangle
responded that water quality improvement should be evident after a mitigation project
was completed on the proposed site. Mac Haupt stated that it was the Division of Water
Quality's position that permanent ditch plugs should be in place before monitoring can
begin. Triangle asked if a low bed (6-12 inches) would be allowed in the Mitigation Plan
to enhance seedling survival in the first two years of growth after planting. Triangle
stated that the beds could be cross cultivated to allow surface flow in all directions. This
issue was not settled at this time and MBRT members suggested that they address this
issue in their written comments. Triangle asked if the 20% non-target species criteria
could be revised to more realistically reflect the natural succession of tree species on a
site. Howard Hall commented that the USFWS asked for climax species to be planted
because they were often the species lost from wetland conversion impacts. Dave Lekson
said that if the 20% non-target species criteria were changed, a new Mitigation Plan
would have to be written with justification for the changes. Dave Lekson stated that the
final stream restoration engineering plans had to be submitted before the MBI and
Mitigation Plan could be signed. Howard Hall asked if there was going to be a call for
comments from the agencies by the Corps of Engineers.
Dave Lekson summarized the major points that were agreed upon or needed
comment from MBRT Members:
• The addition of a paragraph to the MBI stating that riverine credits would be
determined based on the project final design and an appropriate monitoring period
• The addition of a paragraph to the MBI stating that students from NCSU may
elect to use the site for restoration research and, which describes the types of
research activities that may be undertaken
M , .r ,w
S.
• The proposed stream restoration
• The proposed Neuse River Rules buffer along the restored streams
Bedding and cross-cultivation for seedling survival enhancement
• Weyerhaeuser plans for surface water management offsite and upstream from the
project
• The possibility of signing the MBI and approving the Mitigation Plan separately
• Inserts to the MBI and Plan and other materials handed out at meeting

j„ p0
V" NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

1 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
1
5
NCDENR
September 8, 1999
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
Mr. David Lekson
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
WAYNE McDEVITT Washington, NC 27889-1000
SECRETARY -
Dear Mr. Lekson:
Subject: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank site visit
KERRT. STEVENs
DIRECTOR
These comments are in reference to the August 12, 1999 site visit to the Flat
Swamp Mitigation Bank. The Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream
Restoration Bank is located in Craven County, North Carolina just North of
Dover Bay. The goals of the bank are to restore riparian and non-riparian
wetlands in addition to historic stream drainages on site. The sponsor of the bank
is The Triangle Group located in Raleigh and hereafter will be referred to as the
Bank Sponsor.
The issues that were raised at the site visit include the following:
1. the extent of stream restoration on the property,
2. the proposal of using buffer credits for Neuse Buffer Rule mitigation,
3. the riparian wetlands associated with the stream,
4. a portion of the site used as restoration research for NCSU students,
and
5. the practice of bedding the vegetation.
In addition to addressing the above issues, this letter will respond to the Bank
Sponsor's August 23, 1999 memorandum.
One of the major reasons the site visit was scheduled was to assess the extent of
historical stream channel on the property. The Bank Sponsor provided several
historical aerial photos to support the proposed extent of stream restoration on
the property. While there did appear to be historic drainages through the
property, the Division feels that the extent of natural channel was less than the
proposed 9,000 linear feet of stream restoration. In addition, the Division
believes given the landscape position (headwater and wet flatwood) and soils
(lack of fluvial modifier) on site; the natural drainages were likely intermittent
channels. The Division does not require stream mitigation for impacts to
intermittent channels. Therefore, the Division would not approve of stream
restoration credit being given for restoration work on non-perennial streams.
- P.O. BOX 29535, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0535
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
. 1
Page 2
September 8, 1999
Flat Swamp
The Bank Sponsor has expressed interest in using the area adjacent to the stream
as a Neuse Buffer Mitigation bank. The buffer area adjacent to the stream would
need to be specified and clearly delineated in the Mitigation Banking Instrument
(MBI)., In addition, please note that the management of the Neuse Buffer
Mitigation bank comes under the auspices of the Division and neither the MBRT
nor the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) would be directly involved in
the review or approval of this component of the Bank. Therefore, as stated above
it is imperative that any area that is to be considered for use as buffer mitigation
be removed from consideration as a component of the NMI.
The Bank Sponsor has also inquired about the possibility of using the area
immediately adjacent to the Neuse Buffer bank as riparian (or riverine) wetland
restoration credit. Given the preliminary design of the stream, the Division
believes there will be minimal (if any) riparian restoration credit available in this
bank.
During the August 12, 1999 site visit, the Bank Sponsor offered the possibility of
using a portion of the site for restoration research by North Carolina State
University (NCSU) students. The Division feels that while the research may
prove to be interesting and applicable, the inclusion of the research area in the
bank is not appropriate at this time. The research areas would likely result in
varying levels of wetland functional replacement. If however, after the research
has been completed and the areas satisfy the success criteria as specified in the
MBI, the Bank Sponsor could petition the MBRT to add these credits to the
bank.
The bedding issue was raised at the August 12, 1999 site visit. In general, the
Division is not in favor of raised bedding. However, there may be methods
implemented that would result in a minimally raised bed which mimics the local
microtopography at the reference site.
The Sponsor sent an August 23, 1999 memo offering three separate scenarios for
the MBRT members to consider for signing the MBI. After review, the Division
feels that scenario 3 is acceptable. Scenario 2 is provisionally acceptable due to
the ultimate stream design and the impact of that design on the non-riverine
portion of the bank. The Division believes that the stream design will effectively
drain a portion of the adjacent wetlands, and that more information is needed to
estimate the area impacted due to the stream work.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Mac Haupt, Implementation Coordinator
DWQ-Wetlands Restoration Program
Page 3
September 8, 1999
Flat Swamp
Cc: Dr. Doug Frederick
The Triangle Group
1001 Capability Drive
Research Building I, Centennial Campus
Raleigh, NC 27606
Kathy Matthews
USEPA
Wetlands Regulatory Section, Region IV
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Brad Shaver
DWQ-WRO
934 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Kelly Williams
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Howard Hall
USFWS
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Ron Sechler
NMFS
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516
Bennett Wynne
NCWRC
901 Laoque Ave.
Kinston, NC 28501
,y
September 8, 1999
Mr. David Lekson
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Lekson:
Subject: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank site visit
These comments are in reference to the August 12, 1999 site visit to the Flat Swamp
Mitigation Bank. The Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank is
located in Craven County, North Carolina just North of Dover Bay. The goals of the
bank are to restore riparian and non-riparian wetlands in addition to historic stream
drainages on site. The sponsor of the bank is The Triangle Group located in Raleigh and
hereafter will be referred to as the Bank Sponsor.
The issues that were raised at the site visit include the following:
1. the extent of stream restoration on the property,
2. the proposal of using buffer credits for Neuse Buffer Rule mitigation,
3. the riparian wetlands associated with the stream,
4. a portion of the site used as restoration research for NCSU students, and
5. the practice of bedding the vegetation.
In addition to addressing the above issues, this letter will respond to the Bank Sponsor's
August 23, 1999 memorandum.
One of the major reasons the site visit was scheduled was to assess the extent of historical
stream channel on the property. The Bank Sponsor provided several historical aerial
photos to support the proposed extent of stream restoration on the property. While there
did appear to be historic drainages through the property, the Division feels that the extent
of natural channel was less than the proposed 9,000 linear feet of stream restoration. In
addition, the Division believes given the landscape position (headwater and wet
flatwood) and soils (lack of fluvial modifier) on site, the natural drainages were likely
intermittant channels. The Division does not require stream mitigation for impacts to
intermittant channels. Therefore, the Division would not approve of stream restoration
credit being given for restoration work on non-perennial streams.
The Bank Sponsor has expressed interest in using the area adjacent to the stream as a
Neuse Buffer Mitigation bank. The buffer area adjacent to the stream would need to be
specified and clearly delineated in the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). In addition,
please note that the management of the Neuse Buffer Mitigation bank comes under the
auspices of the Division and neither the MBRT nor the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE) would be directly involved in the review or approval of this component of the
Bank. Therefore, as stated above it is imperative that any area that is to be considered for
use as buffer mitigation be removed from consideration as a component of the MBI.
The Bank Sponsor has also inquired about the possibility of using the area immediately
adjacent to the Neuse Buffer bank as riparian (or riverine) wetland restoration credit.
Given the preliminary design of the stream, the Division believes there will be minimal
(if any) riparian restoration credit available in this bank.
During the August 12, 1999 site visit, the Bank Sponsor offered the possibility of using a
portion of the site for restoration research by North Carolina State University (NCSU)
students. The Division feels that while the research may prove to be interesting and
applicable, the inclusion of the research area in the bank is not appropriate at this time.
The research areas would likely result in varying levels of wetland functional
replacement. If however, after the research has been completed and the areas satisfy the
success criteria as specified in the MBI, the Bank Sponsor could petition the MBRT to
add these credits to the bank.
The bedding issue was raised at the August 12, 1999 site visit. In general, the Division is
not in favor of raised bedding. However, there may be methods implemented that would
result in a minimally raised bed which mimics the local microtopography at the reference
site.
The Sponsor sent an August 23, 1999 memo offering three separate scenarios for the
MBRT members to consider for signing the MBI. After review, the Division feels that
scenario 3 is acceptable. Scenario 2 is provisionally acceptable due to the ultimate
stream design and the impact of that design on the non-riverine portion of the bank. The
Division believes that the stream design will effectively drain a portion of the adjacent
wetlands, and that more information is needed to estimate the area impacted due to the
stream work.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Mac Haupt
Implementation Coordinator
DWQ-Wetland Restoration Program
1h
Cc: Dr. Doug Frederick
The Triangle Group
1001 Capabilitly Drive
Research Building I, Centennial Campus
Raleigh, NC 27606
Kathy Matthews
USEPA
Wetlands Regulatory Section, Region IV
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 3 03 03
Brad Shaver
DWQ-WRO
934 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Kelly Williams
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Howard Hall
USFWS
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Ron Sechler
NMF S
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516
Bennett Wynne
NCWRC
901 Laoque Ave.
Kinston, NC 28501

s
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 10, 1999
SEp 24 1999
Mr. David Lekson
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Office
P. O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Lekson:

This provides the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Flat Swamp
Mitigation Bank proposed by The Triangle Group. The Service attended the interagency meeting
on July 13, 1999, and the site review on August 12. Overall, the Service considers the proposed
mitigation effort to be worthwhile. However, during the course of these meetings several issues
have emerged that involve either information that is lacking or project specifications that have
not yet been decided. We will provide our views on what we consider to be the most important
outstanding issues within our area of expertise.
The Service believes there are several issues regarding both the restoration and preservation of
wetland hydrology on the sites. At the August 12 site visit we learned that water would flow into
the mitigation site from adjacent commercial forests owned by the Weyerhaeuser Corporation.
While the sponsor offered assurances that wetland restoration of the sites would not adversely
affect the commercial timberlands, there was no discussion of Weyerhaeuser's ability to control
the flow of water into the mitigation site. The Service is concerned that during dry periods,
water control structures could be employed to hold water in the commercial timberlands. This
procedure would adversely affected the wetland hydrology within the site and could result in a
significant discrepancy between water within the site and any offsite reference areas. Vegetation
within the site could be severely impacted and habitat values reduced if water flows into the area
are manipulated by adjacent landowners. This potential problem should be addressed by the
sponsor.
The Service believes the five-year monitoring period should not begin until all hydrological
modifications are permanently in place. This position is in accord with that expressed in the
August 11, 1999, letter to you from Mac Haupt. The current mitigation plan states that
temporary flashboard risers would be used during 3-5 years of "monitoring" before being
replaced by permanent ditch plugs. We assume that the sponsor intends this period to be part of
or the entire, monitoring period during which some credits are sold. The inclusion of several
years of manipulated hydrology within the official monitoring period seems inappropriate since
such manipulations preclude an accurate assessment of the natural hydrology that would be
permanently established on the site. If some hydrologic control is necessary to facilitate tree
survival, this period should occur prior to the start of the official monitoring period during which
credits may be sold.
The sponsor raised the issue of using bedding for trees in the early stages of the restoration effort.
We have read the message from Kelly Williams to you and your response dated August 18, 1999.
We believe that bedding is inappropriate for wetland restoration projects. The proper selection of
tree species combined with some water manipulation prior to the official start of the five-year
monitoring period should ensure adequate tree survival.
The sponsor has raised the issue of using the site for research.. The Service would have no
objections to using the site for observational research on the restoration effort. However, we
would be concerned about any research that involved manipulation of the hydrology or
vegetation within the area. Alterations of the site should be strictly limited to the installation of
data collection equipment, such as wells. Therefore, we support the statement in the August 12
meeting minutes that the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) would contain a paragraph
outlining the types of permissible research.
The Service wants the mitigation plan to facilitate the restoration of habitat values present in
those areas for which the bank will serve as compensation. In that regard, we are especially
interested in the hard mast producing trees that are a major food source. Schafale and Weakley
(1990, p. 203) write that a coastal plain, nonriverine, wet hardwood forest may have swamp
laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), and cherrybark oak (Q.
pagoda) among overstory trees. The same authors note (p. 161) that a coastal plain, small stream
swamp may contain swamp chestnut oak, swamp laurel oak, and overcup oak (Q. lyrata). The
June 1999 conceptual plan states (p. 14) states that the drained agricultural fields in the site
would be planted with several trees including willow oak (Q. phellos), water oak (Q. nigra), and
overcup oak. There is no mention of any oak planting for the streamside forest. The Service
recommends that the plan include the broadest possible planting of oaks in both the white oak
and red oak groups since these groups have different mast producing characteristics which have,
in some respects, complimentary wildlife food values. We recommend that undisturbed
reference sites along Flat Swamp Creek closer to the Neuse River be studied for overstory trees,
particularly oaks, present. If these sites are judged to represent the naturally occurring species,
the species present should be included in planting plans for the bank.
The sponsor has remarked that the "20% rule" is unreasonable. We assume the rule in question
is the one given in Section 6.2 (Vegetation Criteria) of the conceptional mitigation plan. The
plan refers to the requirement that non-target woody species (i.e., non-planted or volunteer
species) must not constitute more than 20% of the woody vegetation in permanent monitoring
2
plots at the end of five years
Southeast. Our office in Cookeville, Tennessee, developed working vegetation success criteria
for compensatory wetlands that require:
a. mean density of 400 trees per acre composed of at least 200 trees per acre of approved
planted species, which have been established on-site for five consecutive, successful
years;
b. no single species constitutes more than 20% of the surviving species;
c. meets current federal delineation manual for hydrophytic vegetation; and,
d. meets the criteria for target wetland community under the Cowardin system
The first criterion suggests that non-target tree species may constitute up to 50% of surviving
trees rather than the 20% limit mentioned in the sponsor's plan. The 20% figure listed above is
applied to the abundance of a single species. Regarding criterion d above, we recommend that
the Cowardin designation be replaced with vegetation data from reference sites near the
mitigation site or communities defined by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
The important point is that the restored vegetation be on track at the end of five years to achieve
the species composition of the reference, or target, community. To that end, it may be beneficial
to define several categories of trees. Target species would be synonymous with planted species.
However, there may be another category of "approved" species. These would be specific tree
species that are not planted but are considered beneficial to the site. For the purposes of
vegetative success, there could be a criterion for only planted/target species or there could be a
more liberal criterion that considered the combined presence of planted/target species and
approved species. In criterion a above the 50% requirement refers to a combination of both
species planted and those which were specifically designated as approved for the site. For
example, vegetation success could be based on the presence of approved species that include all
the canopy trees listed by Schafale and Weakley (1990) for the target community type. We ask
that the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) consider the criteria given above. These criteria
can be discussed at the next meeting of the MBRT.
The sequence in which the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) and the mitigation plan (MP)
would be approved by the MBRT has been raised as an issue. At the August 12 site visit the
possibility of approving the MBI before the approval of a final MP was raised.
The Service does not support an early, separate signing of the MBI in the absence a complete
MP. If the approval of the MBI allows the sponsor to make financial commitments, these
expenditures create pressure on the MBRT to subsequently approve a final MP regardless of any
problems that may arise after additional information is incorporated. For example, the MBI only
states that the site would be protected by conservation easements, but does not specify the party
This office reviewed information from other field offices in the
3
that would maintain long-term control of the area. The final disposition of the site is very
important to the Service, but it would be very difficult for us to reject the entire project based on
a single concern. In short, we believe that final approval of the MBI provides an important
incentive for the sponsor to consider all the concerns of the MBRT.
The Service would prefer a reversal of the proposed order. A detailed MP should be approved
first, then the MBI. The two documents could also be approved at the same time. However, the
Service recognizes that some degree of support may be necessary to move the planning process
along. To provide that support the Service recommends the use of a less specific document
based on the conceptual mitigation plan. This document could be as short as one page and
indicate that members of the MBRT believe that the site is suitable as a commercial mitigation
bank. In short, each member would state that on the date of signing no fatal flaws have been
identified at the site that would totally preclude a mitigation effort. This preliminary document
may be referred to as a letter of intent.
The issue of a complete mitigation plan arose in a August 23, 1999, memo from Doug Frederick
of the Triangle Group to the Corps. It appears that restoration efforts for nonriverine wetlands
and stream restoration need to be separated. Planning for stream restoration apparently requires
additional field work and analysis. The memo proposed three options for dividing these efforts.
In accordance with our statement above, the Service prefers the third option that requires
complete plans for all aspects of the sites. However, the Service could accept the second option
that would divide the overall project into two phases: (1) an initial, nonriverine wetland
restoration part; and, (2) a later component for stream, buffer, and riverine wetlands.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please continue to advise
this office on the planning effort for this site. If you have any questions or comments, please
contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by e-mail at < [e-mail] >
Sincerely,
John M. Hefner
Ecological Services Supervisor
Literature cited:
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC 325pp.
FWS/R4:HHall:9/10/99:WP:A:fs mitig.999
4
cc:
Doug Frederick, The Triangle Group, Raleigh, NC
Mac Haupt, N. C. Division of Water Quality, Wetland Restoration Program, Raleigh, NC
Kathy Matthews, U.S. EPA, Atlanta, GA
Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort, NC
Kelly Williams, NC Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh, NC
Bennett Wynne, NCWRC, Kinston, NC
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
.}"tom 9T?rFs
• A •
?L aAacE?`
REGION 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
r.;
SEP 2 7 '?cc
SEP 1 4 i _.R
WMD/WCWQGB/KM
Fe
Mr. David Lekson, Manager Z SEP 21 1999
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers COASTAL MANAC-0AENT
P.O. Box 1000
Wilmington, North Carolina 27889-1000
SUBJ: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank: Revisio Plan and Mitigation
Banking Instrument
Dear Mr. Lekson:
This letter is in response to the recent revisions to the draft mitigation plan and mitigation
banking instrument (NMI) for the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank (FSB). The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Wetlands Section (EPA), has reviewed the latest
revisions, the August 23, 1999 memo from The Triangle Group, and comments from other
resource agencies. It appears that the existing issues to be discussed include the following:
1., The timing of stream restoration of the property, and release of credits;
2. The point at which the five-year monitoring period begins;
3. The use of portions of the mitigation area for research by NCSU;
4. Bedding of the mitigation area; and
5. Use of buffer credits.
EPA notes that we are confused about the amount and configuration of stream restoration
to be conducted. The June 3, 1999 draft mitigation plan includes a map showing the restored
stream channel, while the August 13, 1999 memo included a second map, which shows more
branches with somewhat different configuration. What is the reason for changing the
configuration and amount of stream to be "restored?"
Regardless, EPA believes that there are significant remaining issues with the stream
restoration aspect of this project. We prefer the 3`d scenario, as presented in the August 23, 1999
memo from The Triangle Group, which outlines that the MBI for the entire project will not be
approved, and presale credits will not be available until the stream restoration details are worked
out and approved by the MBRT. However, Scenario 2 is acceptable as long as the NMI includes
this provision: if any restored wetlands on the mitigation site are negatively impacted by the
construction and/or existence of the restored stream (such as by draining), then the credits
associated with the impacted wetlands acreage will be subtracted from the total available credits
for the site. The NMI must be amended at that point.
2
EPA believes that the MBRT should uphold the decision made at our April 27, 1999
meeting, where we agreed that the 5-year monitoring period for any mitigation bank or project
begins only after all permanent hydrological modifications are completed and all areas are planted
(in other words, after all construction and restoration work). The temporary use of flashboard
risers does not qualify as a permanent hydrological modification.
EPA does not believe that the mitigation area should be used for research projects,
particularly any projects that may alter the functional success of the wetlands restoration and
enhancement.
EPA does not believe that the mitigation area should be bedded. Incorporation of
microtopography into the landscape can be a benefit to the restored wetland and the species which
inhabit it. However, we do not believe that bedding or grade modifications of such a scale should
be made in the mitigation bank. Bedding may cause channelization, and will not provide a natural
hydrologic flow across the site.
EPA has no authority and no opinion on the use of this mitigation area for Neuse Buffer
Rule credits. However, we do not believe it is appropriate to include a discussion of Neuse
Buffer rules and mitigation in the MBI, which is to be used strictly for Clean Water Act Section
404 projects.
EPA recalls that during the April 27, 1999 MBRT meeting concerning mitigation banks in
North Carolina, the MBRT agreed to require the use of an independent contractor (at the bank
sponsor's expense) to evaluate the success of the bank at the end of the five-year monitoring
period. The independent contractor is to inspect the mitigation bank site, review the final
monitoring report, and present it's findings to the MBRT for our consideration prior to final
release of credits for the bank. EPA also recalls that a list of acceptable independent contractors
is to be provided by the MBRT to the bank sponsor. Appropriate language outlining this
requirement should be included in the MBI and mitigation plan.
As a final note, EPA has no objection to the vegetation success criteria which has been
presented in the September 10, 1999 letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
vegetation success criteria was presented as a possible solution to the Sponsor's concerns about
the "20% rule."
Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comments on this proposal. We hope
that we will have the opportunity to visit the proposed mitigation bank site in the near future. If
you have any questions or comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at the above address or by
telephone at [phone]:
Sincer ly,
William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section
... ! "&
HE TRIANGLE GROUP
November 24, 1999
Mr. Dave Lekson
U S Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Dave,
RECEIVED
NOV' 29 1999
NO MENDS
RESTMATION
Following our discussions today (11/23/99) and your approval, I am sending the MBRT
Members the revised and Final Versions of the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and
Stream Restoration MBI and the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank: Phase I -
Nonriverine Wetland restoration and Enhancement Plan. The Plan for Phase II that
includes stream restoration, will be sent out at a later date to the MBRT members for
review and approval. The attached MBI is designed to be an umbrella document and will
govern both phases of this project.
We understand from you that there are current discussions among the agencies (based on
the meeting in Asheville during the week of November 15), relating to changes in credit
values and ratios that may be approved in the near future. For example, if the agencies
agree that the number of acres constituting 1 credit of restoration changes from 2 acres of
restoration to one acre, this change would apply to the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation
Bank - Phase I. We have used the "improved credit" system in our calculations in the
current documents where one restoration credit is composed of 2 acres of restoration.
The impact of the proposed change would double the number of restoration credits in our
bank and we obviously want to take advantage of this change when and if it occurs.
We have revised the enclosed documents based on the comments received at the August
12, 1999 MBRT meeting plus other written comments received from individual MBRT
members. Based on those comments, we have elected to pursue dividing the project into
two phases as mentioned above. The consensus was that this approach would greatly
simplify the project and allow the early approval of Phase I of the project.
Critical issues addressed in the attached NMI and Phase I Plan includes: 1. Final
disposition of the property - the Coastal Land Trust has indicated a willingness to hold
the conservation easement, 2. Adjacent Weyerhaeuser lands - spokesman for
Weyerhaeuser indicated that they plan to manage these properties for commercial timber
production and had no plans to restrict water flow off their property onto our Bank site,
3.Costs - we have increased projected construction and maintenance and monitoring
costs, 4. Site preparation - this section of the Plan has been modified and improved,
5. Sampling and performance criteria - these sections have been expanded and
improved to make them scientifically defensible.
NEW JERSEY
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q24
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003
[phone] • Fax: [phone]
NORTH CAROLINA
Research Building 1
Centennial Campus
1001 C4pability Drive, Suite 312
igh,`N,orth Carolina 27606
PAj 782-37V4, S Fax: [phone]
PENNSYLVANIA
P.O. Box 551
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
[phone] 0 Fax: [phone]
If.. Jr .
We hope that these documents can be reviewed quickly by MBRT Members and any
additional comments communicated directly to you with copies to us. If the NMI and
Plan are acceptable, please facilitate getting the appropriate signature for your agency.
We are anxious to get started on Phase I of this project and concurrently begin the
analysis and data collection for Phase II. Thanks again for everyone's efforts for getting
this project approved and implemented. We feel it will have a very positive effect on the
Neuse River watershed.
Sincerely,
The Triangle Group, Inc
Douglas J. Frederick, PhD
Vice President
Cc: Ms Kathy Mathews, USEPA
Ms Kelly Williams, CAMA
Mr. Mac Haupt, NCDWQ, WRP
Mr. Howard Hall, USFWS
Mr. Bennett Wynn, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NNE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
A Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
PR0 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
0£C U -1 "M
4WM-WCNPS/KM
Mr. Dave Lekson, Manager RECEIVED
Washington Regulatory Field Office DEC 16 ? 1994;
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889 RE WETLANDS
RESTORATION
, 5v?

-lu

SUBJ: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank: November 24, 1999 Plan and NMI
Dear Mr. Lekson:
This letter is in response to the above referenced draft mitigation plan and mitigation
banking instrument (MBI) for the Flat Swamp Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank (FSB), dated
November 24, 1999. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Wetlands Section
(EPA), has reviewed this draft proposal and has the following comments.
Mitigation Plan, Page 12: The plan should specify that the herbaceous seed mix will be
either an annual mix or wetland species mix. No noxious perennial species should be
used.
2. Mitigation Plan, Figure 5: Please clarify on this figure whether (and which) east-west
ditches in the two northern-most fields will be filled or plugged during Phase I.
Mitigation Plan, Page 14: EPA still does not believe that the low bedding proposed for the
plant communities is appropriate for this project. A bed height of up to 12 inches may still
remove jurisdiction for portions of the site. Further, a checkerboard of discontinuous beds
may still channel water off the site, perhaps in more than one direction. EPA recommends
that tree species which do not need bedding be chosen for planting.
4. MBI: EPA recalls that during the April 27, 1999 MBRT meeting concerning mitigation
banks in North Carolina, the MBRT agreed to require the use of an independent
contractor (at the bank sponsor's expense) to evaluate the success of the bank at the end
of the five-year monitoring period. The independent contractor is to inspect the mitigation
bank site, review the final monitoring report, and present its findings to the MBRT for our
consideration prior to final release of credits for the bank. EPA also recalls that a list of
acceptable independent contractors is to be provided by the MBRT to the bank sponsor.
Since this requirement has not been mentioned by any other member of the MBRT
A , . ..
2
on any recently reviewed MBIs, EPA requests an informal discussion amongst the MBRT
to decide the issue for this and all banks currently under consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions,
please contact Kathy Matthews at the above address or by telephone at [phone].
Sincerely,
iam L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section
cc: USFWS, Raleigh
DWQ/NCDENR, Raleigh
DCM/NCDENR, Raleigh
NCWRC, Raleigh
NMFS, Beaufort
1
A
Agreement to Establish the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation
and Stream Restoration Bank in Craven County, North Carolina
This Mitigation Banking Instrument Agreement ("MBI") is made and entered into on the
day of , 2000, by The Triangle Group, Inc. (TTG) (collectively, "Sponsor");
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps"), Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS"), National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS"), North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ("NCWRC"), North Carolina Division of Water
Quality ("NCDWQ"), and North Carolina Division of Coastal Management ("NCDCM"),
collectively, the Mitigation Bank Review Team ("MBRT").
WHEREAS, the purpose of this MBI is to establish the Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and
Stream Restoration Bank ("the Bank") providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable
wetland impacts separately authorized by Section 404 Clean Water Act permits in appropriate
circumstances;
WHEREAS, Sponsor is the record owner of that certain parcel of land containing approximately
386 acres located in Craven County, North Carolina, more fully described in the Flat Swamp
Mitigation Bank Plan - Phase I - Nonriverine Wetland Restoration and Enhancement and
Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase II - Flat Swamp Stream Restoration (proposed) as
shown on the attached survey. The Mitigation Plan for Phase I and survey will be attached and
incorporated herein by reference as Appendices A and B respectively; and
WHEREAS, the agencies comprising the MBRT agree that the Bank Site is a suitable mitigation
bank site, and that implementation of the Mitigation Plan should result in net gains in wetland
functions at the Bank Site.
NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this MBI that the following
provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this MBI.
General Provisions
1. The goal of the Bank is to restore, enhance, and preserve forested wetland systems and
their functions and values to compensate in appropriate circumstances for unavoidable
wetland impacts authorized by Section 404 Clean Water Act permits in circumstances
deemed appropriate by the Corps after consultation with the other members of the
MBRT.
2. The parties to this MBI recognize and understand that, where practicable, on-site, in-kind
compensatory mitigation is preferred, unless use of the Bank is determined by the Corps
to be environmentally preferable.
3. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland impacts authorized by Clean Water Act
Section 404 permits shall be in compliance with the Clean Water Act and implementing:
regulations, in addition to the following statutes, regulations, and policies:
1
A. Federal
a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. § 1251,
et SeMc ., including specifically Section 401(a);
b. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 403, et sM.;
C. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C., 661 et seq.);
d. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.,
including the Council on Environmental Quality's implementing
regulations, 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508;
e. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977);
f. Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation
Banks, 60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (Nov. 28,1995);
g. Department of the Army, Section 404 Permit Regulations, 33 C.F.R.
Parts 320-330), and policies for evaluating permit applications to
discharge dredged or fill material;
h. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Regulations, 23 C.F.R. Part 777, concerning Mitigation of Environmental
Impacts to Privately Owned Wetlands;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Section 404 Regulations,
40 C.F.R. Parts 230-233 (guidelines for specification of disposal sites for
dredged and fill material);
j. Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army concerning the Determination of
Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
(February 6, 1990);
B. North Carolina
a. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 02H.0500;
b. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 02B.0100 and r. 02B.0200; and
c. North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, N.C. GEN. STAT.
§ 143-214.8 et M.
4. The Corps is responsible for making final permit decisions pursuant to Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including final
determinations of compliance with the Corps' permit regulations and the
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The Corps has been responsible for conducting all
2

meetings with state and federal resource/regulatory agencies and Sponsor for establishing
the Bank. The Corps will determine the amount of compensation needed for a given
Department of the Army Section 404 permit, including permits under the Nationwide
Permit program. In this MBI, the MBRT has established the total number of restoration-
equivalent credits which may become available for sale from the Bank upon
implementation of all activities as described in this MBI, including but not limited to the
terms of Appendix A. In the case of permit applications and compensatory mitigation
required solely under the Section 401 Water Quality Certification rules of North
Carolina, the NC Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ) will determine the amount of
credits that can be withdrawn from the Bank.
5. Modifications to this MBI may be proposed by any MBRT member or by Sponsor. Any
proposed modification shall be made in writing and submitted to all MBRT members and
Sponsor. All MBRT members and Sponsor must approve, in writing, the proposed
modification for it to take effect.
6. Any MBRT member can withdraw from this MBI with ten (10) days advance written
notice to all other MBRT members and Sponsor. Member withdrawal shall not affect
any prior sale of credits and all remaining parties shall continue to implement and enforce
the terms of this MBI. Any independent review authority as to specific Section 404
permit applications possessed by a withdrawing party will, however, remain in full force
and effect.
7. The terms and conditions of this MBI shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of
the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, assigns, and legal representatives.
8. This MBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject
matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.
9. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this MBI are held to be
invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or
unenforceability will not affect any other provisions hereof, and this MBI shall be
construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had not been contained
herein.
10. This MBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of North
Carolina and the United States as appropriate.
11. This MBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or more
counterparts, all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
12. Any delay or failure of the Sponsor shall not constitute a default hereunder to the extent
that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or condition beyond the
Sponsor's reasonable control and significantly adversely affecting its ability to perform
its obligations hereunder including: (i) acts of God, lightning, earthquake, fire, landslide,.
drought, hurricane, storm, flood, or interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or
other taking by any governmental body; (iii) change in applicable law, regulation, rule,
ordinance or permit condition, or the interpretation or enforcement thereof; (iv) any
3
,
order, judgment, action or determination of any federal, state or local court
administrative agency or government body; or (v) the suspension or interruption of any
permit, license, consent, authorization or approval. If the performance of Sponsor is
affected by any such event, Sponsor shall give written notice thereof to the MBRT as
soon as is reasonably practicable and to the extent necessary and appropriate as
determined by the MBRT, the Sponsor shall provide adequate mitigation acceptable to
the Corps or permitting agency to compensate for credits that have been debited from the
Bank in the event that restoration or enhancement acreage sufficient to make up debited
credits is adversely impacted by any condition or conditions referenced in this paragraph.
13. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories
hereof, their successors and assigns shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof. No
party or third party other than Sponsor shall have any property rights to the Bank Site,
except as otherwise expressly provided herein.
14. The MBRT shall be chaired by the representative from the Corps' Wilmington District.
The MBRT shall review monitoring and accounting reports as more fully described
herein below. In addition, the MBRT will review proposals for remedial actions
proposed by Sponsor or any of the agencies represented on the MBRT. The MBRT's
role and responsibilities are more fully set forth in Sections II(C)(3&6) of the Federal
Guidance on Mitigation Banking [See 60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (Nov. 28, 1995)]. The MBRT
will work to reach consensus on all required actions.
Mitigation Plan
15. The Bank will be developed in two (2) phases: Phase I - Nonriverine Wetland
Restoration and Enhancement and Phase II - Flat Swamp Stream Restoration. Each
phase will be developed separately with Phase I being implemented first. Plans for Phase
I and Phase II will be approved separately by the MBRT.
16. The Bank Site is located in the Neuse River watershed in the headwaters of Flat Swamp
Creek east of Dover and south of Fort Barnwell in Craven County, NC. A more detailed
description of the baseline conditions on the site is contained in the Mitigation Plan.
17. Sponsor will perform the work described in the Proposed Action Section of the
Mitigation Plan, including hydrologic and soil modifications and plantings. The purpose
of the work, and the objective of the Bank, is to (Phase I) restore natural wetland
community types in areas of prior converted (PC) agricultural fields, enhance existing
wetland community types and (Phase II) restore sections of Flat Swamp Creek which
historically originated on the Bank site.
18. Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration and enhancement
activities as specified in the Mitigation Plan, and for the overall operation and
management of the Bank. Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Site for at least 5 years as
described in the Monitoring Section of the Mitigation Plan, or until such time as the
MBRT determines that the performance criteria described in the Mitigation Plan have
been met, whichever period is longer.
4
19. Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the terms of this
MBI.
20. Sponsor shall provide to each member of the MBRT the reports described in the
Monitoring Section of the Mitigation Plans.
21. The Corps shall review said reports and provide a written response. At any time, after
consultation with Sponsor and the MBRT, the Corps may direct Sponsor to take remedial
action at the Bank Site. Remedial action required by the Corps shall be designed to
achieve the performance criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan. All remedial actions
required shall include an implementation schedule, which shall take into account physical
and climatic conditions.
22. When all performance criteria as described in the Mitigation Plan have been met, as
reasonably determined by the MBRT, the MBRT shall provide written notice to that
effect to Sponsor stating that: (a) all required performance criteria have been met; (b)
Sponsor permanently is released from all further monitoring, remedial measures or the
ecological performance obligations with regard to the Bank Site; and (c) Sponsor's
security obligations as specified in this MBI fully have been satisfied. Thereafter,
Sponsor shall have no further obligations whatsoever with regard to the Bank Site except
that, if any credits remain unsold or otherwise finally accounted for, Sponsor shall
continue to have sole control over the sale of any such remaining mitigation credits, and
likewise shall continue to be required to provide all related mitigation credit accounting
reports as specified in this MBI until all such credits are sold or otherwise finally
accounted for. Notwithstanding the above, the parties to this agreement understand that
if all credits are not sold within one year of the bank meeting performance criteria, the
Corps, in its discretion, may require additional information on the current condition of the
bank prior to agreeing to the utilization of credits from the bank.
23. At any time prior to the completion of all performance criteria as defined in Paragraph 21
above, Sponsor may determine voluntarily that remedial action may be necessary to
achieve the required performance criteria. In such instance, Sponsor shall provide notice
of its proposed remedial action to all members of the MBRT. No significant remedial
actions shall be undertaken by Sponsor without the express concurrence of the Corps, in
consultation with the MBRT.
24. The mitigation site may be used for research purposes pending approval of any such
plans by the MBRT.
Use of Mitigation Credits
25. The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the defined area wherein the Bank can reasonably
be expected to provide appropriate compensation for impacts to wetland and/or other
aquatic resources. The GSA for the Bank shall include the Neuse hydrologic Unit
(03020202) in North Carolina west of New Bern along the Neuse River. The location
map of the Neuse Hydrologic Unit (03020202) is attached and incorporated herein by
reference as Appendix C. Adjacent service areas may be considered for use by the
MBRT on a case-by-case basis.
26. The Mitigation Plan is intended to result in the following forms and amounts in acres, of
compensatory mitigation.
Summary of proposed restoration and enhancement activities within the
Flat Swam Wetland Miti ation and Stream Restoration Bank
Existing plant Mitigation Proposed Area
community e Type Activities
Agricultural fields a/
(PC) and Flat Swamp Wetland and Plug ditches, site prepare by ripping, 339.0 ac
Creek Stream construct ephemeral ponds, and plant
Restoration wetland vegetation
Wet Pine Flatwoods
Enhancement Plug ditches 8.0 ac
Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest Enhancement Plug ditches 39.0 ac
Total Area 386.0 ac
a / Nonriverine Wet Pine Flatwoods and Wet Hardwood Forest (Phase I) = 318.34 acres
Riverine Small Coastal Plain Stream Swamp (Phase II) = 20.66 acres
27. Successful implementation of the Mitigation Plan will result in the creation of the
following number of mitigation credits:
Wetlands:
• 165.05 credits of Nonriverine Wetland Community Types
Based on formulas developed by the WRP, the credit calculations are as follows:
Restoration (R) = 318.34 acres
Enhancement (E) = 47 acres
# of credits = R/2 + (E/4R x R/2) = 318.34/2 + [47/(4 x 318.34) x 318.34/2]
= 159.17 + (0.037 x 159.17) =165.05 credits
Given the number of credits calculated above (165.05), the credit makeup for Phase I of the Flat
Swamp Bank is:
1 credit = 1.93 acres or restoration and 0.285 acres of enhancement
318.34 acres restoration / 165.05 total credits = 1.93 acres of restoration per credit
47 acres enhancement / 165.05 total credits = 0.285 acres enhancement per credit
6
Total Wetland Credits Available from the Bank: 165.05 credits
Note: The propose 20.66 acres of Riverine Small Coastal Plain Swamp (9000 linear ft X 100 ft)
are not included in the above calculations. This area is reserved for Phase II - Flat Swamp
Stream Restoration and will be developed at a later date. The amount of stream restoration will
be determined following field investigations and will be approved separately by the MBRT.
Streams:
• The number of stream restoration credits generated at Flat Swamp have yet to be determined
but will be approved separately by the MBRT as a part of the final mitigation plan for this
phase of the bank. Generally, it is anticipated that one stream credit will compensate for one
foot of stream impact unless special circumstances require a higher ratio as determined by a
permitting agency.
28. It is anticipated by the parties that use of mitigation credits shall be "in-kind;" that is, that
the above described types of wetland and stream restoration credits will be used to offset
the same type of wetland and stream impacts.
29. It is anticipated by the parties that in most cases in which the Corps, after consultation
with members of the MBRT, has determined that mitigation credits from the Bank may
be used to offset wetland impacts authorized by Section 404 permits, for every one acre
of impact, one mitigation credit will be debited from the Bank. Deviations from the one-
to-one compensation ratio may be required by the Corps on a case-by-case basis where
justified by considerations of functions of the wetlands impacted, the severity of the
impacts to wetlands, whether the compensatory mitigation is in-kind, and physical
proximity of the wetland impacts to the Bank Site. For stream impacts, stream credits
from this bank will generally only be used to compensate for impacts to same order or
lower streams.
30. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using credits
from the Bank to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all decisions
concerning the amount and type of such credits to be used to offset wetland and water
impacts authorized by Department of the Army permits shall be made by the Corps,
pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and implementing regulations and guidance, after notice
of any proposed use of the Bank to Sponsor and all members of the MBRT, and
consultation with same regarding such use. In the case of compensatory mitigation
required solely under Section 401, water quality certification, the NCDWQ will notify
Sponsor and the MBRT of such use and the proposed credit withdrawal.
31. The Bank Sponsor shall be entitled to sell fifteen percent (15%) of the Bank's total
restoration credits (24.76 credits) and fifteen percent (15%) of the Bank's stream
restoration credits (to be determined and approved by the MBRT - Phase II) immediately
upon completion of all of the following:
a.) Recordation of a conservation easement offering permanent, perpetual conservation
use of the Bank Site.
7
b.) Execution of this MBI by all partners whose names appear as signatories.
c.) Delivery of the security required in Paragraph 37 of this MBI.
d.) Final mitigation plan approval
No credits will be released until an easement approved by the MBRT is placed on the
entire site and financial assurances for both phases are in place.
32. Subject to Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all required performance
criteria and monitoring, additional restoration mitigation credits will be available for sale
by Sponsor on the following schedule:
Milestone Percent Wetland
Release Restoration
Credits
MBRT approval of Plan, execution 15% 24.76
of MBI, recordation of conservation
easement, and posting of acceptable
financial assurance
Following project implementation, 10% 16.50
Year 1 monitoring and MBRT
approval of Annual Report
Following year 2 of monitoring 10% 16.50
phase and MBRT approval of
Annual Report
Following year 3 of monitoring 10% 16.50
phase and MBRT approval of
Annual Report
Following year 4 of monitoring 15% 24.76
phase and MBRT approval of
Annual Report
Following year 5 of monitoring 15% 24.76
phase and MBRT approval of
Annual Report
Final approval of project by MBRT 25% 41.27
TOTALS 100% 165.05
The above schedule assumes acceptable survival and growth of planted vegetation,
attainment of wetland hydrology and stream restoration performance criteria as described
under the performance criteria in the Monitoring Section of the Mitigation Plan, and
further assumes a determination by the MBRT of functional success as defined in the
Mitigation Plan prior to release of the final 25% of wetland and stream restoration
credits.
33. Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures for maintaining accurate records of debits
made from the Bank that is acceptable to the MBRT. Such procedures shall include the
generation of a debit report by Sponsor documenting all credits used at the time they are
debited from the Bank. Debit reports shall be provided to each member of the MBRT
within 30 days of the date of credit use. In addition, Sponsor shall prepare an Annual
Report, to be provided to each MBRT member within thirty (30) days of each
anniversary of the date of execution of this MBI, showing all credits used and the balance
of credits remaining. Sponsor's reporting obligations hereunder shall end upon the sale of
all credits or termination of this MBI, whichever event first occurs.
34. Sponsor may request addition of other properties to the Bank. In such event, the terms
and conditions of any proposed property addition shall be set forth in an amended
mitigation banking instrument that will be subject to separate review and, if appropriate,
approval by the MBRT.
35. If monitoring of the Bank under this MBI establishes that mitigation and restoration as
required under the MBI has failed or only partially succeeded, corrective measures shall
be required to assure that performance standards are being met. If, as a result of
maintenance and monitoring reports, it is determined that performance standards are not
being met, the MBRT shall provide notice to Sponsor who then shall prepare an analysis
of the cause of the failure, propose corrective actions and specify a time frame for
implementing corrective actions. Minor corrective measures do not require a formal
notification process and may be accomplished as a part of routine maintenance; such
measures shall be identified in the next subsequent monitoring report. If satisfactory
corrective actions are not taken by Sponsor after formal written notice from the MBRT,
then the MBRT is entitled to give notice that the agreed-upon corrective actions have not
been satisfied and trigger the use of the financial assurances. Under such circumstances
the MBRT also is entitled to, in its sole discretion, notify Sponsor of the immediate
suspension of further sale of credits from the Bank. Upon completion of required
remedial action(s) to the satisfaction of the MBRT, as documented in written notice from
the MBRT to Sponsor, credit sales automatically shall be allowed to resume, subject to
any additional requirements reasonably specified by the MBRT in the written notice.
If there are repeated failures by Sponsor in complying with the performance standards for
success under the terms of this MBI, the MBRT reserves the right to declare a material
default under the terms of Sponsor's security and said security shall be used to replace
lost wetland functions and otherwise fulfill the terms of the wetland restoration plan
required by this MBI.
Final release of Sponsor's obligations hereunder shall occur when the MBRT reasonably
determines that all performance standards have been met and all restoration credits have
been debited from the Bank.
Property Disposition
9
36. Sponsor shall grant a conservation easement, in form acceptable to the MBRT, sufficient
to protect all of the Bank Site. The easement shall be perpetual, preserve all natural
areas, prohibit all construction, and prohibit any activity that would materially alter the
biological integrity or functional and education value of wetlands within the Bank Site,
consistent with the Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the easement will be to assure that
future use of the Bank Site will result in the restoration, protection, maintenance, and
enhancement of the functional values of the wetlands and wildlife habitat described in the
Mitigation Plan. The Coastal Land Trust is proposed to hold the easement and it has
tentatively agreed to accept the easement.
Financial Assurances
37. Sponsor shall provide the Corps, on behalf of the MBRT, with financial assurances, in a
form acceptable to the Corps, sufficient to assure completion of all remaining restoration
and enhancement activities, and required reporting and monitoring. Sponsor presently
proposes to satisfy this requirement by providing a Construction and Maintenance Bond
in an amount equal to the estimated cost of construction and completing all remaining
maintenance and monitoring costs required under this MBI as set forth on Appendices D
and E, attached and incorporated herein. Sponsor's final, executed security assurances
shall be provided to a party acceptable to the MBRT prior to the sale of any of the credits
from the bank. The Corps will not be the beneficiary of any financial assurance
mechanism. Sponsor's security obligations shall terminate and be released immediately
after the MBRT determines, in writing that all performance standards as stated in the
Mitigation Plan have been complied with.
Miscellaneous
38. All notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at their
respective addresses, provided below:
Sponsor:
The Triangle Group, Inc.
1001 Capability Drive
Research I - Suite 312
Centennial Campus
Raleigh, NC 27606
Corps:
Mr. David Lekson P.W.S.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
EPA:
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IN
10
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth St. , SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
FWS:
Mr. Howard Hall
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
NMFS:
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516
NCWRC:
Mr. Bennett Wynne
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
901 Laroque Ave.
Kinston, NC 28501
NCDCM:
Mrs. Kelly Williams
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
NCDW :
Mr. Mac Haupt
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Wetland Restoration Program
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626
11
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration
Bank Plan - Phase I (Pending approval)
Appendix B: Property Survey and Legal Description
Appendix C: Map - General Service Area
Appendix D: Construction Costs
Appendix E: Maintenance and Monitoring Costs
13
Jimmie and Ann Davis Property
Tract 2 - 233.4 acres
Bearing Distance
N 89 degrees 16 minutes 21 seconds W 2025.40 ft.
S 00 degrees 32 minutes 59 seconds W 2518.00 ft.
S 00 degrees 05 minutes 04 seconds W 2334.79 ft.
S 88 degrees 57 minutes 24 seconds W 2091.66 ft.
N 00 degrees 59 minutes 00 seconds E 2981.27 ft.
N 00 degrees 48 minutes 26 seconds E 1249.11 ft.
N 00 degrees 23 minutes 46 seconds W 687.07 ft.
S 89 degrees 16 minutes 21 seconds E 59.16 ft.
40 P-
?0
W
rc
Y
8?
z
j
W9
W
UZ
WC'
Z
W U
U
K
W
2 a
S?
Y
?a

i
i WW •
Qja O ?
• i N
iR W c
Y.T
ali
\\ J W 02 .WV O 1
I \\\\ ICY u a g a
Eam 02
s lux

c?
P?
t
AO
PO 0
0

Zee
{f
?
?
?
Wfj
O
}Z
?
i• .1 Ja

? p
O?
J?
?? rJL
r
? Y
~ c
O
O
O _
?t
P
y Pa\S ??y 14 4.
? %Nk
\^
r?Y
by
/ Lt
P?
/ 40 S
l e..b
fN p
? II
Z J O
3
oN?
Z
O = J
U
LLJ (n
I I Q
Q' w W
0O U 3
a
N ? z °'
~ N
II O
M mm W
DJ
W ' W
M D U
?y 2 V=i p
V
m0
< > °? V
O O
\V
1
O IN O
fr C4 o 04
W N N
W U n
O? z J
EF-Q)
ZUp?tn
3 W -'
MOStl
ova
O° O
O
Lr)
0
n LLI
J
Q
o U
V)
o ?.
i

N
W
K
V C
< O
O O
n
f?

I
ACREAGE, CLOSURE, AND ERROR OF PLAT
Line #
I
.- North
North 490
0 211 03" WES, 1,503.67 feet.

3
North c_7()
890 44'
, 15" Last 1,017.41 feet.

4
South
130 16
31' 21"
" West !_
1 Jc 25. 4
feet .

5
South
000
lo, 09
,.. West 182.6 feet.
6 South '.?2u 12' ;
:;ti" West
?.-
ble
t 76. ? feet.

South o
65 ?
25 t .
21" a 1,c_90.46 feet.

8
No r t h
6211
,
59
11 East 1,934.81 feet.
, 27 East 2,079,09 feet.
The easting error is 0.2721 feet

The
northin
g erro
r is
0.0363 .
feet

The
gap in
closur
e is
0.2745 .
feet.

,
The precision of the field survey is
0.25 feet err or per 10,000 feet traver
se.
The are
a ompui e•s to be -153.293 acres.
?
or -6,677,442 square feet.

fit. a 1 _ 1 3Z2 ? f ?-L-- t
?' e r z
131, '79
2- S C, 3
/o yc Li?..fv
PROPERTY MAP
•. M?ron q ?u??5 COUNTY:
,GRES: i53'2Q SCALE:
Include:
TRACT NO. I
1) Current adjoining landowners 5) Roads (public or private) with No. and Name
2) Property boundaries (In red) 6) Direction and distance to nearest towns
3) Streams (name, type and direction of flow) 7) Buildings (numbered to correspond with Appraiser's Report)
4) Fences, topography, utility lines, ponds, barrow pits, etc. 8) Government survey lines should be Identified
9) North arrow, land use symbols, etc.
i i .. .. ;; .?P I i _.._ __.....
,. I I
! I i Later.' 14bJ4,?

M' 0•
i
_- I
I
I
.I
i
C'1A ?I I
lA? M 4 l.?t
I
FtsNI.,71,211
i6 �
0.0
0)
o
b o
o
U
o �.
N
CM
O O Q
z00

Preservation - The protection of ecologically important wetlands or other aquatic
resources in perpetuity through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical
mechanisms.
The proposed wetland restoration sites within the FSB include 339 acres of prior
converted (PC) agricultural fields that are currently classified as non-wetlands. Based on
existing hydric soils and examination of forest areas adjacent to these fields, all 339 acres
were likely jurisdictional wetlands prior to conversion. Our proposed actions will be
directed at restoring the character and function of previously existing wetlands and
natural forested community types on these fields.
The proposed wetland restoration measures include:
1. Filling and plugging approximately 2000 linear feet of primary and lateral ditches.
2. Temporarily maintaining 4 flashboard risers to establish optimal water levels.
3. Following 3 - 5 years of monitoring, replacing all flashboard risers with
permanent ditch plugs.
4. Planting longleaf pine and pond pine plus selected hardwoods and woody
understory species to restore target wetland community types.
The proposed wetland enhancement measures include:
1. Filling and plugging primary and lateral ditches in and adjacent to forested
enhancement areas.
2. Temporarily maintaining 2 flashboard risers that have influence on enhancement
areas.
3. Following 3 - 5 years monitoring, replacing all flashboard risers with permanent
ditch plugs.
Adjacent landowners will not be affected by these proposed activities. The FSB is
hydrologically isolated from adjacent ownerships and planned hydrological modifications
will not impede drainage from these tracts.
4.2 Stream Restoration:
Stream restoration credits will be generated within the FSB through the analysis, design
and implementation of approximately 9000 linear feet of new stream channel for Flat
Swamp Creek. This channel will be located in two branches, one each in the north and
south sections of the FSB and will be connected via culverts to the existing headwaters of
Flat Swamp Creek at the boundary of the FSB property (Figure 5).
15
4.2.1 Goals and Objectives:
The overall goals and objectives of the mitigation project is to restore the physical and
ecological integrity of the wetland and stream systems within the site. Specific objectives
for stream restoration include: the reestablishment of the natural geometry of Flat Swamp
Creek in its historical location following clearing, ditching, roadbuilding and conversion
to agriculture. Additional goals include improving water quality through reduction in
sediment and nutrient export from the site and restoration of the biotic populations in the
stream and wetlands.
4.2.2 Project Description:
Please refer to Sections 1.0 and 2.0 in the Plan. Additional information on the project
specific to stream restoration is as follows: Stream Classification - stream type DA,
highly interconnected, stable channel system found on broad floodplains and within
associated wetlands (Rosgen Classification). Stream order - First order. Flat Swamp
Creek is a tributary to the Neuse River which is classified as Partially Supporting by the
State of North Carolina (See description in Section 2.1).
4.2.2.1 Site Map:
See Figures 1 and 2.
4.2.2.2 Rosgen Stream Classification:
The stream classification for Flat Swamp Creek restoration using the Rosgen System
would most closely resemble a DA stream type which is a broad, low gradient, stable
system with alluvium soils and an anastomosed pattern. Deposition is very fine textured
material in a broad floodplain and associated wetland environment. Bedloads are low
with high wash load sediment. The upper reaches of Flat Swamp Creek within the
project area are first order streams which convey water, primarily during the dormant
season from adjacent and extensive, broad wetlands. Source of the water is groundwater
and precipitation.
4.2.2.3 Site History:
See Section 2.0 and Figure 3. There are no known hazardous waste or cultural resource
sites on the property. There are no known endangered, rare or threatened species present
on the site or adjacent to the site.
4.2.3 Existing Conditions of the Watershed:
The Flat Swamp watershed has been extensively impacted by clearing, ditching and road
building over the past 30 - 40 years. These activities have obliterated much of the
historical stream and wetland systems including the riverine and nonriverine wetlands,
16
the small Coastal Plain first order streams and the second order streams going into the
Neuse River. The project area is in the upper reaches of the Flat Swamp Creek watershed
and therefore has a large influence on the water quality and habitat in Flat Swamp Creek
and ultimately the Neuse River.
Restoration and permanent protection of the wetlands and stream segments with the
project area will be a major positive contribution to the health of the Flat Swamp Creek
watershed because much of the site is currently in agriculture. All of the open
agricultural land will be returned to forest cover. Much of the land surrounding and
upstream from the project site is currently in forest and owned by Weyerhaeuser Corp.
The Weyerhaeuser lands will likely remain in forest that will add to the beneficial effect
of restoring the Flat Swamp Mitigation Site. We are actively evaluating adjacent
agricultural lands for inclusion in the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank that would add to the
beneficial effect of this project.
4.2.3.1 Map of Watershed:
See Figures 1 and 2.
4.2.3.2 Map of Drainage Area
See Figures 1 and 2.
4.2.3.3 Land Use Map
See Figure 3.
4.2.4 Existing Conditions of Stream
The original stream no longer exists having been obliterated by land clearing for
agriculture, ditching and road building (Figure 3). The original location of the stream
was determined using 1964 and 1970 aerial photos that show the area before disturbance.
From these photos, the hardwood drains and small stream swamp areas could be
identified. Using this information, new stream segments were located that would connect
with ditches from adjacent properties.
4.2.4.1 Community Types:
The existing plant communities are described in Section 2.3. The target community types
will be based on a reference riparian zone in the same watershed. We have located
several possible riparian locations that could be used as reference areas.
4.2.4.2 Table of Morphological Characteristics
Because the original Flat Swamp Creek on the project site is gone, morphological
characteristics must be obtained from a similar stream off site.
17
4.2.4.3 Biological Conditions:
Base data for benthics and fish will be established in the existing ditches and on the
reference reach.
4.2.5 Conditions of the Reference Reach:
The reference reach will have the same general conditions as that of the proposed steam
restoration site. The reach will be of the same stream order, similar in size and drainage
area. Data collected from the reference reach will be used to model the development of
the restored stream reach on the project site. The reference reach will provide the target
conditions for the restoration site.
4.2.6 Channel Design:
The channel design will be a reference table that contains present and proposed stream
dimensions, in addition to reference reach measurements. Current and proposed cross-
sections at various stations will be identified in the project and reference reaches.
4.2.7 Permitting:
Federal and State permits may be required for stream restoration work. Appropriate
permits will be obtained prior to any work.
4.2.8 Conditions of the Natural Communities:
See Section 2.3.
4.2.9 Monitoring:
To be determined.
4.3 Reference Plot Establishment:
Reference plots for the pine flatwoods, nonriverine wet hardwood forest and small
Coastal Plain swamp community types will be located in undisturbed areas as close to the
FSB as possible. The 47 acre forested area may be a potential location for one or more of
these plots even though this stand has had some disturbance within the past 20 years.
Otherwise adjacent lands will be evaluated with a preference for public trust lands. One
reference plot for each type will be located. Reference plots will be undisturbed and have
no ditching nearby that may influence their hydrologic status. Hydrologic characteristics
of reference stands will be monitored using shallow (< 40 inch) automatic recording
wells (daily data). The location of all proposed reference wells will be selected by the
Triangle Group and approved by the MBRT prior to data collection.
18
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of this project will occur immediately after approval of the Final
Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). Assuming obtaining
approvals during the summer of 1999, fieldwork will commence immediately to locate
reference plots and install monitoring wells. Field data collection will begin concurrently
for the reference plots and stream restoration work followed by stream channel design
and implementation during the fall. Site preparation for planting the agricultural fields
will also occur during the fall; that is normally the dry season. Seedlings will be ordered
during the summer of 1999 in order to plant during the winter and early spring of 2000.
6.0 REGULATORY RELEASE
The FSB will be determined to be successful once wetland hydrology is established
within the restoration areas and the vegetation success criteria are met within restoration
and enhancement areas. Success for stream restoration will be determined following
field inspection and approval by the MBRT of the restored channel and a demonstrated
functional uplift. Monitoring data will be collected for a period of 5 years or until all
success criteria are achieved. Annual reports will be submitted to the MBRT prior to the
end of each calendar year, documenting plant community conditions within the
restoration areas and documenting hydrologic data within the restoration areas and
reference plots. The Annual Report will also include a proposed plan of action for the
following year including maintenance activities and a contingency plan.
6.1 Hydrologic Criteria:
Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well data
collected within the FSB project area and approved reference plots. Automatic recording
wells will be established within restoration areas at a density of 1 automatic well per 85
acres (4 wells total). One automatic recording well will be established at each reference
plot (3 wells total). Daily data will be collected from automatic wells throughout the year
and over the 5-year monitoring period.
Wetland hydrology will be established if well data from restoration areas indicates
that the water table is within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 8 percent of the
growing season (19 consecutive days).
19
6.2 Vegetation Criteria:
The success criteria for the planted species in the restoration areas will be based on
survival and growth and the presence of non-target species such as loblolly pine and
sweetgum. Survival of planted species must be 300 stems / ac at the end of 5 years of
monitoring. Height growth must average 6.0 ft. Non-target species must not constitute
more than 20 percent of the woody vegetation based on permanent monitoring plots.
Permanent monitoring plots will be established in restoration and enhancement areas at a
density of 1 plot per 10 acres (restoration area = 34 plots) and (enhancement area = 5
plots). Permanent plots will be systematically located to ensure even coverage throughout
each area. The following data will be collected at each plot: species, survival, height
growth, basal area (if applicable), estimated percent cover of all species and evidence of
insects, disease and browsing.
6.3 Stream Restoration Criteria:
Success criteria for stream restoration will involve the establishment of a stabilized
reconstructed stream channel for Flat Swamp Creek within the restoration area. The
channel must be stabilized and vegetation must have attained the same success criteria as
for the wetland restoration areas. A functional uplift based on water sampling before and
after project implementation will be used as a measure for water quality improvement.
Measured parameters will include suspended sediments, nutrients and benthos.
7.0 CREDIT TOTAL AND RELEASE SCHEDULE
The proposed credit value and release schedule for the FSB are based on recent
agreements among State and Federal agencies following meetings in April 1999.
As result of those meetings, consensus was reached on wetland credit values and release
of credits for mitigation banks in North Carolina. The combination of mitigation types is
dependent on the specific bank site and the combination of restoration, enhancement and
preservation acres present on a given bank site.
20
A RESTORATION CREDIT CAN BE COMPOSED OF ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
1 acre of restoration plus 4 acres of enhancement (5 acres total)
or
1 acre of restoration plus 10 acres of preservation (11 acres total)
or
2 acres of restoration (2 acres total)
All of the above combinations satisfy the State of North Carolina requirement of a
minimum of 1 restoration acre be used to mitigate for each acre of wetland impact.
The FSB contains 339 acres of restoration (318.34 acres - Nonriverine Wet Pine
Flatwoods and Wet Hardwood Forest and 20.66 acres - Riverine Small Coastal Plain
Stream Swamp) PLUS 47 acres of enhancement (Nonriverine). Using the above
formulas for determining restoration credits, the following is proposed:
Using the 47 nonriverine wetland enhancement acres in combination with nonriverine
wetland restoration acres yields: 11.75 Nonriverine Restoration Credits (47
enhancement acres / 4 = 11.75 plus 11.75 restoration acres). Total Area = 58.75 acres
Using the remaining 306.59 acres of nonriverine restoration (318.34 - 11.75 = 306.59)
yields: 153.30 Nonriverine Restoration Credits (306.59 / 2 = 153.30). Total Area =
318.34 acres
Total Number of Nonriverine Restoration Credits =165.05
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESTORATION CREDITS =165.05 CREDITS
TOTAL AREA IN THE FSB = 386 ACRES
TOTAL ESTIMATED LINEAR STREAM RESTORATION = 9000 FEET
21
Wetland mitigation and stream restoration credits will be released according to the
schedule outlined below:
Milestone Percent
Release
MBRT approval of Mitigation Plan, execution of MBI
and recordation of conservation easement 15%
Following Implementation and Year 1 monitoring and
MBRT approval of Annual Report 10%
Following Year 2 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual Report 10%
Following Year 3 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual Report 10%
Following Year 4 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual report 15%
Following Year 5 of monitoring and MBRT approval of
Annual Report 15%
Final Approval
25%
22
8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Brinson, M.M., A.E.Lugo and S. Brown. 1981 Primary Productivity, Decomposition and
Consumer Activity in freshwater Wetlands. Ann. Rev. Syst. 12:123-161.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program, Tech Rpt.
WRP-DE-4, 79pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological
Services Program, Biological Rpt. FWS/OBS-79/31, 103 pp.
Crowover, S.H., N.B. Comerford, D.G. Neary and J. Montgomery. 1995. Horizontal
Groundwater Flow Patterns Through a Cypress Swamp-Pine Flatwoods Landscape. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J 59:1199-1206.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Exp. Sta.,
Vicksburg, MS.
Federal Register. 1995. Federal Guidance for Establishment, Use and Operation of
Mitigation Banks, Federal Register, 60(43): 12286-12293.
Eustrom, R.T. 1993. Characteristic Mammals and Birds of Longleaf Pine Forests. Proc.
18 Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. S.M. Hermann (ed): The Longleaf Pine
Ecosystem: Ecology, Restoration and Management, Tall Timbers Research Inc.
Tallahassee, FL.
Guyer, C. and M.A. Bailey. 1993. Amphibians and Reptiles of Longleaf Pine
Communities. Proc. 18'h Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. S.M. Hermann (ed):
The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem; ecology, Restoration and Management, Tall Timbers
Research Inc., Tallahassee, FL.
Loeb, S.C. and M.R. Lennartz. 1989. The Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger) in Southeastern
Pine-Hardwood Forests. In: T.A. Waldrop (ed), Proc. Of Pine-Hardwood Mixtures: A
Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type. U.S.D.A. For Serv. Southeastern
For Exp. Sta, Gen Tech. Rpt. 5E-58, Asheville, NC
Maki, T.E.. A.J. Weber, D.W. Hazel, S.C. Hunter, B.T. Hyberg, D.M. Flinchum, J.P.
Lollis, J.B. Rognstad and J.D. Gregory. 1980. Effect of Stream Channelization on
Bottomland and Swamp Forest Ecosystems. Water Resources Res. Instit. Rpt. 147,
Raleigh, NC
23
Mulholland, P.J. 1981. Organic Flow in a Swamp Stream Ecosystem. Ecol. Mono.
51(3): 307-322.
Reddy, K.R. and W.H. Patrick. 1975. Effect of Alternate Aerobic and Anaerobic
Conditions on Redox Potential, Organic Matter Decomposition and Nitrogen Loss in a
Flooded Soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 7:87-94.
Schaflale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC, 325 pp.
Sharp, T. 1998. The Sandhills Quail Mystery. Wildlife in North Carolina, 62(2): 9-12.
Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam and J.S. Barnes. 1980. Effect of Agricultural Land
Development on Drainage Waters in the North Carolina Tidewater Region. Water Res.
Res. Inst. Rpt. 159, Raleigh, NC
Skaggs, R.W., D.M. Amatya, R.O. Evans and J.E. Parsons. 1991. Methods for Evaluating
Wetland Hydrology. Paper No. 912590 Presented at the ASAE International Winter
Meeting, Chicago IL, Dec 1991.
Still, H.R. and D.P. Baumann. 1989. Wild Turkey Activities in relation to Timber Types
on the Francis Marion National Forest. In: T.A. Waldrop (ed), Proc. Pine-Hardwood
Mixtures; A Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type., U.S.D.A. Forest
Serv., Southeastern For Exp. Sta., Gen Tech. Rpt. SE-58, Asheville, NC
U.S.D.A. 1989. Soil Survey of Craven County, North Carolina. Soil Conservation
Service, 157 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1975. State of North Carolina Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974.
U.S Dep. of Interior., U.S. Geological Survey in Cooperation with the U.S. Water Res.
Council, Reston VA.
Walker, J. and R.K. Peet. 1983. Composition and Species Diversity of Pine-Wiregrass
Savannas of the Green Swamp, North Carolina. Vegetatio 55:163-179.
WRP. 1993. Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Exp. Sta., Wetland Res. Prog. Tech. Note HY-IA-3.1, 14 pp.
24

W"
0o J O? ? •A W N ""
a' CA
rte- a O Crl `o 4 a n ,b 'S7
f7
? C7 ? ? ? d II ,.? tri II Or
II II II -,I Cn
oG`?
o p P 0 O G CD
? ?• r, ? P CD
o• o CD o y ?i O
?d o o cir C F
O CD y 'S `C
O
r h CD •O
CD O 0?0
• w 'v? O • 00
a
W CD CD CD
p ?'.
CD CD `o
CD UO
CD fD A? O
o o
vcni CD O ??C
cD
d O cn 00 A?
CD
CD
O O A?
cy,
CD v J CD ~
O
vz CD CD
Q `? o o CD
CD CD
C
C,-, m
r
=w

N

00 - v o O oo ? . v,

w v 0 0 w v, ?p
w ? v? o _- w o o
tJ ? i
O, t ? w r _? N ?o0

o?'w ? ? roo iJ??

O -? O ??? IJ O? I J
o v, oo 4--
O ?] a v, O CJ ?I O
t?

n
y ?7

N

O
A ?
,C.
C
O ? O
? o
00
O
N
o
0
CD
o
CD
CD
o ?.
? o•
.O
G. ?.
CAD.
o ?
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
To: Subject:
r?\.
\Or
P?
N
MEMO From: Date:
I '-? -- 4 At tOMPA -;
016
0
- I?
? R
6
Kk_
Abe
R
?%• ?, i ri. S.- a er ,. '
INIMA
NCDENR
NonT, G Iu" DEPMIMEN! of
EHViAONn-- Nwnma. Reso R-
PO BOX 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 / Phone [phone]
Division of Water Quality
To:
?>
Wetlands Restoration Program
MEMO From: Date:
Subject:
'?s
I
FINWA
vt??p NCDENR
.,?"? • Np C-UNA DEpARTNEM aF
E.-... u?o N.n - Renounces
0 BOX 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 / Phone [phone]
s.,
-rK
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
MEMO From:
To:

Date:
-Subject:
e-t (IL., tq f-4+e-zi.
tie
Auo-rd M ?

61 ?
Litz,

s5, , o x
) ci, 17)
i qS-PAVC
A' 71 r ..a.?- ?1-1-
FqCDENR
NOrrm CAROLINA DEPnRTnFM OF ?' ? ?
FJIVIRONMENT ANO Nwivww RESO?wces ? ?v
PO BOX 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 / Phone [phone]
26. The Mitigation Plans are intended to result in the following forms and amounts in acres of
compensatory mitigation:
Summary of proposed restoration and enhancement activities within the
Flat Swam Wetland Miti ration and Stream Restoration Bank
Existing plant Mitigation Proposed Area
community e Type Activities
Agricultural fields a/
(PC) and Flat Swamp Wetland and Plug ditches, site prepare site by 339.0 ac
Creek Stream ripping, low bedding, cross cultivation,
Restoration construct ephemeral ponds, restore Flat
Swamp Creek Channel and plant
wetland vegetation
Wet Pine Flatwoods
Enhancement Plug ditches. 8.0 ac
Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest Enhancement Plug ditches. 39.0 ac
Total Area 386.0 ac
a / onriverine Wet Pine Flatwoods and Wet Har = 318.34 acres
iverine Small Coastal Plain Stream Swam = 20.66 acres
27 Successful implementation of the Mitigation Plan will result in the creation of the following
number of mitigation credits:
ASSUMING A "RESTORATION CREDIT " CAN BE COMPOSED OF ANY OF
THE FOLLOWING: ------ -
1 acre of restoration plus 4 acres of enhancement (5 acres total)
6
or
1 acre of restoration plus 10 acres of preservation (11 acres total)
or
2 acres of restoration (2 acres total)
Wetlands:
• 165.05 credits of Nonriverine Wetland Community Types including: wet pine flatwoods
and wet hardwood forest (47 acres enhancement / 4 = 11.75 plus 11.75 ac PC Ag field
restoration .= 11.75 credits (58.75 ac) AND 306.59 ac PC Ag field restoration / 2 = 153.30
credits (306.59 ac)
Total Credits (Restoration) (153.30): 153.30 credits
Total Credits (Enhancement) (47 / 4): 11.75 credits
Total Wetland Credits Available from the Bank: 165.05 credits
Note: 20.66 acres of Riverine Small Coastal Plain Swamp (9000 linear ft X 100 ft) are not
included in the above calculations. This area (50 ft. buffer on each side of the restored stream)
will be designated as stream buffer (Meuse River Buffer Rules) and will be accounted for
separately. Stream buffer area is not part of this MBI.
Streams:
* 9000 credits (linear feet) including the Flat Swamp creek channel.
28. It is anticipated by the parties that use of mitigation credits shall be "in-kind;" that is, that
the above described types of wetland and stream restoration credits will be used to offset
the same type of wetland and stream impacts.
29. It is anticipated by the parties that in most cases in which the Corps, after consultation
?-` with members of the MBRT, has determined that mitigation credits from the Bank may
be used to offset wetland impacts authorized by Section 404 permits, for every one acre
of impact, one mitigation credit (acre) will be debited from the Bank. Deviations from
the one-to-one compensation ratio may be authorized by the Corps on a case-by-case
basis where justified by considerations of functions of the wetlands impacted, the severity
of the impacts to wetlands, whether the compensatory mitigation is in-kind, and physical
proximity of the wetland impacts to the Bank Site. For impacts where either the Corps or
NCDWQ have determined that greater than a one-to-one compensation ratio is required,
additional restoration credits held by the Bank may be used. In all cases, a minimum of
one-to-one ratio of impacts acres to restoration mitigation credits (acres) must be met.
7
For stream impacts, stream credits from this bank can only be used to compensate for
impacts to same order or lower streams.
30. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using credits
from the Bank to offset imnact.q to wntarc and .xnatl a"A. - --11 -- -3--- _ • -11
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
By: Date:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
By: Date:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
By: Date:
National Marine Fisheries Service
By: Date:
NC Division of Water Quality
By: Date:
NC Division of Coastal Management
By:
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
By:
Bank Sponsor - The Triangle Group, Inc.
By:
Date:
Date:
Date:
13
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration
Bank Plan
Appendix B: Property Survey and Legal Description
Appendix C: Map - General Service Area
Appendix D: Construction Costs
Appendix E: Maintenance and Monitoring Costs
Appendix D

Construction Costs - Phase I - Wetland Restoration Cost
Engineering - survey, stakeout, design, data collection $15,000
Implementation - site prep, grading, ditch plugs , stream channel $20,000
Planting - seedlings, transportation, labor, herbicide application,
oversight - 318 ac @$400/ac $127,200
TOTAL: $ 162,200

Construction Costs - Phase II - Stream Restoration
Engineering - topographic survey, hydrologic design, stream
Restoration data collection, stream design $65,000
Implementation - site prep, grading, stream channel $75,000
Planting - seedlings, transportation, labor, herbicide application,
Oversight - 21 acres @ $400 / acre $8400
TOTAL: $148,400
ip G-OC
I?po q-0&
3',(14?
Appendix E
Maintenance and Monitoring Costs - Phase I - Wetland Cost
Restoration
Maintenance: mowing, herbicides, precommercial thinning, ditch $75,000
plugs, roads, erosion control, pest control
$15,000 / year X 5 years
Monitoring: vegetation, hydrology, soils data collection, analyses, $50,000
and Annual Reports, field tours $10,000 / year X 5 years
TOTAL: $125,000

Maintenance and Monitoring Costs - Phase II - Stream
Restoration
Maintenance: $5000 / year X 5 years $25,000
Monitoring: $10,000 / year X 5 years $50,000
TOTAL: $75,000
E TRIANGLE GROUP
THE FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK
Phase I - Nonriverine Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
Craven County, North Carolina
Prepared By:
THE TRIANGLE GROUP
1001 Capability Drive
Research I - Suite 312
Centennial Campus
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
December 1, 1999
•s'w
NEW JERSEY NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA
1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q24 Research Building 1 P.O. Box 551
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Centennial Campus New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
[phone] 0 Fax: [phone] Capability Drive, Suite 312 [phone] 0 Fax: [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
[phone] 0 Fax: [phone]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Site Description 1
2.1 Hydrology 1
2.2 Soils 4
2.3 Existing Plant Communities 4
2.4 Ecological Processes and Functions 8
2.4.1 Functional Uplift of the Proposed Project 10
3.0 Mitigation 10
3.1 Proposed Actions 10
3.1.1 Hydrology 10
3.1.2 Soils 12
3.1.3 Plant Communities 14
4.0 Wetland Mitigation 15
4.1 Reference Plot Establishment 15
5.0 Implementation 16
6.0 Regulatory Release 16
6.1 Hydrologic Criteria 17
6.2 Vegetative Criteria 17
7.0 Credit Total and Release Schedule 18
8.0 Literature Cited 21
i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Conceptual Plan describes the proposed actions for establishment of the Flat Swamp
Mitigation Bank (FSB) - Phase I - Nonriverine Wetland Restoration and Enhancement,
for offsetting unavoidable wetland losses associated with projects requiring Clean Water
Act Section 404 Dredge and Fill permits within the proposed General Service Area
(GSA).
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
Flat Swamp Creek originates south of Fort Barnwell, north of Dover Bay and east of
Dover Road in Craven County, North Carolina. Flat Swamp Creek is a tributary of the
Neuse River and flows east, intersecting Core Creek before emptying into the south side
of the Neuse River. The FSB is located in the headwaters of Flat Swamp Creek (Latitude
35 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds N and Longitude 77 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds E).
(Figure 1). It is accessible via Dover road to the west and Jamestown Road to the east.
The FSB encompasses extensive areas of cleared and drained wetlands currently in
agricultural production and forestry. Total area of the FSB is 386 acres, which includes
339 acres of prior-converted (PC) agricultural land and 47 acres of partially drained
forested wetlands (Figure 2). The FSB is adjacent and directly north of Dover Bay that is
currently being restored as mitigation for the Global TransPark Project near Kinston. The
FSB is also adjacent to lands being managed for timber production by forest industry and
private individuals. Based on the remaining forested wetlands on the tract and adjacent
areas, the FSB once supported a rich diversity of habitats including wetflat hardwoods
and pine, swamp hardwoods, cypress and riverine hardwoods along the historic Flat
Swamp Creek channel. Much of this habitat has been destroyed or altered during the past
15 - 20 years as result of the ditching, draining, channelization and road building
associated with the conversion of the land to agriculture production.
2.1 Hydrology:
The FSB is located in the Neuse Hydrologic Unit (03020202), in Craven, Pitt, Lenoir,
and Green and Wayne counties (US Geological Survey, 1975). The Neuse River in this
area is classified as Partially Supporting by the State of North Carolina. The factors for
this classification include intensive agriculture and other point and nonpoint sources of
pollution within the hydrological unit and upstream. The FSB is adjacent and upstream
to the Lower Neuse Hydrologic Unit (03020204), which includes Support - Threatened
areas in the Neuse and Pamlico Sounds. The entrance to Pamlico Sound is a particularly
degraded area because it is the Neuse River terminus and at this location, the water
becomes slow and stagnant. Extensive fish kills due to low oxygen levels and Pfisteria
outbreaks have become commonplace during the summer in this area and the recent
flooding has been extremely damaging to this region of the state.
The primary hydrologic inputs to the FSB tract are precipitation and groundwater
discharge. The tract is in the headwaters of Flat Swamp Creek and therefore has a large
influence on the water quantity and quality downstream. Historically, the entire area was
forested and undisturbed which maintained very high water quality in Flat Swamp Creek.
Now, much of this headwater area is cleared and ditched resulting in more rapid surface
runoff and an increased risk of sediment and nutrient pollution going into Flat Swamp
Creek and eventually the Neuse River (Figure 3).
Based on aerial photography and field inspection, the historic channel of Flat Swamp
Creek bisected the southern and northern portions of the FSB tract (Figure 3). Currently,
the creek channel is confined to a roadside ditch that crosses the property from west to
east; exits on the southeast side and eventually reaches the existing Flat Swamp Creek
channel approximately one-half mile from the property. A small portion of the drainage
from the FSB exits the tract on the northeast side via a roadside ditch and eventually
reaches another tributary to Flat Swamp Creek. Drainage within the tract is controlled by
4 flashboard risers. The entire ditch and drainage system currently existing within the
FSB is connected with adjacent parcels to the north and west but there are no water
control structures on these parcels and water flows freely through the FSB. Our proposed
modifications to restore wetland hydrology to the agricultural fields will have no impact
on any adjacent landowners.
2.2 Soils:
Soils mapped within the FSB include Torhunta and Pantego Series, which are both,
classified as hydric soils (Figure 4). These soils typically are poorly drained and are
found in broad interstream flatwoods situations and along slow moving Coastal Plain
streams. Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam is formed in loamy sediments and is
frequently ponded during wet periods (USDA, 1989). The upper part of the surface layer
is black mucky fine sandy loam about 3 inches thick. The lower horizon to a depth of 18
inches is very dark gray fine sandy loam. Infiltration is medium and surface runoff is
slow. Torhunta soils are extremely acid to strongly acid except where lime has been
added to the surface.
Pantego mucky fine sandy loam is also frequently ponded during wet periods (USDA,
1989). The surface layer is a black mucky fine sand about 10 inches thick with a lower
horizon of very dark gray and grayish brown fine sandy loam. Infiltration is medium and
runoff is very slow. Pantego soils are extremely to strongly acid except when lime has
been added. A summary of the soil mapping units, their hydric status and depth and
duration of water table is shown in Table 1.
2.3 Existing Plant Communities:
The existing plant communities within the FSB are representative of both natural
communities and communities resulting from human disturbance (Table 2). Only about
12 percent (47 acres) of the tract is currently in forest cover with the remaining 88
4
SCALE: 1 inch = 1000 feet
Figure 3: Aerial Photo - Existing Ditch System
Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank
Craven County, North Carolina
Craven County, North Carolina
SCALE: 1 inch = 3,100 feet
Figure 4: Soils Map
Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank
percent (339) acres in agricultural fields. The main agricultural crops grown on this tract
since clearing have been corn, soybeans, and cotton and forage grasses. The extensive
clearing, ditching, channelization and road building have eliminated or significantly
altered the natural plant communities. However, based on sampling of the forested
portion of the tract, the natural plant communities include wet pine flatwoods,
nonriverine wet hardwood forest and coastal plain small stream swamp. Descriptions of
natural plant community types generally follow those presented by Schafale and Weakley
(1990).
Table 1 - Summary of Soil Mapping Units Within the Flat Swamp Wetland and Stream
Mitigation Bank, Craven County, North Carolina.
Map Soil Type Soil Hydric Depth and Duration of Estimated
Symbol Type Subgroup Status a/ High Water Table b/ Extent %

To Torhunta mucky Thermic typic Hydric 0 - 18 inches 24
Fine sandy loam humaquepts Nov - April
Pa Pantego mucky Umbric Hydric 0 - 18 inches 76
Fine sandy loam paleaquults Nov - April
a/ Hydric soils list for North Carolina
b/ Based on soil taxonomy for undrained conditions
Wet Pine Flatwoods and Non Riverine Wet hardwood Forest:
These community types occur on somewhat poorly to poorly drained sites on broad
interstream divides. These sites support second growth forests and have been influenced
by road building and accelerated drainage via nearby perimeter field ditches and creek
channelization. Soil series include Torhunta and Pantego. Fire has been excluded and
this has resulted in the development of a very heavy woody understory. Overstory
species in the wet pine flatwoods type in primarily loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and mixed
hardwoods. Dominant overstory tree species in the non-riverine wet hardwood forest
includes sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red
maple (Acer rubrum), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos) and
swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora). Subcanopy woody species include:
loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), red bay (Persea borbonia), American holly (Ilex
decidua), gallberry holly (Ilex coriacea), inkberry holly (Ilex glabra) and sweet
pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia). Non-woody understory species include giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), Virginia chain fern
(Woodwardia virginica) and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea). Woody vines
include: poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), wild grape (Vitus spp.) and greenbriar
(Smilax spp.).
7
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp:
This community type occurs on very poorly drained sites on both Pantego and Torhunta
series soils within natural drainages in the FSB. This type was more extensive in the
project area before it was cleared, graded, ditched and converted to agriculture. The
overstory tree species that dominate this type include: swamp black gum, red maple,
baldcypress (Taxodium distichum var. distichum), green ash, black willow (Salix nigra)
and sweetgum. The understory species include: red bay, sweet pepperbush, inkberry
holly, and sweetgum. Understory ferns and vines include: netted chain fern, Virginia
chain fern, cinnamon fern, greenbriar, poison ivy and wild grape.
Table 2: Summary of Existing Plant Communities and Wetland Types Within the.
Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank
Plant community Estimated Mitigation Wetland HGM
Description /a Area Activity Type /b Type /c
Agricultural Fields 339 ac Restoration Various Mineral
(PC) Flat
Wet Pine Flatwoods 8 ac Enhancement PF04E Mineral
Flat
Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest 39 ac Enhancement PFOlE Mineral
Flat
a/ follows Schafale and Weakley (1990); b/ follows Cowardin et al. (1979);
c/ follows Brinson (1993).
2.4 Ecological Processes and Functions:
A variety of ecological processes and functions can be attributed to the wetland types
within the proposed FSB. These functions are directly related to the
geomorphic/landscape setting and hydrologic attributes of the wetland types (Brinson,
1993). The characteristic hydroperiod of these wetland types varies from seasonally
saturated (mineral and organic flats) to semipermanently flooded (small stream swamp).
The fluctuating hydroperiod promotes alternating cycles of aerobic and anaerobic soil
conditions and increases the potential primary productivity, organic matter
decomposition, nutrient mineralization and denitrification functions (Brinson et al., 1981;
Mulholland, 1981; Reddy and Patrick, 1975). Prior to conversion, the characteristic
hydroperiod within the extensive mineral soil flats resulted in short term surface water
storage and long term subsurface water storage to support base flow augmentation in this
headwater riverine system. Now the presence of a ditch network increases peak runoff
rates, decreases the retention time of precipitation and surface water, alters natural
groundwater flow patterns and increases the mean depth to.the seasonal water table
(Crownover et al., 1995; Maki et al., 1980; Skaggs et al., 1980; and WRP, 1993).
The agricultural conversion activity also results in the following:
1. Decreased dissolved carbon export and food chain support due to decreased
contact time between shallow groundwater and soil matrix / organic matter.
2. Increased primary productivity and transpirational losses due to soil drainage and
reduction of anaerobic soil conditions.
3. Increased nitrogen mineralization and decreased denitrification due to soil
drainage.
4. Decreased short-term surface water storage and long-term subsurface water
storage resulting in decreased base flow augmentation.
5. Habitat interspersion of uplands and wetlands.
Seasonally saturated wetlands are usually located at relatively higher landscape positions
and exhibit high subsurface water storage functions. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
wetlands are located at relatively low landscape positions and exhibit floodflow retention
functions. The degree of microrelief across the wetland types will determine the degree
of surface water retention and the amount of sediment and nutrient trapping within the
wetlands. The short-term surface water retention results in increased contact time
between organic matter and surface water and increased carbon export functions.
Because of the conversion to agriculture, most of the original functions of these wetlands
have been lost. In addition to the above-described functions, other functions such as
biogeochemical transformations and habitat functions have similarly been adversely
affected or eliminated. For example, there has likely been a large increase in sediment
and nutrient export from this site into Flat Swamp Creek. There is no longer a natural
occurrence of fire on the site. This affects biogeochemical functions and wildlife habitat
value. Due to the decline of open, fire-maintained flatwoods habitat throughout North
Carolina, there are now over 87 species of rare vascular plants dependent upon remnants
of this habitat type (Walker, 1993). There are 36 species of mammals, 34 amphibian
species, 38 reptilian species and 86 bird species including the red cockaded woodpecker
associated with longleaf pine ecosystems throughout the Southeast (Engstrom, 1993;
Guyer and Bailey, 1993). Additional game species favored by wet pine and pine /
hardwood ecosystems include bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), wild turkey
(Nleleagris gallopavo) and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) (Sharp, 1998; Still and Baumann,
1989; Loeb and Lennartz, 1989). Additional game species such as whitetail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and black bears (Ursus americanus) will be favored by
restoration and maintenance of wet pine flatwoods, nonriverine hardwood forest and
small Coastal Plain swamp forest. In addition, all of these wetland types provide grazing
and browsing habitat and soft mast production.
9
2.4.1 Functional Uplift of the Proposed Project.
The wetland mitigation activities associated with the proposed FSB will result in an uplift
of existing water quality and habitat functions. Elimination of channelized flow within
ditches and restoration of flow through natural creeks will increase water quality
functions. The proposed ditch plugging and filling will result in increased short-term
surface and subsurface water storage and subsequent increase in the duration and
elevation of the seasonally high water table. The increased retention time of surface and
subsurface water on the broad interstream flats will result in reduced peak flows and
augmented base flow within Flat Swamp Creek. Increased retention time will also
facilitate a variety of biogeochemical transformations such as denitrification and
dissolved organic carbon export. Reduced nitrogen export and increased carbon export
will benefit downstream areas in Flat Swamp Creek and the Neuse River.
3.0 MITIGATION
The Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines of the clean Water Act (16 USC 1344), as described in
40 CFR Part 230, states that unavoidable wetland loss resulting from filling activities
may be offset by effective mitigation actions. According to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, mitigation actions should include avoidance, minimization,
restoration, enhancement and compensation for unavoidable impacts. After all practical
attempts to avoid and minimize wetland losses have been accomplished; compensatory
mitigation in any of the forms (i.e. wetland creation, restoration, enhancement, and/or
preservation) should be developed.
3.1 Proposed Actions:
3.1.1 Hydrology:
The first step in restoring hydrology will be to demonstrate that under the 1987 Corps
Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) that criteria for soil saturation, e.g. soils
saturated to the surface for 5% or more of the growing season in most years have been
achieved. This site will first be modeled using Drainmod (Skaggs et al., 1991) to
demonstrate the potential for achieving jurisdictional wetland status. A water balance has
been prepared which shows excess moisture during much of the growing season (Table
3). In addition, automatic recording wells will be placed in representative areas of the
prior converted (PC) agricultural fields to collect hydrology data beginning in the winter
of 2000. The growing season for the project area begins approximately March 18 and
ends on November 14 or 240 days. We propose using an 8% time period for determining
------------- -
10
0
3N
O
o ?
E-? v
N ?
cz
0
U
O ti)
-o
•u 3
U
U
O ?O
o °
C
tp 0
? O
t? O
C y
3 0
O ?
Cfj 7-1
_U
U ? N
M
N
CIS
W ?+? E N O O O r--? _ nt
V
V
s
C?
ti
J
W
a
'T
x
W
?r, 7C c CIO
r- --r r I
G '' ?:) O '-+
N O O O o- o 'O
00 p N v? N
N
s c ; ?n .q c?
c? ^ ?r, ? O G1 ? crl
Cl
r t'1oo.?r-
c 7 O O -Y l`
r- ?1 v'i ,-+ C I
c cn o
c r
r- -t oo ' ? ? o ? ' ? O
c? rl v? O O M O
?n cam; rte, Q O v? ?C
oC N c' 1 ?? N O
N r
? o0 0 o o t` o oo
N
r f' ? rT ? O O C ? ri'
? rr c? ? o o ?f- o M
o r; ?n ? ?n ° .?n
N`

w 3
v o I'
? w
a ?,

,a

- ?1 i

11

ti

O p ? Q ?
N
o to

i-i
N N

3co c
4° C?
^ cn o
>
?p O Q, vii Cd

o°
?" 0

O N
.o ? O O
bD ¢,• W
a 'C3

o ? ? -o i W 'Y
s, U •0 03 tj
crj
O Gl, W O
"?
W ? ? ? O p.,
U ¢• ? L1+ ?
C
)
4M,
CIS cvn)
q
)
o o
H 4M,
3
0 ? ;-4 o
a
q, aj 2
4- 0
Q
U k
W 4?

tD °
OHO -; d 0 En
w
6, 03 En
o
U O "

cd
? M n
?
cn N O

?
a
W a"Cf) ?`t II oQ?
II WQi' U?"Q? W °??
c) c")

--.NM 4tln ?O l-oo
the number of consecutive days of saturation or inundation. This results in approximately
19 days. We feel 8% is appropriate for these wetland types.
Our plan for hydrological modifications includes ditch plugging, filling ditch segments
and vegetating permanent ditch plugs (Figure 5). Permanent ditch plugs will be used for
establishing final water levels on the site. Ditch plugs that conform to Natural Resource
Conservation Service Guidelines will be used to permanently reestablish the natural
hydrology of the site (Appendix - Ditch Plugs Cross Section).
At each specified ditch plug location, ditches will be filled according to the following
protocol:
1. Existing ditch will be excavated to remove vegetation and organic material and
excavated organic material will be stockpiled
2. Ditch plug location will be backfilled with available onsite material (preferably
clay to sandy clay loam) to an elevation 12 inches above the surrounding natural
topography or to the elevation of the adjacent road. Ditch plugs will be a
minimum of 100 feet in length and all areas will be graded and compacted
following placement of material.
3. Stockpiled organic material will be spread over ditch plugs to a depth of 3 - 6
inches
4. Fertilizer and lime will be spread over ditch plugs at rates dictated by soil test
results
5. Ditch plugs will be stabilized by seeding with herbaceous seed mix and / or
planted with native woody plants species at a 6 ft x 6 ft spacing.
All monitoring wells (9 total wells) will be installed according to guidelines outlined by
the U S Army Corps, Waterways Experiment Station (WRP, 1993). Well data will be
used to document hydrologic restoration within the drained agricultural field areas.
3.1.2. Soils:
Project success is dependent on the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology
within the restoration areas. All soil series within the FSB are considered hydric
(Table 1).
12
the number of consecutive days of saturation or inundation. This results in approximately
19 days. We feel 8% is appropriate for these wetland types.
Our plan for hydrological modifications includes ditch plugging, filling ditch segments
and vegetating permanent ditch plugs (Figure 5). Permanent ditch plugs will be used for
establishing final water levels on the site. Ditch plugs that conform to Natural Resource
Conservation Service Guidelines will be used to permanently reestablish the natural
hydrology of the site (Appendix - Ditch Plugs Cross Section).
At each specified ditch plug location, ditches will be filled according to the following
protocol:
1. Existing ditch will be excavated to remove vegetation and organic material and
excavated organic material will be stockpiled
2. Ditch plug location will be backfilled with available onsite material (preferably
clay to sandy clay loam) to an elevation 12 inches above the surrounding natural
topography or to the elevation of the adjacent road. Ditch plugs will be a
minimum of 100 feet in length and all areas will be graded and compacted
following placement of material.
3. Stockpiled organic material will be spread over ditch plugs to a depth of 3 - 6
inches
4. Fertilizer and lime will be spread over ditch plugs at rates dictated by soil test
results
5. Ditch plugs will be stabilized by seeding with herbaceous seed mix and / or
planted with native woody plants species at a 6 ft x 6 ft spacing.
All monitoring wells (9 total wells) will be installed according to guidelines outlined by
the U S Army Corps, Waterways Experiment Station (WRP, 1993). Well data will be
used to document hydrologic restoration within the drained agricultural field areas.
3.1.2. Soils:
Project success is dependent on the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology
within the restoration areas. All soil series within the FSB are considered hydric
(Table 1).
12
A NH MAMUM ?;- , c f a , '
Wetlands.
Maki, T.E.. A.J. Weber, D.W. Hazel, S.C. Hunter, B.T. Hyberg, D.M. Flinchum, J.P.
Lollis, J.B. Rognstad and J.D. Gregory. 1980. Effect of Stream Channelization on
Bottomland and Swamp Forest Ecosystems. Water Resources Res. Instit. Rpt.
147, Raleigh, NC
Mulholland, P.J. 1981. Organic Flow in a Swamp Stream Ecosystem. Ecol. Mono.
51(3): 307-322.
Reddy, K.R. and W.H. Patrick. 1975. Effect of Alternate Aerobic and Anaerobic
Conditions on Redox Potential, Organic Matter Decomposition and Nitrogen Loss
in a Flooded Soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 7:87-94.
Schaflale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, 325 pp.
Sharp, T. 1998. The Sandhills Quail Mystery. Wildlife in North Carolina, 62(2): 9-12.
Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam and J.S. Barnes. 1980. Effect of Agricultural Land
Development on Drainage Waters in the North Carolina Tidewater Region.
Water Res. Res. Inst. Rpt. 159, Raleigh, NC
Skaggs, R.W., D.M. Amatya, R.O. Evans and J.E. Parsons. 1991. Methods for Evaluating
Wetland Hydrology. Paper No. 912590 Presented at the ASAE International
Winter Meeting, Chicago IL, Dec 1991.
Spurr, S. H. 1952. Forest Inventory. Roland Press, New York.
Still; H.R. and D.P. Baumann. 1989. Wild Turkey Activities in relation to Timber Types
on the Francis Marion National Forest. In: T.A. Waldrop (ed), Proc. Pine-
Hardwood Mixtures; A Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type.
U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., SE For Exp. Sta., Gen Tech. Rpt. 5E-58, Asheville, NC
U.S.D.A. 1989. Soil Survey of Craven County, North Carolina. Soil Conservation
Service, 157 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1975. State of North Carolina Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974.
U.S Dep. of Interior., U.S. Geological Survey in Cooperation with the U.S. Water
Res. Council, Reston VA.
Walker, J. and R.K. Peet. 1983. Composition and Species Diversity of Pine-Wiregrass
Savannas of the Green Swamp, North Carolina. Vegetatio 55:163-179.
WRP. 1993. Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Exp. Sta., Wetland Res. Prog. Tech. Note HY-IA-3.1, 14 pp.
22
HE TRIANGLE GROUP

A CONCEPTUAL PLAN
THE FLAT SWAMP WETLAND MITIGATION
AND STREAM RESTORATION BANK
Craven County, North Carolina
Prepared By:
THE TRIANGLE GROUP
1001 Capability Drive
Research I - Suite 312
Centennial Campus
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
June 1, 1999

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Conceptual Plan describes the proposed actions for establishment of the Flat Swamp
Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank (FSB) for offsetting unavoidable
wetland and stream losses associated with projects requiring Clean Water Act Section
404 Dredge and Fill permits within the proposed General Service Area (GSA).
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
Flat Swamp Creek originates south of Fort Barnwell, north of Dover Bay and east of
Dover Road in Craven County, North Carolina. Flat Swamp Creek is a tributary of the
Neuse River and flows east, intersecting Core Creek before emptying into the south side
of the Neuse River. The FSB is located in the headwaters of Flat Swamp Creek (Latitude
35 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds N and Longitude 77 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds E).
(Figure 1). It is accessible via Dover road to the west and Jamestown Road to the east.
The FSB encompasses extensive areas of cleared and drained wetlands currently in
agricultural production and forestry. Total area of the FSB is 386 acres, which includes
339 acres of prior-converted (PC) agricultural land and 47 acres of partially drained
forested wetlands (Figure 2). The FSB is adjacent and directly north of Dover Bay that is
currently being restored as mitigation for the Global TransPark Project near Kinston. The
FSB is also adjacent to lands being managed for timber production by forest industry and
private individuals. Based on the remaining forested wetlands on the tract and adjacent
areas, the FSB once supported a rich diversity of habitats including wetflat hardwoods
and pine, swamp hardwoods, cypress and riverine hardwoods along the historic Flat
Swamp Creek channel. Much of this habitat has been destroyed or altered during the past
15 - 20 years as result of the ditching, draining, channelization and road building
associated with the conversion of the land to agriculture production.
2.1 Hydrology:
The FSB is located in the Neuse Hydrologic Unit (03020202), in Craven, Pitt, Lenoir,
and Green and Wayne counties (US Geological Survey, 1975). The Neuse River in this
area is classified as Partially Supporting by the State of North Carolina. The factors for
this classification include intensive agriculture and other point and nonpoint sources of
pollution within the hydrological unit and upstream. The FSB is adjacent and upstream
to the Lower Neuse Hydrologic Unit (03020204), which includes Support - Threatened
areas in the Neuse and Pamlico Sounds. The entrance to Pamlico Sound is a particularly
degraded area because it is the Neuse River terminus and at this location, the water
becomes slow and stagnant. Extensive fish kills due to low oxygen levels and pfisteria
outbreaks have become commonplace during the summer in this area.
2
-! = - lltlf EflEE ? -
- J, CO p0 . ` PO
Np i. P I - Stoke .pL._
4E
r -?}?\ / ?? era: I \ -:lI - owu \??\ 1 // \ s _ ! -:aaV--
CII
" _ Ao 0
Sr Jon
S
=, \ - -
4i - ?, -
Lp?
„I / ??? ep f Site
Jil
I
= -_ -
of/.
F L
OLD
C- C
v
r
;.?, / ?_ 11"? .__ - ? I? -•? ./Ut Fly ?: 7 \'
MI.
c;
0 ik•Lo!'me "'
Figure 1: Project Location Map
Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank
Base map source: North Carolina Atlas & Gazetteer, DeLorne Mapping Co.
SCALE: 1 inch = 12,500 feet
3
Cem
;/,?Cem
i J15.0
62
•

Figure 2: Site Map
Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank
Base map source: Dover, NC 7.5 minute quandrangle
SCALE: 1 inch = 3,100 feet
4
The primary hydrologic inputs to the FSB tract are precipitation and groundwater
discharge. The tract is in the headwaters of Flat Swamp Creek and therefore has a large
influence on the water quantity and quality downstream. Historically, the entire area was
forested and undisturbed which maintained very high water quality in Flat Swamp Creek.
Now, much of this headwater area is cleared and ditched resulting in more rapid surface
runoff and an increased risk of sediment and nutrient pollution going into Flat Swamp
Creek and eventually the Neuse River (Figure 3).
Based on aerial photography and field inspection, the historic channel of Flat Swamp
Creek bisected the southern half of the FSB tract (Figure 3). Currently, the creek channel
is confined to a roadside ditch that crosses the property from west to east; exits on the
southeast side and eventually reaches the existing Flat Swamp Creek channel
approximately one-half mile from the property. A small portion of the drainage from the
FSB exits the tract on the northeast side via a roadside ditch and eventually reaches
another tributary to Flat Swamp Creek. Drainage within the tract is controlled by 4
flashboard risers. The entire ditch and drainage system currently existing within the FSB
is isolated and separate from adjacent parcels. Our proposed modifications to restore
wetland hydrology to the agricultural fields and to restore the Flat Swamp Creek
headwaters will have no impact on any adjacent landowners.
2.2 Soils:
Soils mapped within the FSB include Torhunta and Pantego Series, which are both,
classified as hydric soils (Figure 4). These soils typically are poorly drained and are
found in broad interstream flatwoods situations and along slow moving Coastal Plain
streams. Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam is formed in loamy sediments and is
frequently ponded during wet periods (USDA, 1989). The upper part of the surface layer
is black mucky fine sandy loam about 3 inches thick. The lower horizon to a depth of 18
inches is very dark gray fine sandy loam. Infiltration is medium and surface runoff is
slow. Torhunta soils are extremely acid to strongly acid except where lime has been
added to the surface.
Pantego mucky fine sandy loam is also frequently ponded during wet periods (USDA,
1989). The surface layer is a black mucky fine sand about 10 inches thick with a lower
horizon of very dark gray and grayish brown fine sandy loam. Infiltration is medium and
runoff is very slow. Pantego soils are extremely to strongly acid except when lime has
been added. A summary of the soil mapping units, their hydric status and depth and
duration of water table is shown in Table 1.
2.3 Existing Plant Communities:
The existing plant communities with the FSB are representative of both natural
communities and communities resulting from human disturbance. Only about 12 percent
(47 acres) of the tract is currently in forest cover with the remaining 88 percent (339
acres) in agricultural fields. The main agricultural crops grown on this tract since
5
Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank
Craven County, NC
Qcale• 1 inch = 1000 feet
Figure 3: Aerial Photo - Existing Ditch System
LY t GoA
G^A Mel
7
i La
R

F
r r

?sr

+C

L? Ly
Ly '
Ra

c?
GoA
?GoN w

oA Li rte' iit

a i 'Gr
I.n t
nti r

Rra!

GoA '
S h V"

Ly . L?
Cr6 " y
t
GoA
1259
. f.
Goa
Lyx'` +
r"
G OA GoA

z:

TO
.I LY + fta k e t (?? v ;t,
r_a.
l :s
i ZJ
To

' r fiF rp.,k f d a i:rS .,?' f

To

A
CT
`
Ka8 M
Cn ? a
M
U u
?
Soil Mapping Unit Legend

t : To
To = Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam (thermic typic humaquepts)
' Pn = Pantego mucky fine sandy loam (umbric paleaquults)

Figure 4: soils ivlap
Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank
Craven County, NC
SCALE: 1 inch = 3100 feet
7
clearing has been corn, soybeans, cotton and forage grasses. The extensive clearing,
ditching, channelization and road building have eliminated or significantly altered the
natural plant communities. However, based on sampling of the forested portion of the
tract, the natural plant communities include wet pine flatwoods, nonriverine wet
hardwood forest and coastal plain small stream swamp. Descriptions of natural plant
community types generally follow those presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Table 1 - Summary of Soil Mapping Units Within the Flat Swamp Wetland and Stream
Mitigation Bank, Craven County, North Carolina.
Map Soil Type Soil Hydric Depth and Duration of Estimated
Symbol Type Subgroup Status a/ High Water Table b/ Extent %
To Torhunta mucky Thermic typic Hydric 0 - 18 inches 24
Fine sandy loam humaquepts Nov - April
Pn Pantego mucky Umbric Hydric 0 -18 inches 76
Fine sandy loam paleaquults Nov - April
a/ Hydric soils list for North Carolina
b/ Based on soil taxonomy for undrained conditions
Wet Pine Flatwoods and Non Riverine Wet hardwood Forest.
These community types occur on somewhat poorly to poorly drained sites on broad
interstream divides. These sites support second growth forests and have been influenced
by road building and accelerated drainage via nearby perimeter field ditches and creek
channelization. Soil series include Torhunta and Pantego. Fire has been excluded and
this has resulted in the development of a very heavy woody understory. Overstory
species in the wet pine flatwoods type in primarily loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and mixed
hardwoods. Dominant overstory tree species in the non-riverine wet hardwood forest
includes sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red
maple (Acer rubrum), water oak (Quercus nigra) and swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica
var. biflora). Subcanopy woody species include: loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), red
bay (Persea borbonia), American holly (Ilex decidua), gallberry holly (Ilex coriacea),
inkberry holly (Ilex glabra) and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia). Non-woody
understory species include giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), netted chain fern
(Woodwardia aereolata), Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica) and cinnamon fern
(Osmunda cinnamomi). Woody vines include: poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
wild grape (Vitus spp.) and greenbriar (Smilax spp).
8
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp:
This community type occurs on very poorly drained sites on both Pantego and Torhunta
series soils within natural drainages in the FSB. This type was more extensive in the
project area before it was cleared, graded, ditched and converted to agriculture. The
overstory tree species that dominate this type include: swamp black gum, red maple,
baldcypress (Taxodium distichum var. distichum), green ash, black willow (Salix nigra)
and sweetgum. The understory species include: red bay, sweet pepperbush, inkberry
holly, and sweetgum. Understory ferns and vines include: netted chain fern, Virginia
chain fern, cinnamon fern, greenbriar, poison ivy and wild grape.
Table 2: Summary of Existing Plant Communities and Wetland Types Within the
Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank
Plant community Estimated Mitigation Wetland HGM
Description /a Area Activity Type /b Type /c
Agricultural Fields 339 ac Restoration Various Mineral
(PC) Flat
Wet Pine Flatwoods 8 ac Enhancement PF04E Mineral
Flat
Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest 39 ac Enhancement PFOlE Mineral
Flat
a/ follows Schafale and Weakley (1990); b/ follows Cowardin et al. (1979);
c/ follows Brinson (1993).
2.4 Ecological Processes and Functions:
A variety of ecological processes and functions can be attributed to the wetland types
within the proposed FSB. These functions are directly related to the
geomorphic/landscape setting and hydrologic attributes of the wetland types (Brinson,
1993). The characteristic hydroperiod of these wetland types varies from seasonally
saturated (mineral and organic flats) to semipermanently flooded (small stream swamp).
The fluctuating hydroperiod promotes alternating cycles of aerobic and anaerobic soil
conditions and increases the potential primary productivity, organic matter
decomposition, nutrient mineralization and denitrification functions (Brinson et al., 1981;
Mulholland, 1981; Reddy and Patrick, 1975). Prior to conversion, the characteristic
hydroperiod within the extensive mineral soil flats resulted in short term surface water
storage and long term subsurface water storage to support base flow augmentation in this
headwater riverine system. Now the presence of a ditch network increases peak runoff
rates, decreases the retention time of precipitation and surface water, alters natural
9
groundwater flow patterns and increases the mean depth to the seasonal water table
(Crownover et al., 1995; Maki et al., 1980; Skaggs et al., 1980; and WRP, 1993).
The agricultural conversion activity also results in the following:
1. Decreased dissolved carbon export and food chain support due to decreased
contact time between shallow groundwater and soil matrix / organic matter.
2. Increased primary productivity and transpirational losses due to soil drainage and
reduction of anaerobic soil conditions.
3. Increased nitrogen mineralization and decreased denitrification due to soil
drainage.
4. Decreased short-term surface water storage and long-term subsurface water
storage resulting in decreased base flow augmentation.
5. Habitat interspersion of uplands and wetlands.
Seasonally saturated wetlands are usually located at relatively higher landscape positions
and exhibit high subsurface water storage functions. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
wetlands are located at relatively low landscape positions and exhibit floodflow retention
functions. The degree of microrelief across the wetland types will determine the degree
of surface water retention and the amount of sediment and nutrient trapping within the
wetlands. The short-term surface water retention results in increased contact time
between organic matter and surface water and increased carbon export functions.
Because of the conversion to agriculture, most of the original functions of these wetlands
have been lost. In addition to the above-described functions, other functions such as
biogeochemical transformations and habitat functions have similarly been adversely
affected or eliminated. For example, there has likely been a large increase in sediment
and nutrient export from this site into Flat Swamp Creek. There is no longer a natural
occurrence of fire on the site. This affects biogeochemical functions and wildlife habitat
value. Due to the decline of open, fire-maintained flatwoods habitat throughout North
Carolina, there are now over 87 species of rare vascular plants dependent upon remnants
of this habitat type (Walker, 1993). There are 36 species of mammals, 34 amphibian
species, 38 reptilian species and 86 bird species including the red cockaded woodpecker
associated with longleaf pine ecosystems throughout the Southeast (Engstrom, 1993;
Guyer and Bailey, 1993). Additional game species favored by wet pine and pine /
hardwood ecosystems include bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo) and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) (Sharp, 1998; Still and Baumann,
1989; Loeb and Lennartz, 1989). Additional game species such as whitetail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and black bears (Ursus americanus) will be favored by
restoration and maintenance of wet pine flatwoods, nonriverine hardwood forest and
small Coastal Plain swamp forest. In addition, all of these wetland types provide grazing
and browsing habitat and soft mast production.
10
2.4.1 Functional Uplift of the Proposed Project.
The wetland mitigation and stream restoration activities associated with the proposed
FSB will result in an uplift of existing water quality and habitat functions. Elimination of
channelized flow within ditches and restoration of flow through natural creeks will
increase water quality functions. The proposed ditch plugging and filling will result in
increased short-term surface and subsurface water storage and subsequent increase in the
duration and elevation of the seasonally high water table. The increased retention time of
surface and subsurface water on the broad interstream flats will result in reduced peak
flows and augmented base flow within Flat Swamp Creek. Increased retention time will
also facilitate a variety of biogeochemical transformations such as denitrification and
dissolved organic carbon export. Reduced nitrogen export and increased carbon export
will benefit downstream areas in Flat Swamp Creek and the Neuse River.
3.0 MITIGATION
The Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines of the clean Water Act (16 USC 1344), as described in
40 CFR Part 230, states that unavoidable wetland loss resulting from filling activities
may be offset by effective mitigation actions. According to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, mitigation actions should include avoidance, minimization,
restoration, enhancement and compensation for unavoidable impacts. After all practical
attempts to avoid and minimize wetland losses have been accomplished; compensatory
mitigation in any of the forms (i.e. wetland creation, restoration, enhancement, and/or
preservation) should be developed.
3.1 Proposed Actions:
3.1.1 Hydrology:
The first step in restoring hydrology will be to demonstrate that under the 1987 Corps
Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) that criteria for soil saturation, e.g. soils
saturated to the surface for 5% or more of the growing season in most years have been
achieved. This site will first be modeled using Drainmod (Skaggs et al., 1991) to
demonstrate the potential for achieving jurisdictional wetland status. A water budget will
be prepared as part of this modeling effort. In addition, automatic recording wells will be
placed in representative areas of the prior converted (PC) agricultural fields to collect
hydrology data beginning in the winter of 2000. The growing season for the project area
begins approximately March and ends on ovember 7 or 233 days. We p?po? ??sing
an 8% time period for determining the number of consecutive days of saturation or
inundation. This results in approximately 19 days. We feel 8% is appropriate for these
we'?Tt and types. The actual achievable period of soil saturation will be determined
following the Drainmod analysis.
om- /
11 Ce fj'rN
c.?

K)O
?M/
Our plan for hydrological modifications includes ditch plugging, filling ditch segments
and the reestablishment of the historical Flat Swamp Creek stream channel
within the north and south sections of the project area (Figure 5). Existing flashboard
risers will be used temporarily for establishing favorable water levels on the site.
Following planting of wetland vegetation and 3 to 5 years of monitoring, the flashboard
risers will be replaced by permanent ditch plugs that will conform to Natural Resource
Conservation Service Guidelines (Appendix - Ditch Plugs Cross Section).
At each specified ditch plug location, ditches will be filled according to the following
protocol:
1. Existing ditch will be excavated to remove vegetation and organic material and
excavated organic material will be stockpiled
2. Ditch plug location will be backfilled with available onsite material (preferably
clay to sandy clay loam) to an elevation 12 inches above the surrounding natural
topography or to the elevation of the adjacent road. Ditch plugs will be a
minimum of 100 feet in length and all areas will be graded and compacted
following placement of material.
3. Stockpiled organic material will be spread over ditch plugs to a depth of 3 - 6
inches
4. Fertilizer and lime will be spread over ditch plugs at rates dictated by soil test
results
5. Ditch plugs will be stabilized by seeding with herbaceous seed mix and / or
planted with native woody plants species at a 6 ft x 6 ft spacing.
All monitoring well(7 total wells) be installed according to guidelines outlined by
the U S Army Corps, ays Experiment Station (WRP, 1993). Well data will be
used to document hydrologic restoration within the drained agricultural field areas.
Reestablishment of the historical Flat Swamp Creek channel will be based on examining
original aerial photos of the site, field verification and survey of the channelized portions
of Flat Swamp Creek. Following collection of this data and topographic survey of the
site, a proposed channel or swale design will be included in the Final Flat Swamp
Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Plan. Where appropriate, the principles of
Rosgen or similar approaches will be used in the stream restoration design. All work will
be subject to MBRT approval.
3.1.2. Soils:
Project success is dependent on the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology
within the restoration areas. All soil series within the FSB are considered hydric

12
Craven County, NC
Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet
Figure 5: Proposed Flat Swamp Creek Channel and Future Ditch Plug Locations
Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank
D. Describe mitigation Ratios: To be determined
E. Will any Endangered Species,
Archeological Resources, or Haz/Tox
sites be impacted by this effort?
F. Has a wetland determination been
undertaken and verified?
YES NO
YES
II. TARGET GOALS AND FUNCTIONS
A. Are there stated GOALS? X
Describe: To fully restore the structure and function of the wetland
community types and to restore 6100 linear feet of creek.
X
-X
NO
B. Describe Success Criteria: Attain average planted tree density of 300
trees per acre and 6 feet tall after 5 years. Hydrological and soil
parameters on the mitigation site will meet 1987 Corps Manual.
YES NO
Are they: 1. Specific -X-
2. Measurable
3. Attainable X
YES NO
C. Target FUNCTIONS chosen
and indicated? X
Describe: Biomass accumulation, water quality improvement, wildlife
Habitat, food chain support, nutrient cycling, retention, flood storage.
ordinance or permit condition, or the interpretation or enforcement thereof; (iv) any
order, judgment, action or determination of any federal, state or local court,
administrative agency or government body; or (v) the suspension or interruption of any
permit, license, consent, authorization or approval. If the performance of Sponsor is
affected by any such event, Sponsor shall give written notice thereof to the MBRT as
soon as is reasonably practicable and further shall attempt diligently to remove such
condition.
13. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories
hereof, their successors and assigns shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof. No
party or third party other than Sponsor shall have any property rights to the Bank Site,
except as otherwise expressly provided herein.
14. The MBRT shall be chaired by the representative from the Corps' Wilmington District.
The MBRT shall review monitoring and accounting reports as more fully described
herein below. In addition, the MBRT will review proposals for remedial actions
proposed by Sponsor or any of the agencies represented on the MBRT. The MBRT's
role and responsibilities are more fully set forth in Sections II(C)(3&6) of the Federal
Guidance on Mitigation Banking [See 60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (Nov. 28, 1995)]. The MBRT
will work to reach consensus on all required actions.
Mitigation Plan
15 The Bank will be developed in two (2) phases: Phase I - Nonriverine Wetland
Restoration and Enhancement and Phase II - Flat Swamp Stream Restoration.
Each phase will be developed separately with Phase I being implemented first.
Plans for Phase I and Phase II will be approved separately by the MBRT.
16 The Bank Site is located in the Neuse River watershed in the headwaters of Flat Swamp
Creek east of Dover and south of Fort Barnwell in Craven County, NC. A more detailed
Description of the baseline conditions on the site is contained in the Mitigation plans.
17. Sponsor will perform the work described in the Proposed Action Section of the
Mitigation Plans, including hydrologic and soil modifications and plantings. The purpose
of the work, and the objective of the Bank, is to (Phase I) restore natural wetland
community types in areas of prior converted (PC) agricultural fields, enhance existing
wetland community types and (Phase II) - restore sections of Flat Swamp Creek which
historically originated on the Bank site.
18. Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the wetland restoration and
enhancement and stream restoration activities as specified in the Mitigation Plans, and for
the overall operation and management of the Bank. Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Site
for at least 5 years as described in the Monitoring Section of the Mitigation Plans, or until
such time as the MBRT determines that the performance criteria described in the
Mitigation Plans have been met, whichever period is longer.
4
A. Federal
a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. § 1251,
et Seg., including specifically Section 401(a);
b. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 403, et seq.;
C. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C., 661 et seq.);
d. National Environmental Policy 'Act (NEPA), 42 U. S.C. § 4321 et seq.,
including the Council on Environmental Quality's implementing
regulations, 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508;
e. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977);
f. Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation
Banks, 60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (Nov. 28, 1995);
g. Department of the Army, Section 404 Permit Regulations, 33 C.F.R.
Parts 320-330), and policies for evaluating permit applications to
discharge dredged or fill material;
h. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Regulations, 23 C.F.R. Part 777, concerning Mitigation of Environmental
Impacts to Privately Owned Wetlands;
i. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Section 404 Regulations,
40 C.F.R. Parts 230-233 (guidelines for specification of disposal sites for
dredged and fill material);
j. Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army concerning the Determination of
Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
(February 6, 1990);
B. North Carolina
a. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 02H.0500;
b. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 02B.0100 and r. 02B.0200; and
c. North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, N.C. GIN. STAT.
§ 143-214.8 et M.
4. The Corps is responsible for making final permit decisions pursuant to Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including final
determinations of compliance with the Corps' permit regulations and the
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The Corps has been responsible for conducting all
meetings with state and federal resource/regulatory agencies and Sponsor for establishing
the Bank. The Corps will determine the amount of compensation needed for a given
Department of the Army Section 404 permit, including permits under the Nationwide
Permit program. In this MBI, the MBRT has established the total number of restoration-
equivalent credits which may become available for sale from the Bank upon
implementation of all activities as described in this MBI, including but not limited to the
terms of Appendix A In the case of permit applications and compensatory mitigation
required solely under the Section 401 Water Quality Certification rules of North
Carolina, the NC Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ) will determine the amount of
credits that can be withdrawn from the Bank.
5. Modifications to this MBI may be proposed by any MBRT member or by Sponsor. Any
proposed modification shall be made in writing and submitted to all MBRT members and
Sponsor. All MBRT members and Sponsor must approve, in writing, the proposed
modification for it to take effect.
6. Any MBRT member can withdraw from this MBI with ten (10) days advance written
notice to all other MBRT members and Sponsor. Member withdrawal shall not affect
any prior sale of credits and all remaining parties shall continue to implement and enforce
the terms of this MBI. Any independent legal rights or review authority as to specific
Section 404 permit applications possessed by a withdrawing parry will, however, remain
in full force and effect.
7. The terms and conditions of this MBI shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of
the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, assigns, and legal representatives.
8. This MBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject
matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.
9. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this MBI are held to be
invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or
unenforceability will not affect any other provisions hereof, and this MBI shall be
construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had not been contained
herein.
10. This MBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of North
Carolina and the United States as appropriate.
11. This MBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or more
counterparts, all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
12. Any delay or failure of the Sponsor shall not constitute a default hereunder to the extent
that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or condition beyond the
Sponsor' reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its ability to perform its
obligations hereunder including: (i) acts of God, lightning, earthquake, fire, landslide,
drought, hurricane, storm, flood, or interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or
other taking by any governmental body; (iii) change in applicable law, regulation, rule,
ordinance or permit condition, or the interpretation or enforcement thereof, (iv) any
order, judgment, action or determination of any federal, state or local court,
administrative agency or government body; or (v) the suspension or interruption of any
permit, license, consent, authorization or approval. If the performance of Sponsor is
affected by any such event, Sponsor shall give written notice thereof to the MBRT as
soon as is reasonably practicable and further shall attempt diligently to remove such
condition.
13. No third parry shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories
hereof, their successors and assigns shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof. No
parry or third party other than Sponsor shall have any property rights to the Bank Site,
except as otherwise expressly provided herein.
14. The MBRT shall be chaired by the representative from the Corps' Wilmington District.
The MBRT shall review monitoring and accounting reports as more fully described
herein below. In addition, the MBRT will review proposals for remedial actions
proposed by Sponsor or any of the agencies represented on the MBRT. The MBRT's
role and responsibilities are more fully set forth in Sections II(C)(3&6) of the Federal
Guidance on Mitigation Banking [See 60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (Nov. 28, 1995)]. The MBRT
will work to reach consensus on all required actions.
Mitigation Plan
15. The Bank Site is located in the Neuse River watershed in the headwaters of Flat Swamp
Creek east of Dover and south of Fort Barnwell in Craven County, NC. A more detailed
description of the baseline conditions on the site is contained in the Mitigation Plan.
16. Sponsor will perform the work described in the Proposed Action Section of the
Mitigation Plan, including hydrologic and soil modifications and plantings. The purpose
of the work, and the objective of the Bank, is to restore natural wetland community types
in areas of prior converted (PC) agricultural fields, enhance existing wetland community
types and restore sections of flat Swamp Creek which historically originated on the Bank
site.
17. Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration and enhancement
activities as specified in the Mitigation Plan, and for the overall operation and
management of the Bank. Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Site for at least 5 years as
described in the Monitoring Section of the Mitigation Plan, or until such time as the
MBRT determines that the performance criteria described in the Mitigation Plan have
been met, whichever period is longer.
18 Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the terms of this
MBI.
19. Sponsor shall provide to each member of the MBRT the reports described in the
Monitoring Section of the Mitigation Plan.
20. The Corps shall review said reports and provide a written response. At any time, after
consultation with Sponsor and the MBRT, the Corps will direct Sponsor to take remedial
action at the Bank Site. Remedial action required by the Corps shall be designed to
achieve the performance criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan. All remedial actions
required shall include an imple ntation schedule, which shall take into account physical
and climactic conditions. ,
21. Once all performance criite-ria as described in the Mitigation Plan have been met, as
reasonably determined by the MBRT, the MBRT shall provide written notice to that
effect to Sponsor stating that: (a) all required performance criteria have been met; (b)
Sponsor permanently is released from all further monitoring, remedial measures or the
ecological performance obligations with regard to the Bank Site; and (c) Sponsor's
security obligations as specified in this MBI fully have been satisfied. Thereafter,
Sponsor shall have no further obligations whatsoever with regard to the Bank Site except
that, if any credits remain unsold or otherwise finally accounted for, Sponsor shall
continue to have sole control over the sale of any such remaining mitigation credits, and
likewise shall continue to be required to provide all related mitigation credit accounting
reports as specified in this MBI until all such credits are sold or otherwise finally
accounted for.
22. At any time prior to the completion of all performance criteria as defined in Paragraph 21
above, Sponsor may determine voluntarily that remedial action may be necessary to
achieve the required performance criteria. In such instance, Sponsor shall provide notice
of its proposed remedial action to all members of the MBRT. No significant remedial
actions shall be undertaken by Sponsor without the express concurrence of the Corps, in
consultation with the MBRT.
Use of Mitigation Credits
23. The Geographic Service __e&CGSA) is the defined area wherein the Bank can reasonably
be expected to provide appropriate compensation for impacts to wetland and/or other
aquatic resources. The GSA for the Bank shall include the Neuse hydrologic Unit
(03020202) in North Carolina west of New Bern along the Neuse River. The location
map of the Neuse Hydrologic Unit (0302020} is attached and incorporated herein by
reference as Appendix C. Adjacent service areas may be considered for use by the
MBRT on a case-by-case basis.
24. The Mitigation Plan is intended to result in the following forms and amounts in acres, of
compensatory mitigation.
Summary of proposed restoration and enhancement activities within the
Flat Swam Wetland Miti ation and Stream Restoration Bank
Existing plant Mitigation Proposed Area
community e Type Activities
Agricultural fields a/
(PC) and Flat Swamp Wetland and Plug ditches, temporarily maintain 4 339.0 ac
Creek Stream flashboard risers, restore Flat Swamp
Restoration Creek channel and floodplain, plant
wetland vegetation
Wet Pine Flatwoods
Enhancement Plug ditches, temporarily maintain 2 8.0 ac
flashboard risers
Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest Enhancement Plug ditches, temporarily maintain 2 39.0 ac
flashboard risers
Total Area 386.0 ac
a / Nonriverine Wet Pine Flatwoods and Wet Hardwood Forest = 325 acres
i Riverine Small Coastal Plain Stream Swamp = 14 acres
25 Successful implementation of the Mitigation Plan will result in the creation of the following
number of mitigation credits:
ASSUMING A "RESTORATION CREDIT " CAN BE COMPOSED OF ANY OF
THE FOLLOWING:
1 acre of restoration plus 4 acres of enhancement (5 acres total)
or
1 acre of restoration plus 10 acres of preservation (11 acres total)
or
2 acres of restoration (2 acres total)
Wetlands:
168.38 credits of Nonriverine Wetland Community Types including: wet pine flatwoods
and wet hardwood forest (47 acres enhancement / 4 = 11.75 plus 11.75 ac PC Ag field
restoration = 11.75 credits (58.75 ac) AND 313.25 ac PC Ag field restoration / 2 = 156.63
credits (313.25 ac)
• . 7.0 credits of Riverine Wetland Community Types including Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp (14 acres restoration / 2 = 7.0 credits (14 acres)
Total Credits (Restoration) (156.63 + 7.0): 163.63 credits
Total Credits (Enhancement) (47 / 4): 11.75 credits
Total Wetland Credits Available from the Ba :175.38 credits
Streams: S
* 6100 credits (linear feet) including the Flat Swamp creek channel and floodplain
26. It is anticipated by the parties that use of mitigation credits shall be "in-kind;" that is, that
the above described types of wetland and stream restoration credits will be used to offset
1?1 the same type of wetland and stream impacts.
27. It is anticipated by the parties that in most cases in which the Corps, after consultation
S with members of the MBRT, has determined that mitigation credits from the Bank may
be used to offset wetland impacts authorized by Section 404 permits, for every one acre
of impact, one mitigation credit (acre) will be debited from the Bank. Deviations from
the one-to-one compensation ratio may be authorized by the Corps on a case-by-case
basis where justified by considerations of functions of the wetlands impacted, the severity
(j of the impacts to wetlands, whether the compensatory mitigation is in-kind, and physical
proximity of the wetland impacts to the Bank Site. For impacts where either the Corps or
NCDWQ have determined that greater than a one-to-one compensation ratio is required,
additional restoration credits held by the Bank may be used. In all cases, a minimum of
one-to-one ratio of impacts acres to restoration mitigation credits (acres) must be met.
28. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using credits
from the Bank to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all decisions
concerning the amount and type of such credits to be used to offset wetland and water
impacts authorized by Department of the Army permits shall be made by the Corps,
pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and implementing regulations and guidance, after notice
of any proposed use of the Bank to Sponsor and all members of the MBRT, and
consultation with same regarding such use. In the case of compensatory mitigation
required solely under Section 401, water quality certification, the NCDWQ will notify
Sponsor and the MBRT of such use and the proposed credit withdrawal.
29. The Bank Sponsor shall be entitled to sell fifteen percent (15%) of the Bank's total
restoration credits (26.30 credits) and fifteen percent (15%) of the Bank's stream
restoration credits (915 credits (linear feet)) immediately upon completion of all of the
following:
t
a.) Recordation of a conservation easement offering permanent, perpetual conservation
use of the Bank Site.
b.) Execution of this MBI by all partners whose names appear as signatories.
c.) Delivery of the security required in Paragraph 35 of this MBI.
0 vv
30. Subject to Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all required performance
criteria and monitoring, additional restoration mitigation credits will be aval le for sale
by Sponsor on the following schedule: M
Credit Release Schedule for the Flat Swam Bank
Milestone Percent Wetland Stream Total
Release Restoration Restoration Credit
Credits Credits Release
MBRT approval of Plan, execution of 15% 26.30 915
40 26.30 (W)
NMI, and recordation of conservation X
easement 915 SR
Following project implementation, 10% 17.54 610 17.54 (W)
Year 1 monitoring and MBRT 4
approval of Annual Report 610 (SR)
Following year 2 of monitoring phase 10% } 17.54 610 17.54 (W)
and MBRT approval of Annual Report J 91 610 (SR)
Following year 3 of monitoring phase 10% 17.54 610 17.54 (W)
and MBRT approval of Annual Report 610 (SR)
Following year 4 of monitoring phase 15% 26.30 915 26.30 (W)
and MBRT approval of Annual Report 915 SR
Following year 5 of monitoring phase 15% 26.30 915 26.30 (W)
and MBRT approval of Annual Report 915 (SR)
Final approval of project by MBRT 25% 43.86 1525 43.86 (W)
1525 (SR)
TOTALS 100% 175.38 6100 1,W.38 (W)

6100 SR
The above schedule assumes acceptable survival and growth of planted vegetation,
attainment of wetland hydrology and stream restoration performance criteria as described
under the performance criteria in the Monitoring Section of the Mitigation Plan, and
further assumes a determination by the MBRT of functional success as defined in the
Mitigation Plan prior to release of the final 25% of wetland and stream restoration
credits. .
31. Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures for maintaining accurate records of debits
made from the Bank that is acceptable to the MBRT. Such procedures shall include the
generation of a debit report by Sponsor documenting all credits used at the time they are
debited from the Bank. Debit reports shall be provided to each member of the MBRT
within 30 days of the date of credit use. In addition, Sponsor shall prepare an Annual
Report, to be provided to each MBRT member within thirty (30) days of each
anniversary of the date of execution of this MBI, showing all credits used and the balance
of credits remaining. Sponsor's reporting obligations hereunder shall end upon the sale of
all credits or termination of this MBI, whichever event first occurs.
32. Sponsor may request addition of other properties to the Bank. In such event, the terms
and conditions of any proposed property addition shall be set forth in an amended
mitigation banking instrument that will be subject to separate review and, if appropriate,
approval by the MBRT.
33. If monitoring of the Bank under this MBI establishes that mitigation and restoration as
required under the MBI has failed or only partially succeeded, corrective measures shall
be required to assure that performance standards are being met. If, as a result of
maintenance and monitoring reports, it is determined that performance standards are not
being met, the MBRT shall provide notice to Sponsor who then shall prepare an analysis
of the cause of the failure, propose corrective actions and specify a time frame for
implementing corrective actions. Minor corrective measures do not require a formal
notification process and may be accomplished as a part of routine maintenance; such
measures shall be identified in the next subsequent monitoring report. If satisfactory
corrective actions are not taken by Sponsor after formal written notice from the MBRT,
then the MBRT is entitled to give notice that the agreed-upon corrective actions have not
been satisfied and that the MBRT intends to draw on the security provided for in this
MBI to carry out the required corrective action. Under such circumstances the MBRT
also is entitled to, in its sole discretion, notify Sponsor of the immediate suspension of
further sale of credits from the Bank. Upon completion of required remedial action(s) to
the satisfaction of the MBRT, as documented in written notice from the MBRT to
Sponsor, credit sales automatically shall be allowed to resume, subject to any additional
requirements reasonably specified by the MBRT in the written notice.
If there are repeated failures by Sponsor in complying with the performance standards for
success under the terms of this MBI, the MBRT reserves the right to declare a material
default under the terms of Sponsor's security and said security shall be used to replace
lost wetland functions and otherwise fulfill the terms of the wetland restoration plan
required by this MBI.
Final release of Sponsor's obligations hereunder shall occur when the MBRT reasonably
determines that all performance standards have been met and all restoration credits have
been debited from the Bank.
12
Property Disposition
34. Sponsor shall grant a conservation easement, in form acceptable to the MBRT, sufficient
to protect all of the Bank Site. The easement shall be perpetual, preserve all natural
areas, prohibit all construction, and prohibit any activity that would materially alter the
biological integrity or functional and education value of wetlands within the Bank Site,
consistent with the Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the easement will be to assure that
future use of the Bank Site will result in the restoration, protection, maintenance, and
enhancement of the functional values of the wetlands and wildlife habitat described in the
Mitigation Plan.
Financial Assurances
35. Sponsor shall provide the Corps, on behalf of the MBRT, with financial assurances, in a
form acceptable to the Corps, sufficient to assure completion of all remaining restoration
and enhancement activities, and required reporting and monitoring. Sponsor presently
proposes to satisfy this requirement by providing a Construction and Maintenance Bond
in an amount equal to the estimated cost of construction and completmg remaining
maintenance and monitoring costs required under this MBI as set forth on Appendices D
and E, attached and incorporated herein. Sponsor's final, executed security assurances
shall be provided to the Corps prior to any approval by the MBRT or acceptance by
Sponsor, of any compensation for the sale, or anticipated sale of any of the credits
specified in this MBI. Sponsor's security obligations shall terminate and be released
immediately after the MBRT determines, in writing that all performance standards as
stated in the Mitigation Plan have been complied with.
Miscellaneous
36. All notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at their
respective addresses, provided below:
Sponsor:
The Triangle Group, Inc.
1001 Capability Drive
Research I - Suite 312
Centennial Campus
Raleigh, NC 27606
Corps:
Mr. David Lekson P.W.S.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
EPA:
Ms. Kathy Mathews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV l
Atlanta, GA 30303
FWS:
Mr. Howard Hall
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
NMFS:
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516 ?.y
NCWRC•
Mr.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
146 Chesterfield Drive
Washington, NC 27889
NCDCM:
Ms. Kelly Williams
NC Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
NCDW :
Mr. Mac Haupt
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wetland Restoration Program
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
By: Date:
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
By: Date:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
By: Date:
National Marine Fisheries Service
By: Date:
NC Division of Water Quality
By: Date:
NC Division of Coastal Management
By: Date:
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
By: Date:
Bank Sponsor - The Triangle Group, Inc.
By: Date:
Bank Sponsor -
By: Date:
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Flat Swamp Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration
Bank Plan
Appendix B: Property Survey and Legal Description
Appendix C: Map - General Service Area
Appendix D: Construction Costs
Appendix E: Maintenance and Monitoring Costs