20070748 Ver 1_Complete File_20070601

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY

F,

I

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
1.1 Bank Location ......................................................................................................1
1.2 Bank Ownership ................................................................................................ ..1
2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE BANK
2.1 Goals ................................................................................................................. ..1
2.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................... ..3
3.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS AT THE BANK SITE
3.1 Physiography, Site History, and Land Use ......................................................... ..4
3.2 Geology ............................................................................................................. .. 4
3.3 Water Resources
3.3.1 Water Bodies ......................................................................................... .. 5
3.3.2 Waterways ............................................................................................. .. 5
3.3.3 Groundwater .......................................................................................... .. 7
3.4 Soils
3.4.1 Non-Hydric Soils .................................................................................... .. 7
3.4.2 Hydric Soils ............................................................................................ ..7
3.5 Natural Vegetation Communities ....................................................................... ..7
3.5.1 The Palustrine System ........................................................................... .. 8
3.5.1.1 Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) .............................. .. 8
3.5.1.2 Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype) ...... 10
3.5.1.3 Coastal Plain Levee Forest (Blackwater Subtype) ...................... 10
3.5.2 The Terrestrial System (Mesic Pine Flatwoods) ..................................... 11
3.5.3 Vegetation of the Man-made Ponds (Borrow Pits) .................................. 12
3.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
3.6.1 Wildlife and Habitat of the Palustrine System (The Riparian Forests)..... 12
3.6.2 Wildlife and Habitat of the Terrestrial System ......................................... 13
3.6.3 Wildlife and Habitat of the Man-Made Ponds (Borrow Pits) .................... 14
3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species and Federal Species of Concern ............ 14
4.0 PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE BANK
4.1 Bank Size .......................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Compensation (Creation) Component
4.2.1 Classes of Wetlands Proposed for Inclusion .......................................... 17
NCDOT Page i 0611WO01

1 GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY
fl

WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
4.2.2 Methods for Creating Wetlands Proposed for Inclusion .......................... 17
4.3 Preservation Component
4.3.1 Classes of Wetlands and Riparian Buffer Proposed for Inclusion ........... 23
4.3.2 Methods for Preserving Wetlands and Riparian Buffer
Proposed for Inclusion ............................................................................ 23
4.4 Aquatic Habitat Enhancement Component
4.4.1 Classes of Aquatic Habitat Proposed for Inclusion ................................. 23
4.4.2 Methods for Enhancing Aquatic Resources Proposed for Inclusion ........ 23
5.0 ADM INISTATION AND OPERATION OF THE BANK
5.1 Geographic Service Area ................................................................................... 25
5.2 Wetland Classes and Other Aquatic Resources Suitable for Compensation...... 27
5.3 Long-Term Management ................................................................................... 30
5.4 Financial Assurances ......................................................................................... 30
5.5 Compensation Ratios ........................................................................................ 30
5.6 Methods for Determining Credits and Debits ...................................................... 31
5.7 Accounting Procedures ...................................................................................... 31
6.0 MON ITORING AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BANK
6.1 Performance Standards for Determining Credit Availability and Bank Success.. 32
6.2 Monitoring and Reporting Protocols ................................................................... 34
6.3 Maintenance, Contingency, and Remedial Action .............................................. 36
7.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 37
INDEX
r
NCDOT
Page ii
06115/2001
i
GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location Map .............................................................................,.......................... 2
Figure 2: Mapped Soil Units ........................................................................................................6
Figure 3: National Wetlands Inventory Map ................................................................................9
Figure 4: Wetlands Compensation (Creation) Plan ...................................................................19
Figure 5: Typical Cross-Sections of Cut-and-Fill Wetland Creation Methods ............................20
Figure 6: Wetland Preservation Areas ...................................................................................... 24
Figure 7:Geographic Service Area ............................................................................................26
Figure 8: Reference Wetlands and Gauge Locations ................................................................33
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Federally Protected Species for Pitt County ................................................................14
Table 2: Federal Species of Concern for Pitt County ................................................................16
Table 3: Available Mitigation Areas ...........................................................................................18
NCDOT Page iii 06(152001

[l

I

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Bank Location
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is in the process of identifying and
developing wetland mitigation banks, whereon pre-construction mitigation could be provided for
regions of the state projected to receive multiple roadway improvement projects within the
foreseeable future. The 550-acre Grimesland borrow pit site (hereinafter referred to as "the
Grimesland site"), located near the community of Grimesland in Pitt County (Figure 1), is one
such wetland mitigation bank planned to service the Lower Tar River portion (HUC 03020103)
of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin in North Carolina.
The Grimesland site is bisected from north to south by State Route 1565 (SR 1565). For
purposes of this Wetland Mitigation Bank Prospectus, the portion of the Grimesland site located
west of SR 1565 is referred to as "the western parcel" and the portion located east of SR 1565
is referred to as "the eastern parcel".
1.2 Bank Ownership
The Grimesland site is presently owned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT). The parcel was purchased by NCDOT in 1962 as a sand mining site; however, sand
mining operations are presently restricted to stockpiling on 8.7 acres east of SR 1565 and
excavation on 7.7 acres west of SR 1565.
The primary point of contact regarding ownership and stewardship issues is:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE BANK
' 2.1 Goals
The Grimesland site will serve as a regional wetland mitigation bank for NCDOT roadway
projects that would impact like or similar natural systems within the Lower Tar River Sub-Basin.
A wetland mitigation plan was prepared for the Grimesland site in November of 2000. As stated
in the mitigation plan, the goal of the wetland mitigation bank is to expand, enhance, and
preserve over 400 acres of the Tar River riparian ecosystem along with 29.6 acres of stream
NCDOT Page 1 06/1&2001

I

I
1

I Page 2

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
buffer. As contiguous components of the larger Tar River riparian ecosystem, areas of
proposed wetland creation and aquatic habitat enhancement have been assessed from the
' perspective of their cumulative contribution to the overall value of the riparian ecosystem rather
than their individual or "stand-alone" values.
The primary value of the mitigation is the preservation of 408 acres of existing and proposed
riparian ecosystem including 29.6 acres of stream buffer. The riparian ecosystem to be
protected in perpetuity not only provides valuable habitat to a diverse assemblage of flora and
t fauna, but also serves as a contiguous wildlife corridor along the Tar River.
' The Wilmington District Corps of Engineers has determined that the 107 acres of ponds
(abandoned and intermittently dredged borrow pits) on the site are non-jurisdictional with
respect to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
' 1899. Proposed enhancement of aquatic habitat within approximately 80 acres of ponds
remaining after wetlands creation will enhance the value of these relatively low value manmade
water bodies; thereby contributing to the overall functions and values of the ecosystem within
which they are located.
2.2 Objectives
Over a span of several years, NCDOT will convert the entire Grimesland site to a regional
mitigation bank. Mitigation components planned for the Grimesland site consist of (1) the
conversion of certain deforested uplands and portions of non-jurisdictional ponds to wetland
' communities, (2) the provision of habitat enhancement measures within flooded abandoned
borrow pits (the non-jurisdictional ponds), (3) the placement of conservation easements on
wetland creation and preservation areas, and (4) the placement of conservation easements on
riparian buffers.
t Immediate plans to provide mitigation credits consist of:
• creation of approximately 58 acres of forested riverine wetlands (cypress-gum swamp and
' coastal plain bottomland hardwoods) from presently deforested uplands and portions of non-
jurisdictional ponds on the eastern parcel through cut-and-fill methods,

1
11
• creation of approximately two acres of emergent wetlands on submerged benches around
flooded abandoned borrow pits (ponds) on the eastern parcel through cut-and-fill methods,
• preservation of 348 acres of riverine wetland ecosystem,
• preservation of 29.59 acres of riparian buffer, and
• enhancement of aquatic habitat within approximately 80 acres of flooded abandoned borrow
pits (the existing ponds).
NCDOT Page 3 0611&1001

11
GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
' Sand mining is presently proposed on approximately eight acres in the eastern parcel (area
AM3 of Figure 4) and approximately nine acres in the western parcel (areas AM1 and AM2 of
Figure 4). As sand mining operations are phased out, a post-mining assessment of site
conditions will be conducted to determine whether these remaining portions of the site can be
converted to wetland communities or whether they warrant preservation. Additional mitigation
credits will be added to the Mitigation Banking Instrument, accordingly, as these areas become
available.
' 3.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS AT THE BANK SITE
' 3.1 Physiography, Site History, and Land Use
The Grimesland site is located in the upper central portion of the Coastal Plain Physiographic
' Province of North Carolina. The Grimesland site is located on the southeastern terminus of an
upland peninsula, which is bounded on the north and east by Grindle Creek, on the west by
croplands and pine plantation, and on the south by the floodplain of the Tar River and the Tar
River itself. Elevations on the site range from less than five feet (msl) along the Tar River to 11.9
feet (msl) along SR 1565.
Portions of the Grimesland site have been mined for sand by the North Carolina department of
Transportation since 1962. Prior to 1962, these mined portions of the site consisted of mixed
pine/hardwood forest and croplands.
The Grimesland site is bisected from north to south by SR 1565. Present activities on the
eastern parcel consist of (1) stockpiling and loading of processed (washed) sand reserves on
' the approximately eight acres slated for future sand mining operations near the entrance gate
from SR 1565, and (2) stockpiling of earth materials (derived from shoulder-grading operations
within the Washington District) on approximately two acres located in the central portion of the
parcel. Present activities on the western parcel consist of (1) periodic excavation of sand and
gravel deposits and (2) stockpiling and loading of unprocessed sand and gravel reserves.
1 3.2 Geology
Portions of the Grimesland site containing the borrow pits (generally those areas above five feet
elevation (msl)) are underlain by fluvial and estuarine sediments deposited within the ancestral
Tar River estuary during one of several cycles of sea rise and fall during the Pleistocene.
Preserved as terraces, these Pleistocene deposits are comprised of fining-upward sequences of
sediments. On the Grimesland site, the base of this sequence consists of a basal gravel lag
deposit, which fines progressively upward to clayey sands. The terrace deposit on the
Grimesland site contains large amounts of well-sorted and clean sands that were likely
deposited in a relatively high-energy nearshore environment. This fining-upward sequence is
NCDOT Page 4 0611512001
1

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
approximately five to eight feet thick in the project vicinity. The elevation of the base of this
sequence has been the determining factor on depths of sand mining (and hence the depths of
' the ponds) on the Grimesland site. The Pleistocene-age terrace deposits on the Grimesland site
unconformably overlie Tertiary-age marine silts and clays, which are locally fossiliferous.
Portions of the Grimesland site occupied by the Grindle Creek and Tar River floodplain are
underlain by Holocene-age marsh and swamp deposits. These marsh and swamp deposits are
primarily comprised of organic sandy silts and sandy clayey silts. These Holocene deposits thin
to a feather-edge in the vicinity of the borrow pits (approximately along the five foot contour) and
increase to undetermined thickness towards the Tar River. The Holocene-age marsh and
swamp deposits on the Grimesland site unconformably overlie the Pleistocene-age terrace
deposits in some areas and the Tertiary-age marine deposits in other areas.
1 3.3 Water Resources
1 3.3.1 Water Bodies
Fourteen ponds of varying size occupy 107 acres of the Grimesland site. These ponds were
derived from sand mining operations that have been conducted by NCDOT on the property
since the early 1960s. The two ponds located on the western parcel remain active sites of
periodic sand mining. The twelve ponds located on the eastern parcel have been inactive with
respect to mining operations for approximately five years. Because the ponds were excavated
from historic uplands, the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers has determined that they are
non-jurisdictional resources with respect to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
The regional water table remains within several feet of the ground surface throughout much of
the year. Because of this sustained high water table, water levels within the ponds are
maintained primarily via groundwater discharge. Water levels are supplemented by precipitation
and, less frequently, by major periodic flooding when the Tar River overtops its banks.
Maximum water depths within the ponds generally range from four to six feet. None of the
ponds have direct outlets to the Grindle Creek/Tar River floodplain.
3.3.2 Waterways
The Grimesland site is bounded on the north and east by Grindle Creek, and on the south by
the Tar River. Although the Tar River in the vicinity of the property is nontidal, it is occasionally
subject to freshwater tidal influences when coastal storm surge and sustained southeasterly
winds push the tidal surge upriver. Grindle Creek is perennial where it adjoins the property.
Base flow within Grindle Creek is maintained by the seasonally high water table. As shown on
Figure 2, an intermittent tributary to Grindle Creek flows from west to east across the northern
1
NCDOT Page 5 06/152001
1

AgB
ocB .. Ch lab Po via
/
•
J
bcB LaH' f 'ARB Age
f CRS ?J
LaEl
Le
o
ev
mo
.
e

Lab
'
y

? oe _ -± t w
t lse ?; .,.. Po
,) ? -
'
?
J
-•._
`?
,f
3
Pry
A16 ch
E' Lab
.' GRAVEL. PiT
R _
y
pa ct)
Po y J o
-?C Ch a lab
i C,tt .. J l?

sw
C "h
Sw Ch Ch Ch Ch
Sw ; Ch
B
OcB Ch
AgB Sw Sw
r %
Sw

Agt3 Ch
J
/
rC h ?
Mile Ch Ch
0 Gri e
cf,
andin
5 000 4 000 3000 Feet 2040 1004 0 "
LEGEND
AIB - Altavista Sw - Swamp
Ch - Chipley Tu - Tuckerman
V
LaB - Lakeland ./
Oe - Olustee
Po - Portsmouth o 500 1.000
METERS
"°"T MAPPED SOIL UNITS
GRIMESLAND BORROW PITS PROPERTY FIGURE 2
PROJECT: R-2510 WM
WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING PROSPECTUS
PIT T COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA DATE: JUNE 2001
Page 6

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
portion of the property. The Soil Conservation Service soil map (Figure 2) depicts a second
intermittent tributary to Grindle Creek flowing from west to east across the southern portion of
the site; however, no well-defined channel was observed at the time of field investigation. The
reason why this second intermittent drainage course is not well-defined appears to be due to the
fact that it is a floodplain feature formed by conveyance of over-bank flow from the Tar River
during floods rather than fluvial processes associated with runoff.
3.3.3 Groundwater
The area within which the Grimesland site is located is characterized by a seasonally high water
table. The Soil Survey for Pitt County reports depths to the seasonal high water table ranging
from the surface (in areas underlain by swamp soils and other hydric soils) to greater than five
feet (in areas underlain by Lakeland sands). Groundwater elevations observed in several
shallow exploration pits and in automated piezometers do not differ significantly from surface
water elevations observed in the nearby ponds at the time of topographic survey (approximately
t 1.6 to 1.7 feet msl).
3.4 Soils
3.4.1 Non-Hydric Soils

1

u
11

Approximately 40 percent of the Grimesland site is underlain by non-hydric soils. These non-
hydric soils are principally located within areas of historic and proposed sand mining. Non-hydric
soil units mapped within these areas by the U.S. Department of Agriculture consist of Lakeland
sand (0-6 percent slopes), Altavista sandy loam (0-4 percent slopes), and Tuckermanfine sandy
loam (Figure 2). The Lakeland sand is the main soil unit containing the sands that have been
mined on the site. The Chipley sand is a non-hydric soil unit that occurs on upland mounds
(levee deposits) principally along the Tar River.
3.4.2 Hydric Soils
Approximately 60 percent of the Grimesland site is underlain by hydric soils. Hydric soils are
principally encountered outside of the areas of historic and proposed sand mining operations
(i.e., beneath the Tar River floodplain, the Grindle Creek floodplain, and the intermittent stream
draining the northern portion of the site). Hydric soil units mapped within these areas by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture consist of Olustee loamy sand (sandy subsoil variant), Portsmouth
loam, and swamp deposits (Figure 2).
NCDOT Page 7 06/1&1001

I
GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
1 3.5 Natural Vegetation Communities
The Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990) was used to categorize natural vegetation communities on the site. Under this
classification, two broad systems are represented on the site - the palustrine system and the
terrestrial system. The palustrine system is comprised of cypress-gum swamps, coastal plain
bottomland hardwoods, and coastal plain levee forests. The terrestrial system is comprised of
mesic pine flatwoods.
3.5.1 The Palustrine System
The several natural communities comprising the palustrine system on the site closely
correspond to palustrine wetland units depicted on the National Wetlands Inventory map (Figure
3). Approximately 348 acres of forested palustrine wetlands are located on the Grimesland site.
3.5.1.1 Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype)
Because it exhibits a highly variable flow regime (with floods of short duration and periods of low
flow), the Tar River in the vicinity of the Grimesland site is considered to be a blackwater river
as defined in the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and
' Weakley, 1990). As described under the Classification of Natural Communities of North
Carolina, cypress-gum communities (blackwater subtype) occur within backswamps, sloughs,
swales, and featureless floodplains of blackwater rivers.

1

On the Grimesland site, a large contiguous cypress-gum community occurs on the floodplain of
the Tar River south of the borrow pits and along the floodplain of Grindle Creek east and north
of the borrow pits. This community has been mapped under the National Wetlands Inventory
System as a semi-permanently flooded, broad-leaved deciduous and needle-leaved deciduous,
forested palustrine wetland (PF01/2F). At the time of site investigation (August of 1999), 202
acres of cypress-gum swamp natural community existed on the Grimesland site (Figure 3).
The canopy of the cypress-gum community is dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora). Consistent with descriptions offered by Schafale and
Weakley, the understory and shrub layer of the cypress-gum community is poorly developed.
Where present, the understory is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), Carolina ash
(Fraxinus caroliniana), swamp tupelo, and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana). Water elm (Planers
aquatica), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and swamp red bay (Persea palustris) also occur in
places. Where present, the shrub layer is dominated by sweet-pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia),
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), tag alder (Alnus sen'ulata), and fetterbush (Lyonia lucida).
Palmetto (Saba) minor) also occurs in small quantities, primarily near the Tar River. Where
present, the herbaceous layer is dominated by lizard's-tail (Saururus cernuus), false nettle
NCDOT Page 8 06/151001
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
1
-? ?. - _4111111111
PUBHx.? _..
Rey v
U
U
U

RIVE ? a.
R2 U BN
0
500
METERS
Cypress-Gum Swamp:
PF01/2F
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods:
PF01C
PF01/2C
PF04B
PF01A
U
U
Coastal Plain Levee Forest:
PF01C
U
Mesic Pine Flotwoods:
U
PSStl2F-? 1
oi~P?Of NORr"- NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP FIGURE 3
*? * GRIMESLAND BORROW PITS PROPERTY PROJECT: R-2510 WM
WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING PROSPECTUS
PITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA DATE: JUNE 2001
Page 9
GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
(Boehmeria cYlindrica), royal fern (Osmunda re9alis), and chain fern (Woodwardia areolata).
Arrow arum (Peltandra virginica) occurs in some of the lower swales on the floodplain.
3.5.1.2 Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype)
As described under the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and
' Weakley, 1990), coastal plain bottomland hardwoods (blackwater subtype) occur on abandoned
or relic natural levee deposits, point bar deposits, point bar ridges, and other relatively high
parts of the floodplain, away from the channel.
On the Grimesland site, coastal plain bottomland hardwoods (blackwater subtype) occur largely
as disjunct communities occupying gently-sloping curvilinear ridges and gentle slopes flanking
' the uplands (the areas of historic sand mining). On the Grimesland site, the bottomland
hardwood communities occurring on the gently-sloping curvilinear ridges within the larger
floodplain have been mapped under the National Wetlands Inventory System as seasonally
flooded, broad-leaved deciduous and needle-leaved deciduous, forested palustrine wetlands or
PFO1/2Cs (Figure 3). The bottomland hardwood communities occurring along the gentle slopes
' separating the cypress-gum swamp from the uplands have been mapped under the National
Wetlands Inventory System as temporarily flooded, broad-leaved deciduous, forested palustrine
wetlands or PFOlAs (Figure 3). At the time of site investigation, 121 acres of bottomland
hardwood natural community existed on the Grimesland site.
The canopy of the coastal plain bottomland hardwoods is dominated by willow oak (Quercus
phellos), red maple, and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Water oak (Quercus nigra), laurel
oak (Quercus laurifolia), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) also occur in places. The understory is
dominated by red maple, sweetbay, and ironwood. River birch (Betu/a nigra), American holly
(Ilex opaca), beech (Fagus grandifolia), and swamp red bay also occur in places. Consistent
' with descriptions offered by Schafale and Weakley (1990), the shrub layer is well developed.
The shrub layer is dominated by sweet-pepperbush, giant cane, mayberry (Vaccinium e/liottil),
tag alder, and titi (Cyrilla racemosa). Where present, the herbaceous layer is dominated by
' chain fern, slender spikegrass (Chasmanthium /axum), and cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea). Vines are dense within the bottomland hardwood communities. The vine layer is
' dominated by common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Carolina supplejack (Berchemia scandens), and muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia).
3.5.1.3 Coastal Plain Levee Forest (Blackwater Subtype)
As described under the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990), coastal plain levee forest communities (blackwater subtype) occur along
channels of large blackwater rivers.
NCOOT Page 10 06?152001

u
a
1

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
On the Grimesland site, coastal plain levee forest communities (blackwater subtype) occur on
and around higher grounds in close proximity to the Tar River. The high ground with which they
are associated appear to be relict levee deposits and mounds of dredge spoil deposited
sometime in the 1940s or 1950s. Because of the sandy and well-drained nature of the soils
comprising the levee deposits and spoil piles, the vegetated communities of the coastal plain
levee forests on the Grimesland site exhibit a roughly concentric zonation, with facultative-wet
species dominating the lower flanks and facultative to facultative-up species dominating the
higher portions. On the Grimesland site, coastal plain levee forest communities located on and
around higher grounds in close proximity to the Tar River have been mapped under the National
Wetlands Inventory System as a seasonally flooded, broad-leaved deciduous, forested
palustrine wetland (PF01 C) and upland (Figure 3). At the time of site investigation, 25 acres of
coastal plain levee forest natural community existed on the Grimesland site. Of these 25 acres,
approximately two acres are comprised of upland forest capping each of the areas of high
ground.
The canopy of the coastal plain levee forest communities is dominated by sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), red maple, water oak, and laurel oak at lower elevations. At higher elevations, the
canopy of the coastal plain levee forest communities is dominated by loblolly pine, laurel oak,
and southern red oak (Quercus falcata). The understory at higher elevations is dominated by
flowering dogwood (Corpus florida) and American holly. The understory at lower elevations is
dominated by ironwood, American holly, and sweetbay. The shrub layer is denser at lower
elevations and is dominated by sweet-pepperbush, giant cane, and mayberry. Where present,
the herbaceous layer is dominated by chain fern and slender spikegrass. The vine layer is
dominated by common greenbrier, poison ivy, honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and muscadine.
3.5.2 The Terrestrial System (Mesic Pine Flatwoods)
As described under the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990), mesic pine flatwoods occur on flat or rolling Coastal Plain sediments that are
neither excessively drained nor exhibit a significant seasonal high water table.
On the Grimesland site, mesic pine flatwoods occur as remnant communities interspersed
among the active and inactive borrow pits of the uplands (generally above 5 feet msl). On the
Grimesland site, mesic pine flatwoods have been mapped under the National Wetlands
Inventory System as upland (Figure 3). At the time of site investigation, 60 acres of mesic pine
flatwoods interspersed with 35 acres of upland clearings (primarily first-successional open field
communities on mined lands) existed on the Grimesland site.
The canopy of the mesic pine flatwoods is dominated by loblolly pine, sweetgum, and southern
red oak. Water oak and red maple also occur in places. The understory is dominated by
NCDOT Page 11 061152001

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
sweetgum and American holly. The shrub layer is mayberry and giant cane. Where present, the
herbaceous layer is dominated by bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), big bluestem (Andropogon
gerardil), and goldenrods (Solidago spp.). The vine layer is dominated by common greenbrier,
poison ivy, and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
1 3.5.3 Vegetation of the Man-made Ponds (Borrow Pits)
The ponds on the Grimesland site are comprised of intermittently active borrow pits (those on
the western parcel) and abandoned borrow pits (those on the eastern parcel). A man-made
aquatic system occurs within the twelve abandoned ponds and, to a lesser extent, within the two
' intermittently dredged ponds. Because the ponds were excavated from historic uplands, the
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers has determined that they are non-jurisdictional
resources with respect to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and
' Harbors Act of 1899. At the time of site investigation, 107 acres of man-made pond aquatic
system existed on the Grimesland site.
The deepest parts of the ponds are open water and support almost no aquatic plants. Because
of the steep shorelines, few portions of the ponds support narrow and sparsely vegetated bands
of emergent vegetation. Plant species within this band include soft stem rush (Juncus effusus),
spike rushes (Eleocharis spp.), and beak rushes (Rhyncospora spp.). Portions of the older
ponds on the eastern portion of the Grimesland site support spotty and sparse bands of black
willow (Salix nigra) and river birch (Betula nigra) along the upper banks.
3.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
3.6.1 Wildlife and Habitat of the Palustrine System (The Riparian Forests)
The cypress-gum swamps and the bottomland hardwoods occupying the Grindle Creek and Tar
' River floodplains on the Grimesland site provide riparian forest habitat for a wide array of
wildlife. The riparian forests on the Grimesland site are comprised of over three hundred acres
of contiguous mature forest, which serves as an uninterrupted wildlife corridor along the Tar
River. Because of these characteristics, the riparian forest communities on the Grimesland site
provide high value wildlife habitat for the region.
Mammalian species directly observed or indicators of mammalian species observed (tracks,
burrows, and scat) within the riparian forests of the Grimesland site include white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), black bear (Ursus americanus), raccoon (Procyon lotar lotor),
opossum (Didelphis virginiana virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), muskrat (Ondatra
zibetbicus), beaver (Castor canadensis), cotton mouse (Peromysus gossypinus), and other
small rodents. Resident bird species observed include Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides
NCDOT Page 12 0611512001
t

I

1

i

1

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
pubescens), and belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon). Passerine bird species observed include
wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), common yellowthroat (Geothypis trichas), Acadian
flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), and summer tanager (Piranga rubra). Raptors observed
include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), barred owl (Strix varia), and foraging osprey
(Pandion haliaetus). Waterfowl observed include wood duck (Aix sponsa), Canada goose
(Branta canadensis), lesser scaup (Aytha affinis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), American black
duck (Anas rubripes), and pie-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps). Wading birds observed
include great blue heron (Ardea herodius), great egret (Casmerodius albus), and green-backed
heron (Butorides striatus). Reptiles observed within the riparian forests of the site include brown
snake (Storeria dekeyi), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), six-lined racerunner
(Cnemidophorus sexlineatus), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), mud turtle (Kinosternon
subrubrum), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina). Although not observed, cottonmouth
(Agkistrodon piscivorus) is reported to occur in wetter portions of the site. Amphibians inhabiting
the riparian forest of the site include southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia), bull frog (Rana
catesbeiana), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), southern green frog (Rana clamitans melanota),
and southern two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata cirrigera). Invertebrate species
observed include eastern crayfish (Cambarus bartonil), asiatic clam (Corbicula manilensis), river
mussels (Unionidae), and common tadpole snail (Physa heterostropha).
3.6.2 Wildlife and Habitat of the Terrestrial System
Because of the long history of sand mining operations and the remnant nature of vegetation
communities, the upland portions of the Grimesland site provide limited value for wildlife habitat.
Despite these limitations, the uplands provide foraging grounds for a number of mammal and
bird species and serve as part of the larger wildlife corridor extending along the Tar River.
Mammalian species directly observed or indicators of mammalian species observed (tracks,
burrows, and scat) on the upland portions of the Grimesland site include white-tailed deer, black
bear, raccoon, opossum, gray squirrel, gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), and small rodents. Resident bird species observed include killdeer
(Charadrius vociferus), Carolina wren, northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), eastern bluebird
(Sialia sialis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), red-bellied woodpecker, and blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata). Passerine bird species observed include wood thrush, common
yellowthroat, Acadian flycatcher, and summer tanager. Raptors observed include red-tailed
hawk and barred owl. Reptiles observed on the upland portions of the site include eastern garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), black rat snake,
northern copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), six-lined racerunner, and eastern box turtle.
NCDOT Page 13 061152001
GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
3.6.3 Wildlife and Habitat of the Man-Made Ponds (Borrow Pits)
Because of their steep largely unvegetated banks and shallow uniform bottoms, the man-made
ponds on the Grimesland site provide somewhat limited aquatic habitat. Muskrat (Ondatra
zibetbicus) inhabit the banks of a number of the ponds. A large number of raccoon tracks and
foraged shellfish remains indicate heavy foraging by raccoons. Recent beaver sign indicates
that younger saplings along the shores of the ponds are regularly foraged by beaver (Castor
canadensis).
Waterfowl observed utilizing the ponds include Canada goose, mallard, American black duck,
' and pie-billed grebe. Osprey were observed foraging for fish within several of the ponds located
in the northeastern portion of the site. Reptiles observed within the ponds include slider
(Pseudemys scripta) and snapping turtle (Chelydra serpintina). Amphibians observed within the
ponds include lesser siren (Siren intermedia), southern leopard frog, and bull frog. Fish species
observed or reported within the ponds include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill
' (Lepomis macrochirus), redbreasted sunfish (Lepomis auritus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus),
flier (Centrarchus macropterus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), yellow perch (Perca
flavascens), crappie (Proxomis sp.), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), shiners (Notropis spp.),
and carp (Cyprinus carpio). The ponds on the Grimesland site have no direct connection with
Grindle Creek or the Tar River and are not stocked; therefore, it is thought that fisheries within
the ponds are introduced and maintained during major flood events when backwater from the
adjacent Tar River floodplain inundates the site. Invertebrate species observed within the ponds
include eastern crayfish, asiatic clam, and common tadpole snail.
3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species and Federal Species of Concern
Table 1 presents a list of federally-protected species for Pitt County. No reports of federally-
protected species on or in the vicinity of the Grimesland site are contained within the current
database maintained by the North Carolina Division of Natural Heritage (as updated through
June of 2001). For each of the species listed, a discussion of field-documented site conditions,
findings pertaining to suitable habitat, and findings pertaining to individual organisms or
populations are provided following Table 1.

I
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Pitt County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Elliptio steinstansana Tar spinymussel Endangered
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Threatened
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee Endangered
NCDOT Page 14 0611512001

A
I

r

I

I

f
0
GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) is found in fast-flowing, well-oxygenated, relatively silt-
free streams with uncompacted gravelly and coarse sand substrates. This habitat does not
occur within waterways on or adjoining the Grimesland site. No individuals were observed
during field investigation. The Grimesland Mitigation Plan will have no adverse effect on the Tar
spinymussel or its preferred habitat.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests are found in close proximity to water (i.e., within a
half mile). Nests are typically located in the largest living tree in an area. Nest sites typically
have a clear flight path to the water and have an open view of the surrounding landscape. Bald
eagles forage along coasts, rivers, and large lakes, generally with a mile of their nest. Although
no nests have been reported or observed on the Grimesland site, a number of tall living trees
within a half-mile of the Tar River offer suitable nesting sites. No such trees will be removed as
part of the mitigation plan. A large number of trees comprising suitable nesting sites will be
protected in perpetuity as part of the plan to preserve over 300 acres of riverine forest along the
Tar River. In addition, trees that will be planted as part of the mitigation plan are anticipated to
ultimately provide additional suitable nesting sites. A single bald eagle was observed foraging
along the Tar River at the time of site investigation. Proposed enhancement of aquatic habitat
within the ponds on the Grimesland site and the resulting benefit to fisheries is anticipated to
provide additional foraging areas for bald eagles. The Grimesland Mitigation Plan will have no
adverse effect on the bald eagle or its preferred habitat.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) utilizes old-growth open stands of southern
pines for foraging and nesting grounds. The red-cockaded woodpecker shows a particular
affinity for stands of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). Inhabited stands typically contain more than
50 percent pine, lack a thick understory, and are contiguous with other suitable stands. The red-
cockaded woodpecker nests exclusively in living pine trees that are greater than 60 years in age
and are contiguous with pine stands that are at least 30 years in age. This habitat does not
occur on the Grimesland site. No individuals or nesting sites were observed during field
investigation. The Grimesland Mitigation Plan will have no adverse effect on the red-cockaded
woodpecker or its preferred habitat.
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) inhabits warm, shallow waters of canals,
sluggish rivers, estuaries, and saltwater embayments. Manatees are also encountered in marine
waters as far as 3.7 miles offshore. During winter months, manatees concentrate in areas with
warm waters. During other times of years, manatees inhabit the aforementioned waters in areas
having sufficient depth (i.e., greater than 1.5 meters), adequate food supply (primarily large
amounts of aquatic vegetation), and proximity to a freshwater supply (presumably for drinking).
Although the Tar River and lowermost reaches of Grindle Creek appear to have appropriate
depths and water qualities to serve as suitable habitat, they support very little to no aquatic
vegetation in the project vicinity. No individuals were observed during field investigation. The
NCDOT Page 15 06(15x1001

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS

1
I

Grimesland Mitigation Plan will have no adverse effect on the West Indian manatee or its
preferred habitat.
Table 2 presents a list of federal species of concern reported for Pitt County. Based on field
investigations performed as part of this study and review of scientific literature describing habitat
requirements, a determination was made whether suitable habitat for each of the listed species
is present on the Grimesland site (see final column of Table 2).
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern for Pitt County
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat Present
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow SR No
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR/PSC " Yes
Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods shiner SR No
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE No
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T/PE No
Procambarus medialis Tar River crayfish W3"' Yes
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane W1 No
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel C No
Explanation of Status Abbreviations:
"T"-- A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
"C"- A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally
substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare
throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
"SR"-- A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state,
generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally
more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"Wt"--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well known and which appears to
be relatively secure at this time.
"W3"-A Watch Category 3 species is a species which is poorly known in North Carolina, but is not necessarily considered to be
declining.
"/P-"--Denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has
not yet completed the listing process.
-- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
4.0 PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE BANK
4.1 Bank Size
The Grimesland site is 550 acres in size. Based on August 1999 baseline conditions, the
Grimesland site consists of 348 acres of forested palustrine wetlands, 107 acres of man-made
ponds (abandoned borrow pits), 60 acres of mesic upland forests, and 35 acres of mined land
NCDOT Page 16 061152001
r
1

1

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
(including first-successional open field communities). The types of natural communities
available for various types of mitigation measures on the Grimesland site are shown in Table 3.
4.2 Compensation (Creation) Component
4.2.1 Classes of Wetlands Proposed for Inclusion
Fifty-eight (58) acres of cypress-gum swamp and two (2) acres of emergent wetlands will be
created on the Grimesland site through cut-and-fill methods. Proposed wetland creation areas
are shown in Figure 4. Typical cross-sections showing proposed methods of cut-and-fill are
shown in Figure 5.
Materials sidecast from previous sand mining operations (primarily topsoil and finer-grained
sediments) and in-situ upland materials surrounding the ponds will be excavated to elevations
derived from the nearest reference wetland. These materials will be placed around the
shorelines of the ponds to create (1) low-lying semi-permanently flooded flats suitable for
establishment of cypress-gum dominated communities and (2) shallow permanently flooded
subaqueous benches suitable for establishment of emergent wetlands. Observed levels of
surface water and groundwater along with Table 5 (Hydrologic Zones - Nontidal Areas) of the
1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual will be used to set hydrologic regimes
targeted for each of the proposed wetland communities.
4.2.2 Methods for Creating Wetlands Proposed for Inclusion
1 4.2.2.1 Cypress-Gum Swamps
1 4.2.2.1.1 Hydrology
A seasonally saturated to semipermanently saturated hydrologic regime will be the primary
hydrologic regime provided for the proposed cypress-gum swamps. This hydrologic regime will
be provided by cutting or filling (see Typical Sections of Figure 5). Randomized micro-
topography will be provided to create slightly higher areas having a seasonally saturated
hydrologic regime. In accordance with Table 5 of the Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual, field
criteria to be used to determine the presence of this seasonally saturated to semipermanently
saturated hydrologic regime will be saturated conditions within a major portion of the root zone
(i.e., within 12 inches of the surface) for between 12.5 and 75 percent of the growing season in
most years.
The dominant component of the water budget for these areas will be groundwater provided by
excavating to intercept the seasonal high water table. Based on observations of surface water
elevations in adjacent ponds and observations of groundwater elevations in shallow soil probes,
NCDOT Page 17 06/152001
r
GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY
i
w
i
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
TABLE 3
AVAILABLE MITIGATION AREAS
GRIMESLAND SITE
PITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PRESERVATION OF WETLANDS:
• Cypress-Gum Swamp 202 acres
• Bottomland Hardwood 121 acres
• Coastal Plain Levee Forests 25 acres
Subtotal 348 acres
WETLAND CREATION:
• Cypress-Gum Swamp 58 acres
• Emergent Wetlands on Shallow Submerged Benches 2 acres
Subtotal 60 acres
TOTAL WETLAND ACREAGE 408 acres
PRESERVATION OF RIPARIAN BUFFER:
• Riparian Buffer Along the Tar River 4.92 acres
• Riprian Along Grindle Creek 15.03 acres
• Riparian Buffer Along Intermittent Stream 9.64 acres
TOTAL RIPARIAN BUFFER CONSERVATION 29.59 acres
ENHANCEMENT OF AQUATIC HABITAT WITHIN PONDS:
• Planting of Shade-Providing Trees Along Selected Shorelines
• Planting of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
• Provision of Hydraulic Connections Between Ponds 80 acres
• Randomization of Bottom Contours
• Provision of Additional Fish Cover
NCDOT Page 18 06(1&2001

3
06
_ AREA OF ADDITIONAL MINING in O
AMI 3634 AC. c\d c\i

• CAC2 AM2 4.882 AC.
AM3 7740 AC. I W
Z
-
y ® PHASE I MITIGATION AREA U
- j - 7770 AUINCLUDES THE FOLLOWING). j Lil
CACI 4584 AC
CAF1
1
24 C.
o x a
CA
F3
1.
AC.
0- o
PROPOSED WETLAND CREATION AREA
NIA CUT1
CAC/ 4584 AC Z

- CAC7
i°
CAR CAC2 19771 AC.
CAC3 1713 AC.
QJ
CAC4 0792 AC. U
k ' y CACS 0621 AC. W
y
CAFI7
cph J CAC6 AC.
CAC7 47752 AC.
p cn Z
h
CAF2

`

_PROPOSED WETLAND CREATION AREA
° J
rY °
NIA FILL W cl- 0:?

CAF16
AMl
m CAF2 4.000 AC.
cA
S ss x 0-- W Q
Z
CAF14 VE is C,0 CAF4 CACI F
.
CAFE 0696 AC. v V) _
or ° CAF12 CAFII c e 081 Ac ° ° a
z
CAF15 a CAF9 9311 AC. Q m o

'

CAF
cAFro 0.474 AC.
CAFII 0247 AC. Q z
J
N cn Z
re ° CAFE CAFI2 0237 AC.
CAF13 02s6 AC Z LJ O
Z
LLJ 5Ei
WE lB .
CAF14 OJ20 AC. a
Z
_ CAF13 CAF5 CAF15 2479 AC.
CAF16 0704 AC CD
° t-

'
WE u .
CAF17 0.021 AC.
C-)
U

RIF 17
WE 1E
ME H
(,
Q Q
` Z "
-- CAFE i (VV
WE 07 J J

-
AM3 w w
AM2
'
- - WE O CAC2
- CAC2
CAF9 CAF9 ,
1 CAC3 ,

CAC5
WE u ?
` 4 - CAFI O
< WE
IB
WE A
,
.? IB ,

500' 250' 0 500' 1000'
1'=500'
Page 19
I
I
I

I

I

I
I
I

I

3
Op
Lo O
N N
EXTENT OF FILL OF EXIST. POND w
VARIES DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY Uo Fl:
OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL U
ww ..
EXCAVATE EXIST. MATERIAL ? o
FINAL GRADE AND TOPOGRAPHY C? Q? Q
TO BE CONSISTENT WITH LL- d in
REFERENCE WETLANDS
EXIST. REFERENCE EXIST. NATURAL V)
WETLANDS GROUND VARIES Z
CD U
LiJ
U 0--<
Ld In Z
CD
J
?CD

NORM WATER U LLJ C.0 U
Z
0-
>- Y =
~ C

Q
EXIST. POND
ZQCGO
OJ
o
TYPICAL SECTION w
NOT TO SCALE Cr' E Q
U CD CD
U
< o l-
J z O`

W J

LEI
10' BENCH
HERBACEOUS PLANTINGS
PROPOSED GRADE
FOR CYPRESS - GUM
SWAMP
NWS
SHELF 6' TO 12' BELOW
NORMAL WATER
POND BOTTOM
FILL INTO
EXIST. POND
SHALLOW SUBMERGED BENCH
NOT TO SCALE
Pape 20

I

1

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
this critical ground elevation has been determined to lie around 1.7 feet (msl). The remainder of
the water budget will be derived from precipitation and effective utilization of stormwater runoff.
' Backwater flooding from the Tar River floodplain will be more prevalent within proposed
mitigation areas due to the lowering of ground elevations over 25 acres of the site (i.e., the
conversion of uplands to low-lying flats).
4.2.2.1.2 Soils
' No new soils will be introduced to the Grimesland site for mitigation. All new substrate will result
from cut-and-fill. In-situ subsoils and materials sidecast during sand mining operations will be
' utilized as planting substrate within proposed mitigation areas. Because of the low organic
content of subsoils that will comprise the substrate of excavated areas, fertilization will be
important to plant establishment. Although the use of sidecast materials for substrate of areas of
' proposed fill will provide a certain level of organic content, fertilization will also be critical in
these areas. Prior to planting, soils will be tested and, if necessary, amended with lime to
' achieve a pH between 5.5 and 7. Fertilization will be provided, as necessary. Over time,
introduction of detritus through backwater flooding from the Tar River floodplain and the
breakdown of above-ground biomass within planted communities can be expected to provide,
' initially, an histic epipedon and, eventually, more-organic soils.
' 4.2.2.1.3 Vegetation
Proposed cypress-gum swamps will be planted with a mix of trees in the form of bare root stock,
containerized stock, or seedlings (tublings or plugs). Planting of species using dormant plant
stock will be performed between December 1 and March 15 when plant stock is dormant.

r

Trees will be planted within proposed cypress-gum swamps to provide a minimum stem count of
680 stems per acre. This translates to plantings roughly on 8-foot centers. Tree species to be
planted will derived from the following list (as available):
• Betula nigra (river birch)
• Carpinus caroliniana (ironwood)
• Fraxinus caroliniana (Carolina ash)
• Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash)
• Magnolia virginiana (sweetbay)
• Nyssa bif/ora (swamp tupelo)
• Nyssa aquatica (water tupelo)
• Pinus taeda (loblolly pine)
• Platanus occidentalis (sycamore)
• Quercus nigra (water oak)
• Quercus phellos (willow oak)
• Taxodium distichum (bald cypress)
4.2.2.2 Emergent Wetlands on Shallow Submerged Benches
4.2.2.2.1 Hydrology
A semipermanently inundated hydrologic regime will be provided for the proposed emergent
wetlands planted on shallow submerged benches created around ponds. In accordance with
NCDOT Page 21 06/152001

1 GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
Table 5 of the Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual, inundation no greater than 6.6 feet will be
provided during at least 75 percent of the growing season in most years. This hydrologic regime
' will be provided by cutting or filling (see Typical Sections of Figure 5) along the edges of
proposed pond shorelines to provide nearly level benches having an average water depth of
eight inches (or 1.0 feet msl). The dominant component of the water budget for these areas will
be surface water inundation (maintained by groundwater discharge, precipitation, and
stormwater runoff on the site). As previously discussed, backwater flooding from the Tar River
' floodplain will be more prevalent within proposed mitigation areas due to the lowering of
elevations over 25 acres of the site (i.e., the conversion of uplands to low-lying flats).

H

C

C
4.2.2.2.2 Soils
No new soils will be introduced to the Grimesland site for submerged bench creation. All new
substrate will result from cut-and-fill. In-situ subsoils and materials sidecast during sand mining
operations will be utilized as planting substrate within proposed mitigation areas. Because of the
low organic content of subsoils that will comprise the substrate of excavated areas, fertilization
-will be important to plant establishment. Although the use of sidecast materials for substrate of
areas of proposed fill will provide a certain level of organic content, fertilization will also be
critical in these areas. Over time, introduction of detritus through backwater flooding from the
Tar River floodplain and the breakdown of above-ground biomass within planted communities
can be expected to provide, initially, an histic epipedon and, eventually, more-organic soils.
4.2.2.2.3 Vegetation
Proposed submerged benches will be planted with a mix of herbs. Herbaceous species will be
planted in the form of plugs, containerized stock, or dormant stock. Plantings will be provided
on three-foot centers. Emergent herbaceous species will be selected from the following list (as
available):
• Carex spp. (segdes, as available)
• Dulichium arundinaceum (three-way
sedge)
• Hibiscus moscheutos (marsh hibiscus)
• Juncus effusus (soft stem rush)
• Leersia oryzoides (rice cutgrass)
• Peltandra virginica (arrow arum)
• Pontederia cordata (Pickerelweed)
NCDOT
Page 22
• Polygonum spp. (smartweeds, as
available)
• Sagittaria graminae (grass-like duck
potato)
• Scirpus cyperinus (wool grass)
• Sparganium americanum (lesser bur-
reed)
06/1&2001

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPER WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
' 4.3 Preservation Component
4.3.1 Classes of Wetlands and Riparian Buffer Proposed for Inclusion
This mitigation component entails the development, execution, and recording of appropriate real
estate documents that will ensure the preservation of existing wetlands and riparian habitat on
the Grimesland site in perpetuity. Through such means, 210 acres of cypress-gum swamp, 113
acres of coastal plain bottomland hardwoods, and 25 acres of coastal plain levee forest will be
' preserved. In addition to these resources, 4.92 acres of riparian buffer along one bank of the
Tar River, 15.03 acres of riparian buffer along one bank of Grindle Creek, and 9.64 acres of
' riparian buffer along both banks of the intermittent stream traversing the northern portion of the
site will be preserved. Overall areas of proposed preservation are shown in Figure 6.
1 4.3.2 Methods for Preserving Wetlands and Riparian Buffer Proposed for Inclusion
' Development, execution, and recording of preservation documents for wetlands and riparian
habitat presently existing on the Grimesland site will be. accomplished as soon as practicable
following agency approval of a Mitigation Banking Instrument. Preservation of compensatory
' (created) wetlands and the ponds will be implemented in stages as each phased mitigation area
is completed and established.
4.4 Aquatic Habitat Enhancement Component
4.4.1 Classes of Aquatic Resources Proposed for Inclusion
The 107 acres of ponds on the Grimesland site were excavated during sand mining operations
' over the last 40 years. Because of dredging methods used and the relatively uniform thickness
of the sand resources mined, the ponds range in depth from four to six feet and exhibit relatively
flat bottoms. The shorelines of the ponds are steep and support very little emergent vegetation.
The ponds are not interconnected and have no direct connection with Grindle Creek or its
tributaries. Field surveys indicate that, although the ponds support warmwater fisheries typical
' of other waterways and watercourses in the region, the richness and diversity of aquatic flora
and fauna within the ponds is low.
' 4.4.2 Methods for Enhancing Aquatic Habitat Proposed for Inclusion
The limited richness and diversity of the aquatic communities within the ponds is attributed to
seasonal heat stress and uniformity of habitat. A combination of pond geometry (relatively
' shallow depths with uniform bottom contours, relatively straight and featureless shorelines, and
the lack of unrestricted hydraulic connections between ponds) along with the lack of shade-
providing plants around the shorelines are major factors contributing to seasonal heat stress.
NCDOT Page 23 06052001

I

I
G

I
I I

I

Page 24

fl

I
I
GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
Pond geometry limits limnetic stratification, seasonal water column turnover, and circulation
patterns - contributing to periods of sustained heat stress. Proposed interconnection of ponds
can be expected to enhance hydrologic circulation and provide limited relief from heat stress.
Lack of habitat diversity within the ponds is likely contributing as well to the limited richness and
diversity observed. Provision of shallow vegetated benches and shade-providing plants around
the shoreline can be expected to provide refuge for fish during times of high water temperature.
Fish habitat will be further enhanced by the placement of additional fish cover where possible.
This fish cover will be comprised of felled trees and/or root wads.
To provide some relief from seasonal heat stress and to provide more-diverse habitat, the
following mitigation components are proposed within existing ponds on the site:
• Planting of Shade-Providing Trees Along Selected Shorelines
• Planting of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
• Provision of Hydraulic Connections Between Ponds
• Provision of Additional Fish Cover
• Possible Hydraulic Connections to Grindle Creek
Through the aforementioned means, aquatic habitat enhancement will be provided within
approximately 80 acres of ponds remaining after implementation of the wetland creation
components. The ponds are presently not subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Through recordation of real estate documents, a legal means to protect the ponds in
perpetuity will be provided.
5.0 ADMINISTATION AND OPERATION OF THE BANK
' 5.1 Geographic Service Area
The proposed service area for the Grimesland Mitigation Bank is the Lower Tar River portion of
the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (Figure 7). The service area is defined by USGS Hydrologic Unit
Code 03020103, which is comprised of DWQ sub-basins 03-03-03, 03-03-05, and 03-03-06.
' Use of the Grimesland Mitigation Bank to compensate for impacts outside the specified service
area may be considered by the Corps of Engineers or other environmental regulatory permitting
agencies on a case-by-case basis.
I
I
NCDOT Page 25 06(152001
1

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY
Lower Tar River Basin
(HUC 03020103)
p?OF'1MTH Geographic Service Area
9 FIGURE 7
Grimesiand Wetland Mitigation Bank PROJECT: R-2510 WM
Prospectus DATE: JUNE 2001
WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
North Carolina
NCDOT
Page 26
06/1512001
I
GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
' 5.2 Wetland Classes and Other Aquatic Resources Suitable for Compensation
' Using the Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley,
1990), specific wetland community types for which mitigation (compensation and/or
preservation) would be suitable at the Grimesland Wetland Mitigation Bank include Cypress-
Gum Swamps (Blackwater Subtype), Coastal Plain Bottomiand Hardwoods (Blackwater
Subtype), and Coastal Plain Levee Forests (Blackwater Subtype). Mitigation credits will be
' applicable to all such wetland types within the specified geographic service area for which on-
site in-kind mitigation has been demonstrated to be infeasible. Aquatic resources for which
' mitigation (enhancement and/or preservation) at the Grimesland Wetland Mitigation Bank would
be suitable include shallow water palustrine habitat and riparian buffer. As of June 2001, no
construction projects have been identified for which credits would be sought.
' Values of existing natural communities on the Grimesland site were estimated using North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina (1995). With respect to wetlands and aquatic habitat that would be
impacted by specific highway construction projects, the determination as to their suitability for
' compensation at the Grimesland site will be based on a comparison of their values and the
values of those proposed for creation, preservation, and enhancement on the Grimesland site
(as described below).
5.2.1 Cypress-Gum Swamps
' Using methods set forth in Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, the
cypress-gum swamps on the Grimesland site were determined to exhibit high values for water
' storage, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life value, and recreation/education. The
cypress-gum swamps exhibit intermediate values for bank/shoreline stabilization only because
' the Grimesland site is not located within one-half mile of an urbanized portion of the watershed.
Compared to other natural communities on the Grimesland site, the cypress-gum swamps rated
the highest overall value (with a numerical value of 91).
Under the wetland creation component of the mitigation plan, it is proposed to create 58 acres
' of wetlands dominated by cypress-gum swamp communities. Because grading plans will call for
microtopographic relief, a lesser component of bottomiand hardwood communities will also
become established. Most of the newly created communities will be located adjacent to ponds.
Lowering of elevations around the ponds will allow the ponds to serve as floodplain pools and
will provide an unrestricted hydraulic connection to the Tar River and Grindle Creek during times
of significant flooding; however, the cypress-gum swamps created adjacent to ponds can be
' expected to exhibit slightly lower values than the reference wetland or those wetlands being
NCDOT Page 27 061152001

1
I

fl

1

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
created within 300 feet of Grindle Creek and its perennial tributary (i.e., a numerical value of 82
for created compared to 91 for existing).
5.2.2 Bottomland Hardwoods Within 300 Feet of a Waterway
Using methods set forth in Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, the
coastal plain bottomland hardwood forests located within 300 feet of a waterway (the Tar River,
Grindle Creek, or tributaries to Grindle Creek) were determined to exhibit moderately high
values for water storage, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life value, and
recreation/education. As with the cypress-gum swamps, these bottomland hardwood
communities exhibited intermediate values for bank/shoreline stabilization only because the
Grimesland site is not located within one-half mile of an urbanized portion of the watershed.
Compared to other natural communities on the Grimesland site, the coastal plain bottomland
hardwood forests located within 300 feet of a waterway rated the second highest overall value
(with a numerical value of 76). Of the total 121 acres of bottomland hardwoods to be preserved,
58 acres are comprised of these high-value bottomland hardwood communities.
5.2.3 Coastal Plain Levee Forests
Using methods set forth in Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, the
coastal plain levee forests located along the Tar River were determined to exhibit high values
for pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, and recreation/education. Due primarily to their lack of
microtopographic relief and lack of seasonal pockets of inundation, the levee forest communities
exhibit relatively low values with respect to water storage and aquatic life value. As with other
communities on the Grimesland site, these levee forests exhibit intermediate values for
bank/shoreline stabilization only because the site is not located within one-half mile of an
urbanized portion of the watershed. Compared to other natural communities on the Grimesland
site, the coastal plain levee forests rated the third highest overall value (with a numerical value
of 68). Preservation of 25 acres of coastal plain levee forests is proposed.
5.2.4 Bottom/and Hardwoods Over 300 Feet from a Waterway
Using methods set forth in Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, the
coastal plain bottomland hardwood forests located over 300 feet from a waterway were
determined to exhibit high values for wildlife habitat. Due primarily to their distance from
waterways, these communities exhibit intermediate values for pollutant removal and
recreation/education. As with other communities on the Grimesland site, these bottomland
hardwood communities exhibit intermediate values for bank/shoreline stabilization only because
the site is not located within one-half mile of an urbanized portion of the watershed. Due
primarily to their lack of microtopographic relief and lack of seasonal pockets of inundation,
these bottomland hardwood forest communities exhibit relatively low values with respect to
NCDOT Page 28 06/16/2001

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
' water storage and aquatic life value. Compared to other natural communities on the Grimesland
site, the bottomland hardwood forests located over 300 feet from a waterway rated the lowest
' overall value; however, with a numerical rating of 52, their value is considered important from a
regional perspective. Of the total 121 acres of bottomland hardwoods to be preserved, 63 acres
are comprised of these medium-value bottomland hardwood communities.
5.2.5 Palustrine Emergent Wetlands Along Shorelines of Ponds
1
I
I
I
I
1

I
t

Using methods set forth in Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, the
palustrine emergent wetland communities that currently exist around the shorelines of the ponds
were determined to exhibit low to moderately low values for all values assessed. These
comparatively low values are due primarily to the fact that their hydrology is dominated by
groundwater flow and rainfall rather than surface flow, their hydraulic isolation from nearby
wetlands where surface flows exist, their limited extent (i.e., narrow and non-contiguous fringe
communities), their limited vegetation cover, and their limited amount of food-bearing plants.
Under the mitigation plan, new emergent wetlands will be created on shallow aquatic benches
around the shorelines of the ponds. The values of the created emergent wetlands will be
noticeably higher than the values of the existing emergent communities (a numerical rating of 36
for the existing wetlands compared to a numerical rating of 52 for the proposed wetlands). The
relatively greater rating of the new wetlands is attributed to the provision of less-restrictive
hydraulic connections with adjoining created wetlands to be dominated by surface flows, the
relatively greater size of the created emergent wetlands, a greater coverage by vegetation
including vegetation having greater food value, their contribution to providing a wildlife corridor
across the property, and the reduction in human disturbances anticipated under new
stewardship and management practices.
5.2.6 Aquatic Habitat Within Ponds
Using methods set forth in Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, the
aquatic habitat that currently exists within the ponds were determined to exhibit low to
moderately low values for values assessed with the exception of aquatic life value (for which
they rated moderate to moderately high in value). These low to moderate values are due
primarily to the fact that their hydrology is dominated by groundwater flow and rainfall rather
than surface flow, their hydraulic isolation from nearby wetlands where surface flows exist, the
limited size of the majority of the ponds (less than ten acres), the lack of submerged aquatic and
emergent vegetation, their limited amount of food-bearing plants, and their lack of cover-
providing fish habitat.
Under the mitigation plan, measures will be taken to enhance the aquatic habitat within the
ponds. The values of enhanced aquatic habitat will be noticeably higher than the values of
NCDOT Page 29 0611512001

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
' existing aquatic habitat (a numerical rating of 38 for the existing habitat compared to a
numerical rating of 47 for enhanced habitat). The relatively greater rating of the enhanced
' aquatic habitat is attributed to the provision of less-restrictive hydraulic connections with
adjoining created wetlands to be dominated by surface flows, proposed interconnection of some
of the ponds resulting in relatively greater habitat sizes, a greater coverage by vegetation
' including vegetation having greater food value, provision of cover-providing fish habitat, and the
reduction in human disturbances anticipated under new stewardship and management
' practices.
5.3 Long-Term Management
I
1
G

LJI?

I
I

No plan for dispensation of the Grimesland site has yet been finalized. Parties, which could
provide responsible stewardship of the site, include non-profit conservation organizations (such
as the Nature Conservancy), local governments (Pitt County), land trusts, or continued North
Carolina ownership with state agency management. Covenants and/or deed restrictions will be
implemented to ensure responsible management and protection of the site in perpetuity.
NCDOT will maintain ownership of the wetland compensation portions of the site (Figure 4) until
all mitigation activities are completed and until each phased mitigation area is determined to be
successful. Dispensation of these areas can be performed in stages as each successive area is
determined to be successful or dispensation can be accomplished for the entire 60-acre
compensatory area once all areas have been deemed successful. Once a formal agreement
has been entered into between NCDOT and an appropriate party, ownership or management of
the 348 acres of riparian forests (Figure 6) can be transferred at any time.
5.4 Financial Assurances
NCDOT's wetland mitigation program is funded as part of each roadway construction project.
Mitigation funding may be obtained from either state or federal funds. NCDOT is financially
supported through state and federal actions as authorized by legislation. This authorization
includes a portion of the taxes collected from the sale of gasoline. NCDOT anticipates no
difficulty in meeting its obligation for funding of wetland mitigation banks as specified by law,
rule, or regulation.
5.5 Compensation Ratios
Compensation ratios for debiting will be determined by the Corps of Engineers during the permit
application process.
NCDOT Page 30 06/152001

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
5.6 Methods for Determining Credits and Debits
' Mitigation credits will be generated through successful implementation of the mitigation plan
described in section 4.0 of this Prospectus. The total amount of credits to be ultimately made
available on the Grimesland site will be determined (1) by the amount of wetlands and stream
' buffer put into protection through appropriate real estate instruments and (2) by the acreage of
successful wetland creation and aquatic habitat enhancement.
In determining specific mitigation credits, the following formula will be utilized:
1 acre of mitigation credit = 1 acre of creation + 5 acres of preservation + 1 acre of
aquatic habitat enhancement
N Based on the above formula, net mitigation credits to be obtained on the Grimesland site will
consist of 60 acres of wetland creation + 69.6 acres of wetland preservation (348 acres/5) + 80
acres of aquatic habitat enhancement, for a subtotal of 209.6 credit-acres. In addition, a credit
for preservation of 29.59 acres of riparian buffer will be applied toward the Grimesland site.
Using these prescribed credit factors, a maximum of 239.19 credit-acres will be generated.
' Monitoring results and associated reports will be the means by which successful achievement of
mitigation goals will be demonstrated and documented, respectively. The Bank Sponsor, in
consultation with the MBRT, will determine when performance standards of the mitigation plan
have been met. If performance standards are not met, the Bank Sponsor will then perform
appropriate remedial activities to the satisfaction of the MBRT. Credits will be released in
accordance with a schedule approved by the MBRT.
1 5.7 Accounting Procedures
Compensation ratios for debiting will be determined by the Corps of Engineers during the permit
application process. The Bank Sponsor will submit written notification to the MBRT at the time
of each transaction affecting the Bank. In addition, an accounting schedule will be submitted to
the MBRT on an annual basis. The Bank Sponsor will certify this annual accounting schedule
prior to submittal to the MBRT.

NCDOT Page 31 06/1&2001

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
' 6.0 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BANK
6.1 Performance Standards for Determining Credit Availability and Bank Success
1 6.1.1 Reference Wetlands
To assist in developing site-specific performance standards and to serve as a baseline against
which progress of the created wetlands can be compared, several reference wetlands have
been selected and are presently being monitored on the site. Reference wetlands for the
' proposed forested wetland creation component of the wetland mitigation bank are located within
the northern portion of the site, along Grindle Creek (Figure 8).
One reference wetland is comprised of semi-permanently flooded, broad-leaved deciduous and
needle-leaved deciduous, forested palustrine wetland (PF01/2F), or cypress gum swamp of the
Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina. The other reference wetland is
comprised of seasonally flooded, broad-leaved deciduous and needle-leaved deciduous,
forested palustrine wetland (PF01/2C), or coastal plain bottomland hardwoods of the
I Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina.
' Reference wetlands were selected along Grindle Creek rather than within the larger Tar River
floodplain community to the south because hydrologic conditions exhibited in the selected
reference areas will more closely reflect hydrologic conditions targeted for the somewhat linear
forested communities proposed.
Permanently flooded, emergent palustrine wetlands of the type to be created on shallow
submerged benches around existing ponds do not currently exist in the vicinity of the
Grimesland site; therefore, no reference wetland has yet been designated. It is anticipated that
' a permanently flooded, emergent palustrine wetland to be created as part of the Phase I
mitigation effort will become established within several growing seasons and can then serve as
a reference wetland for subsequently proposed submerged bench wetlands.
' 6.1.2 Performance Standards
t Success criteria have been established to verify that wetland creation areas support vegetation
necessary for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success criteria are dependent upon the
density and growth of characteristic forest species. For the forested wetlands, a minimum count
of 320 trees per acre must be achieved within three years of initial planting and a minimum
count of 260 trees per acre must be achieved within five years of initial planting. Supplemental
plantings will be undertaken as needed to achieve the vegetation success criteria.
NCDOT Page 32 06/152001
I
I
I
SITE ENTRANCE
I
1
GROUND WATER GAUGE
REFERENCE WETLANDS
I •r
I
7
I
I.
I
I
SURFACE WATER GAUGE
11.
e
.. r
GROUND WATER GAUGE
I
1
1
1
1
I
300' 150' 0 300' 600'
I'=300'
REFERENCE WETLANDS

GROUND WATER GAUGE
Page 33
I
I

1

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
For compensatory areas proposed to support forested wetlands (cypress gum swamps and
coastal plain bottomland hardwoods), hydrological success criteria will be defined as saturated
soil conditions within a major portion of the root zone (i.e., within 12 inches of the surface) for
12.5 to 75 percent of the growing season in most years. For compensatory areas proposed to
support emergent wetlands (the shallow aquatic benches), hydrological success criteria will be
defined as inundation less than 6.6 feet for at least 75 percent of the growing season in most
years. Areas supporting the aforementioned wetland hydrology regimes are required to support
a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils. If wetland hydrology is determined to be
marginal after three years of monitoring, consultation with the MBRT will be initiated to assess
jurisdictional issues in transitional areas.
The primary goal of the mitigation plan is to optimize the amount of riverine wetlands to be
created. Adjoining riverine wetlands along Grindle Creek and the Tar River floodplain have been
selected to serve as reference wetlands. Two groundwater monitoring gauges have been
installed in adjoining reference riverine wetlands and additional monitoring gauges will be
installed as phases of mitigation progress. Groundwater data collected from the monitoring
gauges installed within the reference wetlands will be compared to groundwater data collected
from monitoring gauges installed within compensatory wetlands to assess the degree to which
the aforementioned goal has been met.
6.2 Monitoring and Reporting Protocols
6.2.1 Monitoring Plan
Monitoring of wetland compensation (creation) efforts will be performed for three years or until
success criteria are satisfied. Monitoring is proposed for two wetland components - hydrology
and vegetation. Soils within proposed compensation areas will be observed to determine,
qualitatively, their development of hydric soil indicators.
6.2.1.1 Monitoring of Hydrology
Groundwater monitoring within compensatory mitigation areas (proposed cypress-gum swamps)
and reference wetlands will be accomplished utilizing Remote Data Systems, Inc. model RDS
WL-400 automated groundwater monitoring gauges, or acceptable equivalents. These
automated groundwater monitoring gauges will continuously record water level data along a 40-
inch gradient. Existing automated groundwater monitoring gauges have been installed and
additional automated groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed in accordance with
specifications in the Corps of Engineers' Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands
(WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August, 1993).
NCDOT Page 34 081152001

I
GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
t To monitor surface water elevations during times of flooding, several RDS WL-400 groundwater
monitoring gauges will be mounted above-grade on wooden poles. The poles will be
' appropriately anchored to ensure their stability during periods of site inundation when significant
flow velocities may occur. The bottom of each unit will be set at ground level. In this
configuration, the RDS WL-400 groundwater monitoring gauges will be capable of recording
water levels 40 inches above the ground surface. The purpose of these above-grade units is to
provide evidence of riverine-influenced hydrology within reference wetlands and areas of
wetland creation.
To monitor surface water levels within the ponds, RDS WL-400 automated groundwater
' monitoring gauges will be installed on anchored wooden poles along the shallow submerged
benches (the proposed emergent wetlands). The bottom of each unit will be set at the surface of
the bench substrate. In this configuration, the RDS WL-400 groundwater monitoring gauges will
be capable of recording water levels 40 inches above the substrate of the benches.
Automated groundwater monitoring gauges have been installed within reference wetlands and
adjoining areas (Figure 8). Proposed locations of additional automated groundwater monitoring
gauges will be identified for future phases of mitigation when these phases near final design.
' Additional automated groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed within each phased
mitigation area immediately following completion of grading.

I
I
I

Following installation, the continuous-logging automated groundwater monitoring gauges will be
adjusted to record water levels at 6-hour intervals. The continuous monitoring groundwater
monitoring gauges will be in operation throughout the year, and data will be downloaded at
intervals sufficiently spaced to provide effective monitoring and assessment of success criteria
for hydrology.
6.2.1.2 Monitoring of Vegetation
Monitoring methods for vegetation within compensatory areas have been developed in
accordance with Corps of Engineers Branch Guidance for Wetlands Compensation Permit
Conditions and Performance Criteria (1995).
After planting has been completed, an initial evaluation will be performed to verify planting
methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting and
additional site modification will be implemented, if necessary. Permanent photography stations
will be established at selected vantage points to provide a visual record of vegetation
development over time.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in the early fall of the first year 0.05-acre plots will be
established with the 58 acres of compensatory wetlands comprised of cypress-gum swamp and
NCDOT Page 35 061152001

I
GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
' bottomland hardwoods. Monitoring plots will be established and permanently located, providing
a representative sample of the site. Vegetation monitoring plots will be correlated with
hydrological monitoring sites in most cases to allow for point-source data of hydrologic and
vegetation parameters.
' During the first year after planting, the Grimesland site will receive cursory visual evaluation on
a periodic basis to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted trees by nuisance species,
such as common reed (Phragmites australis) or multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Remedial
action will be undertaken as needed to control nuisance species. Subsequently, quantitative
sampling of vegetation will be performed after each growing season and preferably after the first
frost until vegetation success criteria is achieved.
6.2.2 Report Submittals
As-built plans will be submitted within 90 days following completion of each phase of the
wetlands mitigation plan. The as-built plans will show final site grading along with a description
of post-planting site conditions. A discussion of the planting program, including species planted,
species densities, and number of stems planted will be included. The report will also provide a
1 description of groundwater monitoring gauge locations, proposed photographic monitoring
stations and proposed vegetation sampling plots.
' Subsequently, monitoring reports will be submitted yearly to appropriate permitting agencies
following each assessment. Submitted reports will include (1) sample plot data, (2) water level
data from automated groundwater monitoring gauges, and (3) a discussion of substantiated
problems and proposed recommendations for problem resolution. The duration of wetland
hydrology during the growing season will also be calculated at each monitoring gauge location
and extrapolated to each restored or enhanced community. Density, survival and percent
composition of targeted tree species will be reported.
6.3 Maintenance, Contingency, and Remedial Action
' In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, appropriate
contingency measures will be identified and implemented. Should the specified vegetation
success criteria not be satisfied, possible contingency measures will include additional
plantings, specification of more-suitable plant species, control of unsuitable plant species (such
as common reed) which may be out-competing targeted species, minor grade adjustments, and
t extended monitoring periods.
' In the event that the specified wetland hydrology success criteria are not achieved during the
monitoring period, the only practicable contingency measure would entail minor grade
adjustments. Should grade adjustment not be feasible, redefinition of mitigation goals and
NCDOT Page 36 061152001
1 GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
strategies will be required. Redefinition of mitigation goals and strategies would be carried out in
close consultation with the MBRT.
' As previously discussed, the Grimesland site will receive cursory visual evaluation on a periodic
basis during the first year after planting to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted trees
' by nuisance species, such as common reed (Phragmites australis) or multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora). Remedial action will be undertaken as needed to control nuisance species.
' Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed after each growing season
and preferably after the first frost until vegetation success criteria is achieved.
7.0 REFERENCES
Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E Young. Wetland Evaluation Technique
(W.E.T.). Vol. II Methodology. Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Vicksburg, Mississippi. Technical Report Y-87. 1987.
Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet and Edward T. LaRoe. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
' and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-79-31. Washington, D.C. 1979.
Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. Grading Plans, Grimesland Wetlands Mitigation Area -
' Phase I. NCDOT Project Reference Number R-251 OWM (2 sheets). 28 May 1999.
Larson, J.S., P.R. Adamus, and E.J. Clairain, Jr. Functional Assessment of Freshwater
' Wetlands: A Manual and Traininq Outline. Publication No. 89-6. University of Massachusetts
Press. 1989.
Niering, William A. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Wildflowers: Eastern
' Region Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 1979.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
t Environmental Management, Water Quality Section. Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina: Fourth Version. January 1995.

I

Page, Lawrence M. and Brooks M. Burr. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston. 1991.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ashles, and C.R. Bell. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1968.
Rosgen, Dave. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
1996.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Department of Environmental Management, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program. 1990.
NCDOT Page 37 06/152001

GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with the
North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. Soil Survey of Pitt County. North Carolina. U.S.
' Government Printing Office. 1974.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils. Hydric Soils of the United States. 1995.
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. 1987.
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. Branch Guidance for Wetland
Compensation, Permit Conditions and Performance Criteria. 7 December 1995.
' U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Wilmington District.
Memorandum of Understanding Between the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources and the United States Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 8
October1998.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Map - Grimesland, North Carolina
7.5 Minute Quadrangle. Newton Corners, Massachusetts. 1986.
i
NCDOT
Page 38
0611WO01
GRIMESLAND BORROW PIT PROPERTY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS

I
I

I
I

u

I

INDEX OF INFORMATION TO BE INCORPORATED
INTO FUTURE BANKING INSTRUMENTS
The following index provides a cross reference of Prospectus sections and those informational
items which are to be included in future banking instruments, as identified in section II.C.2.a.
through n. (inclusive) of the Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of
Mitigation Banks (Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 1995 / Notices).
Bankinq Instrument Item See Prospectus Section
a. Bank Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................ 2.0
b. Ownership of Bank Lands .................................................................................................. 1.2
c. Bank Size and Classes of Wetlands and Aquatic Resources Proposed for Inclusion ......... 4.0
d. Baseline Conditions at the Bank Sits .................................................................................. 3.0
e. Geographic Service Area ................................................................................................... 5.1
f. Wetland Classes and Other Aquatic Resources Suitable for Compensation ...................... 5.2
g. Methods for Determining Credits and Debits ...................................................................... 5.6
h. Accounting Procedures ...................................................................................................... 5.7
i. Performance Standards for Determining Credit Availability and Bank Success .................. 6.1
j. Reporting Protocols and Monitoring Plan ........................................................................... 6.2
k. Contingency and Remedial Actions and Responsibilites .................................................... 6.3
1. Financial Assurances ......................................................................................................... 5.4
m. Compensation Ratios ......................................................................................................... 5.5
n. Provisions for Long-Term Management and Maintenance ................................................. 5.3
NCDOT Page 39 0611512001

OF \NATF9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
Q- William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
7 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r
j -i Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
O -? Acting Director
Division of Water Ouality
October 1, 2001
Mr. E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
US Army, COE, Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 8402-1890
Dear ranklin,
Re: Action ID No. 199911142
2 0 0 70 7 4 8
This correspondence is in reference to the proposed Grimesland Mitigation Bank,
located in Pitt County, being developed by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. In response to your request that one individual be designated to represent
the Division on the Mitigation Bank Review Team, I am naming Mr. Jason Guidry as that
representative.
Please note that other members of the Division may attend meetings of the MBRT,
and participate in discussions. However, the Division's position on each issue will be
coordinated by Mr. Guidry and delivered after consultation with other members of the
Division.
The Division is committed to fostering an environment that is conducive to the
establishment of high quality private mitigation banks. Please let me know if the Division
can be of assistance in implementing a thorough and timely review process.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
cc: John Dorney, Wetlands/401 Unit, DWQ
Jim Mulligan, Washington Regional Office, DWQ
Michael Bell, Washington Regulatory Field Office, USACOE
A
NCDENR
Wetlands Restoration Program 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 [phone] Customer Service
320 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Fax: [phone] 623-7748
Title: Grimesland Site Wetland Mitigation Plan
Date Rec'd 401: ?
Date Recd NCWRP: ?
Location: Where SR-1565 crosses the Tar River near Grimesland, Pitt County, NC
Impacts: None, as of yet.
Proposed mitigation: 348 acres of wetland preservation and 60 acres of wetland
creation; 29.59 acres of riparian buffer preservation; 80 acres of pond aquatic habitat
enhancment
Actual mitigation: Phase I: Established 7.77 acres of created wetlands on January, 2000.
General comments:
Overall more hydrological data should have been collected in both the reference wetlands and in the
proposed created areas. Developed predictions of the frequency and duration of flooding in the created
areas should have been the underlying principle in their design.
Figure 5 shows plans for palustrine wetland creation in locations that are in excess of 1000 feet away from
either Grindle Creek or the Tar River. How will these areas be associated with the surrounding waters?
Specific comments:
Page 7: The soil types for the floodplains of the Tar River and Grindle Creek are only labeled as `swamp
deposits'. There should be a specific classification of these soils, especially since they are included in the
designated reference wetlands of the Grimesland site.
Page 17: two different reference wetlands are described but are not easily located on the reference map
(Figure 4).
Page 19: Please list the schedule for when groundwater monitoring guages will be installed in the reference
wetlands. In the mean time, more description of the findings from the `visual observations' and `shallow
soil probes' is needed. These were used to determine the grading levels of the Phase I created wetlands and
therefore the hydrologic regime of those areas.
Will the created cypress-gum areas actually be palustrine in nature since they will be located greater than
300 feet from Grindle Creek? How will the topography be changed to ensure hydraulic connectivity to the
neighboring floodplain, i.e., will the created wetland experience the flooding found in the reference
wetlands?
It is stated that reference wetlands for the created submerged benches have not yet been designated. We
recommend that the area's surrounding ditches and canals be observed to develop a concept of this type of
habitat.
Page 20: The mitigation plan acknowledges that the soils in the created areas will not be similar to that of
the reference wetlands but are expected to develop into `more-organic' soils over time. This will likely
promote a very different natural plant community than what is found in the reference areas.
Page 23: The relative densities of the tree species to be planted in the created cypress-gum areas should be
presented. Also, the tree stock should be derived from an appropriate seed source, preferably a local North
Carolina coastal plain source (verify this with the tree nursery providing the stock). The species-list is a
wide variety of trees with different affinities to hydrologic conditions; the locations of these species should
be planned carefully.
Page 24: The species-list for the proposed submerged benches contains several plants that are not suited
for the 6-12 inches of water that will cover the benches. Peltandra virginica and Pontedaria cordata are
the only appropriate species for these depths of water, with Leersia oryzoides being questionable. Figure 6
showed the proposed benches to have a rather steep drop off into the ponds, we suggest that the benches
have a more gradual slope to accommodate some more of the `shallow-water' species on your list.
Page 26: The report on Phase I shows very little information on the number and density of trees planted.
The trees have also been through one full growing season at the time of this report, therefore, estimates of
first-year survival should be available.
Pages 30 and 32: Areas that do not achieve the hydrologic success criteria will be nearly impossible to
remedy by additional `cutting and filling' since these areas will be planted a high density of trees. This
illustrates the importance of more preliminary hydrologic information.
Plan reviewed by: Jason Guidry and Mac Haupt
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO September 13, 2001
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 199911142
SfP 24 2001
SEE DISTRIBUTION
Dear Colleague:
to- VO%
or.
L-CEN
Nc WETLANDS
RESTORATION
cf
U,0A
SEP 1$ 20
DIV. 01
OF IIATE
DI T6" 'S AQUA /7y
This correspondence is in reference to the proposed Grimesland Mitigation Bank that is
being developed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. This bank is located in
eastern Pitt County, North Carolina and will be administered via a mitigation banking
instrument. The purpose of this letter is to request formal establishment of the Mitigation Bank
Review Team (MBRT) for this project.
Pursuant to 60 FR 228, p.58610, 3. Agency Roles and Coordination, collectively, the
signatory agencies to the banking instrument will comprise the Mitigation Bank Review Team.
Representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), as appropriate given the
projected use of the bank, should typically comprise the MBRT. Additionally, it is appropriate
for representatives from State, tribal and local regulatory and resource agencies to participate
where an agency has authorities and/or mandates directly affecting or affected by the
establishment, use or operation of a bank. This may include the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), Division of Coastal Management (DCM), and the Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC).
In this regard, we are inviting your agency to join the MBRT for this mitigation bank. If
you wish to participate as a member of this MBRT, you should designate a specific
representative of your agency to serve on the MBRT and notify us in writing within 30 days of
your receipt of this letter. The first MBRT meeting and field visit will be scheduled for October.
We will hopefully schedule a Van Swamp Mitigation Bank meeting for later the same day.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Michael Bell at the Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], ext. 26.
cerely,
r x? ~^ t
E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
5}p Z 2001
VvN I ER QJA(_iTY
SECTION
V
DISTRIBUTION:
Ms. Karen M. Lynch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Mr. William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Garland Pardue
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Tommy Stevens, Director /
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Ms. Donna D. Moffitt, Director
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Frank McBride
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Post Office Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564

d
Reading (in)
41 W W N N ?-• ?L i
vO vi O cn O to O vi O
04-Jan-O1
i
16-Jan-O1 j
27-Jan-O1
07-Feb-01
18-Feb-O1
02-Mar-O1
13-Mar-Ol24-Mar-O 1
04-Apr-O1
16-Apr-O1
27-Apr-O1
08-May-01
19-May-O1
31-May-01
i
11-Jun-O1 j
i
22-Jun-O1
03-Jul-O1
i
15-Jul-O1 i
26-Jul-O1
i
06-Aug-O1
I i
17-Aug-O1
j
29-Aug-O1 i
09-Sep-O1
20-Sep-O1
O1-Oct-O1
I
13-Oct-O1
24-Oct-O1
I
i
04-Nov-01
I
15-Nov-01
27-Nov-O1
? M1
t

A,
d
04-Jan-O1
16-Jan-O1
27-Jan-01
07-Feb-O1
18-Feb-O1
02-Mar-Ol
13-Mar-Ol
24-Mar-O1
04-Apr-O1
16-Apr-O1
27-Apr-O1
08-May-01
19-May-O1
31-May-01
11-Jun-01
22-Jun-O1
03-Jul-O1
15-Jul-O1
26-Jul-O1
06-Aug-O1
17-Aug-01
29-Aug-01
09-Sep-O1
20-Sep-O1
01-Oct-o1
13-Oct-O1
24-Oct-O1
04-Nov-O1
15-Nov-O1
27-Nov-O1
rz
,n
N ?
? b
w v?
N
Reading (in)
o o ? o v, o v, o

4
d
CD
Reading (in)
A P W w N N ? I
Cn O v? O vO cn O c? O c?
O1-Jan-O1
i
13-Jan-O1
25-Jan-01
06-Feb-O1
18-Feb-O1
02-Mar-O1
14-Mar-O1
26-Mar-O1
07-Apr-O l
19-Apr-O1
01-May-01
13-May-01
25-May-O1
06-Jun-01
18-Jun-01
30-Jun-O1
12-Jul-O1
24-Jul-O1
a
05-Aug-01
17-Aug-O1 1
29-Aug-O1
10-Sep-O1
22-Sep-O1
04-Oct-O1
16-Oct-01
28-Oct-O1
09-Nov-O1
21-Nov-01 _j
? b
J ?
0

d
4.
cn
04-Jun-00
23-Jun-00
12-Jul-00
31-Jul-00
19-Aug-00
07-Sep-00
26-Sep-00
15-Oct-00
03-Nov-00
22-Nov-00
11-Dec-00
30-Dec-00
18-Jan-O1
06-Feb-O1
25-Feb-Ol
16-Mar-O1
04-Apr-Ol
23-Apr-Ol
12-May-O1
31-May-O1
19-Jun-01
08-Jul-01
27-Jul-01
15-Aug-01
03-Sep-O1
22-Sep-O1
11-Oct-Ol
30-Oct-01
18-Nov-01
N b
J ?
? N
Reading (in)
4, W W N N
O (-A O (.A O t.A O to O to
Reading (in)
.1 41 W W N N
Cn O LA O LA O (-A O cn O to
d
O1-Jan-01
13-Jan-O1
25-Jan-O1
06-Feb-01
18-Feb-01
02-Mar-O l
14-Mar-O1
26-Mar-O1
07-Apr-01
19-Apr-O1
01-May-01
13-May-O1
25-May-O1
06-Jun-O1
18-Jun-O1
30-Jun-01
12-Jul-01
24-Jul-O1
05-Aug-O1
17-Aug-O1
29-Aug-O1
10-Sep-O1
22-Sep-O1
04-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
28-Oct-01
09-Nov-01
21-Nov-01
W ?
.p
0o w
4
41
d
Uh
13-Dec-00
25-Dec-00
06-Jan-O1
18-Jan-O1
30-Jan-O1
11-Feb-O1
23-Feb-O1
07-Mar-O1
19-Mar-O1
31-Mar-O1
12-Apr-O1
24-Apr-O l
06-May-01
18-May-O1
30-May-O1
11-Jun-01
23-Jun-01
05-Jul-01
17-Jul-01
29-Jul-O1
10-Aug-O1
22-Aug-O1
03-Sep-O1
15-Sep-O1
27-Sep-O1
09-Oct-Ol
21-Oct-01
7
02-Nov-O1
14-Nov-O1
26-Nov-O1
Reading (in)
do to N N I
O t h O flA O to O vi O to

w ?
? b
oil
w
11
4
d
fD
24-May-00
12-Jun-00
O1-Jul-00
20-Jul-00
08-Aug-00
27-Aug-00
15-Sep-00
04-Oct-00
23-Oct-00
11-Nov-00
30-Nov-00
19-Dec-00
07-Jan-O1
26-Jan-O1
14-Feb-O1
05-Mar-O1
24-Mar-O1
12-Apr-O1
01-May-01
20-May-01
08-Jun-O1
27-Jun-01
16-Jul-01
04-Aug-01
23-Aug-O1
11-Sep-O1
30-Sep-O1
19-Oct-O1
07-Nov-01
26-Nov-01
w ?
Reading (in)
C) o ? o vA o ci, o v,

NC-CREWS SUMMARY FOR THE GRIMESLAND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
RIVERINE AND HEADWATER WETLANDS
I. Water Quality Functions (M)
A. Nonpoint Source Function (IvQ
1. Proximity to Sources (L)
2. Proximity to Water Body (H)
3. Watershed Position (L)
4. Site Conditions (N)
a. Wetland Type (H)
b. Soil (L)
B. Floodwater Cleansing Function (IvT)
1. Water Source and Proximity to Water Sources (bT)
2. Duration of Flooding (M)
3. Site Conditions (M)
a. Wetland Type (H)
b. Soil (L)
4. Width of Wetland Perpendicluar to Stream (H)
11. Hydrology Functions (I)
A. Surface Runoff Storage (tvT)
1. Watershed Position (L)
2. Wetland Size (H)
3. Site Conditions (I)
a. Weiland Type (H)
b. Soil Infiltration Capacity (I)
B. Floodwater Storage (H)
1. Duration of Flooding (hQ
2. Wetland Size (H)
3. Watershed Postion (H)
4. Width of Wetland Subject to Flooding (H)
C. Shoreline Stabilization Function (H)
1. Proximity to Water Body (H)
2. Length of Wetland Border Exposed to Open Water (H)
3. Watershed Land Use (In
111. Habitat Functions (H)
A. Endangered Species/Significant Natural Areas
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat (H) -
1. Internal Habitat (H)
a. Interior Size of Habitat Complex (H)
b. Association with Surface Water (H)
c. Internal Heterogeneity of Habitat; Complex (NYR)
d. W edand Type (H)
2. Landscape Habitat (H)
a. Wetland Juxtaposition (H)
b. Surrounding Habitat (I)
3. Movement System Value (J)
a. Corridor Value (I)
b. Wetland Island Function (I)
C. Aquatic Life Habitat (In
1. Anadromous Fish (H)
2. Other Fish Species (N)
3. Amphibians and Invertebrates (H)
a. Wetland Type (H)
b. Surrounding Habitat (II)
IV. Potential Risk of Wetland Loss (H)
A. Landscape Character (II)
1. Weiland Extent and Rarity (IQ
a. Percent of Hydrologic Unit Composed of Wetlands (H)
b: Percent of Wetlands in Larger Area Unit Composed of This Type (NYR)
2. Land use in Hydrologic Unit (PI)
a. Percent of Land in Agricultural Use (H)
b. Percent ofland in Pine Plantations (NYR)
c. Percent Land in Urban/Developed Uses (M)
B. Watershed Water Quality Characteristics (I-I)
1. Classification of Major Water Body in the Watershed (H)
2. Use Support of Water Bodies in Watershed (L)
3. Classification of Water Body Receiving Watershed Output (H)
C. Replacement Difficulty for Wetland Functions (Nn
1. Wetland Type (b)
2. Replacement Site Availability
(IvQ
D. Enhancement Potential of Site

?i
O
CK
c.
0
U
w
y
CC
a?
a
A
a
O
CC!
bA
..r
w
'O
h
V
,.Q
CAS
E*
w° ° N o

? o? a? >
a> al
U = ?
„
O
C O 0 w 4-4
a)
v tg °
CL
3a??.?
o
0-- o cad 4 a

rA N x" O N a)
0 >' sue. bA C,3
'C ,> > CCS

O
U ? =

°

Cz
on w 3
404..°
o
o
o 0

Cd ^O ." O
U ? O .,

O sue. ? ?
?
ti
O a)
C
Cd Cd i. C4
w a) a)
>?3
O w W °

•
&0 4
om
?
T
. -4 N M ?t tn \O

v' --? N M It to \
O
CC
a ?
;-4 N

3 3
U U

O O

r C O }a) C ?
5
M +
O
M C4
U U a; A
X 0 0
0

x x ?

00 00
It
0 0
? a?