20070833 Ver 1_Report_20080604

Subject: [Fwd: FW: corrected 2007 growing season report.]
From: "Tammy.L.Hill" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:52:42 -0500
To: Bev Strickland <[e-mail]>
Hi, Bevvy!!! Both of the attached documents can be put into laserfiche for DWQ # 20070833.
I figured you would rather have the electronic versions than have to scan them in
Thanks!!!
Tammy
Subject: FW: corrected 2007 growing season report.
From: "Sugg, Mickey T SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:49:53 -0400
To: "Sugg, Mickey T SAW" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, "smtp-Sechler, Ron" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, "Tammy Hill" <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
Good morning everyone,
Hope you had a nice extended weekend. Attached is the Hofmann Forest
Mitigation 2007 monitoring report. Please review and provide feedback
regarding the release of credits for the second monitoring season. If
possible, please submit your comments within the next 2 weeks (June 9).
I hope you all received a copy of the letter modifying the credit release and
also correcting in my previous calculations (33 credits instead of 39). I
have attached a copy of that letter for your convenience.
Great day to ya' and call if you have questions,
Mickey
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Catts [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:23 AM
To: Sugg, Mickey T SAW; CATTS(2)
Subject: corrected 2007 growing season report.
Mickey,
Sorry about the errors in the Appendix C tables I sent you earlier.
Attached is the entire 2007 growing season report (again) with the corrected
version of Appendix C.
If you see no glaring problems with the report, I will send it on to the
entire MBRT.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Glenn
FW: corrected 2007 growing season report. Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: HF_WMB_report2_2007GS.pdf
HF_WMB_report2_2007GS.pdf Content-Type: application/pdf
Content-Encoding: base64
........ ....................................................
Content-Description: hofmanncredits.mod.doc
.hofmanncredits.mod.doc Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
May 20, 2008
Regulatory Division
Action ID. 2000-985-067
Mr. David Ashcraft
North Carolina Forestry Foundation, Inc.
Campus Box 8005
Room 3114 Biltmore Hall
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695
Dear Mr. Ashcraft:
This letter serves to confirm my receipt of the February 1, 2008 e-mail from Mr. Glenn
Catts- College of Natural Resources at North Carolina State University, requesting a
modification of the credit release schedule for the Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank
(Hofmann Bank) in the Hofmann State Forest, adjacent to the White Oak Pocosin, north of
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina. Also, please reference my January 31, 2008
telephone conversation with Mr. Catts.
Prior to addressing your modification, our office must disclose a miscalculation in our credit
release amounts after reviewing the Year 1 monitoring report. In our November 27, 2008 letter,
it stated that "10 percent of the available 330 credits, or 33 credits" were available as a result of
meeting the success criteria in year one. The 10 percent calculation should have been extracted
from the 388 total credits, not the stated 330. This would change the amount of available total
credits to 39 (rounded up), giving you additional 9.0 credits. Please make note of this correction,
and we apologize for the mistake.
In reviewing your modification request, our office, in coordination with the Mitigation Bank
Review Team (MBRT) members, has agreed to update your credit release schedule. To date, 25
percent, or 97 credits (including the above 9.0 credits), of the total 388 credits have been
released for use. The updated credit release schedule will be the following:
1) 15% -upon completion of all construction (40%)
2) 15% -year 2 monitoring (55%)
3) 15%- year 3 monitoring (70%)
4) 15%- year 4 monitoring (85%)
5) 15%- year 5 monitoring (100%)
-2-
Since the construction of Hofmann Forest Mitigation Bank has been completed, we have
consented that credit release step (1) above has been met, releasing an additional 58 credits (15%
of 388 credits). This brings the total credit release for the bank amount to 155 credits. Please be
reminded, as stated in the 24 May 2004 Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI), that additional
credit release is contingent upon meeting the established success criteria as determined by the
MBRT.
Please be reminded of all other obligations pursuant to the NMI; and to continue
maintenance inspections of the check dams and culverts throughout the bank in order to evaluate
the condition and stability of each structure in perpetuity. Should you have any questions, please
contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Mickey Sugg, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Glenn Catts
Hofmann Forest Liaison
College of Natural Resources
North Carolina State University
Post Office Box 8002
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8002
Mr. Garland Pardue
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
Ms. Maria Dunn
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
-3-
Molly Ellwood
N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington North Carolina 28405-3845
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Guy Stefanski
Division of Coastal Management
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Mr. Tammy Hill
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
Mr. Howard Hall
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Regulatory Section- Region IV
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Durham, North Carolina 27711
Mr. Stephen Everhart
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington North Carolina 28405-3845
HOFMANN FOREST
WETLAND MITIGATION BANK
Onslow County, North Carolina
2007 GROWING SEASON PROGRESS REPORT
Prepared For:
Mitigation Bank Review Team
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mickey. T. Sugggsaw02.usace. army. mil
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
[e-mail]
National Marine Fisheries
ron. sechlerknoaa. gov
N.C. Division of Water Quality
[e-mail] or [e-mail]
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
melissa.carlekncmail.net
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Steve. everhartkncwildlife. org
Prepared By:
North Carolina Forestry Foundation, Inc
Constituency Development Programs
P.O. Box 8005
2105 Biltmore Hall
Raleigh, NC 27606
April 15, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 2
Project Description 2
Project History 3
Hydrology 5
Success Criteria 6
Monitoring Procedure 7
Results of Hydrologic Monitoring 7
Vegetation 9
Success Criteria 11
Monitoring Procedure 12
Blocks 1 & 2 Monitoring Results 12
Blocks 3, 4 & 5 Monitoring Results 13
Conclusions and Recommendations 13
Appendix A - Modification to MBI Al-A2
Appendix B - Hydrographs B1-B13
Appendix C - Vegetation Inventory Tables C1-C10
Appendix D - Ditch Plug Schematic D1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2007 growing season (March 20 to Nov. 17, 2007) is the second of five years of
required groundwater and vegetation monitoring on the 5 blocks ( and 3 reference sites)
of the 388 acre Hofmann Forest wetland mitigation site.
? A drought during the 2007 growing season resulted in 5 of the 10 wetland mitigation
groundwater monitoring wells having their longest periods of inundation/saturation
less than 29 continuous days. One of the two reference wells also had the longest
periods of inundation/saturation less than the target 29 days.
? Although the drought caused 5 of the 10 groundwater monitoring wells (in Blocks
1,2, 4 and 5) not to record continuous periods of inundation/saturation 29 days or
more; the shortest period of inundation/saturation for any mitigation site well was
18 days with all other wells recording at least one continuous period of more than 20
days during this drought year. Two of the three reference wells recorded their
longest inundation/saturation periods as less than 20 days.
? The difference in groundwater behavior among the 3 reference wells suggests that the
Sopp Hollow reference well is the best representative of a pocosin wetland
hydrological regime, while the Bear Prong reference well reflect a more
riverine/riparian hydrological regime. Variability in ground water levels is highest in
the Bear Prong reference well and the Sopp Hollow reference well exhibited the
longest continuous inundation/saturation period of any groundwater well at 106 days.
? Vegetation monitoring indicated that on average Blocks 1 and 2 continue to meet all
planted height and survival requirements.
? Vegetation monitoring indicated that Blocks 3, 4, and 5 are meeting the NMI
modification requirements of having greater than 90% of volunteer vegetation be
pocosin species.
Introduction
The Hofmann Forest Mitigation bank (HFWMB) was developed to provide mitigation for
unavoidable impacts to non-riparian wetlands for projects requiring Clean Water Act,
Section 404 dredge and fill permits within the Onslow County portion of the White Oak
(03030001& 03020106) hydrologic unit (Figure 1). The primary goals of this project are
to establish a wetland mitigation bank that restores forested wetland plant communities,
enhances water quality and improves wildlife habitat. Secondary goals include:
establishing trials to compare species survival and growth, improving biodiversity and
serving as a teaching and outreach facility for students at NC State, students from
secondary schools and the public. The HFWMB will restore critical wetland functions
and will provide numerous opportunities for research, demonstration and teaching over a
wide range of topics.
Figure 1 - Hydrologic unit 03030001 (yellow) and 03020106 (cyan) in relation
to the 80,000 acre Hofmann Forest (green) on the North Carolina coastal plain.
Project Description
The HFWMB is located at the intersection of Quaker Bridge and Sopp Hollow Roads,
adjacent to White Oak Pocosin, on the Hofmann Forest in northern Onslow County,
north of Jacksonville, NC (Figure 2). In the early to mid-1970's, about 400 acres along a
2.5-mile strip along Sopp Hollow Road was cleared for agriculture. Prior to development
as a wetland mitigation bank, the entire site was determined to be a non-wetland by the
US Army Corp of Engineers (USACOE) because of prior artificial drainage. The wetland
mitigation plan outlines the restoration of the entire site to a functional non-riverine
wetland ecosystem.
W4

r -

f1OFMA 1'4 I
FOREST
P11.

In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, the HFWMB must be monitored for both
wetland hydrology and vegetation. All soils on the tract are classified as hydric. Block 1
is classified as predominantly Pantego muck and Blocks 2 through 5 as Croatan muck.
Hydrological and vegetation monitoring is required annually for 5 growing seasons after
all hydrological modifications have been installed. This report details the results of
vegetation and hydrologic monitoring for the 2007 growing season; the second growing
season of the 5 required for monitoring.
Project History
The HFWMB was initiated in 1997 with determination of non-wetland status by COE.
Ground water monitoring began in 2001. The MBI and restoration plan were approved
and signed in 2004. On July 13, 2004, 58 credits were released and were immediately
purchased by the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) program
http://www.nceep.net/ (Table 1)
Figure 2 - Location of 388 acre Hofmann Forest Mitigation Bank (red trapezoid)
along Sopp Hollow Road.
Table 1 - Project History
1997 Preliminary Hydrology Monitoring by Army Corps of Engineers determines
prior converted status
1999 Blocks 1 and 2 planted
2000 Block 3 planted
2001 Monitoring wells installed
2002 Mitigation Bank Plan and MBI Approved - 58 credits released on 7/14/2004
and 50 of the 58 credits sold to NC EEP upon release
2003 Initial Hydrology and Vegetation Data Collection & Analysis
2004 Hydrology Modifications Completed in Blocks 1 and 2. Herbicide
Application to Block 3.
Spring 2005 Supplemental Replanting of Block 3; Planting Blocks 4 & 5
Fall 2005 Release Herbicide Application on Blocks 3, 4, and 5
Spring 2006 - Site visit by MBRT. Consensus leads to Modification of Original MBI
Fall 2006 - Modification to MBI approved and additional ditch plugs installed to
hold water to the east
Spring 2007 - 75 vegetation inventory plots installed in Blocks 1 through 5 (and one
reference plot in "Wide Open")
Fall 2007 - vegetation plots re-inventoried for 2007 growing season
Summer 2007 - Vegetation Inventory conducted - First Annual Report Submitted to
MBRT
Hydrology
In December 2004, hydrology modifications were completed in Blocks 1 and 2. Three (3)
24-inch culverts were installed across Joe H. Road which separated Block 1 and 2. These
culverts connect the hydrology between Blocks 1 and 2 via lateral ditches and allow free
flow of surface water between the blocks. A total of four (4) ditch plugs were installed
around Blocks 1 and 2. Two plugs were installed on the west end of Joe H. Road (one
r figure a - 1,ompiete nyuroiogicai mouincanons to rwitnann r orest
Wetland Mitigation Bank include 13 new culverts and 17 ditch plugs.
Locations are shown for mitigation bank and reference groundwater wells.
each on the north and south sides of the road) one plug on the north side of Cowhorn
Road, and one plug in the collector ditch on the west side of Block 2. Ditch plugs in the
roadside ditches on the western edge of the mitigation bank are L shaped to ensure
blockage of surface water flow in the two perpendicularly intersecting ditches at those
locations.
An existing culvert across Sopp Hollow Road was removed and a new 36-inch culvert
was installed across Quaker Bridge Road at the intersection with Sopp Hollow Road.
Approximately 3,600 feet of roadside ditch was cleaned out as part of this operation.
These modifications allow the natural flow of water from the east and northwest along
Sopp Hollow Road to exit to the west and away from the mitigation site. These
modifications removed artificial drainage from Blocks 1 and 2 of the mitigation site and
coupled hydrology between the two Blocks to more closely approximates the original pre-
drainage hydrology. In the 2005 growing season, all 5 blocks in the mitigation bank were
joined by culverts in a similar fashion. Conceptually, the culverts joining the blocks allow
surface water exchange among all 5 blocks; hydrologically isolating the blocks from
surrounding lands by the ditch plugs (Figure 3).
The ditch plugs installed just west of the second culvert in the roadside ditches were
added during the 2006 growing season when a consensus with the USACOE was reached
after field observation
over several years revealed
a continual buildup of
surface water in ditches at
the western edge of the
bank (Figure 4). The
feeling that holding
surface water along Sopp
Hollow Road would better
distribute surface water
and facilitate groundwater
wells registering wetland
conditions was validated
during the 2006 growing
season as all blocks
achieved wetland
hydrology. All ditch plug
installations follow the
-r -&4 It
' N-1
4Y
Figure 4 - Ditch plug installed in 2006 and placed just west
of second culvert joining Blocks 1 & 2.
original schematic specified in the Hofmann Forest Restoration Plan (Appendix D).
Hydrologic Success Criteria
The hydrologic success criteria are met for the HFWMB if groundwater well data from
the restoration areas indicates that the site is saturated within 12-inches of the surface or
inundated for a minimum of at least one time period during the growing season that is of
a duration defined as 12% or more of the growing season under normal conditions. The
growing season for the HFWMB is defined to be March 20'h to November 17t' a total of
242 days. Twelve percent of this duration is 29 days. So to attain success, each of the
shallow groundwater wells in the Hofmann Forest mitigation bank should exhibit
inundation or saturation for at least one contiguous period of 29 days during a "normal"
growing season.
Hydrological Monitoring Procedure
Verification of hydrology is determined by automatic data recording wells collected
within the HFWMB
project area (Figure 4).
A total of ten (10)
groundwater
monitoring wells are
systematically located
within the 5-Block
project area.
Additionally, there are
2 reference wells
situated nearby in
representative
locations. The 2
reference well locations
are at the intersection of
Bear Prong with
Quaker Bridge Road
and in the wide open
along Sopp Hollow
Rd. All Remote Data
2
e=G]?GSrM MMEGSrai9 Z5U -751-?
c
i?
Systems (RDS) wells Figure 5 - "Normal" 25% and 75% precipitation years plotted
are programmed to as lines against 2007 growing season rainfall (red bars) and
record ground water 2006 growing season rainfall (blue bars). Rainfall during the
levels twice daily at 2007 growing season after April tracked 25% of "normal"
8:00am and 8:00pm. based on 50 years of historic records.
Data is downloaded and
summarized along with precipitation data into hydrographs (Appendix B). Concurrent
precipitation data is collected at the Hofmann Forest weather station for use in
constructing the growing season hydrographs. Bands of 25% and 75% "normal"
precipitation reveal that the 2007 growing season experienced a drought (Figure 5).
Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
Hydrographs for 2007 for all well locations can be found in Appendix B - "2007
Growing Season Hydrographs for Hofmann Forest".
Jar Apr M8; Jiro Jul ku1 UP 0,[ Now
Growing S son Month
Block 1- There was complete data for both recording wells in Block 1. Data collected at
the northern groundwater well (Block 1 North) shows no continuous periods of
inundation/saturation greater than 29 days duration during the 2007 growing season. The
longest period of inundation/saturation observed at this site was 21 days and the 4 periods
of observed inundation/saturation averaged 14 days duration (Table 2). Data collected at
the southern groundwater well (Block 1 South) also showed no continuous periods of
inundation/saturation greater than 29 days with 22 days as the longest period of
inundation/saturation observed and 6 periods of inundation/saturation averaging I I days
duration (Table 2).
Table 2 - Summary of RDS well saturation/inundation conditions
12007 Growing season (3/20 - 11/17)
Sum of Days # of periods Growing % of Gays Missing
Location above 12" above 12" Season Days above 12" data
Max. period of Avg. days
days above 12" above 12"
Block 1 North 56 4 243 23.0% 0 21 14
Block 1 South 64 6 243 26,3% 0 22 11
Block 2 North 48 6 169 28,4% 74 18 8
Block 2 South 101 6 201 50.2% 42 73 17
Block3 North 110 10 204 53.9% 39 48 11
Block 3 South 94 11 243 38.7% 0 63 9
Block4 North 149 14 243 61.3% 0 41 11
Block 4 South 117 16 243 48.1% 0 20 7
Block5 North 196 11 243 80,7% 0 45 18
Block 5 South 129 13 233 55.4% 10 23 10
Reference Wells
Sopp Hollow 121 7 243 49.3% 0 106 17
Bear Prong 44 4 243 18,1% 0 19 11
Wide Open 7 1 243 2,91 0 7 7
Variation in growing season days from standard 243 is due to missing data, Slock 2 South was decommissioned by a bear
Block 2 - There was incomplete data for the Block 2 North groundwater well with 8/27 to
10/3 missing [38 days] and 10/13 to 11/17 missing [36 days]. Data collected at the well
did not show a continuous period of inundation/saturation greater than 29 days; the
longest such period was only 18 days with the average of the 6 periods of observed
inundation/saturation at 8 days duration. In contrast, data collected at the southern
groundwater well (Block 2 South) showed one continuous period of inundation/saturation
greater than 29 days duration; 3/20 to 5/31 [73 days]. There were 6 periods of observed
inundation/saturation averaging 17 days duration at this well and 42 days of missing data
due to ursine curiosity.
Block 3 - There was incomplete data (39 days) for the northern recording well in Block 3.
Data collected at Block 1 North showed 10 continuous periods of inundation/saturation
averaging I Idays duration with one period of 48 days meeting the greater than 29 day
criterion. Data collected at the southern groundwater well (Block 3 South) showed 11
continuous periods of inundation/saturation averaging 9 days duration with one period of
63 days meeting the greater than 29 day criterion. The growing season data for the Block
3 South well was complete.
Block 4 - There was complete data for both recording wells in Block 4, but only the
northern well recorded a continuous period of inundation/saturation greater than 29 days.
Data collected at the northern groundwater well (Block 4 North) showed 14 periods of
inundation/saturation averaging 11 days duration with one period of 41 days. Data
collected at Block 4 South showed 16 periods of inundation/saturation averaging 7 days
duration with the longest period of only 20 days.
Block 5 - There was complete data for both recording wells in Block 5. Data collected at
the northern groundwater well (Block 5 North) shows 2 continuous periods of
inundation/saturation greater than 29 days duration; 3/20 to 5/17 [58 days] and 5/26 to
11/17 [175 days]. Data collected at the southern groundwater well (Block 5 South) shows
3 continuous periods of inundation/saturation greater than 29 days duration; 5/26 to 8/20
[86 days], 8/21 to 10/4 [44 days] and 10/7 to 11/17 [41 days].
Reference Wells - Data from the two reference wells were very different and no data was
missing. The Sopp Hollow reference well exhibited one continuous period of
inundation/saturation starting at the beginning of the 2007 growing season and lasting for
106 days duration. Seven periods of inundation/saturation were observed at the Sopp
Hollow well averaging 17 days in length. The Bear Prong reference well did not exhibit
any continuous period of inundation/saturation greater than 29 days duration. The longest
period of inundation/saturation of the 4 periods recorded was 19 days. The average period
of inundation/saturation was 11 days. The Sopp Hollow reference well is situated on a
non-riparian pocosin site, most similar to Hofmann Forest wetland mitigation blocks 3, 4
and 5. The reference well at Bear Prong is located in more of a riparian bottomland
hardwood drain.
Vegetation
The HFWMB was originally designed to promote development of a mixture of plant
community types including pine savanna forest, nonriverine wet hardwood forest and
nonriverine cypress forest (Figure 6). Species are planted in a variety of arrangements but
the overall project simulates a natural wetland community. Blocks 1 and 2 were planted
in March 1999. Block 3 was planted in 2000. A portion of Block 3 was replanted in 2005
along with initial planting of Blocks 4 and 5.
Block 1 contains a species trial in two strips (17-acres), four wildlife strips (8-acres), six
hardwood and cypress strips (46-acres), and a small area cleared after the 1999 planting
which was planted with longleaf pine when Block 3 was planted in 2000. Block 2
contains a replicate of the species trial (Block 1) in two strips (18-acres), five hardwood
and cypress strips (47-acres), and four wildlife strips (8-acres). Species planted include:
Figure 6 - Vegetation planting by wetland restoration type and arrangement of sampling
plots on Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank.
longleaf pine, bald cypress, red maple, sweet gum, cherrybark oak, green ash, water oak,
willow oak. swamp chestnut, live oak and sawtooth oak..
Blocks 3, 4, and 5 were planted in three strips. Strip one is a pine savannah. 32 acres in
each of the three blocks were planted with longleaf pine. This is followed by a 30 foot
firebreak. Strip two is nonriverine wet hardwood forest. Hardwood plantings in Block 3,
4 and 5 for wildlife habitat enhancement contain a mixture of water oak and willow oak.
Each block contains 16 acres of oaks. The final strip is planted as nonriverine cypress
swamp forest. Thirty-two acres of bald cypress were planted in each of Blocks 3, 4, and 5.
Oak survival in blocks 3, 4, and 5 led to delay of complete hydrological restoration in an
attempt to allow young oaks to establish before raising the water table on the site. In the
meantime smilax competition was overtopping planted cypress. These developments led
to the use of herbicides approved by EPA for wetland use in an attempt to enhance
survival and growth of planted species (since the intial success criteria were defined on
numbers and size of surviving planted stems at the end of 5 years). Some of the MBRT
was opposed to the idea of herbicide use so a compromise was reached that led to a
written modification to the original Hofmann Forest restoration plan. This modification
allows for natural regeneration to occur on blocks 3, 4 and 5 and removes the emphasis
on planted tree size and surviving numbers.
Vegetation Success Criteria
The success criteria for vegetation establishment at the HFWMB is based on survival and
growth of preferred species at the end of the five-year monitoring period which begins
when all water control structures are in place. The success criteria for Blocks 1 & 2 are
currently not the same as those for Blocks 3, 4 and 5.
Blocks 1 & 2 - The success criteria for vegetation establishment on BlocksI & 2 are:
1) Survival of preferred, planted species must be at a minimum of 260 stems/acre at the
end of the 5 year period.
2) No single volunteer species (especially, Red Maple, Loblolly Pine and/or Sweet Gum)
may comprise > 50% of the total vegetation composition.
3) No single volunteer species (especially, Red Maple, Loblolly Pine and/or Sweet Gum)
may average more than twice the height of planted trees at year 5.
Blocks 3, 4 & 5 -
The success criterion for vegetation establishment on Blocks 3, 4 & 5 is defined in the
modification to the original mitigation banking restoration plan as:
1) At the end of 5 years, no less than 90% of the surviving stems or aerial coverage per
acre will be pocosin species either found at the Sopp Hollow reference well location or
listed as pocosin. Existing planted trees in Blocks 3, 4 & 5 are not included in the
calculation of surviving stems per acre.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina. Third approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage
Program, Raleigh. 325 pp.
Vegetation Monitoring Procedure
Vegetation success criterion must be met only at the
end of the 5-year monitoring period, but periodic
tracking of the vegetation component during the 5-
year monitoring period is required to initiate
corrective measures should it appear as though the
vegetation success criteria are not going to be
achieved in any of the 5 mitigation blocks.
A system of 77, fixed-area plots were marked in the
field with 4 pieces of/z inch rebar sleeved in PVC
pipe (one at each plot corner). Each permanently
located plot is one-tenth acre, square, (66 feet on a
side) (Figure 7).
One reference plot was located near the reference well
in the pocosin east of Sopp Hollow Road. A total of
7.7 acres was sampled (2% of bank area). Planted
Figure 7 - Eric Morris records
tree survival and tree height by species was recorded GPS coordinates on a vegetation
in each sample plot in Blocks 1 and 2. Number and inventory sample plot.
mean height of volunteer trees and shrubs were also
recorded. In Blocks 3, 4, and 5, plots were sampled for counts by species. Height was not
recorded and although the surviving planted trees were counted their counts are not
included in plot summarization as directed in the modification to the MBI.
Results of Vegetation Monitoring
Blocks 1 & 2 - Table 3 summarizes the trees per acre (TPA) and height averages
observed in the sample plots on Blocks 1 & 2. More detailed plot by plot summaries are
available in Appendix C. TPA counts of planted trees averaged well over the 260 planted
TPA required. Only 3 out of 17 sample plots in Block 1 had less than 260 planted TPA.
All sample plots in Block 2 had more than 260 surviving, planted TPA. All plots having
planted tree survival less than 260 TPA, consisted of planted oak species.
A ratio of planted height to volunteer height was greater than 1 for all Block 2 plots. Two
of the 17 plots in block 1 had planted/volunteer height ratios less than 1 (both 0.9) and in
both cases, sweetgum was the volunteer species whose height exceeded planted cypress.
Table 3 - Summary of trees/acre and tree height by tree origin on Blocks 1 & 2 of the HFWMB.
Block #Sample Plots Avg. Planted TPA Aug. Volunteer TPA Avg. Planted Heights Avg. Volunteer Heights
1 17 412 1726 11.8 12.4
2 16 436 1478 12.4 5.7
Both Blocks 33 424 1602 12.1 9.1
Blocks 3,4 &5 -
Table 4 summarizes the results of vegetation inventory on Blocks 3,4 and 5. More
detailed species counts by plot, species codes used and pocosin designation source are
found in Appendix C. The only non-pocosin tree species found in Blocks 3,4,5 was
American Holly.
Table 4 - Percentage of pocosin species found in vegetation inventory plots in Blocks 3, 4 & 5.
Avg.#Vol. Species All Volunteers All Pocosin
Block #Sample Plots Counted Counted Volunteers Counted Avg. % of Pocosin Veg.
3 14 4 4500 4499 100%
4 14 5 880 879 100010
16 1105 1 1104 1001%
Conclusions and Recommendations:
The NC Forestry Foundation has made every effort to comply with the success criteria of
the restoration plan as agreed to in the NMI. The modification to the NMI appears to have
removed the necessity to continue to try to establish oak in the pocosin environment of
Blocks 3 to 5. Even with the mid-block ditch plugs recently installed, 5 of the 10 wells in
the tract did not experience
wetland hydrology as
defined in the MBI in this
25% of "normal" drought
year. The re-establishment
of pocosin vegetation in
Blocks 3 through 5 after
herbicide application
continues rapidly toward
completion.

? .- {
Y
?
t
t
y?
1
.NS.F

W-W

Figure 8 - Mounded longleaf during GS 2008 in Block 3 of
the Hofmann Forest Wetland mitigation Bank
APPENDIX A -
Modification (2006) of the vegetation success criteria defined in the
original Hofmann Forest Mitigation Banking Instrument
Modification to Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank: Wetland Restoration and
Monitoring Plan proposed in response to the Mitigation Bank Review Team
recommendations of July 18, 2006
According to the original Hofinann Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank: Wetland Restoration and
Monitoring Plan (WRMP), vegetation establishment efforts were to be conducted in all five tracts
of the mitigation bank area. Vegetation consisting of suitable wetland species has been planted on
all five tracts, but problems with survival (in the case of oak species) and competing vegetation
led to replanting efforts and herbicide use to reduce the impacts of competing natural vegetation
(particularly blanketing by smilax species). The vegetation success criterion of all five blocks was
to have 260 trees per acre of planted species surviving at the end of 5 years.
After consultation with a majority of the membership of the Mitigation Bank Review Team
(MBRT) it was decided that vegetation management efforts on tracts 3, 4, and 5 to foster planted
species would be suspended in favor of allowing natural regeneration to take place. Under this
modification to the original restoration plan, vegetation success criterion will change from a
threshold of 260 trees per acre of planted species surviving after 5 years to 260 trees per acre of
acceptable species surviving after 5 years. Acceptable species are any native tree and/or shrub
species with the exception of red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifZua) and
loblolly pine (Pious taeda). Height of the natural and planted species on Blocks 3, 4 and 5 would
no longer be a success criterion.
A vegetation inventory would still be conducted periodically to ensure that the 260 stems per acre
limit is exceeded by acceptable species. Vegetation success criteria for Blocks 1 and 2 will not
change from the original restoration plan. All other success criteria will also remain unchanged
from the original restoration plan. This modification is being proposed to ensure there will be no
more use of herbicides on the mitigation tract, with the realization that although the survival of
planted species may suffer without competition release, success criterion will now allow the
inclusion of natural tree and shrubs of acceptable species along with the original planted oaks,
longleaf pine and cypress to arrive at the 260 plants per acre survival target.
Inventory for blocks will be done in accordance with the directives found in the original WRMP.
Vegetation inventory is to be accomplished by counting surviving acceptable tree species on 2
percent of the mitigation bank area. For a 388 acre bank, 2% of the area includes 75, 1/10th acre
permanent plot locations with each plot a 74.5 ft diameter circle. With 5 blocks of approximately
80 acres each, there will be 15 circular plots measured per block. The arrangement of the
permanent inventory plot locations for all 5 blocks and the three wetland restoration types appears
in Figure 1 (pine savanna forest = 20 plots representative of 100 acres, non-riverine wet
hardwood forest = 35 plots representative of 180 acres and non-riverine cypress swamp forest =
20 plots representative of 108 acres). If total survival of acceptable (or planted) species in any
block or restoration type falls below the 260 trees per acre required, longleaf pine (Pious
palustris) may be planted to increase tree density.
APPENDIX B -
Hydrographs of RDS well data for the 2007 growing season from 10
wetland mitigation bank and two reference wells on Hofmann Forest
RDS Well Block 1 North Growing Season 2007
5-
4-
-5
-0
- -5

3
0
.Q
L 2
CL
1-
0
Q Q Q > > > c c c 0) 0) 0) Q Q Q > >
Q Q Q m m m a? a? a? O O O o 0
cn cn cn z z
O O N N W 00 ONO 00 00 N Q I- r Q - Q N (D (D N CO CO N LO LO
Date
? Precipitation Groundwater Depth ¦ Required Depth
-10
3
- -15
0
L
0
0
- -20
Q
N
0
-25
- -30
- -35
RDS Well Block 1 South Growing Season 2007
5
5
0
4
-5

3
0
.Q
L 2
CL
1
-10
3
-15
0
L
0
0
-20
Q
N
0
-25
-30
0
Q Q Q > > > c c c rn rn rn Q Q Q i5 i5 5 > >
Q Q Q m m m a? a? a? O O O o 0
cn cn cn z z
O O N N W 00 ONO 00 00 N r Q - r Q - Q N (D (D N CO CO N LO LO
Date
? Precipitation Groundwater Depth ¦ Required Depth
-35
RDS Well Block 2 North Growing Season 2007
5
5
0
4
-5

3
0
.Q
L 2
CL
1
-10
3
-15
0
L
0
0
-20
Q
N
0
-25
-30
0
Q Q Q > > > rn rn Q Q Q i5 i5 5 > >
Q Q Q m m m a? a? a? O O O o 0
cn cn cn z z
O O N N W 00 ONO 00 00 N r Q - r Q - Q N (D (D N CO CO N LO LO
Date
? Precipitation Groundwater Depth ¦ Required Depth
-35
RDS Well Block 2 South Growing Season 2007
5
5
0
4
-5

3
0
.Q
L 2
CL
1
-10
3
-15
0
L
0
0
-20
Q
N
0
-25
-30
0
0) 0) CL CL CL > >
Q Q Q m m m a? a? a? O O O o 0
cn cn cn z z
O O N N W 00 ONO 00 00 N Q I- r Q - Q N (D (D N CO CO N LO LO
Date
? Precipitation Groundwater Depth ¦ Required Depth
-35
RDS Well Block 3 North Growing Season 2007
5
5
0
4
-5

3
0
.Q
L 2
CL
1
-10
3
-15
0
L
0
0
-20
Q
N
0
-25
-30
0
0) 0) CL CL CL > >
Q Q Q m m m a? a? a? O O O o 0
cn cn cn z z
O O N N W 00 ONO 00 00 N Q I- r Q - Q N (D (D N CO CO N LO LO
Date
? Precipitation Groundwater Depth ¦ Required Depth
-35
RDS Well Block 3 South Growing Season 2007
5
5
0
4
-5

3
0
.Q
L 2
CL
1
-10
3
-15
0
L
0
0
-20
Q
N
0
-25
-30
0
0) 0) CL CL CL > >
Q Q Q m m m a? a? a? O O O o 0
cn cn cn z z
O O N N W 00 ONO 00 00 N Q I- r Q - Q N (D (D N CO CO N LO LO
Date
? Precipitation Groundwater Depth ¦ Required Depth
-35
RDS Well Block 4 North Growing Season 2007
5
5
0
4
-5

3
0
.Q
L 2
CL
1
-10
3
-15
0
L
0
0
-20
Q
N
0
-25
-30
0
0) 0) CL CL CL > >
Q Q Q m m m a? a? a? O O O o 0
cn cn cn z z
O O N N W 00 ONO 00 00 N Q I- r Q - Q N (D (D N CO CO N LO LO
Date
? Precipitation Groundwater Depth ¦ Required Depth
-35
RDS Well Block 5 South Growing Season 2007
5
5
0
4
-5

3
0
.Q
L 2
CL
1
-10
3
-15
0
L
0
0
-20
Q
N
0
-25
-30
0
0) 0) CL CL CL > >
Q Q Q m m m a? a? a? O O O o 0
cn cn cn z z
O O N N W 00 ONO 00 00 N 5 I- r 5 - 5 N (D (D N CO CO N LO LO
Date
? Precipitation Groundwater Depth ¦ Required Depth
-35
RDS Well Block 5 North Growing Season 2007
5
5
0
4
-5

3
0
.Q
L 2
CL
1
-10
3
-15
0
L
0
0
-20
Q
N
0
-25
-30
0
0) 0) CL CL CL > >
Q Q Q m m m a? a? a? O O O o 0
cn cn cn z z
O O N N W 00 ONO 00 00 N 5 I- r 5 - 5 N (D (D N CO CO N LO LO
Date
? Precipitation Groundwater Depth ¦ Required Depth
-35
RDS Well Block 5 South Growing Season 2007
5
5
0
4
-5

3
0
.Q
L 2
CL
1
-10
3
-15
0
L
0
0
-20
Q
N
0
-25
-30
0
0) 0) CL CL CL > >
Q Q Q m m m a? a? a? O O O o 0
cn cn cn z z
O O N N W 00 ONO 00 00 N 5 I- r 5 - 5 N (D (D N CO CO N LO LO
Date
? Precipitation Groundwater Depth ¦ Required Depth
-35
RDS Well Sopp Hollow Ref Well Growing Season 2007
5
4
C- 3
0
.Q
L 2
CL
1
5
0
-5
-10
3
-15 3
0
L
0
0
Q
N
0
-25
-30
? Precipitation Groundwater Depth ¦ Required Depth
-35
0
0) 0) CL CL CL i5 i5 i5 > >
m m m 0 0 0 0 0
Q Q Q cn cn cn O O O Z Z
O O N N Co W N 00 00 N I- r- N (D (D N CO CO N LO LO
Date
RDS Well Bear Prong RefWell Growing Season 2007
5
5
0
4
-5

3
0
.Q
L 2
CL
1
-10
3
-15
0
L
0
0
-20
Q
N
0
-25
-30
0
Q Q Q > > > c c c rn rn rn Q Q Q > >
Q Q Q m m m a? a? a? O O O o 0
cn cn cn z z
O O N N W 00 ONO 00 00 N r Q - r Q - Q N (D (D N CO CO N LO LO
Date
? Precipitation Groundwater Depth ¦ Required Depth
-35
APPENDIX C -
Results of sampling 75 Vegetation Plots and 1 Reference Plot from
11/07 to 3/08 (for the 2007 GS) on Hofmann Forest Wetland
Mitigation Bank
Table C1 - Species codes used in tabular summaries with indication of pocosin status
based on Schafale & Weakley or the Hofmann Forest reference plot.
code Taxonomic Identity Common Source

Pocosin
A Andropogon sp. Broomsedge schafale 1
AR Acer rubrum Red Maple schafale 0
BN Betula nigra River Birch schafale 1
BH Baccharis halimifolia Siverling, Grounsel Tree schafale 1
BW Bladderwort bladderwort refplot 1
CHOKE Aronia arbutifolia chokeberry schafale 0
CR Cyrilla racemiflora swamp titi refplot 1
DD Cuscuta spp. Dodder Vine refplot 1
EU Eupatoria sp. Eupatoria schafale 0
FP Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash schafale 0
GL Gordonia lasianthus loblolly bay refplot 1
ID Ilex decidua Deciduous holly schafale 1
IC Ilex coriacea large gallberry refplot 1
IG Ilex glabra inkberry schafale 1
10 Ilex opaca American holly schafale 0
IV Ilex verticillaca Winterberry schafale 1
KA Kalmia angustifolia (var. caroliniana) sheep laurel refplot 1
LL Lyonia lucida fetterbush refplot 1
LS Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum schafale 0
MC Myrica cerifera wax myrtle schafale 0
MV Magnolia virginiana Virginia bay refplot 1
NB Nyssa biflora blackgum schafale 0
PB Persea borbonia redbay refplot 1
PP Pinus palustris long leaf pine schafale 0
PS Pinus serotina pond pine refplot 1
PT Pinus taeda loblolly pine schafale 0
QA Quercus acutissima sawtooth oak schafale 0
QL Quercus lyrata overcup oak schafale 0
QM Quercus micheauxii swamp chestnut oak schafale 0
QN Quercus nigra water oak schafale 0
QP Quercus phellos willow oak schafale 0
QPG Quercus pagodifolia cherrybark oak schafale 0
QV Quercus virginiana live oak schafale 0
RA Rubus argutus blackberry schafale 0
RC Rhus coppallina winged sumac schafale 0
Rh Rhodendron sp. rhodendron refplot 1
SL Smilax laurifollia catbriar refplot 1
SN Salix nigra black willow schafale 0
SM Sphagnum papillosum sphagnum moss refplot 1
ST Symplocos tinctoria horsesugar schafale 0
TD Taxodium distichum bald cypress schafale 0
V Vaccinium sp. blueberry schafale 1
WA Woodwardia aerolata netted chainfern schafale 1
WV Woodwardia virginica Virginia chainfern schafale 1
Table C2 - Species found in the Hofmann Forest vegetation
reference plot 1,000 feet east of Sopp Hollow Road.
code position taxonomic identity common
BW
CR
DD
GL
IC
IG
K
LL
MV
PB
PS
Rh
SL
SM
herb
shrub
vine
canopy
shrub
shrub
herb
shrub
shrub
shrub
canopy
shrub
vine
herb
Bladderwort
Cyrilla racemiflora
Dodder
Gordonia lasianthus
Ilex coriacea
Ilex glabra
Kalmia angustifolia
Lyonia lucida
Magnolia virginiana
Persea borbonia
Pinus serotina
Rhodendron
Smilax laurifollia
Sphagnum papillosum
bladderwort
swamp titi
Dodder
loblolly bay
large gallberry
inkberry
()sheep laurel
fetterbush
Virginia bay
redbay
pond pine
rhodendron
catbriar
sphagnum moss
Plots are 1/10 acre in size as squares 66 feet on a side
Table C3 - Survivinq trees per acre by origin and species code on Block 1 of the HFWMB.
Planted Trees - Species & counts Volunteer Trees - Species & counts Planted Volunteer Total
Plot
TPA TPA TPA
QN AR 10 BH V CR MC PT
11
- 24 89 1 31 2 20 6 7 240 1560 1800
QN AR MC CR V PT QP
1
2
_ 40 107 27 18 2 7 1 400 1620 2020
QN AR MC CR MV PT LS BN
1
3
_ 32 33 35 15 2 27 5 9 320 1260 1580
QP PT AR MC
1 4
- 23 15 13 56 230 840 1070
QP AR PT MC LS
1
5
_ 30 71 22 136 3 300 2320 2620
QP QA AR BH MC CR ID BN PT V
1
6
_ 22 15 5 20 25 6 4 36 20 2 370 1180 1550
QN AR MC CR BH GL PT V
1
7
_ 52 3 4 19 1 1 17 34 520 790 1310
PP PT PB QL MV GL IC LS CR QL
1
8
_ 67 20 21 3 10 3 23 1 38 7.3 670 1263 1933
PP TD PT PB QL MV IC GL CR
19
68 2 14 5 1 14 41 2 2 700 790 1490
PP TD AR PT MC LS
1 10
9 17 51 7 115 3 260 1760 2020
FP AR AR PT LS QN MC
1 11
30 42 12 28 9 1 140 720 1900 2620
AR AR MC PT IC QN
1
12
_ 40 9 177 37 1 4 400 2280 2680
TD PT LS AR CR MC BH 10 GL
1
13
_ 33 94 15 215 1 32 13 1 15 330 3860 4190
TD AR PT MC LS CR IC BH
1
14
_ 38 327 12 6 1 8 5 31 380 3900 4280
TD AR PT LS BH IC MC
1
15
_ 40 170 3 2 7 10 3 400 1950 2350
PP CR PT IC QL V PB QN MC MV
1
16
_ 47 120 19 13 2 5 7 1 3 2 470 1720 2190
PP QL PT IC GL MV MC BH CR PB
1
17
_ 56 3 21 12 9 3 1 6 26 12 560 930 1490
Table C4 - Heights of trees in feet by origin and species code on Block 1 of the HFWMB.
Planted Trees - Species & average heights Volunteer Trees - Species & average heights Planted Volunteer Factor
Plot
Feet Feet Avg. Heights Avg. Heights
QN AR 10 BH V CR MC PT
11
- 15.1 9.0 12.0 9.0 5.0 3.2 7.3 6.0 15.1 7.4 2.1
QN AR MC CR V PT QP
1 2
- 14.3 9.5 7.7 9.5 5.5 10.9 14.0 14.3 9.5 1.5
QN AR MC CR MV PT LS BN
13
- 17.3 10.6 13.7 9.1 5.5 9.9 26.0 10.8 17.3 12.2 1.4
QP PT AR QP MC
14
_
14.0
12.5
11.9
10.0
7.9
14.0
10.6
1.3
QP AR PT MC LS
1 5
- 11.2 7.9 9.1 6.4 12.0 11.2 8.9 1.3
QP QA AR BH MC CR ID BN PT V
1 6
- 13.3 13.3 11.4 9.9 8.3 9.5 11.3 7.8 10.2 3.0 13.3 8.9 1.5
QN AR MC CR BH GL PT
17
- 12.9 6.3 9.0 6.2 4.0 2.0 8.3 12.9 6.0 2.2
PP PT PB QL MV GL IC LS CR MC
1 8
- 11.7 8.1 7.9 7.3 9.2 6.0 8.0 10.0 5.8 6.0 11.7 7.6 1.5
PP TD PT PB QL MV IC GL CR
1 9
- 9.8 6.0 9.7 8.0 8.0 7.9 8.0 10.0 6.0 7.9 8.2 1.0
PP TD AR PT MC LS
1 10
- 13.9 9.7 11.2 7.7 8.4 15.0 11.8 10.6 1.1
FP AR AR PT LS QN MC
1 11
- 12.7 12.8 7.2 8.8 12.9 5.0 7.7 12.8 8.3 1.5
AR AR MC PT IC QN
1 12
- 12.4 8.2 9.9 10.4 3.0 13.0 12.4 8.9 1.4
TD PT LS AR CR MC BH 10 GL
1 13
- 10.6 5.7 12.5 8.4 4.0 8.2 7.2 2.0 3.0 10.6 6.4 1.7
TD AR PT MC LS CR IC BH
1 14
- 11.2 10.0 12.0 7.0 1.0 8.0 5.0 7.5 11.2 7.2 1.6
TD AR PT LS BH IC MC
1 15
- 40.0 12.5 12.7 20.0 10.0 3.0 5.3 40.0 10.6 3.8
PP CR PT IC QL V PB QN MC MV
1 16
- 8.5 6.0 6.9 6.9 7.0 4.8 6.9 12.0 3.3 1.5 8.5 6.1 1.4
PP QL PT IC GL MV MC BH CR PB
1 17
- 9.7 8.0 8.4 7.7 5.4 5.0 12.0 5.0 6.0 16.2 9.7 8.2 1.2
Table C5 - Surviving trees per acre by origin and species code on Block 2 of the HFWMB.
Planted Trees - Species & counts Volunteer Trees - Species & counts Planted Volunteer Total
Plot
TPA TPA TPA
QN PT CR GL PB
2
1
_ 47 3 250 1 1 470 2550 3020
QN PT CR GL
2
2
_ 46 2 200 4 460 2060 2520
QN PT CR GL
2
3
_ 44 11 120 1 440 1320 1760
QN PT CR
2 4
- 53 10 100 530 1100 1630
QPG QN PT CR MC
2
5
_ 32 15 7 90 9 470 1060 1530
QP QV QA PT GL PB
2
6
_ 31 10 1 6 5 2 420 130 550
QP PT CR GL PB MC V
2
7
_ 20 6 80 1 2 2 90 200 1810 2010
QN PT CR
2
8
_ 40 4 180 400 1840 2240
QP PT CR GL
2
9
_ 36 3 150 1 360 1540 1900
PP PT CR PB IC MC
2
10
_ 38 1 250 25 24 1 380 3010 3390
QN LS CR PT IC RC PB
2
11
_ 24 12 150 1 30 1 15 360 1970 2330
PP QP TD PB MC CR GL
2
12
_ 32 8 5 4 5 200 1 450 2100 2550
TD FP LS PT GL MC SL IC CR ST
2
13
_ 42 5 2 6 9 23 24 1 20 5 490 880 1370
TD PT CR GL PB IC MC
2
14
_ 39 10 10 2 18 4 1 390 450 840
TD QM QV PS CR
2
15
_ 31 11 15 6 58 570 640 1210
TD QM QV PT ST IC MC GL
2 16
32 14 12 6 38 32 10 33 580 1190 1770
Table C6 - Heights of trees in feet by origin and species code on Block 2 of the HFWMB.
Planted Trees - Species & average heights Volunteer Trees - Species & average heights Planted Volunteer Factor
Plot
Feet Feet Avg. Heights Avg. Heights
QN PT CR GL PB
2
1
_ 10.2 4.5 4.0 4.0 8.0 10.2 5.1 2.0
QN PT CR GL
2
2
_ 11.0 14.0 4.0 4.5 11.0 7.5 1.5
QN PT CR GL
2
3
_ 8.7 3.9 4.0 4.0 8.7 4.0 2.2
QN PT CR
2 4
- 13.4 3.9 4.0 13.4 4.0 3.4
QPG QN PT CR MC
2
5
_ 6.9 9.7 6.1 3.4 4.0 8.3 4.5 1.8
QP QV QA PT GL PB
2
6
_ 10.1 7.6 15.0 6.3 2.0 5.0 10.9 4.4 2.5
QP PT CR GL PB MC V
2
7
_ 8.0 9.0 6.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 8.0 5.2 1.5
QN PT CR
2
8
_ 12.0 3.0 3.0 12.0 3.0 4.0
QP PT CR GL
2
9
_ 11.8 8.0 6.0 3.0 11.8 5.7 2.1
PP PT CR PB IC MC
2
1 0
_ 20.3 20.0 10.0 10.5 4.8 10.0 20.3 11.1 1.8
QN LS CR PT IC RC PB
2
1 1
_ 14.0 14.9 6.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 4.0 14.5 7.6 1.9
PP QP TD PB MC CR GL
2
1 2
_ 13.9 15.4 16.8 4.5 4.8 6.0 6.0 15.4 5.3 2.9
TD FP LS PT GL MC SL IC CR ST
2
13
_ 6.2 9.4 15.0 7.5 3.5 6.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 10.2 4.6 2.2
TD PT CR GL PB IC MC
2
14
_ 6.2 10.4 4.0 5.0 3.6 4.0 12.0 6.2 6.5 1.0
TD QM QV PS CR
2
1 5
_ 8.3 8.2 7.7 10.2 5.0 8.1 7.6 1.1
TD QM QV PT ST IC MC GL
2 16
6.2 10.3 7.5 9.5 9.5 5.0 7.0 6.3 8.0 7.5 1.1
Table C7 - Species counts and percentage of pocosin vegetation on Block 3 of the HFWMB.
Volunteer Trees - Species & counts All Vol. Sp. Pocosin Sp. Number Pocosin Veg.
Plot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Counts Counts Vol. Sp. %
SL CR
3 1
- 500 250 750 750 2 100%
SL CR
3 2
- 500 250 750 750 2 100%
SL CR
3 3
- 500 250 750 750 2 100%
SL CR
3 4
- 500 250 750 750 2 100%
SL GL CR IC PB IV WV
3 5
- 20 2 7 5 50 10 25 119 119 7 100%
PB CR SL GL IC PS IV WV
3 6
- 20 18 41 1 25 2 23 10 140 140 8 100%
CR SL PB IC IV WV
3 7
- 24 48 13 24 10 5 124 124 6 100%
PB CR SL IC PS VI IV WV
3 8
- 51 15 53 11 1 2 30 5 168 168 8 100%
CR SL PB IC PS IV WV 10
3 9
- 18 63 16 23 3 10 5 1 139 138 8 99%
CR PB SL IC VI IV
3 10
- 31 12 64 29 3 5 144 144 6 100%
SL CR
3
- 11 20 200 220 220 2 100%
SL CR
3 12
- 10 200 210 210 2 100%
PB CR SL
3
- 13 1 100 40 141 141 3 100%
SL PB IC CR
3 14
- 30 2 3 60 95 95 4 100%
Table C8 - Species counts and percentage of pocosin vegetation on Block 4 of the HFWMB.
Volunteer Trees - Species & counts All Vol. Sp. Pocosin Sp. Number Pocosin Veg.
Plot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Counts Counts Vol. Sp. %
SL WV IC PB CR
4
1
_ 24 4 2 3 1 34 34 5 100%
SL IC CR PS GL WV 10
4
2
_ 35 3 1 1 2 4 1 47 46 7 98%
IC PS CR SL
4
3
_ 1 4 5 5 15 15 4 100%
CR IC KA PB SL WV
4
4
_ 19 1 1 1 5 2 29 29 6 100%
SL CR IC IG
4
5
_ 60 5 2 12 79 79 4 100%
SL CR PB IC
4
6
_ 100 20 2 5 127 127 4 100%
CR KA SL WV
4
7
_ 35 20 5 3 63 63 4 100%
CR PB SL KA
4
8
_ 55 1 5 1 62 62 4 100%
SL CR
4
9
_ 50 40 90 90 2 100%
PT SL KA WV
4
10
_ 1 10 2 10 23 23 4 100%
IC PB KA LL CR SL
4
11
_ 12 2 8 5 20 5 52 52 6 100%
IC PB GL KA CR SL
4
12
_ 10 3 1 4 20 15 53 53 6 100%
GL PB CR SL
4
13
_ 29 5 30 25 89 89 4 100%
IC GL CR SL
4
14
_ 6 1 100 10 117 117 4 100%
Table C9 - Species counts and percentage of pocosin vegetation on Block 5 of the HFWMB.
Volunteer Trees - Species & counts All Vol. Sp. Pocosin Sp. Number Pocosin Veg.
Plot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Counts Counts Vol. Sp. %
SL MV PS LL KA IC PB
5 1
- 50 3 7 10 6 2 1 79 79 7 100%
SL PB PT CR
5 2
- 50 7 3 10 70 70 4 100%
SL GL IC LL WV KA
5 3
- 20 2 1 4 10 3 40 40 6 100%
SL KA WV IC PB GL LL
5 4
- 18 8 10 10 1 2 8 57 57 7 100%
SL GL MC PB IV CR WV
5 5
- 22 6 1 3 2 3 10 47 47 7 100%
SL IC GL CR LL
5 6
- 10 6 2 21 2 41 41 5 100%
SL CR
5 7
- 35 3 38 38 2 100%
SL CR PS KA IV PB IC WV
5 8
- 47 4 1 5 1 2 1 10 71 71 8 100%
PT IC
5 9
- 1 40 41 41 2 100%
SL CR PT PB IC
5 10
- 50 40 4 2 40 136 136 5 100%
SL GL IC
5 11
- 50 1 40 91 91 3 100%
MV IC PB
5 12
- 1 45 3 49 49 3 100%
SL PT PB
5 13
- 50 1 2 53 53 3 100%
SL CR WV
5 14
- 100 10 10 120 120 3 100%
SL IC CR GL PB IV 10
5 15
- 34 7 28 1 1 5 1 77 76 7 99%
KA LL IC MV PS GL CR SL
5 16
- 15 10 1 3 4 11 1 50 95 95 8 100
Appendix D - Ditch Plug Schematic
Existing grade - ------ 12 to 14 ft across
Grave and Rip-Rep surfaced \
6ft Oft
arthen ditch plug at grade - in depth
e
\ Ditch invert (bottom)
vvv vv v?.v? •?.a•
ew
Existing grade
Rip-Rap
Earthen ditch plug -
Jim
Ditch invert
Edges of
ditch
invert (bol
Top edges - - - -
of ditch banksw
Figure 1D - Schematic followed during ditch plug construction.