20000650 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20000801

0??? W A T ??PG
Mickey Sugg
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28422-1890
Dear Mr. Sugg:
Re: Hoffrnan Forest Mitigation Bank
Onslow County
DWQ# 0000650
July 15, 2002
Thank you for your letter of 6 June 2002 concerning the above mentioned mitigation bank. DWQ's comments on the MBI,
restoration and monitoring comments are as follows:
1. We agree with the US Environmental Protection Agency that page 6 of the MBI should be modified to reflect two
acres of debit per acre of impact since that is the normal provision in the other banks that we are aware of.
2. Based on the type of wetlands restored, DWQ believes that the bank is appropriate to use for non-riparian (non-
riverine) wetland impact only. Riparian (riverine) wetland impact should not be credited from this bank since the
functions and values of the riparian wetlands are very different. This point should be made specific in item 24 (page
6) of the MBI.
3. The total percent cover should be provided in all tables describing the pre-existing and post-planting vegetative
cover in addition to percent cover by species. This is especially pertinent in Appendix 4. The percent open ground
(if any) should also be provided. Appendix 4 also needs to define "T" and "X" as used in this Appendix.
4. Figure 9 is not of sufficient scale to determine the location of ground water monitoring wells. A more detailed map
is needed.
5. The proposed ditch plugs are 20 feet in length (according to Figure 12). Applicant should either plan to enlarge
them to (say) 100 feet or provide site-specific reasons why such a small plug will be effective in restoring drainage.
Do the ditches penetrate any confining layers or spodic horizons and thereby provide an opportunity for drainage
vertically along the ditches?
6. Vegetation management should be discussed. In particular, will fire be used as a management tool (notably in the
long leaf pine areas) in the future?
Please call me at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions.
o R. Dorney
40 Water Quality ),cation Program
JRD/bs
cc: Wilmington DWQ Regional Office
Kathy Matthews, US EPA- Region IV
Central Files
File Copy
S:\2002 Certifications\Hoffinan Forest Mitigation. doe
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality

N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
June 6, 2002
Iq1-
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200000985 Q ?s
Mr. Jeff Jurek
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619
Dear Mr. Jurek:
This correspondence is in reference to the Hofmann Forest Mitigation Bank that is being
developed by the North Carolina Forestry Foundation (agent for the Endowment Fund of North
Carolina State University) c/o: Mr. Ben Chilton, located at the intersection of Quaker Bridge
Road and Sopp Hollow Road, in Hofmann State Forest, adjacent to the White Oak Pocosin, north
of Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina. The purpose of this letter is to provide you
with a final draft of the mitigation banking instrument (MBI) and the restoration and monitoring
plan, and to request final comments from your agency on these two documents.
It is my understanding that the sponsor has provided you with a copy of the restoration and
monitoring plan, therefore a copy is not enclosed. Please review the attached MBI document and
the provided restoration and monitoring plan carefully and provide me with your comments
within 2 weeks of your rcccipt of this letter.
RECEIVED
JUN 11 2002
NC WETLANDS
RESTORATION
Thank you again for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact
me at Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
/"\
Mickey Sugg, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
North Carolina Forestry Foundation
c/o: Mr. Ben Chilton
Box 8005
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695
Messrs. Doug Frederick and Carlyle Franklin
College of Forest Resources
Campus Box 8008
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8008
Draft of 4/8/02
Agreement
Mitigation
to Establish the Hofmann Forest Wetland
Bank in Onslow County, North Carolina
This agreement made and entered into on the day of , 2002, by and between
the North Carolina Forestry Foundation, Inc. (designated agent for the Endowment
Fund of North Carolina State University), hereinafter SPONSOR, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (CORPS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ), and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) hereinafter, with the exception of the SPONSOR, collectively referred to as
the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT).
WHEREAS the purpose of this Agreement is to establish a mitigation bank for the
purpose of providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts
authorized by Clean Water Act (Section 404) permits in appropriate circumstances; and
WHEREAS the SPONSOR is the record owner of that certain parcel of land containing
approximately 400 acres located in Onslow County, North Carolina, of previously
drained high pocosin, all contained in the property known as Hofinann Forest;
WHEREAS the agencies comprising the MBRT agree that the Bank Site is a suitable
mitigation bank site, and that implementation of the Mitigation Plan should result in net
gains in wetland functions at the Bank Site;
THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this agreement that the
following provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this
agreement.
General Provisions
1. The goal of this mitigation bank is to restore forested wetland systems and associated
pocosin wetlands and their functions and values to compensate in appropriate
circumstances for unavoidable wetland impacts authorized by Clean Water Act
(Section 404) permits in circumstances deemed appropriate by the CORPS after
consultation with members of the MBRT.
2. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland impacts authorized by Clean Water
Act (Section 404) permits is in compliance with the Clean Water Act (Section 404)
and implementing regulations, in addition to the following statutes, regulations, and
policies:
A. Federal
a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seg.,
including specifically Section 401 (a);
b. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 403 et seg.;
c. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C., 661 et sec .);
d. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seg., including
the Council on Environmental Quality's implementing regulations, 40 CFR Parts
1500-1508;
e. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977);
f. Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks,
60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (Nov. 28, 1995);
g. Department of the Army, Section 404 Permit Regulations, 33 CFR Parts 320-
330), and policies for evaluating permit applications to discharge dredged or fill
material;
h. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Regulations, 23
CFR Part 777, concerning Mitigation of Environmental Impacts to Privately
Owned Wetlands;
i. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Section 404 Regulations, 40 CFR Parts
230-233 (guidelines for specification of disposal sites for dredged and fill
material);
j. Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of the Army concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under
the Clean Water Act Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines (February 6, 1990);
k. 15 CFR 930 Subpart D. of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
B. North Carolina
a. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 02H.0500; and
b. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 02B.0100 and r. 02B.0200; and
c. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r.02B.0100 and r.02B.0200; and
d. North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-214.8 et seg.
e. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, 07M .0700 (in the NC Coastal Area Management
Act.)
2
11. The CORPS is responsible for making final permit decisions pursuant to Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including
final determinations of compliance with the CORPS permit regulations and the
Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines. As such, the CORPS will act as the project manager
for the evaluation of all permit applications proposing to utilize the Bank. As the
project manager, the CORPS has been responsible for conducting all meetings with
state and federal resource/regulatory agencies and Bank SPONSOR for establishing
the Bank. The CORPS will determine the amount of compensation needed for a
given general or Department of the Army permit, including permits under the
Nationwide Permit program. The MBRT will establish the value of a compensation
credit in terms of restoration or preservation of wetland acreage at the Bank. In the
case of permit applications and compensatory mitigation required solely under the
Section. 401 Water Quality Certification rules of North Carolina, the NC Department
of Water Quality (NCDWQ) will determine the amount of credits that can be
withdrawn from the Bank.
4. Modifications to this MBI may be proposed by any MBRT member or by SPONSOR.
Any proposed modification shall be made in writing and submitted to all MBRT
members and SPONSOR. All MBRT members and SPONSOR must approve, in
writing, the proposed modification for it to take effect.
5. Any MBRT member can withdraw from this MBI with ten (10) days advance written
notice to all other MBRT members and SPONSOR. Member withdrawal shall not
affect any prior sale of credits and all remaining parties shall continue to implement
and enforce the terms of this MBI. Any independent legal rights or review authority
as to specific Section 404 permit applications possessed by a withdrawing party will,
however, remain in full force and effect.
6. The terms and conditions of this MBI shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit
of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, assigns, and legal
representatives.
7. This MBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject
matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.
In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this MBI are held to be
invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or
unenforceability will not affect any other provisions hereof, and this MBI shall be
construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had not been contained
herein.
9. This MBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
North Carolina and the United States as appropriate.
10. This MBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or more
counterparts, all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
11. Any delay or failure of the SPONSOR shall not constitute a default hereunder to the
extent that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or condition
beyond the SPONSOR' reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its
ability to perform its obligations hereunder including: (1) acts of God, lightning,
earthquake, fire, landslide, drought, hurricane, storm, flood, or interference by third
parties; (2) condemnation or other taking by any governmental body; (3) change in
applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance or permit condition, or the interpretation or
enforcement thereof; (4) any order, judgment, action or determination of any federal,
state or local court, administrative agency or government body; or (5) the suspension
or interruption of any permit, license, consent, authorization or approval. If the
performance of SPONSOR is affected by any such event, SPONSOR shall give
written notice thereof to the MBRT as soon as is reasonably practicable and further
shall attempt diligently to remove such condition.
12. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories
hereof, their successors and assigns shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof. No
party or third party other than SPONSOR shall have any property rights to the Bank
Site, except as otherwise expressly provided herein.
13. The MBRT shall be chaired by the representative from the CORPS' Wilmington
District. The MBRT shall review monitoring and accounting reports as more fully
described herein below. In addition, the MBRT will review proposals for remedial
actions proposed by SPONSOR or any of the agencies represented on the MBRT.
The MBRT's role and responsibilities are more fully set forth in Sections II(C)(3&6)
of the Federal Guidance on Mitigation Banking [See 60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (Nov. 28,
1995)]. The MBRT will work to reach consensus on all required actions.
Mitigation Plan
14. The Bank Site is approximately 400 acres, consisting of 80± acres of prior converted
(PC) agricultural fields, and 320+ acres in cleared land converted to non-wetland by
drainage.
15. The SPONSOR will perform work described in the Wetland Restoratin and
Monitoring Plan, including hydrologic and soil modifications and planting. The
purpose of the work, and the objective of the Bank, is to restore 80 acres of PC crop
land and approximately 320 acres of non-wetland converted by drainage to fully
functioning wetland status, and for research and demonstration in restoring longleaf
pine, cypress and wetland hardwood species.
16. SPONSOR is responsible for assuring the attainment of jurisdictional wetland status
and the success of the restoration and enhancement activities as specified in the
Restoration and Monitoring Plan (RAMP), and for the overall operation and
management of the Bank. SPONSOR shall monitor the Bank Site for at least 5 years
as described in the RAMP, or until such time as the MBRT determines that the
4
performance criteria described in the RAMP have been met, whichever period is
longer. Ground water levels were monitored in Spring 1997 and indicated lack of
wetland hydrology. In February, 2001, the Corps determined that the entire 400-acre
site was effectively drained and was not a wetland.
17. SPONSOR shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the terms of
this MBI.
18. SPONSOR shall provide to each member of the MBRT reports described in the
Monitoring section of the RAMP.
19. The CORPS shall review said reports and provide a written response. At any time,
after consultation with SPONSOR and the MBRT, the CORPS will direct SPONSOR
to take remedial action at the Bank Site. Remedial action required by the CORPS
shall be designed to achieve the performance criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan.
All remedial actions required shall include an implementation schedule, which shall
take into account physical and climatic conditions.
20. At the end of the 5-year monitoring period or when all performance criteria as
described in the RAMP have been met, as reasonably determined by the MBRT, the
MBRT shall provide written notice to that effect to SPONSOR stating that: (a) all
required performance criteria have been met; (b) SPONSOR is permanently released
from all further monitoring, remedial measures or the ecological performance
obligations with regard to the Bank Site; and (c) SPONSOR's security obligations as
specified in this MBI fully have been satisfied. Thereafter, SPONSOR shall have no
further obligations whatsoever with regard to the Bank Site except that, if any credits
remain unsold or otherwise finally accounted for, SPONSOR shall continue to have
sole control over the sale of any such remaining mitigation credits, and likewise shall
continue to be required to provide all related mitigation credit accounting reports as
specified in this MBI until all such credits are sold or otherwise finally accounted for.
21. At any time prior to the completion of all performance criteria as defined in Paragraph
20 above, SPONSOR may determine voluntarily that remedial action may be
necessary to achieve the required performance criteria. In such instance, SPONSOR
shall provide notice of its proposed remedial action to all members of the MBRT. No
significant remedial actions shall be undertaken by SPONSOR without the express
concurrence of the CORPS, in consultation with the MBRT.
Use of Mitigation Credits
22. The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area wherein a bank can
reasonably be expected to provide appropriate compensation for impacts to
wetland and/or other aquatic resources. The GSA for this Bank shall include
all of Onslow County. The Onslow County boundary includes the southern
portion of the White Oak basin (03020106) and most of the New River basin
(03030001).
23. Implementation of the Mitigation Plan will result in the following forms and
amounts, in acres, of compensatory mitigation credits:
Table 1. Summary of proposed forest community types within Hofinann Forest
Wetland Mitigation Bank, Onslow Co., NC
Plant Community Description' Area Mitigation Wetland HGM
(acres) Activity T e2 T e'
Pine Savanna Forest 100 Restoration PF04E WF
(Pin us palustris)
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest 188 Restoration PFO1 E WF
(Quercus-Liquidambar-Nyssa-
Pinus)
Nonriverine Wet Cypress Forest 112 Restoration PFOIE WF
(Taxodium disticum)
TOTAL AREA: 400 Restoration
' Follows Schafale and Weakley (1990);' Cowardin et al. (1979);' Brinson (1993).
24. It is anticipated by the parties to this agreement that use of mitigation credits shall
be "in-kind;" that is, that the above-described types of wetland credits will be used to
offset the same type of wetland impacts.
25. It is anticipated by the parties that in most cases in which the CORPS, after
consultation with members of the MBRT, has determined that mitigation credits from
the Bank may be used to offset wetland impacts authorized by Section 404 permits,
for every one acre of impact, a minimum one mitigation credit (restored wetland acre)
will be debited from the Bank. Deviations from the one-to-one compensation ratio
may be authorized by the CORPS on a case-by-case basis where justified by
considerations of functions of the wetlands impacted, the severity of the impacts to
wetlands, whether the compensatory mitigation is in-kind, and physical proximity of
the wetland impacts to the Bank Site. For impacts where either the CORPS or
NCDWQ have determined that greater than a one-to-one compensation ratio is
required, additional restoration credits held by the Bank may be used. In all cases, a
6
minimum of at least one acre of restored wetland from this bank shall be used to
mitigate for one acre of impacted wetland.
26. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using
credits from the Bank to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all
decisions concerning the amount and type of such credits to be used to offset wetland
and water impacts authorized by Department of the Army permits shall be made by
the CORPS, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and implementing regulations and
guidance, after notice of any proposed use of the Bank to SPONSOR and all members
of the MBRT, and consultation with same regarding such use. In the case of
compensatory mitigation required solely under Section 401, water quality
certification, the NCDWQ will notify SPONSOR and the MBRT of such use and the
proposed credit withdrawal.
27. Bank SPONSOR shall be entitled to sell fifteen percent (15%) of the Bank's total
mitigation credits upon:
Execution of this MBI by the Corps of Engineers.
Final approval of the Restoration and Monitoring Plan.
Completion of each subsequent year of successful establishment and monitoring, as
evidenced by the Annual Report, will entitle the SPONSOR to sell an additional 10%
of mitigation credits for years 1-3 (120 credits), an additional 15% for years 4-5 (120
credits), until twenty-five percent (25%) of total credits remain unreleased. The final
100 credits (25%) will be released when the MBRT determines in writing that the
Bank is completely and fully functional, and that all work is complete based on the
Restoration and Monitoring Plan.
28. SPONSOR shall develop accounting procedures for maintaining accurate records of
debits made from the Bank that is acceptable to the MBRT. Such procedures shall
include the generation of a debit report by SPONSOR documenting all credits used at
the time they are debited from the Bank. Debit reports shall be provided to each
member of the MBRT within 30 days of the date of credit use. In addition,
SPONSOR shall prepare an Annual Report, to be provided to each MBRT member
within thirty (30) days of each anniversary of the date of execution of this MBI,
showing all credits used and the balance of credits remaining. SPONSOR's reporting
obligations hereunder shall end upon the sale of all credits or termination of this MBI,
whichever event first occurs.
29. SPONSOR may request addition of other properties to the Bank. In such event, the
terms and conditions of any proposed property addition shall be set forth in an
amended mitigation banking instrument that will be subject to separate review and, if
appropriate, approval by the MBRT.
7
30. If monitoring of the Bank under this MBI establishes that mitigation and restoration
as required under the MBI has failed or only partially succeeded, corrective measures
shall be required to assure that performance standards are being met. If, as a result of
maintenance and monitoring reports, it is determined that performance standards are
not being met, the MBRT shall provide notice to SPONSOR who then shall prepare
an analysis of the cause of the failure, propose corrective actions and specify a time
frame for implementing corrective actions. Minor corrective measures do not require
a formal notification process and may be accomplished as a part of routine
maintenance; such measures shall be identified in the next subsequent monitoring
report. If satisfactory corrective actions are not taken by SPONSOR after formal
written notice from the MBRT, then the MBRT is entitled to give notice that the
agreed-upon corrective actions have not been satisfied. Under such circumstances the
MBRT also is entitled to, in its sole discretion, notify SPONSOR of the immediate
suspension of further sale of credits from the Bank. Upon completion of required
remedial action(s) to the satisfaction of the MBRT, as documented in written notice
from the MBRT to SPONSOR, credit sales automatically shall be allowed to resume,
subject to any additional requirements reasonably specified by the MBRT in the
written notice.
Property Disposition
31. The land is already in public trust through ownership by the Endowment Fund of
North Carolina State University. In lieu of an easement on the property, the
Endowment Fund will sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
CORPS agreeing to maintain and preserve the Bank Site as a restored wetland in the
same as, or better condition, as when it is released as complete and fully functional by
the MBRT. Periodic inspections of the Bank Site may be made by the CORPS at its
discretion, with notification to the SPONSOR.
Financial Assurances
32. The Hofmann Forest Mitigation Bank will be developed using the financial resources
of the SPONSOR. The SPONSOR will maintain and preserve the property consistent
with the short- and long-term objectives of the Bank and with the MOU referenced in
paragraph 31.
Miscellaneous
33. Notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at their
respective addresses, provided below:
SPONSOR:
North Carolina Forestry Foundation, Inc.
c/o Ben Chilton
Box 8005
Raleigh, NC 27695
MBRT Members
CORPS: Mr. Micky Sugg
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28462
EPA: Ms. Kathy Mathews
US Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
FWS: Mr. Howard Hall
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
NMFS: Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Rd.
Beaufort, NC 28516
NCWRC: Mr. Bennett Wynn
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
901 Laroque Ave.
Kinston, NC 28501
NCDCM: Ms. Kelly Williams
NC Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
NCDWO: Mr. Mac Haupt
NCDENR
Wetland Restoration Program
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626
9
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 9TgTFS REGION 4 0
A Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center J i
61 Forsyth Street, S.W. j?' 7
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 - 8960
Colonel Charles R. Alexander, Jr. jUN
20
District Engineer 1 2
ATTN: Mickey Sugg
Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
SUBJ: North Carolina Forestry Foundation, Inc.: Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank
May 15, 2002 Mitigation Banking Instrument and Mitigation Plan
Action ID No. 200000985
Dear Colonel DeLony:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4, Wetlands Regulatory
Section has reviewed the draft mitigation plan and Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) for the
North Carolina Forestry Foundation's Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank, dated
May 15, 2002. Ms. Kathy Matthews, of my staff, attended the January 23, 2002 field meeting for
the mitigation bank, and the majority of EPA's concerns were addressed during that meeting.
We concur with the proposed success criteria, total number of credits, credit release schedule,
and geographic service area for this bank. Also, we are pleased that the sponsor has removed the
proposal to harvest timber on the property. However, there are two significant issues which have
not been resolved in this draft of the MBI:
On Page 6 of the MBI, Item 25 states that "in most cases in which the Corps ... has
determined that mitigation credits from the Bank may be used to offset wetland impacts
authorized by Section 404 permits, for every one acre of impact, a minimum one [sic]
mitigation credit (restored wetland acre) will be debited from the Bank." As we stated in
previous letters and at the January 23, 2002 meeting, EPA cannot agree to the debiting of
only one credit (acre) per acre of impact. We recommend that "one" be revised to "two,"
and that the remainder of the paragraph be revised accordingly. We note that, according ?
to Ms. Matthews' meeting notes from the January meeting, it was agreed by all parties
that credits would generally be debited at a 2:1 ratio, consistent with most other banks in
North Carolina.
2. As stated in previous letters, EPA still recommends deletion of Item 29 on Page 7. This
is not an umbrella MBI, and no other acreage should be added to the bank.

2
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this mitigation bank. If you have any
questions, please contact Kathy Matthews at [phone] with any further information,
comments, or questions.
Sincerely,
J. Mikul , Chie
Wetlands Regulatory Section
cc: USFWS, Raleigh
NMFS, Pivers Island
DCM/DENR, Raleigh
DWQ/DENR, Raleigh
MEMORANDUM
TO:
John Dorney
Non-Discharge Branch
Regional Contact: J_ Steenhuis
WO Supervisor: Rick Shiver
Date:
SUBJECT:
WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name NC Forestry Foundation County Onslow
Project Number 00 0650 County2
Recvd From COE Region Wilmington
Received Date 511100 Recvd By Region
Project Type wetlands mitigation bank
Certificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req. ME
O Y Q• N I-- 19-5 F C - NSW 30,502. I - F- F- r-?
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? Q Y O N Did you request more Info? Q Y O N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? Q Y 0 N
Is Mitigation required? Q Y O N
Recommendation: Q Issue O Issue/fond O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) Longitude (ddmmss)
Comments:
This office supports the project The mitigation bank can be used for the US Hwy 17 eject and
other projects w/in the county due to the growth spurt being felt by Onslow Go. This office would like
that the pro ject description h detailed and concise in it's implement, Action of the eject and
long term management The quality of,nlan will dictate the success of the project/bank-
cc: Regional Office Page Number 1
Central Office
a?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers !i
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 20000985 April 27, 2000
?,'_, ?PUBLIC NOTICE
The District Engineer has received a mitigation prospectus and draft Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI) describing the establishment of a wetland mitigation bank (Bank) in Onslow
County, North Carolina for Federal and State permits as described below:
Bank Sponsor
North Carolina Forestry Foundation
(agent for the Endowment Fund of North Carolina State University)
c/o Ben Chilton
Box 8005
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695
This public notice does not imply, on the parts of the Corps of Engineers or other agencies,
either favorable or unfavorable opinion of the establishment of the Bank, but is issued to solicit
comments regarding the factors on which final decisions regarding the Bank will be based.
WATERWAYS AND LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED WORK: The proposed Bank,
known as the Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank, is located at the intersection of Quaker
Bridge Road and Sopp Hollow Road, in Hoftnann State Forest, adjacent to White Oak Pocosin,
north of Jacksonville in the White Oak River Drainage Basin (See attached maps).
PROPOSED WORK AND PURPOSE: The bank sponsor proposes to establish, design,
construct, and operate a wetland compensatory mitigation bank composed of drained, prior
converted, and existing wetlands located at the interstream headwaters of Cowhorn Swamp and
Bachelors Delight Swamp in northern Onslow County. The total Bank size is approximately
4,400 acres.
The primary objective of the bank is to restore 80 acres of prior-converted cropland and
approximately 320 acres of other converted land to fully functioning non-riverine wetland status,
and for research and demonstration in longleaf pine, cypress, and hardwood timber growth.
Buffer zones between experimental plots will be planted for wildlife habitat enhancement.
Currently, 144 acres have been site prepped (i.e., plowed and bedded) and planted in commercial
timber, research, and wildlife strips in Blocks 1 and 2 (see enclosed plan). In Addition,
approximately 4,000 acres of established high and low pocosin wetlands are planned for
preservation.
Preliminary review of the proposal indicates that: 1. An environmental impact statement will
not be required; 2. No species of fish, wildlife, or plant (or their critical habitat) listed as
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL 93-205) will be
affected; and 3. No cultural or historic resources considered eligible or potentially eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places will be affected. Additional information may
change any of these preliminary findings.
A copy of the Mitigation Prospectus and draft MBI is available for review in the offices of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Division, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28402
Written comments pertinent to the proposal will be received in this office, Attention:
Mr. Mickey Sugg, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, Post Office Box 1890, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28402, until 4:15 p.m., May 26, 2000, or telephone [phone].
3
HOFMANN FOREST WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
Wetland Restoration and Monitoring Plan
Prepared By:
Drs. Carlyle Franklin and Doug Frederick
for
North Carolina Forestry Foundation, Inc.
designated Agent for
The Endowment Fund of North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695
May 15, 2002
North Carolina State University is a land- Forestry Department
grant university and a constituent institution College of Natural Resources
of The University of North Carolina
C?
J
Woodlot Forestry Research
& Development Program
3136 Jordan Hall
Campus Box 8006
Raleigh, INC 27695-8006
919.515.3566
919.515.7559 (fax)
May 24, 2002

MEMORANDUM
TO: Member of the Hofmann Forest WMB MBRT
1?" J)
lp?
FROM: Carlyle Franklin and Doug Frederick
SUBJECT: Final Review of Restoration Plan and Signing of MBI
Enclosed is what we trust will be the (at least nearly) final draft of the MBI and the Restoration
and Monitoring Plan for the above referenced mitigation bank. Note especially that the request
for timber harvesting has been removed, therefore no Forest Management Plan is needed.
Mickey Sugg, your Chairman, will be sending a letter to you shortly requesting final review and
signatures. Thanks for your speedy and thoughtful review of this document.

MAY ? 1 2002
W; 10 UALITY SECTION
0
I
Draft of 4/8/02
Agreement to Establish the Hofmann Forest Wetland
Mitigation Bank in Onslow County, North Carolina
This agreement made and entered into on the day of , 2002, by and between
the North Carolina Forestry Foundation, Inc. (designated agent for the Endowment
Fund of North Carolina State University), hereinafter SPONSOR, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (CORPS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ), and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) hereinafter, with the exception of the SPONSOR, collectively referred to as
the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT).
WHEREAS the purpose of this Agreement is to establish a mitigation bank for the
purpose of providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts
authorized by Clean Water Act (Section 404) permits in appropriate circumstances; and
WHEREAS the SPONSOR is the record owner of that certain parcel of land containing
approximately 400 acres located in Onslow County, North Carolina, of previously
is drained high pocosin, all contained in the property known as Hofinann Forest;
WHEREAS the agencies comprising the MBRT agree that the Bank Site is a suitable
mitigation bank site, and that implementation of the Mitigation Plan should result in net
gains in wetland functions at the Bank Site;
THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this agreement that the
following provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this
agreement.
General Provisions
1. The goal of this mitigation bank is to restore forested wetland systems and associated
pocosin wetlands and their functions and values to compensate in appropriate
circumstances for unavoidable wetland impacts authorized by Clean Water Act
(Section 404) permits in circumstances deemed appropriate by the CORPS after
consultation with members of the MBRT.
2. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland impacts authorized by Clean Water
Act (Section 404) permits is in compliance with the Clean Water Act (Section 404)
and implementing regulations, in addition to the following statutes, regulations, and
• policies:
A. Federal
a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et §M.,
is including specifically Section 401 (a);
b. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 403 et seg.;
c. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C., 661 et sec .);
d. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et se q., including
the Council on Environmental Quality's implementing regulations, 40 CFR Parts
1500-1508;
e. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977);
f. Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks,
60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (Nov. 28, 1995);
g. Department of the Army, Section 404 Permit Regulations, 33 CFR Parts 320-
330), and policies for evaluating permit applications to discharge dredged or fill
material;
h. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Regulations, 23
CFR Part 777, concerning Mitigation of Environmental Impacts to Privately
• Owned Wetlands;
i. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Section 404 Regulations, 40 CFR Parts
230-233 (guidelines for specification of disposal sites for dredged and fill
material);
j. Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of the Army concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under
the Clean Water Act Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines (February 6, 1990);
k. 15 CFR 930 Subpart D. of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
B. North Carolina
a. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 02H.0500; and
b. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 0213.0100 and r. 0213.0200; and
c. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r.02B.0100 and r.02B.0200; and
d. North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et seq.
e. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, 07M .0700 (in the NC Coastal Area Management
. Act.)
2
11. The CORPS is responsible for making final permit decisions pursuant to Section 10
• of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including
final determinations of compliance with the CORPS permit regulations and the
Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines. As such, the CORPS will act as the project manager
for the evaluation of all permit applications proposing to utilize the Bank. As the
project manager, the CORPS has been responsible for conducting all meetings with
state and federal resource/regulatory agencies and Bank SPONSOR for establishing
the Bank. The CORPS will determine the amount of compensation needed for a
given general or Department of the Army permit, including permits under the
Nationwide Permit program. The MBRT will establish the value of a compensation
credit in terms of restoration or preservation of wetland acreage at the Bank. In the
case of permit applications and compensatory mitigation required solely under the
Section 401 Water Quality Certification rules of North Carolina, the NC Department
of Water Quality (NCDWQ) will determine the amount of credits that can be
withdrawn from the Bank.
4. Modifications to this MBI may be proposed by any MBRT member or by SPONSOR.
Any proposed modification shall be made in writing and submitted to all MBRT
members and SPONSOR. All MBRT members and SPONSOR must approve, in
writing, the proposed modification for it to take effect.
5. Any MBRT member can withdraw from this MBI with ten (10) days advance written
is notice to all other MBRT members and SPONSOR. Member withdrawal shall not
affect any prior sale of credits and all remaining parties shall continue to implement
and enforce the terms of this MBI. Any independent legal rights or review authority
as to specific Section 404 permit applications possessed by a withdrawing party will,
however, remain in full force and effect.
6. The terms and conditions of this MBI shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit
of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, assigns, and legal
representatives.
7. This MBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject
matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.
8. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this MBI are held to be
invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or
unenforceability will not affect any other provisions hereof, and this MBI shall be
construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had not been contained
herein.
9. This MBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
North Carolina and the United States as appropriate.
• 10. This MBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or more
counterparts, all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
3
• 11. Any delay or failure of the SPONSOR shall not constitute a default hereunder to the
extent that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or condition
beyond the SPONSOR' reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its
ability to perform its obligations hereunder including: (1) acts of God, lightning,
earthquake, fire, landslide, drought, hurricane, storm, flood, or interference by third
parties; (2) condemnation or other taking by any governmental body; (3) change in
applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance or permit condition, or the interpretation or
enforcement thereof; (4) any order, judgment, action or determination of any federal,
state or local court, administrative agency or government body; or (5) the suspension
or interruption of any permit, license, consent, authorization or approval. If the
performance of SPONSOR is affected by any such event, SPONSOR shall give
written notice thereof to the MBRT as soon as is reasonably practicable and further
shall attempt diligently to remove such condition.
12. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories
hereof, their successors and assigns shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof. No
party or third party other than SPONSOR shall have any property rights to the Bank
Site, except as otherwise expressly provided herein.
13. The MBRT shall be chaired by the representative from the CORPS' Wilmington
District. The MBRT shall review monitoring and accounting reports as more fully
• described herein below. In addition, the MBRT will review proposals for remedial
actions proposed by SPONSOR or any of the agencies represented on the MBRT.
The MBRT's role and responsibilities are more fully set forth in Sections II(C)(3&6)
of the Federal Guidance on Mitigation Banking [See 60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (Nov. 28,
1995)]. The MBRT will work to reach consensus on all required actions.
Mitigation Plan
14. The Bank Site is approximately 400 acres, consisting of 80± acres of prior converted
(PC) agricultural fields, and 320+ acres in cleared land converted to non-wetland by
drainage.
15. The SPONSOR will perform work described in the Wetland Restoratin and
Monitoring Plan, including hydrologic and soil modifications and planting. The
purpose of the work, and the objective of the Bank, is to restore 80 acres of PC crop
land and approximately 320 acres of non-wetland converted by drainage to fully
functioning wetland status, and for research and demonstration in restoring longleaf
pine, cypress and wetland hardwood species.
16. SPONSOR is responsible for assuring the attainment of jurisdictional wetland status
and the success of the restoration and enhancement activities as specified in the
Restoration and Monitoring Plan (RAMP), and for the overall operation and
• management of the Bank. SPONSOR shall monitor the Bank Site for at least 5 years
as described in the RAMP, or until such time as the MBRT determines that the
4
performance criteria described in the RAMP have been met, whichever period is
• longer. Ground water levels were monitored in Spring 1997 and indicated lack of
wetland hydrology. In February, 2001, the Corps determined that the entire 400-acre
site was effectively drained and was not a wetland.
17. SPONSOR shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the terms of
this MBI.
18. SPONSOR shall provide to each member of the MBRT reports described in the
Monitoring section of the RAMP.
19. The CORPS shall review said reports and provide a written response. At any time,
after consultation with SPONSOR and the MBRT, the CORPS will direct SPONSOR
to take remedial action at the Bank Site. Remedial action required by the CORPS
shall be designed to achieve the performance criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan.
All remedial actions required shall include an implementation schedule, which shall
take into account physical and climatic conditions.
20. At the end of the 5-year monitoring period or when all performance criteria as
described in the RAMP have been met, as reasonably determined by the MBRT, the
MBRT shall provide written notice to that effect to SPONSOR stating that: (a) all
required performance criteria have been met; (b) SPONSOR is permanently released
• from all further monitoring, remedial measures or the ecological performance
obligations with regard to the Bank Site; and (c) SPONSOR's security obligations as
specified in this MBI fully have been satisfied. Thereafter, SPONSOR shall have no
further obligations whatsoever with regard to the Bank Site except that, if any credits
remain unsold or otherwise finally accounted for, SPONSOR shall continue to have
sole control over the sale of any such remaining mitigation credits, and likewise shall
continue to be required to provide all related mitigation credit accounting reports as
specified in this MBI until all such credits are sold or otherwise finally accounted for.
21. At any time prior to the completion of all performance criteria as defined in Paragraph
20 above, SPONSOR may determine voluntarily that remedial action may be
necessary to achieve the required performance criteria. In such instance, SPONSOR
shall provide notice of its proposed remedial action to all members of the MBRT. No
significant remedial actions shall be undertaken by SPONSOR without the express
concurrence of the CORPS, in consultation with the MBRT.
•
5
•
•
•
Use of Mitigation Credits
22. The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area wherein a bank can
reasonably be expected to provide appropriate compensation for impacts to
wetland and/or other aquatic resources. The GSA for this Bank shall include
all of Onslow County. The Onslow County boundary includes the southern
portion of the White Oak basin (03020106) and most of the New River basin
(03030001).
23. Implementation of the Mitigation Plan will result in the following forms and
amounts, in acres, of compensatory mitigation credits:
Table 1. Summary of proposed forest community types within Hofmann Forest
Wetland Mitigation Bank, Onslow Co., NC
Plant Community Description' Area Mitigation Wetland HGM
(acres) Activity Type' T e3
Pine Savanna Forest 100 Restoration PF04E WF
(Pinus palustris)
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest 188 Restoration PFOIE WF
(Qu ercus-L i qui dam bar-Nyssa-
Pinus)
Nonriverine Wet Cypress Forest 112 Restoration PFO 1 E WF
(Taxodium disticum)
TOTAL AREA: 400 Restoration
' Follows Schafale and Weakley (1990); ' Cowardin et al. (1979); 'Brinson (1993).
24. It is anticipated by the parties to this agreement that use of mitigation credits shall
be "in-kind;" that is, that the above-described types of wetland credits will be used to
offset the same type of wetland impacts.
25. It is anticipated by the parties that in most cases in which the CORPS, after
consultation with members of the MBRT, has determined that mitigation credits from
the Bank may be used to offset wetland impacts authorized by Section 404 permits,
for every one acre of impact, a minimum one mitigation credit (restored wetland acre)
will be debited from the Bank. Deviations from the one-to-one compensation ratio
may be authorized by the CORPS on a case-by-case basis where justified by
considerations of functions of the wetlands impacted, the severity of the impacts to
wetlands, whether the compensatory mitigation is in-kind, and physical proximity of
the wetland impacts to the Bank Site. For impacts where either the CORPS or
NCDWQ have determined that greater than a one-to-one compensation ratio is
required, additional restoration credits held by the Bank may be used. In all cases, a
°;rN
0
6
minimum of at least one acre of restored wetland from this bank shall be used to
is mitigate for one acre of impacted wetland.
26. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using
credits from the Bank to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all
decisions concerning the amount and type of such credits to be used to offset wetland
and water impacts authorized by Department of the Army permits shall be made by
the CORPS, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and implementing regulations and
guidance, after notice of any proposed use of the Bank to SPONSOR and all members
of the MBRT, and consultation with same regarding such use. In the case of
compensatory mitigation required solely under Section 401, water quality
certification, the NCDWQ will notify SPONSOR and the MBRT of such use and the
proposed credit withdrawal.
27. Bank SPONSOR shall be entitled to sell fifteen percent (15%) of the Bank's total
mitigation credits upon:
Execution of this MBI by the Corps of Engineers.
* Final approval of the Restoration and Monitoring Plan.
Completion of each subsequent year of successful establishment and monitoring, as
• evidenced by the Annual Report, will entitle the SPONSOR to sell an additional 10%
of mitigation credits for years 1-3 (120 credits), an additional 15% for years 4-5 (120
credits), until twenty-five percent (25%) of total credits remain unreleased. The final
100 credits (25%) will be released when the MBRT determines in writing that the
Bank is completely and fully functional, and that all work is complete based on the
Restoration and Monitoring Plan.
28. SPONSOR shall develop accounting procedures for maintaining accurate records of
debits made from the Bank that is acceptable to the MBRT. Such procedures shall
include the generation of a debit report by SPONSOR documenting all credits used at
the time they are debited from the Bank. Debit reports shall be provided to each
member of the MBRT within 30 days of the date of credit use. In addition,
SPONSOR shall prepare an Annual Report, to be provided to each MBRT member
within thirty (30) days of each anniversary of the date of execution of this MBI,
showing all credits used and the balance of credits remaining. SPONSOR's reporting
obligations hereunder shall end upon the sale of all credits or termination of this MBI,
whichever event first occurs.
29. SPONSOR may request addition of other properties to the Bank. In such event, the
terms and conditions of any proposed property addition shall be set forth in an
amended mitigation banking instrument that will be subject to separate review and, if
appropriate, approval by the MBRT.
E
7
30. If monitoring of the Bank under this MBI establishes that mitigation and restoration
• as required under the MBI has failed or only partially succeeded, corrective measures
shall be required to assure that performance standards are being met. If, as a result of
maintenance and monitoring reports, it is determined that performance standards are
not being met, the MBRT shall provide notice to SPONSOR who then shall prepare
an analysis of the cause of the failure, propose corrective actions and specify a time
frame for implementing corrective actions. Minor corrective measures do not require
a formal notification process and may be accomplished as a part of routine
maintenance; such measures shall be identified in the next subsequent monitoring
report. If satisfactory corrective actions are not taken by SPONSOR after formal
written notice from the MBRT, then the MBRT is entitled to give notice that the
agreed-upon corrective actions have not been satisfied. Under such circumstances the
MBRT also is entitled to, in its sole discretion, notify SPONSOR of the immediate
suspension of further sale of credits from the Bank. Upon completion of required
remedial action(s) to the satisfaction of the MBRT, as documented in written notice
from the MBRT to SPONSOR, credit sales automatically shall be allowed to resume,
subject to any additional requirements reasonably specified by the MBRT in the
written notice.
Property Disposition
31. The land is already in public trust through ownership by the Endowment Fund of
North Carolina State University. In lieu of an easement on the property, the
• Endowment Fund will sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
CORPS agreeing to maintain and preserve the Bank Site as a restored wetland in the
same as, or better condition, as when it is released as complete and fully functional by
the MBRT. Periodic inspections of the Bank Site may be made by the CORPS at its
discretion, with notification to the SPONSOR.
Financial Assurances
32. The Hofinann Forest Mitigation Bank will be developed using the financial resources
of the SPONSOR. The SPONSOR will maintain and preserve the property consistent
with the short- and long-term objectives of the Bank and with the MOU referenced in
paragraph 31.
Miscellaneous
33. Notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at their
respective addresses, provided below:
SPONSOR:
North Carolina Forestry Foundation, Inc.
c/o Ben Chilton
. Box 8005
Raleigh, NC 27695
E
MBRT Members
CORPS: Mr. Micky Sugg
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28462
EPA: Ms. Kathy Mathews
US Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
FWS: Mr. Howard Hall
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
• PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
NMFS: Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Rd.
Beaufort, NC 28516
NCWRC: Mr. Bennett Wynn
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
901 Laroque Ave.
Kinston, NC 28501
NCDCM: Ms. Kelly Williams
NC Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
NCDW : Mr. Mac Haupt
NCDENR
Wetland Restoration Program
• PO Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626
9
•
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
By: Date:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
By: Date:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
By: Date:
National Marine Fisheries Service
By: Date:
NC Division of Water Quality
• t
D
By: e:
a
NC Division of Coastal Management
By: Date:
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
By: Date:
North Carolina Forestry Foundation, Mitigation Bank SPONSOR
By:
Date:
•
10
r?
u

0
o'
n?
•
0
•
•
HOFMANN FOREST WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
Wetland Restoration and Monitoring Plan
Prepared By:
Drs. Carlyle Franklin and Doug Frederick
for
North Carolina Forestry Foundation, Inc.
designated Agent for
The Endowment Fund of North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695
May 15, 2002

•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures 1
List of Tables ii
List of Appendices ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
•
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2
2.1 Hydrology 7
2.2 Soils 7
2.3 Plant Communities 14
2.4 Wildlife 15
2.5 Ecological Processes and Functions 15
2.6 Hydrogeomorphic Classification of Wet Flats 15
3.0 MITIGATION 17
3.1 Proposed Restoration 17
3.1.1 Hydrology 17
3.1.2 Hydrologic Criteria 24
3.1.3 Soils 25
3.1.4 Plant Community Establishment 25
3.1.5 Vegetation Criteria 26
3.2 Reference Plot Locations 30
3.3 Schedule for Completion of HFWMB 30
3.4 Water Budget Analysis 31
4.0 LITERATURE CITED 36
0
LIST OF FIGURES
• Page
Figure 1 Location of Hofinann Forest 2
Figure 2. Location map of Hofmann Forest. 3
Figure 3. Location of wetland mitigation site. 4
Figure 4. Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank site boundary. 5
Figure 5. CAMA delineated potential wetland restoration sites. 6
Figure 6. Average width and depth of ditches. 8
Figure 7. Color infrared aerial photograph. 9
Figure 8. Location of ground water monitoring wells ... in 1997. 10
Figure 9. Ground water monitoring well locations. 12
is Figure 10. S oils map. 13
Figure 11A. Significant features of the hydrologic restoration plan for Block 1 18
Figure 11B. Significant features of the hydrologic restoration plan for Block 2 19
Figure 11 C. Significant features of the hydrologic restoration plan for Block 3 20
Figure 11D. Significant features of the hydrologic restoration plan for Block 4 21
Figure 11E. Significant features of the hydrologic restoration plan for Block 5. 22
Figure 12. Cross-sectional, lateral and top views of ditch plugs. 23
Figure 13. Planting design for Blocks 3, 4 and 5. 29
Figure 14. Long-term precipitation vs. long-term potential evapotranspiration. 33
Figure 15. Estimated water balance using long-term precipitation data. 34
Figure 16. Mean monthly soil water storage using temperature and rainfall data. 35
•
i
•
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Ground water monitoring well data for 1997. 11
Table 2. Summary of soil mapping units. 14
Table 3. Summary of forest community types. 16
Table 4A. Survival after one growing season (2000), 27
Table 4B. Survival after two growing seasons (2001). 28
Table 5. Calculation of monthly water balance. 32
LIST OF APPENDICES
• 38
Appendix IA. Ground water well data (1997).
Appendix 1B. Groundwater well data (2000-2002). 51
Appendix 2. Water quality monitoring data. 67
Appendix 3. Soil descriptions. 84
Appendix 4. 1997 vegetation survey. 87
Appendix 5. Black bear population survey. 99
Appendix 6. Plant community establishment. 114
is ii
• 1.0 Introduction
This is a restoration and monitoring plan for the establishment of the Hofmann Forest Wetland
Mitigation Bank (HFWMB) for offsetting unavoidable impacts to the Wet Flat (WF)
hydrogeomorphic type (Brinson 1993) in the following vegetation communities: pine savanna
(PS), and Nonriverine wet hardwood forests (Schafale and Weakley 1990), which includes a
large area of bald cypress (Taxodium disticum) forest. Impacts will typically be associated with
projects requiring Clean Water Act, Section 404 dredge and fill permits within the New
(03030001), and White Oak (03020106) hydrologic units. The primary goals of this project are
to establish a wetlands mitigation bank that enhances water quality and improves wildlife habitat.
Secondary objectives include establishment of a species trial, a test of two alternative liming
materials, and a forested firebreak. Wildlife habitat will be improved by increasing diversity of
tree species, and especially by increasing hard mast production. The project will restore critical
wetland functions and will provide numerous opportunities for research, demonstration and
teaching over a wide range of topics.
The plan includes details for restoration and monitoring of 400 acres of drained wetlands, 80
acres of which is Prior Converted (PC) agricultural land, and 320 acres of excessively drained
fields. The sponsor of the HFWMB, working collaboratively with Federal and State regulators
has initiated activities to restore this tract and will provide mitigation credits to eligible
purchasers. This project is being developed in collaboration with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ), NC Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM), US Fish and
• Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). This bank
will be monitored and managed in perpetuity by the North Carolina Forestry Foundation, Inc. or
other designated agent of The Endowment Fund of North Carolina State University, and the
Faculty of the College of Natural Resources under a Memorandum of Understanding between the
US Army Corps of Engineers and the Endowment Fund of North Carolina State University.
2.0 SITE 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
Jacksonvillle, NC (Figures 1 and 2). In the early to mid-1970's, about 400 acres along a 2.5-mile
strip on Sopp Hollow Road was cleared for agriculture (Figure 3). This site is on the
southwestern fringe of the White Oak Pocosin as shown on the Jacksonville NW USGS
topographic quad chart (Figure 4). The field in the northwestern end of the area (Block 1) was
farmed for several years and has the status of Prior Converted" (PC) agricultural land. Most of
the remaining area (Blocks 2-5) was never farmed in its entirety, although strips next to the road
were apparently cultivated for a short time, perhaps by the NCWRC as dove fields. GIS Potential
Restoration and Enhancement site data from the NC Division of Coastal Management identify all
five blocks as potential restoration or enhancement comprised of degraded wetlands and former
0
• •
f? Jones
Miles 1
o so 100
onslow
•
Figure 1 - Location of Hofmann Forest, straddling the Jones and Onslow county line, in the lower coastal plain of
North Carolina.
•

Figure 2. Location map for Hofmann Forest.
0
0 0
a•
? N
n
4'Myi
c mil
v
o Wetland Mitigation
a£ Site
o i
'yo
Ho n Forest
HQ
1
1
r
Jacksonv C 0 1 2 Miles ob??
At i
Figure 3. Location of wetland mitigation site.
•
4

.Y=t= z _
Gatee

t'
b
s
y
C
hFt

~a ?
0 ; ?; \-, = 4000
?- /? - - - -
Figure 4. Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation Site Boundary (Jacksonville NW topographic quad).
5
7c.i _ 1
? ?
e
•
Q
Wet Flatwoods
Pocosln
'?'•: Non-Wetland
Enhancement Sites
III Managed Pineland
-- Streams
Roads
•
•
III I ?,
I 0
Figure 5. CAMA delineated potential wetland restoration sites, Onslow County, NC.
6
wetland areas that could be restored or enhanced to wet flat and pocosin community types
(Figure 5). The most recent evaluation of the wetland status of the 400-acre site was made by the
Corps of Engineers which has confirmed that this entire site is non-wetland because of excessive
drainage (Mickey Sugg, February 2001).
2.1 Hydrology
Road construction and associated ditching was done in this area around 1936. The ditches
effectively drained the area. Side roads and ditches, and lateral ditches in the fields were dug in
preparation for clearing the fields. Roadside and lateral ditches were measured and the locations
of culverts were identified in 1997 (Figure 6). In 1997, ten manual ground water monitoring
wells were installed throughout the site to determine current hydrology status: 2 wells in each of
the 5 blocks (Figure 7). Two additional wells were installed at reference sites - one in the pond
pine natural stand on site, and the other off of Sandridge Road in a hardwood stand on organic
soil (Figure 8). The ground water depths were recorded from March 1 to June 21, 1997 (Table
1). The 12 wells indicated an absence of wetland hydrology for at least 3 weeks during the
growing season in 1997 (Appendix 1). In winter, 2000, 15 automated recording wells were
installed: two in each of the five blocks, and one at each of five reference sites (Figure 9).
Unfortunately, the wells did not work properly during the early portion of the growing season
because of software problems. Therefore, much of the data are considered unuseable until
August, 2000, when all wells were operational (see Section 3.1.1 Hydrology).
We also have 6 years of surface water monitoring from the Hofmann Forest at 42 outfalls around
the Forest and two at Catfish Lake on the Croatan National Forest which serve as relatively
undisturbed reference sites. Our New River (NR) 19 site carries most of the water from the
restoration site toward the New River. Results based on 15 attributes from NR 19 are included
here with the average of the two Catfish Lake sites. In lieu of standards for forest surface waters,
we list for comparison the DWQ standards for Class C waters which carry best usage designation
of water for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (Appendix 2A).
These data provide useful baseline water quality information that can be used to help evaluate the
success of the wetland restoration.
2.2 Soils
Based on the Onslow County Soil Survey, soils mapped within the HFWMB include Pantego
Mucky Loam (Pn), and Croatan Muck (Ct) (Table 2). Block 1 is almost entirely Pn, with a
narrow band of On at the extreme northern end. Field verification of Block 1 did reveal a narrow
band of Onslow Loamy Fine Sand (On) on the northern boundary along Quaker Bridge Road,
shown on some maps. Block 2 is predominantly Ct, with a small area of Pn in its northwestern
corner. Blocks 3 and 4 are Ct. Block 5 is predominantly Ct with a substantial area of Pn on the
southern end (Figure 10). Pn and Ct are both hydric soils. For a description of each soil series
see Appendix 3.
•
7
•
•
N
YJ j
J
$ • Culvert
O
Direction of water flow
33 Forest roads
33
a
N
N N$ g
J?
J $ W ?
? O
W
0
3' 3 pp
O
N S
00 °o
'UJ
4 p0
10
P
c N N$ 4+
o °
00
o°
? , 61 42
1Q 'AS
m 'Q D
Q. w O
1.0
.J N
O
0 2000 4000 Feet ° ea
Figure 6. Average width and depth of ditches (in feet). Width in black, depth in reel.
8
•

•
9
•
C7
N
S?
?aa
10 9`0
1 ?e 12 REF
REF
CP 7
5
CC 3
1
0
o?
0 0.5 1 Miles
S Figure 8. Location of ground water monitoring wells from which data were collected in 1997.
10

• •
Table 1. Ground water monitoring well data for 1997.
>.4N? _i?z , De th:to Water Table in
Well # 3/1/1997 3/13/1997 3/22/1997 3/28/1997 4/11/1997 4/17/1997 4/30/1997 5/7/1997 5/21/1997
1 - - 2.00 5.50 13.75 15.50 0.50 5.00 10.00
2 - - 13.00 14.50 22.88 25.00 11.75 14.25 18.25
3 - 18.00 15.50 17.00 21.00 22.50 13.25 16.50 17.00
4 - - 12.50 14.06 18.00 19.00 11.25 14.00 14.75
5 6.00 9.50 4.50 8.25 13.00 14.50 2.38 7.50 9.50
6 - 19.50 16.25 18.12 23.25 24.38 14.75 18.88 19.50
7 10.75 16.25 8.75 14.00 20.25 21.62 6.38 13.12 16.25
8 - 21.50 9.50 20.62 24.00 25.00 14.50 20.00 21.12
9 - >33.0 >33.0 >33.0 >33.0 >33.0 >33.0 >33.0 >33.0
10 - 11.00 3.00 8.00 22.00 24.00 0.25 8.00 17.75
11 - 14.00 10.00 12.00 21.00 23.00 5.25 13.00 18.31
12 - - 24.50 26.50 >33.0 >33.0 25.00 >33.0 >33.0
11
•
•
•
•
•
•
Figure 10. Soils map of the Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank site.
13
Table 2. Summary of soil mapping units within Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation
• Bank, Onslow Co., NC
Mapping
Symbol Soil type Soil Subgroup
Ct Croatan Muck Loamy, siliceous, dysic, thermic
Terric Haplosaprists
Pn Pantego Mucky Loam Fine-loamy, siliceous, semiactive,
thermic, Umbric Paleaquults
Based on soil taxonomy, not field verified (feet).
Depth to High
Water Table'
0-1.0
0 - 1.5
2.3 Plant Communities
There are currently no natural plant communities within the HFWMB because of its land use
history. Early successional vegetation had invaded the site as demonstrated by a vegetation
survey in 1997. Windrows were a significant feature of the landscape and were sampled
• separately from level terrain (Appendix 4). The following wetland plant communities will be
targeted for establishment at the HFWMB:
Pine Savanna Forest: The overstory tree species which dominates this plant community
type is longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). The mid-story may include pond pine (Pinus
serotina), cypress (Taxodium disticum), swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora), red maple,
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra), sweetgum, and loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda). The shrub understory species include: red bay, loblolly bay, gallberry
holly, red maple, fetterbush, horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria), and highbush blueberry
(Vaccinium corymbosum). Understory ferns and vines include netted chain fern,
cinnamon fern, greenbriar, and wild grape. This plant community is typically found on
wet flats.
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest: The overstory tree species that dominate this plant
community type include: sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Ater rubruml,
yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxiij,
blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), willow oak (Quercus phellos), water oak (Quercus nigra),
and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Understory trees and shrubs include: red bay
(Persea borbonia), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), American holly (Ilex opaca), and gallberry
holly (Ilex coriacea). The non-woody understory includes: giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), netted chain fern (Woodwardia aereolata), cinnamon fern (Osmunda
•
14
cinnamonea), partridgeberry (Mitchella repens), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
• wild grape (vitis rotundifolia), and greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia). This plant
community is typically found on wet flats.
Nonriverine Wet Cypress Forest: This type is similar to the Nonriverine Wet Hardwood
Forest except that a single species, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) dominates the
overstory. Mid-story species typically include species found in the overstory of the wet
hardwood forest. Other mid-story and understory species are typical of the Nonriverine
Wet Hardwood Forest (see above). This plant community is typically found on wet flats
(Table 3).
2.4 Wildlife
The most important goal with regard to wildlife is to add diversity of vegetation for food and shelter
for many differing wildlife species. The addition of hardwoods, especially oaks, longleaf pine and
cypress will add greatly to vegetational diversity available on this landscape. This site has the
potential to be especially rich in wildlife because of its proximity to a 1600-acre farm on its southeast
boundary. Sightings of black bear, whitetail deer, turkey, raccoons, and bobcats are reported. Mark
Jones, Black Bear Project Leader, NCWRC recently completed an inventory of black bears on the
Hofmann Forest which indicated a high population density (Appendix 5). Planting of oaks in this
area will especially help the small population of turkeys that is now becoming established .
2.5 Ecological Processes and Functions
• A variety of ecological processes and functions can be attributed to wet flats and the variety of
plant community types supported by them such as those to be restored under this plan. These
functions are directly related to the geomorphic/landscape setting and hydrologic attributes of the
wetland type (Brinson 1993). The characteristic hydroperiod of these wet flats varies from
seasonally saturated (WF) to semi-permanently flooded. The fluctuating hydroperiod promotes
alternating cycles of aerobic and anaerobic soil conditions and increases the potential primary
productivity, organic matter decomposition, nutrient mineralization, and denitrification functions.
Seasonally saturated wetlands (WF) are usually located at relatively high landscape positions and
exhibit high subsurface water storage functions. Depressional wetlands (NRS) located at
relatively low landscape positions generally exhibit high flood flow retention functions. The
high degree of microrelief in both wetland types promotes retention of surface flow/upland
runoff and increases the sediment trapping functions within the wetlands. The short-term surface
water retention also results in increased contact time between organic matter and surface water,
and increased carbon export functions.
2.6 Hydrogeomorphic Classification of Wet Flats (WF)
The wet flat wetlands within the HFWMB can be characterized as broad flats with poorly drained
subsoils (sandy clay loam & clay loam) and no apparent inlet or outlets. Drainage of prior
converted wet flats has been improved by the installation of outlets (i.e. ditches). The water
source for WF wetlands is precipitation on regionally elevated water tables due to storms. The
seasonally saturated water regime or hydroperiod (which meets the jurisdictional definition of a
wetland) arises from precipitation inputs combined with low or absent evapotranspiration during
•
15
Table 3. Summary of forest community types within Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation
• Bank, Onslow Co., NC
Plant Community
Description I
Pine Savanna Forest
(Pinus palustris)
Area Mitigation Wetland
(Acres)Activity Type Type
100 Restoration PF04E WF
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest 188
(Quercus-Liquidambar-Nyssa-Pinus)
Nonriverine Wet Cypress Forest 112
(Taxodium disticum)
TOTAL AREA 400
Restoration PFO1 E WF
Restoration PFOIEWF
Restoration
HGM
'Follows Schafale and Weakley (1990); 2 Cowardin et al. (1979) ; 3 Brinson (1993).
• the dormant season and early growing season, slow internal soil drainage, and regionally shallow
groundwater table. The important functions typically attributed to these wetland types include
subsurface water storage, short-term surface water retention, carbon export, and wildlife habitat.
A diverse group of plant community types is associated with the wet flat wetland type in North
Carolina. Historically, the extent of wet flat wetlands within North Carolina coincided with the
natural range of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). Extensive fire-maintained longleaf pine
savannas and flatwoods were once common throughout the region, although mixed hardwood
stands and scattered stands of Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) occupied the wet
flat sites protected from natural wildfires (Christensen, 1981; Garren, 1943; Laderman, 1989).
Fire suppression combined with large scale conversion of the natural longleaf pine forests has
eliminated 97% of the natural longleaf pine flatwoods throughout the Southeast (Frost et al.,
1986; Frost, 1993). Today, the plant communities associated with wet flat wetland types include
remnant longleaf pine flatwoods and savannas, mixed pond pine (Pinus serotina) woodland,
managed loblolly/slash pine plantations (Pinus taeda /Pinus elliottii), mixed pine/hardwood flats,
and hardwood flats. The existing plant community types found on these sites today are
representative of past management activities and fire history. Hardwood flats generally occupy
the wet flat sites with long hydroperiods and naturally long fire return intervals. Precipitation is
the primary input, therefore, these sites are not subject to overbank flooding and nutrient influxes
as with riverine and nonriverine swamp wetlands. During periods of low evapotranspiration,
precipitation and surface runoff collects in microdepressional areas creating small pools. These
pools facilitate a high degree of interaction between surface water and organic material.
is
16
Dissolved organic carbon is exported from the microdepressions as evapotranspiration increase
• and the water table recedes (Mulholland and Kuenzler, 1979). Seasonal fluctuations in the water
table allows for substantial subsurface water storage during the growing season. Subsurface
water storage in wet flats ultimately results in recharge and maintenance of the characteristic
hydroperiod in surrounding nonriverine swamp wetlands.
3.0 MITIGATION
Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act (16 USC 1344), as described in 40 CFR Part
230, states that unavoidable wetland loss resulting from filling activities may be offset by effective
mitigation actions. According to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, mitigation
actions should include avoidance, minimization, restoration, enhancement and compensation for
unavoidable impacts. After all practical attempts to avoid and minimize wetland losses have been
accomplished, compensatory mitigation in one or more of the following types: creation, restoration,
enhancement, preservation and acquisition, should be developed.
As identified in the Memorandum of Agreement between the USACE and USEPA (November 15,
1989), wetland restoration is the most desirable form of mitigation. Creation is the second most
desirable form, and is generally deemed more desirable than enhancement or preservation of
wetlands. Acquisition of existing wetlands (preservation) is favored for corridor protection and as a
means to hedge against future destruction or unfavorable habitat impacts. Ideally, compensatory
• mitigation should be in-kind and on-site to provide for functional replacement. Wetland areas at or
adjacent to project sites have historically been created, restored, enhanced or protected to compensate
for impacted wetland functions and values. However, in areas with significant long-term
development pressures, the quantity and quality of the wetlands that can be successfully restored
and/or created around the periphery of a wetland impact site are often limited. Therefore, off-site
mitigation may be the best alternative.
3.1 Proposed Restoration
3.1.1 Hydrology
Twenty-six new, permanent ditch plugs will be added to the 22 permanent ditch plugs already in
place (Figure 11 A-E). All ditch plugs will be flush with surrounding natural field grade, and
will utilize native fill material with rip-rap on the sloping ends and native grasses on top (Figure
12). Natural wetland hydrology will be permanently restored with this system. Because this site
is on the fringe of a pocosin, its natural hydrology is expected to be intermediate between the low
pocosin and adjacent pine flats.
Hydrologic flow patterns were observed at moderate to low flow in March, 2001. The ditch
along the west side of Sopp Hollow is shallow and already plugged at six places which are used
as access points to the fields. There is a water divide about midway north to south in Block 1 as
evidenced by the change in direction of flow in the large ditch on the east side of Sopp Hollow
•
17

•
18
Figure 11 A. Significant features of the hydrologic restoration plan for Block 1.
•
•
•

Figure 11B. Significant features of the
v Existing ditch plugs
Ditch plugs at grade
j Now or rerouted culvert
NExisting culvert
Existing ditch network
New drainage
/V Natural drainage (stream
1
i
ogic restoration plan for Block 2.
i
19
i
I
•

•
20
Figure II C. Significant features of the hydrologic restoration plan for Block 3.

11
•
21
•
•
•
hydrologic restoration
22
0 9 0
Existing grade
Grass and Rip-Rap surfaced
earthen ditch plug at grade
12 to 14 ft across
Eft - 8ft in depth
itch invert (bottom)
Cross-sectional
View
Existing grade \ A^ rcx. 20 ft in len tr
Rip-Rap Lateral (Side)
Y
Earthen ditch plug -Rip-Rap View
w
Ditch invert (bottom)
18 to 24 ft IS to 24 ft
Edges of (variable)
A rox. 20 ft in length (variable) Top Down
ditch - Top edges
sta a 3:1 sE".
invert (bottom) of ditch banks View
Figure 12. Cross sectional, lateral and top views of the ditch plugs to be installed as part of the hyrologic restoration.
23
Road (Figure II A). The southern portion of Block 1 drains south, and all of Blocks 2 and 3
• drain north to collector ditches along the interior roads which will be plugged (Figures 11 A-C).
The north end of Block 4 drains north and the south end drains south into collector ditches which
will be plugged (Figure 11 D). Ditches in Block 5 have already been plugged or will be. All
collector ditches along interior roads on the project flow east to west. Collector ditches on Cow
Horn, Layman and Nobles Roads drain east toward the project, at least at moderate to low flow.
However, as water levels are raised in the project area, water would be expected to flow
westward in those ditches because all the natural outfalls are west, north and south. There is also
a water divide on the west side of Block 4 such that part of Block 4 and all of Block 5 drain
south in the west collector ditch toward Hewitts Branch Road, toward a natural outfall which is a
headwater of Hewitts Branch. The west collector ditch also carries water from the northern part
of Block 4, and Blocks 3, and 2 northward toward a natural outfall, Bear Prong, the headwaters
of which are northwest of Joe H Road which divides Blocks 1 and 2 (Figure 5).
Our hydrologic restoration plan specifies installation of 26 ditch plugs and moving of one culvert
at the intersection of Quaker Bridge and Sopp Hollow Roads. The natural fall in the fringe areas
of this domed pocosin about four to six feet of fall between the high point (56 feet) on the project
at the intersection of Quaker Bridge and Sopp Hollow Roads to the fifty foot contour near
receiving waters of Bear Prong and Hewitts Branch. The culvert at the northeast corner of Block
1 is under Sopp Hollow Road, emptying amain ditch along Quaker Bridge Road into the project.
In order to prevent water from backing up outside of the project area, the culvert will be
reinstalled under Quaker Bridge Road to empty into the collector ditch on the northwest side of
• Quaker Bridge Road.
In order to maintain forest productivity in the area east of the project, a main collector ditch will
be dug about 415 feet west of and parallel to the existing, to be plugged, collector ditch on the
west boundary of the project. The new collector ditch will extend northwest and southeast
opposite Blocks 2-5 (Figures 11 A-E). That ditch will empty into Bear Prong on the northwest
and Hewitts Branch on the southeast.
In winter, 2000, 15 automated recording wells were installed; two in each of the five blocks, and
one at each of five reference sites (Figure 9). Wells were installed according to guidelines
outlined by the U.S. Army Corps, Waterways Experiment Station (West, 2000). Unfortunately,
the wells did not work properly during the early growing season of 2000 because of software
problems, so no usable data were obtained until mid-summer. These wells are now operational
and will be monitored monthly, year round for the required monitoring period.
3.1.2 Hydrologic Criteria
The hydrologic success criteria for this bank will be met if well data from the restoration areas
indicates that the site is saturated within 12 inches of the surface or inundated for a minimum of
12% of the growing season under normal conditions. Verification of wetland hydrology will be
determined by automatic data recording wells collected within the HFWMB project area and
reference plots (Sect. 2. 1, Figure 9). Date will be recorded twice daily.
•
24
3.1.3 Soils
• Project success is dependent on the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology in the
restoration areas. Areas of existing hydric soils within prior converted agricultural fields have
been delineated using the hydric soil criteria outlined in Hydric Soils of the United States (SCS,
1991) and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 3.1 (MRCS, 1996).
Various soil amendments are components of the restoration effort including lime and bio-solids
(see description in the following section).
3.1.4 Plant Community Establishment
The HFWMB is designed to promote development of a mixture of plant community types
including pine savanna forest, nonriverine wet hardwood forest, and nonriverine cypress forest.
Species are planted in a variety of arrangements, but the overall project simulates a natural
wetland community A fringe pocosin site such as this one can be expected to naturally support a
wider variety of species than a typical low pocosin site. Blocks 1 and 2 were planted in March
1999. Block 1 contains a species trial in two strips (17 acres), four wildlife strips (8 acres), six
hardwood and cypress strips (46 acres), and an area cleared after the 1999 planting which was
planted with longleaf pine when Block 3 was planted. Block 2 contains a replicate of the species
trial in two strips (18 acres), five hardwood and cypress strips (47 acres), and four wildlife strips
(8 acres). Species planted in the species trial include: longleaf pine, bald cypress, red maple,
sweet gum, cherrybark oak, green ash, water oak, and willow oak. Species planted in the other
areas were: bald cypress, red maple, sweet gum, water oak, green ash, and willow oak. Oaks
planted in the wildlife area were: swamp chestnut, live, willow, sawtooth, and overcup
• (Appendix 6).
The soils on this site are extremely (Croatan) to strongly acid (Pantego). The species trials in
Blocks 1 and 2, and the wildlife plantings in all Blocks include a large component of oaks.
Evaluation of mature (50+ years) bottomland hardwood plantings in Kentucky indicates that
structure and composition of planted stands approximates natural stands; however, hard mast
producing species were conspicuously absent in naturally regenerated stands of similar age
(Shear et al., 1996). Therefore, it is important to include a large oak component in plantings to
ensure the long-term presence of hard mast producing species in these restored wetland forests.
On Block 1, lime-stabilized bio-solids from the Raleigh Municipal Waste facility were applied at
rates of 2.75 tpa (tons per acre) on hardwood/cypress and wildlife areas, at 5.5 tpa on species trial
Area 1, and at 8.3 tpa on species trial Area 2. That is a total of 270 tons applied on 71 acres. The
bio-solids have a calcium equivalent of 50% compared to agricultural lime. By contrast, wood
ash from the Hydroco Plant in New Bern has a calcium equivalent of about 33% of agricultural
lime. Therefore, it was applied at higher rates of 4.5 tpa on hardwood/cypress and wildlife areas
of Block 2 (except that 15 acres of hardwood/cypress area were left untreated), 22.7 tpa on
species trial Area 1, and 13.6 tpa on species trial Area 2. This was a total of 456 tons on 66
acres. Measurements of growth response to varying levels of liming will begin after the third
growing season.
All planting stock was locally grown by the State Forest Service and/or forest industry nurseries.
High quality, 1/0 bare root seedlings were planted, except for longleaf pine which was container
grown stock. Following planting, pre-emergent herbicides were applied by a licensed applicator.
•
25
Herbicide was applied again in spring 2000, prior to spring flush. Survival after one and two
• growing season was exceptionally good for all species, and especially good for the oaks
compared to typical expectations (Tables 4 A-B).
One of the values of wetlands that is not often cited is serving as a fire break for wild fires. This
value will become increasingly important as suburban dwellers settle ever closer and closer to
rural forest land. Where it is difficult or impossible to manage fuel loading in an area like the
White Oak Pocosin, a good alternative is to mange a wetland as a fire break based not only on
hydrology, but also on vegetation. Crown fires in this vegetation type are the most dangerous
and damaging type of wildfire. To stop a crown fire there must be a break in available crown
fuel, and an area clear of ground fuels to prevent spotting forward of the main fire front.
Hardwoods and bald cypress do not support crown fires and longleaf pine can be prescribed
burned at three to four years after planting. Therefore, our proposal for Blocks 3, 4 and 5 is to
plant 40% of each block next to Sopp Hollow Road in longleaf pine, to plant a middle corridor
with 20% of the area in mixed oaks and other species of benefit to wildlife, and to plant the
remaining 40% in bald cypress (Figure 12).
3.1. 5 Vegetation Criteria
The success criteria for vegetational establishment in the HFWMB will be based on survival and
growth of preferred species at the end of the five-year monitoring period, which begins when
hydrologic structures are in place. Survival of preferred species must be at a minimum of 300
stems/acre with an average of six (6) feet of height growth. A maximum of 20% of preferred tree
and scrub species may be of natural origin provided that they are native to and adapted to the
• restored site.
The successfully completed restoration activities will provide the following plant community
types in the HFWMB:
Pine Savanna Forest (100 acres): This type is all longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) with naturally
occurring mixtures of species native to the site which can survive or thrive with fire. There are 2
acres of restoration in Block 1, 2 acres of enhancement in Block 2, and there will be 96 acres of
enhancement in Blocks 3, 4 and 5. Container grown planting stock was, and will be, used
exclusively. Longleaf pine can be grown without the need to raise soil pH with soil amendments.
Nonriverine wet hardwood forest (188 acres): A large variety of hardwood tree species
including 6 species of oak were planted in Blocks 1 and 2 (Table 4 and Appendix 7 6).
Hardwood species trials totaling 24 acres are in Blocks 1 and 2. Commercial plantings of
hardwoods in Block 1 and 2 total 36 acres. Hardwood plantings in Block 3, 4 and 5 for wildlife
habitat enhancement, will total 48 acres which is 20% of the area. Species composition will be
similar to that in the wildlife areas in Blocks 1 and 2.
•
26
•
Table 4A. Survival after one growing season, 2000, by species in the species trial
research areas in Blocks 1 and 2 of the Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank.
REP 1
REP 2
• REP 3
J
2000 Block 1
Area 1 1R1) Area 2 1R2)
Species planted % Survival % Survival
Bald Cypress 87 80
Cherrybark Oak 53 67
Green Ash 73 80
Longleaf Pine 67 67
Red Maple 73 80
Sweet um 93 93
Water Oak 60 67
Willow Oak 67 87
Species planted % Survival % Survival
Bald Cypress 93 87
Cherrybark Oak 60 40
Green Ash 73 80
Longleaf Pine 60 60
Red Maple 93 80
Sweet um 93 93
Water Oak 60 60
Willow Oak 60 60
Species planted % Survival % Survival
Bald Cypress 93 87
Cherr bark Oak 80 67
Green Ash 60 93
Longleaf Pine 53 60
Red Maple 73 93
Sweet um 93 93
Water Oak 60 60
Willow Oak 67 73
Species planted % Survival % Survival
Bald Cypress 93 73
Cherr bark Oak 73 47
Green Ash 93 87
Longleaf Pine 67 67
Red Maple 93 73
Sweet um 100 67
Water Oak 67 53
Willow Oak 60 60
Block 2
Area 1 2111) Area 2 (2112)
% Survival % Survival
90 85
50 30
90 90
85 80
90 80
90 90
60 65
80 60
% Survival % Survival
90 95
50 60
90 90
90 90
90 90
90 90
60 75
60 70
% Survival °h Survival
90 90
40 45
85 90
85 95
90 85
90 90
65 70
70 65
% Survival % Survival
90 90
60 35
85 70
80 85
60 90
90 80
60 75
65 60
27

•
•
Table 4B. Survival after two growing seasons, 2000 & 2001, by species in the species trial
research areas in Blocks 1 and 2 of the Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank.
REP 1
i"
II
j REP 2
l_
i
i-
j_ _
REP 3
I
i
I.$€P
i
I
2001 Research Block 1
Area 1 1111 Area 2 1112
Species planted % Survival % Survival
Bald Cypress 80 80
Cherr bark Oak 20 40
Green Ash 50 50
Longleaf Pine 60 80
Red Maple 60 80
Sweet um 100 90
Water Oak 20 60
Willow Oak 20 90
Species planted % Survival % Survival
Bald Cypress 90 70
Cherr bark Oak 30 20
Green Ash 30 70
Longleaf Pine 70 70
Red Maple 50 60
Sweet um 100 100
Water Oak 30 50
Willow Oak 30 50
Species planted % Survival % Survival
Bald Cypress 100 70
Cherr bark Oak 20 30
Green Ash 50 80
Longleaf Pine 60 60
Red Maple 50 60
Sweet um 90 100
W ater Oak 30 20
W lllow Oak 20 60
Species planted % Survival % Survival
Bald Cypress 90 70
Cherr bark Oak 30 30
Green Ash 50 60
Longleaf Pine 90 90
Red Maple 70 70
Sweet um 100 100
Water Oak 20 40
Research Block 2
Area 1 2111 Area 2 2112
% Survival % Survival
60 90
50 50
60 80
80 90
70 90
90 100
50 90
30 50
% Survival % Survival
100 90
40 60
70 80
90 100
90 80
90 100
40 70
40 50
% Survival % Survival
80 100
50 70
100 80
90 80
90 90
70 100
60 70
30 70
% Survival % Survival
80 80
30 50
90 80
60 90
80 80
100 100
40 70
28
0 0 0
Bald Cypress Swamp Forest (40% of area)
"
Wildlife Corridor (20% of area) T-7
30 ft. Firebreak
Longleaf Pine Savanna (40% of area)
Sopp Hollow Road
Figure 13. Planting design for Blocks 3, 4 and 5. (Not to scale)
29
Nonriverine Cypress Swamp Forest (112 acres): Bald cypress (Taxodium disticum) was included
• in the species trial (4 acres) and in small commercial areas totaling 12 acres in Blocks 1 and 2,
and is proposed to cover 40% (96 acres) of Blocks 3, 4 and 5. Cypress can be grown without the
need to raise soil pH with soil amendments.
3.2 Reference Plot Locations
Four reference plots for nonriverine wet hardwood flats were established in intermediate to
mature examples of two community types. Number 2 (Figure 9) is in a bald cypress swamp, and
numbers 3, 4 and 5 are in mixed hardwood stands in wet flats. Reference Number 1 will be
relocated to a longleaf savanna site on the Croatan National Forest or Camp Lejeune. These
reference locations will meet 1987 Corps Manual criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. The
hydrogeomorphic target conditions for the forested wetland restoration will be those of the
forested wetlands that are described. Descriptions of vegetation will be done as soon as all plots
are suitably located and show acceptable hydrology.
The original location of site Number 1 was in a low pocosin which did not show hydrology due
to drainage (Figure 9, Appendix Table 2B-11). Moreover, low pocosin is not a target
vegetational community for restoration. The cypress reference site is in the right vegetation but
may be too close to the roadside drainage ditch and may need to be moved further into the stand.
• This years hydrology should be informative (Figure 9, Appendix Table 2B-12). Reference sites
3-5, mixed hardwood, are showing good hydrology (Figure 9, Appendix Table 2B-13, 14,15).
3.3 Schedule for Completion of HFWMB
Spring 2002 Measure seedlings in Blocks land 2.
Plant Block 3.
Site prepare Blocks 4 and 5.
Settle on final locations of reference plots and describe them.
Get signatures on the MBI.
Summer, Fall 2002 Complete site preparation of Blocks 4 and 5.
Install hydrologic restoration structures.
Write annual report for 2002.
Winter 2003 Monitoring period begins.
Check survival and growth of Blocks 1-3.
Bed and plant Blocks 4 and 5..
Spring 2003-
Winter 2007 Continue monitoring and reports until final approval of the Bank.
•
30
3.4 Water Budget Analysis
• Method of Thornthwaite and Mather (1955)
A water balance was determined for the approximate area of the Hofmann Forest wetland
restoration site using the adjusted Thornthwaite method for Eastern North Carolina, a widely
accepted hydrological model (Table 5). The following data was used in the computations: Long-
term (1982-1999) precipitation data, acquired from the nearest meteorological station (Station
313144 - Hofrnann Forest, NC), average monthly day lengths determined for Jacksonville, NC
from U.S. Naval meteorological observation data, and other parameters needed for the model
including soil texture, mean vegetative rooting depth, and water-holding capacity. The
approximate soil texture parameter used was fine sandy loam (soils varied on the site from muck,
loam, to loamy fine sand), the vegetative rooting depth was approximated to be 1.0 meter for
existing vegetation, and the water holding capacity in the root zone was estimated to be 150 mm
(Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Table 5 illustrates the water balance model using long-term
precipitation data and the temperature-based Thornthwaite potential evapotranspiration (PET)
formula. This formula is as follows:
PET = 1.6 * Ld * (10 * TC/I)a
Where:
I = the annual heat index
a=(1.6/100)*I+0.5
•
PET = potential evapotranspiration in cm/month
T = average temperature for the month in degrees C
Ld = daytime hours in units of 12
Potential evapotranspiration is greatest for the months of May, June, and July during the growing
season due to higher temperatures and increased transpiration from growing vegetation (Figure
13). Based on the water balance model, there is a soil moisture deficit for the months of May,
June, and July (Figures 14 and 15). However, this deficit is partially fulfilled by the antecedent
moisture surplus in the soil from previous months. For the remainder of the year, there is a soil
moisture surplus. In order to determine a more accurate measurement of the hydroperiod for the
site, monitoring wells have been located in the restoration area to record water table depths.
•
31
• • •
Table 5. Calculation of monthly water balance for the Hofmann State Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank using the methods of the Thomthwaite
Water Balance Model for a fine sandy loam soil (closest approximation for composite A horizon) with vegetation rooted to a depth of 1.00 in and
a water holding capacity in the root zone of 150 mm. From Dunne and Leopold (1978).
LONG TERM MEAN (1982 -1999)
Water Balance
Component (mm)
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
1. P 123.1 108.5 123.1 77.4 90.6 125.1 188.3 183.2 173.8 103.6 94.3 81.3
PET 30.5 31.6 66.6 105.6 121.8 139.7 136.5 114.7 95.8 55.1 31.6 14.3
P -PET 92.6 77.0 56.6 -28.2 -31.1 -14.6 51.8 68.5 78.0 48.5 62.7 67.0
Acc Pot WL 0.0 0.0 0.0 -28.2 -31.1 -14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SM 150.0 150.0 150.0 112.0 110.0 115.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0
SM A 0.0 0.0 0.0 -38.0 -40.0 -35.0 51.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
AET 30.5 31.6 66.6 115.4 130.6 160.1 136.5 114.7 95.8 55.1 31.6 14.3
SMD 0.0 0.0 0.0 -9.8 -8.9 -20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SMS 92.6 77.0 56.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.5 78.0 48.5 62.7 67.0
10. Avail RO 114.4 105.6 83.0 20.7 5.2 1.3 51.8 81.4 98.4 73.1 81.0 87.3
11. RO 57.2 52.8 41.5 10.4 2.6 0.6 25.9 40.7 49.2 36.6 40.5 43.6
12. D 28.6 26.4 20.7 5.2 1.3 0.3 13.0 20.4 24.6 18.3 20.3 21.8
Explanation of parameters in calculations given above:
1. P = Long term (1982-1999) mean monthly rainfall from Hofmann State Forest weather station no. 314144 (Information provided by the State Climate Office of NCSU).
2. PET = Mean monthly long term (1982-1999) adjusted Thomthwaite (1955) method computed potential evapotranspiration (PET);
3. P-PET = Rainfall minus potential evapotranspiration;
4. Ace Pot WL = Accumulated potential water loss, accumulation of negative values of (P-PET) for the dry season only;
5. SM = Soil moisture calculated using the relationship of accumulated potential water loss versus water retained in the soil given by Dunne & Leopold (1978); (This can also
be computed by the relationship given by Alley (1984) as shown by Dingman (1994);
6. SM 0 = Change in soil moisture during the month
7. AET = Actual evapotranspiration equal to PET when P is larger than PET and equal to sum of P and soil moisture withdrawn from storage when P is less than PET;
8. SMD = Soil moisture deficit is difference between PET and AET;
9. SMS = Soil moisture surplus when excess rainfall is stored in the soil during the wet season. It is zero during the dry period.
10. Total water available for runoff = SMS for the first month with excess soil moisture and then SMS + Avail RO for each subsequent month.
11. RO (runoff) = 50% of Avail RO for each month (based on Thomthwaite and Mather for large catchments (Dunne & Leopold, 1978)).
12. D (Detention) = 5001. of runoff (water that does not run off).
32
0 0 0
200.0
180.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
LO
E 100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
O Precipitation
¦ PET
Figure 4. Long-term precipitation (1982-1999) vs. long-term potential evapotranspiration (PET), adjusted for eastern N.C.
33
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

O Precipitation ¦ PET AET
200.0-
180.0--
160.0-
140.0--
120.0
y
m
E 100.0-
80.0-
60.0-
40.0
20.0
0.0
Jan
Figure 5. Estimated water balance using long-term precipitation data (1982-1999) and calculated potential and actual
evapotranspiration (PET & AET).
34
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Millimeters
? Soil Water Storage
Figure 6. Mean monthly soil water storage using long-term (1982-1999) monthly temperature and rainfall data from Hofinann Forest
weather station #314144.
35
? Nov Dec
4.0 Literature Cited
• Alley, W.M. 1984. Treatment of ET, Soil Moisture Accounting and Aquifer Recharge in
Monthly Water Balance Models. Water Resources Research. Vol. 20, No. 8, pp: 1137-
1149.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program, Technical Report
WRP-DE-4, 79 pp. plus appendix.
Christensen, N.L. 1981. Fire Regimes in Southeastern Ecosystems. Pages 112-136 in H.A.
Mooney, T.M. Bonnicken, N.L. Christensen, J.E. Lotan, and W.A. Reinsers (eds.), Fire
Regimes and Ecosystem Properties. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, General Technical Report
WO-26.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological
ServicesProgram, Biological Report FWS/OBS-79/31, 103 pp.
Dingman, S.L. 1994. Physical Hydrology. McMillan Publishing Co., NY. 520 p.
Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
• Company, NY 400 p.
Frost, C.C., J. Walker, and R.K. Peet. 1986. Fire-Dependent Savannas and Prairies of the
Southeast: Original Extent, Preservation Status, and Management Problems. Pages 348-
356 in D.L. Kulhavey and R.N. Connor (eds.), Wilderness and Natural Areas in the
Eastern United States: A Management Challenge. Center for Applied Studies, School of
Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX. 416 pp.
Frost, C.C. 1993. Four Centuries of Changing Landscape Patterns in the Longleaf Pine
Ecosystem. Pages 17-43 in S.M. Hermann (ed.) Proceedings of the 18`h Tall Timbers Fire
Ecology Conference. Tall Timbers Research, Inc., Tallahassee, FL.
Garren, K.H. 1943. Effects of Fire on Vegetation of the Southeastern United States.
Botanical Review 9:617-654.
Laderman, A.D. 1989. The Ecology of Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands: A Community Profile.
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 85(7.21), 114 pp.
Mulholland, P.J. and E.J. Kuenzler. 1979. Organic Carbon Export from Upland and
Forested Wetland Watersheds. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24(5):960-966.

36
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
• North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, NC. 325 pp.
Shear, T.H., T.J. Lent, and S. Fraver. 1996. Comparison of Restored and Mature
Bottomland Forests of Southwestern Kentucky. Restoration Ecology 4(2):111-123
Thornthwaite, C.W., and J.R. Mather. 1955. The water balance. Philadelphia, PA;
Drexel Institute of Technology, Climatological Laboratory, Publication No. 8.

is
37
APPENDIX lA
• GROUND WATER WELL DATA (1997)
APPENDIX IA
GROUND WATER WELL DATA (1997)
•
0 38
• • •
1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hofmann Forest Ag Land Restoration Site
Well #1
-F Weekly Rainfall Total --&-Depth to Water Table
00
0
12.00- IF- .
1.00

s.oo 2.00
3.00

0.00 4.00
tl1 ?„?
Z 5.00 m
v t
c x.00 6.00 G
m
ev
7.00

L
a? -12.00
00
8
.
0
9.00 Y
d
+- -18.00 d
w 10.00
G.
a>
O 11.00
-24.00
12.00
13.00
-30.00
14.00
15.00
-36.00
Date
• • •
1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hofmann Forest Ag Land Restoration Site
Well #2
--F Weekly Rainfall Total -4b--Depth to Water Table
0
00
12.00 .
1.00
00
2
6.00 .
3.00

0.00 4.00
N
L 5.00 m

G -6.00-
6.00

C
m
7.00 cc

? -12.00 00
5 cQ
. Cr_

3 2.
9.00 Y
a?
-18.00-
4)
w 10.00
C.
p 11.00
-24.00
12.00
13.00
-30.00
14.00
15.00
-36.00
Date
• • •
1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hofmann Forest Ag Land Restoration Site
Well #3
-m- Weekly Rainfall Total -? Depth to Water Table
00
0
12.00 .
1.00
00
6.00 2.
3.00

0.00 4.00
N
L 5.00 m
V Z
v
c -6.00 6.00 C
m G
7.00 C

r -12.00 8.00

co ?
9.00 ,Y
d
+• -18.00 d
10.00
O.
d
O 11.00
-24.00-
12.00
13.00
-30.00
14.00
15.00
-36.00
Date
• • •
1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hofmann Forest Ag Land Restoration Site
Well #4
-m-- Weekly Rainfall Total Depth to Water Table
0.00
12.00
1.00

6.00 2.00
3.00

0.00 4.00
N
t 5.00

-5.00 6.00 C
d

? 7.00 R
w
E
a -12M 8
00 ed
? .
%
9.00 ,Y

0 d
-18.00 d
w 10.00
O.
d
11.00
-24.00-
12.00
13.00
-30.00
14.00
00
15
-36.00 .
Date
• • •
1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hofmann Forest Ag Land Restoration Site
Well #5
f Weekly Rainfall Total --*-Depth to Water Table
0.00
12.00
1.00
00
2
6.00 .
3.00

0.00 4.00
N
t 5.00 d
C
-6.00- 0
6.00
C
? v
7.00

w -12.00 00
8 co
.
3
9.00 Y

v d
-18.00 d
w 10.00
Q
p 11.00
-24.00
12.00
13.00
-30.00
14.00
15.00
-6.00
Date
• • •
1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hofmann Forest Ag Land Restoration Site
Well #6
?- Weekly Rainfall Total - G-Depth to Water Table
0
00
12.00 .
1.00

6.00 2.00
3.00

0.00 4.00
N

5.00 _
N
?
v
c L
-6.00
6.00 C
m
7.00 w
C
-12.00
8.00

9.00 Y

? -18.00 d
L 10.00
C.
m "
D 11.00
.24.00-
12.00
13.00
-30.00
14.00
00
15
-36.00 .
Date
• • •
1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hofmann Forest Ag Land Restoration Site
Well #7
-w-- Weekly Rainfall Total -?-Depth to Water Table
00
0
12.00- IF- .
1.00

6.00 2.00
3.00

0.00 4.00
N

t 5.00 H
d
v t
-6.00
?. 6.00 C
m :.
cc 7.00 w

L -12.00
as
i6 8.00
0
9.00 Y
a?
+r -18.00 y
t
10.00
Q
a?
D 11.00
-24.00-
12.00
13.00
-30.00
14.00
15
00
-36.00 .
Date
• • •
1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hofmann Forest Ag Land Restoration Site
Well #8
?- Weekly Rainfall Total -4-- Depth to Water Table
0.00
12.00- IF-
1.00

6.00 2.00
3.00

0.00 4.00
N
t 5.00 m

c -6.00 6.00 C
d
7.00 ip
L C
-12.00
w 8.00
ea
T
9.00 Y

-18.00 m
w 10.00
Q.
m
p 11.00
-24.00
12.00
13.00
-30.00
14.00
15
00
-36.00 .
Date
• • •
1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hofmann Forest Ag Land Restoration Site
Well #9
f Weekly Rainfall Total -0-- Depth to Water Table

12.00- 4 0.00
1.00

6.00 2.00
3.00

0.00 4.00

5
00 N

C . as
L
-6.00 6.00 C
d

7.00 T
c
L -12.00
? 00
8
.
+ .
Z.
9.00 Y
+- -18.00 y
0 10.00
.
d
11.00
-24.00-
12.00
13.00
-30.00
14.00
15
00
-36.00 .
Date
• • •
1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hofmann Forest Ag Land Restoration Site
Well #10
f Weekly Rainfall Total -?-Depth to Water Table
12.00 0.00
1.00

6.00 2.00
3.00

0.00 4.00
N

L
5.00 _
N
m
v
C L
-6'00 6.00 C
m
F 7.00 w

L -12.00
8.00
?
cv
T
9.00 Y

-18.00 d
10.00
CL
d
O
11.00
-24.00
12.00
13.00
-30.00
14.00
15
00
-36.00 .
Date
0 0 0
1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hofmann Forest Ag Land Restoration Site
Well #11
?- Weekly Rainfall Total --&- Depth to Water Table
0
00
12.00- IF- .
1.00

6.00 2.00
3.00

0.00 4.00

t 5.00 H
m
v
C
-6.00-
6.00

C
m

7.00

-12.00-
CI)
8
00
R .
%
9.00
a?
+r -18.00 ?
a 10.00

m
11.00
-24.00
12.00
13.00
-30.00
14.00
15
00
-36.00 .
Date
• • •
1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hofmann Forest Ag Land Restoration Site
Well #12
--*--Weekly Rainfall Total -*-Depth to Water Table
12.00 0.00
1.00

6.00 2.00
3.00

0.00 4.00
N

t
5.00 _
H
?
v
C t
-6'00 C
6.00
m v

7.00 w

t. -12.00
8.00

9.00 Y
d
+r -18.00 ?
w 10.00
Q
d
?
11.00
-24.00
12.00
13.00
-30.00
14.00
15
00
-36.00 .
Date
• APPENDIX 1B
GROUND WATER WELL DATA (2000-2002)
APPENDIX 1 B
GROUND WATER WELL DATA (2000-2002)
•
0 51
•
• •
25- 15- 05- 26- 15- 06- 26- 16- 05- 26- 18- 08- 28- 19- 08- 29- 19- 09- 29- 19- 09- 30- 19- 10- 30- 20-
Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan- Feb- Feb- Mar- Apr- Apr- May- Jun- Jun- Jul- Aug- Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02
5
0
-5
-10
U) -15
t
V
_C
C -20
t
Q
d -25
O
-30
-35
-40
-45
Appendix Figure 1 B - 1
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Well #1 (Block 1, north) - Ground Water Levels
0 0 0
25- 13- 01- 20- 07- 26- 14 02- 20- 08- 26- 17- 04 23- 11- 30- 17- 06- 24 12- 30- 18- 06- 25- 12- 01- 19- 07- 25-
Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Jan- Feb- Feb- Mar- Apr- Apr- May- May- Jun- Jul- Jul- Aug- Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02
5
0
-5
-10
N
-15
L
V
C
C_ -20
L
w
y -25
O
-30
-35
-40
-45
Appendix Figure 1B -1
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Well #1 (Block 1, north) - Ground Water Levels
• •
29- 17- 05- 24- 11- 30- 18- 06- 24- 12- 02- 21- 08- 27- 15- 03- 21- 10- 28- 16- 03- 22- 10- 29- 16- 05- 23- 11- 29-
Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Jan- Feb- Mar- Mar- Apr- Apr- May- Jun- Jun- Jul- Jul- Aug- Sep- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02
0-
-5
-10
-15
N
d
L
V -20
C
E
w -25
a
CD
O
-30
-35
-40
-45
Appendix Figure 1 B - 2
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Well #2 (Block 1, south) - Ground water levels
•
• •
25- 12- 01- 19- 07- 25- 14- 01- 20- 07- 26- 16- 04- 22- 11- 29- 17- 05- 24- 11- 30- 17- 06- 24- 12- 30- 19- 06- 25-
Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Jan- Feb- Feb- Mar- Apr- Apr- May- May- Jun- Jul- Jul- Aug- Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- NOV- Dec- Jan- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02
0
-5
-10
y -15
L
V
C -20
L -25
G.
om
O -30
-35
-40
-45
Appendix 1 B - 3
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Well #3 ( Block 2, north) - Ground water levels
• • •
05- 29- 22- 15- 08- 01- 24 17- 10- 03- 26- 20- 12- 05- 28- 24 16- 10- 02- 26- 19- 12- 04 28- 21- 14 07- 31- 23-
Apr- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02
0
-5
i
-10
-15
N
d
L
U -201 4
S
L -25
G.
d
D
-30
-35
-40
-45
Appendix 1 B - 4
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Well #4 (Block 2, south) - Ground water levels
• • •
05- 29- 22- 15- 08- 01- 24- 17- 10- 03- 26- 20- 12- 05- 28- 24- 16- 10- 02- 26- 19- 12- 04- 28- 21- 14 07- 31- 23-
Apr- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02
5
0
i
i
-5
-10
to
_ -15
V
C
C 20
L
-25
O
-30
-35
-40
-45
Appendix 1 B - 5
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Well #5 (Block 3, north) - Ground water levels
• • •
06- 30- 23- 16- 09- 02- 25- 18- 11- 04 27- 21- 13- 06- 01- 25- 17- 11- 03- 27- 20- 13- 05- 29- 22- 15- 08- 01- 24-
Apr- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02
5
I
'6. 1%6 Ik 1h
0
-5
i
-10
H
d
t -15
V
C_
C_ -20
t
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
Appendix 1 B - 6
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Well #6 (Block 3, south) - Ground water levels
• • •
21- 09- 26- 13- 30- 18- 04- 22- 08- 26- 15- 02- 19- 07- 24- 11- 28- 16- 02- 20- 06- 24- 11- 29- 15- 03- 20- 07- 24-
Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Jan- Feb- Feb- Mar- Apr- Apr- May- May- Jun- Jun- Jul- Aug- Aug- Sep- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02
0-
-5
-10
a -15
ar
L
-20-
C
-25-
-30-
-35 -40
-45
Appendix 1B - 7
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Well #7 (Block 4, north) - Ground water levels
• • •
29- 17- 05- 24- 11- 30- 18- 06- 24- 12- 02- 21- 08- 27- 15- 03- 21- 10- 28- 16- 03- 22- 10- 29- 16- 05- 23- 11- 29-
Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Jan- Feb- Mar- Mar- Apr- Apr- May- Jun- Jun- Jul- Jul- Aug- Sep- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02
0
-5
i
-10
?I
-15-
-20-
-25-
CL
m
O
-30
-35
-40
-45
Appendix 1 B - 8
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Well #8 (Block 4, south) - Ground water levels
• • •
23- 14- 06- 28- 19- 10- 02- 24- 15- 07- 29- 20- 11- 05- 27- 18- 10- 01- 23- 15- 06- 28- 19- 11- 02- 24- 16- 07- 29-
May- Jun- Jul- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jun- Jul- Aug- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02
5
0
i
-5
i -10
N
r -15
v
c
c -20
t
r
a -25
O
-30
-35
-40
-45
Appendix 1B - 9
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Well #9 (Block 5, north) - Ground water levels
• • •
21- 09- 28- 17- 05- 24- 13- 01- 20- 08- 27- 18- 06- 25- 14- 02- 21- 10- 29- 17- 05- 24- 13- 01- 20- 09- 28- 16-
Aug- Sep- Sep- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Jan- Feb- Feb- Mar- Apr- Apr- May- Jun- Jun- Jul- Jul- Aug- Sep- Sep- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02
5
0
-5
-10
N
t -15
v
c
c -20
r
°- -25
d
D
-30
-45
-35
-40
Appendix 1 B -10
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Well #10 (Block 5, south) - Ground water levels
0 0 0
02- 22- 10- 30- 19- 08- 27- 17- 05- 25- 13- 05- 24- 13- 02- 22- 10- 30- 19- 08- 27- 16- 05- 25- 13- 03- 22- 11-
Aug- Aug- Sep- Sep- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Jan- Feb- Mar- Mar- Apr- May- May- Jun- Jun- Jul- Aug- Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02
0
-5
-10
ILI
-15
N
t
_ 20-
S
-25
CL
W
-30
-35
-40
-45
Appendix 1 B -11
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Pocosin Road
Reference Well No. 1 (Low Pocosin)* - Ground Water Levels
* To be relocated to a longleaf pine savanna site (see Section 3.2)
• • •
c
-1C
N
t -15
c_
c -20
t
CL -25
O
-30
-35
-40
-45
Aug-
30- 17- 06- 24- 12- 30- 19- 06- 25- 12- 03- 21- 09- 27- 16- 03- 22- 10- 29- 16- 04-22- Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Jan- Feb- Mar- Mar- Apr- 11- 29- 17' 05- 24- 11-
May- Jun- Jun Jul- Jul- Aug- Sep Sep Oct_ Oct_ Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 n1 M
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Kitts Island Rd.
Reference Well No. 2 (Cypress) -Ground water levels

•
29- 17- 05- 24- 11- 30- 18- 06- 24- 12- 02- 21- 08- 27- 15- 03- 21- 10- 28- 16- 03- 22- 10- 29- 16- 05- 23- 11- 29-
Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Jan- Feb- Mar- Mar- Apr- Apr- May- Jun- Jun- Jul- Jul- Aug- Sep- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02
10
5
0
-5
j ayi -10
t
c -15-
-20-
r+
CL
d
O -25-
-30-
-35-
-40-
-45-
Appendix 1 B -13
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site NR 19/Bear Prong at Quaker Bridge Rd.
Reference Well No. 3 (Mixed Hardwood) - Ground water levels
0 0 0
25- 12- 01- 19- 07- 25- 14- 01- 20- 07- 26- 16- 04- 22- 11- 29- 17- 05- 24- 11- 30- 17- 06- 24- 12- 30- 19- 06- 25-
Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Jan- Feb- Feb- Mar- Apr- Apr- May- May- Jun- Jul- Jul- Aug- Aug- Sep- Oct- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02
5
0
w
! r s
f ?
c
c
t
y -10
D
-15
-20
Appendix 1 B -14
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Weyco/Quaker Bridge Rd.
Reference Well No. 4 (Mixed Hardwood) - Ground water levels

05- 29- 22- 15- 08- 01- 24- 17- 10- 03- 26- 20- 12- 05- 28- 24- 16- 10- 02- 26- 19- 12- 04- 28- 21- 14- 07- 31- 23-
Apr- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Dec- Jan-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02
5
0
-5
-10
N
s -15
v
c
c -20
r
m -25
O
-30
-35
-40-
-45-
Appendix 1 B -15
Hofmann Wetland Mitigation Site Wide Open Road
Reference Well No. 5 (Mixed Hardwood) - Ground water levels
APPENDIX 2
• WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA
APPENDIX 2
WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA
•
0 67
Hofmann Water Quality Data Summary: Catfish Lake and New River 19
• Data collected from March 1995 to January 2001
Catfish Lake I New River 19
•
Variable Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Standard1 Units
TSS: 0.0001 0.0012 -0.0002 0.0003 0.0024 -0.0002 3.67 g/100m1
Temp: 14.04 22.28 5.39 14.44 24.05 2.71 32 C
pH: 4.150 6.170 3.100 3.730 5.880 3.180 4.3 "
D.O.: 4.610 7.790 0.700 5.510 9.800 0.800 5.04 mg/L
S.C.: 79 115 40 101 148 11 171.55 u
Turbidity: 9.180 40.300 0.450 17.540 42.000 4.800 50 ntu
H2O Depth: 0.950 3.150 0.000 1.800 4.000 0.000 n/a ft
Fecal Coliform: 46 470 10 75 590 10 200 colonies/100m1
NO3: 0.100 0.300 0.100 0.100 0.400 0.100 0.64 5 mg N/L
NH4: 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.400 0.100 0.095 mg N/L
TKN: 0.510 1.450 0.160 1.020 2.500 0.350 3 mg N/L
P04: 0.010 0.020 0.010 0.020 0.080 0.010 0.08 5 mg P/L
t-P04: 0.020 0.080 0.010 0.030 0.100 0.010 0.13 5 mg P/L
TOC: 26.40 45.00 15.00 45.80 79.00 28.00 3 mg C/L
As: 0.100 0.200 0.080 0.100 0.200 0.080 0.05 mg/I
Ni: 0.030 0.050 0.020 0.040 0.350 0.020 0.088 mg/I
Fe: 0.500 1.980 0.100 0.480 3.530 0.030 1.0 mg/I
Hg: 0.013 0.050 0.005 0.013 0.050 0.005 0.000012 mg/I
Cr: 0.010 0.050 0.010 0.020 0.060 0.010 0.05 mg/I
Ag: 0.020 0.120 0.010 0.046 1.130 0.010 0.00006 2 mg/I
Zn: 0.008 0.020 0.005 0.008 0.020 0.005 0.05 mg/I
Al: 0.000 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.200 0.000 3 mg/I
Cd: 1.399 1.750 0.100 0.912 1.600 0.200 0.002 2 mg/I
Pb: 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.025 mg/I
Cu: 0.080 0.200 0.050 0.070 0.200 0.050 0.007 2 mg/I
Footnotes:
DWQ standards for Class "C" Waters. Best usage of water for aquatic life propagation
2 Detection level exceeds standard.
3 No standards set.
4Values could be lower if caused by natural conditions.
5 Standards not set by DWQ. Means of DWQ sampling site nearest to Hofmann Forest
0
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
• E 0.0015
0 0.0010
V_
0.0005
0.0000
E 0.0015
°0 0.0010
- -Catfish Lake
0.0005
New River 19 H 0.0000
0.0015
E
0 0.0010

- -- 0.0005

•
f N
0.0000
o
0

N
CL
E 0.0015
E
0.0010
rn
11
0.0005
E c?
o 0.0000
rn
•
E 0.0015
°0 0.0010
V_
tm 0.0005
U)
0.0000
E 0.0015
0 0.0010
0.0005
N
0.0000
0
20 c
40
1995
0 =
20 =
40 'cv
L
1996
0 =
20
40 'co
L
1997
0 c
20 c
40
L
1998
0
20 c
40 'cv
L
1999
0 =
20 =
40 Ii
i-
2000
Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
Temperature (Temp)
• 35
V 25
CL
E 15
F-
5
35
-Catfish Lake U 25
CL
New River 19 0 15
F-
5
- - - - - - Reference
•
•
35
U 25
CL
E 15
? F-
0 5
v
N
35
U
II U 25
U p_
E 15
F-
5
35
U 25
0 E_
20 ,
40 at
1995
0 r
20 =
40
1996
0 r
20 =
40 1997
0 r
20 =
40 1998
CL
E 15
F-
5
35
U 25
CL
E 15
F-
5
Jan-Mar
0 C
20 c
40 1999
0 =
20 c
40 'L 2000
Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
Acidity (pH)
• 5.0
4.5
CL 4.0
3.5
3.0
5.0
-Catfish Lake 4.5
CL 4.0
New River 19 3.5
3.0
. _ . • • • Reference
•
•
o r
20
40 'ev
` 1995
0 C
20
40
1996
5.0
4.5
Q, 4.0
3.5
3.0
5.0
4.5
CL 4.0
3.5
3.0
5.0
4.5
CL 4.0
3.5
3.0
5.0
4.5
CL 4.0
3.5
3.0
Jan-Mar
--•---........
Apr-Jun Jul-Sep
0 c
20 ?
40 1997
0 c
20 c
40 1998
0 c
20 =
40 1999
0 r
20 =
40 'L 2000
Oct-Dec
•

J
pi 6
E 4
0 2
0
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
-- s
-Catfish Lake 6
New River 19 E 4
? 2
- - - - • - Reference 0
8
vs 6
E 4
0 2
a 0
o
20 =
40 'eo
1995
0 =
20 .c
40
1996
0 c
20 =
40 1997
N
E
12

E J 8
6
.J E 4
E o 2
0
J 8
6
E 4
0 2
0
0 c
20 =
40 1998
0 =
20
40 1999
0 =
20
40 2000
...............
-- -r
Jan-Mar
J a
p? 6
E 4
O 2
0 0
Apr-Jun
Jul-Sep
Uct-uec
Specific Conductivity (SC)
0
20 c
• ..................•............................. :::740-E 1995
150
vs
U 100
50,
- -Catfish Lake
New River 19
...... Reference
is
•
J 150
U 100
N
50
J 150
U 100
CL 50
0)
E
ca
rn
2
U_
E J 150
n ?
J
V 100
50
0 =
20 c
40 'L 1996
0 =
20
40 1997
0 'r-
=
20
,40
1998
J 150
U 100
N
50
Jan-Mar
150
U 100
N
50
Apr-Jun
Jul-Sep
0 c
20 -
40 ';0 1999
0 c
20
40
2000
Oct-uec
Turbidity (Turb)
•
-Catfish Lake
New River 19
. • . • .. Reference
50
c
25
L
H
50
..................................................
0 c
20 c
40 'ca
1995
0 c
20 =
40
1996
r
c
,p 25
L
0
50
E
,p 25
L
0
i?
U
N 50
E
o c
p 25
CL
N
Z 0
n
C
0
20 =
40
1997
50
c
25
L
F-
0
•

50
c
.13 25
L
0
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun Jul-Sep
0 =
20 c
40 'L 1998
0 c
20 ?
40 'L 1999
0 c
20 c
40 ';a 2000
Oct-Dec
Water Depth
•
-Catfish Lake
New River 19
4
o
20
40
1995
•
•
= 2
CL
4)
0
0
4

= 2
CL
d
0
0
4

= 2
Q.
d
0
4
r 2
G.
d
0
0
4
7
r 2
CL
d
0
0
4
0 =
20 =
40 'L
1996
0 'r-
20 =
40 'E 1997
0 c
20 c
40 1998
0 =
20
40 1999
0 S
20 c
40 'cro
2000
CL 2
a?
0
Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
0
Fecal Coliform (FC)
0
- -uauisn LaKe
New River 19
- - - - - - Reference
- - - - Detection Limit
•
•
0
0
O
a
O
0
0
U
I I
7E
0
0
0
400
E 300
0
200
O
v
`-' 100
U
LL 0
400
4--------------•-----•---------•---------...----- i
0 F
20
40 'cv
1997
0 c
20 =
40 'cv
` 1998
c 300
Co
_ 200
O
V 100
LL 0
400
------------------•-------------------•-----------
0 300
0
200
O
V
U 100
IL 0
400
L - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - I

0 'r-
=
20
40 'eo
1999
0 =
20
40 'ea
2000
E 300
0
200
O
V 100
LL 0
•- ------------ • --- ------------ ------ • -
/ \ \
Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
0
-Catfish Lake
New River 19
- - - Detection Limit
•

m
a
c
a?
rn
0
c
0
0
E
12
rn
E
n
J_
z
rn
E
. ? 2.5
Z 2.0
0) 1.5
E 1.0
Y 0.5
~ 0.0
2.5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
o 2
20 =
40
1995
0 c
20 =
40 'as
Z 2.0
0) 1.5
E 1.0
Y 0.5
~ 0.0
.. 2.5
Z 2.0
1.5
1.0
Y 0.5
~ 0.0
2.5
Z 2.0
1.5
1.0
Y 0.5
~ 0.0
0 r
20 c
40
1996
1997
0 c
20 =
40
1998
0 c
20 =
'cv
2.5 40 1999
J 2.0
Z
E 1.5
1.0
Y 0.5 ---
0.0
Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
•

0.10
J
'a
cf
E
v 0.05
a
O
a 0.00
0.10
J
- -Catfish Lake IM
E 0.05
New River 19 -
-
V
O
- - - - - - Reference IL 0.00
- - - Detection Limit
0.10
J
CL
0)
E 0.05
=
?. a
O
o. o. 0.00

0
.c
CL
0 10
0
J .
a a.

0 IM
E
0.05

E O
m n. 0.00

J 10
0
CL .
E

E a
'
0
E 0.05
v
O
a- 0.0a
Ortho-Phosphate (P04)
o r
20 c
40 'ev
` 1995
o =
20 c
40 'L
1996
o 'r-
20 ?
40 '` 1997
o =
20
40 '2 1998
11 0.10
J
'a
E 0.05
v
O
a 0.00
Jan-Mar
o r
20
40 1999
0 r
20
40 2000
Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
Total Phosphate (TP04)
0
- -Catfish Lake
New River 19
...... Reference
is
U
a?
a?
a
0
t
0
t
Q.
4-
0
0
E
CU
rn
E
n
J
rn
E
i 0.10
a
cm
0.05
v
O
a
?- 0.00
J 0.10
n.
C)
E 0.05
It
O
a
?- 0.00
0 r
20 =
40 'cc
1995
0 c
20
40
L
1996
J 0.10
'a
as
E
0.05
v
O
IL
E- 0.00
0.10
a
v?
E
4, 0.05
a
a
F- 0.00

o =
20
40 'Rs
` 1997
0 2
20 =
40 'cv
L 1998
-0 =
20 c
40
0.10 1999
E
0.05 /
O /
CL .......... .. ---------------------------------
0.00 0.00
Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
0 =
•
V 60
E 40
U 20
O
F_ 0
20 c
40 'co
` 1995
0 r
-Catfish Lake
New River 19
is
•
a
c
0
0
0
rn
u
J
U
rn
E
U 60
40
V 20
O
H 0
60
E 40
U 20
O
t_ 0
U 60
E 40
V 20
O
I_ 0
U 60
E 40
V 20
O
E_ 0
60
a
E 40
V 20
O
0
Jan-Mar
20 =
40 '`
1996
0
20 c
40 1997
0 =
20 c
40 1998
0 'r-
20 ?
40 'L 1999
0 c
20 =
40 *E 2000
Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
Ferrous Iron (Fe)
o r
•
•
•
-Catfish Lake
New River 19
. _ . - _ . Reference
.a:
a`)
a
E
m
:E
J
rn
E
2.0
1.5
E 1.0 .----? ------------------------------------
0.5 _
0.0
2.0
1.5
% 1.0
Li 0.5
0.0
2.0
1.5
E 1.0 -----------------.- ----- - ------•--------
d 0.5
L
0.0
2.0
1.5
E 1.0
LL 0.5
0.0
2.0
J
1.5
E 1.0 -------- -------------------------------------
LL 0.5
0.0
2.0
1.5
E 1.0
UL 0.5
0.0
Jan-Mar
20 =
40 'co
` 1995
0 r-
20
40 'L
1996
0 =
20 =
40 1997
0 'r-
20
40 1998
0 2-
20 =
40 ` 1999
0 r
20
40 2000
Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
Chromium (Cr)
0
•
-Catfish Lake
New River 19
- - Detection Limit
•
0.08
0.06
tM
E 0.04
V 0.02
0.00
0.08
0.06
E 0.04
U 0.02
0.00
0.08
0.06
vs
E 0.04
v
V 0.02
Q 0.00
N
E
ca
_rn
E 0.08
n -J 0.06
tM
E E 0.04
U 0.02
0.00
20 =
40
1995
0 c
20 c
40 'ru
1996
0 =
20 '
40 'L
1997
0 2
20 =
40 'L 1998
0 E
•
0.08
0.06
ICY$
E 0.04 \
U 0.02 _-.-_-- -
0.00
0.08
0.06
E 0.04
V 0.02
0.00
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun Jul-Sep
20 j
40 ` 1999
0 2
20 '
40 2000
Oct-Dec
Aluminum (Al)
•
-Catfish Lake
New River 19
- - - • Detection Limit
•

a?
a
rn
E
n
J
rn
E
0
20 c
2.0 40 1995
J 1.5
0)
i
1.0 .
Q 0.5 i
0.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
^

2.0
1.5
rn
1
0
.
Q 0.5
0.0 - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - -
V c
20 c
40 1996
0 =
20 =
40 'eo
2.0 1997
^
J 1.5
S 1.0
Q 0.5
0.0
0 .2
20
40 'co
2.0 1998
^
1.5
E 1.0
Q 0.5
0.0
2.0
1.5
cM
E 1.0
Q 0.5
0.0
2.0
1.5
E 1.0
Q 0.5
0.0
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun Jul-Sep
0 r
20
40 1999
0 =
20
40 'L 2000
Oct-Dec

APPENDIX 3
SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
•
APPENDIX 3
SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
0 84
•

•
78
Btg-41 to 53 inches; light gray (10YR 7/2) sandy clay
loam; common medium distinct brownish yellow
(10YR 6/8) and few fine prominent reddish yellow
(5YR 6/8) mottles; weak medium subangular blocky
structure; friable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic;
few thin clay films on faces of peds; very strongly
acid; gradual wavy boundary.
BCg-53 to 68 inches; light gray (10YR 7/1, 6/1) sandy
clay loam that has lenses of sandy loam; common
fine distinct yellowish red (5YR 5/8) mottles; weak
medium subangular blocky structure; friable, slightly
sticky; few small bodies of clean sand; very strongly
acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Cg-68 to 80 inches; white (10YR 8/1) sandy loam that
has common lenses of loamy sand; few medium
distinct light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) and
brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) mottles; massive;
friable; very strongly acid.
The sandy and loamy horizons extend to a depth of
60 inches or more. The soils are very strongly acid or
strongly acid throughout unless the surface has been
limed.
The A or Ap horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value
of 3 to 5, and chroma of 1 or 2. The E horizon has hue
of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 6 or 7, and chroma of 1 or 2.
It is fine sandy loam or loamy fine sand.
The E/Bh horizon has hue of 5YR, 10YR, or 2.5Y,
value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 3 or 4. It is loamy fine
sand that is very friable in about one-third of its volume,
is weakly cemented in one-third, and has strongly
cemented concretions in one-third.
The E' horizon, if it occurs, has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y,
value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 2 to 4. It is fine sandy
loam or loamy fine sand.
The Bt horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5
to 7, and chroma of 1 to 8. The middle or lower part
has mottles in shades of gray, brown, or red. This
horizon is sandy clay loam, sandy loam, or clay loam.
The Cg horizon has hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 6 to
8, and chroma of 1 or 2. It is sandy clay loam, clay
loam, sandy loam, loamy sand, or sand.
Pactolus Series
The Pactolus series consists of moderately well
drained and somewhat poorly drained soils on uplands
and stream terraces. These soils formed in coarse
textured sediments. Slope ranges from 1 to 3 percent.
Typical Pedon of Pactolus fine sand, 8.3 miles south
of Hubert, 2.4 miles northeast of the intersection of
North Carolina Nlghway 172 and Sneeds Ferry Road,
and 0.6 mile east of the intersection of North Carolina
Highway 172 and Antitank Range Road (2,532,000X;
Soil Survey
A1-0 to 3 inches; gray (10YR 5/1) fine sand; single
grain; loose; few fine roots; strongly acid; clear
smooth boundary.
A2-3 to 6 inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) fine sane
single grain; loose; few fine roots; strongly acid;
clear wavy boundary.
C1-6 to 18 inches; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4)
fine sand; few fine faint brownish yellow mottles;
single grain; loose; few strong brown (7.5YR 5/6)
and dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) concretions '/s to 1/4
inch in diameter; few fine roots; medium acid; clew
wavy boundary.
C2-18 to 30 inches; very pale brown (10YR 7/3) fine
sand; few medium faint light gray (10YR 7/1)
mottles; single grain; loose; few strong brown
(7.5YR 5/6) and dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) concretioi
1/8 to 1/4 inch in diameter; medium acid; gradual
wavy boundary.
Cg-30 to 80 inches; light gray (10YR 7/2) fine sand;
few medium distinct brownish yellow (10YR 6/8)
mottles; single grain; loose; strongly acid.
The sandy horizons extend to a depth of 80 inches
more. The soils range from very strongly acid to
medium acid throughout unless the surface has been
limed.
The A horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 2
5, and chroma of 1 or 2. The upper part of the C
horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and
chroma of 3 to 8. The lower part has hue of 10YR or
2.5Y, value of 6 to 8, and chroma of 1 or 2. The C
horizon is fine sand or loamy fine sand,
Pantego Series
The Pantego series consists of very poorly drained
soils on uplands. These soils formed in moderately fin(
textured sediments. Slope is 0 to 1 percent.
Typical pedon of Pantego mucky loam, 3.2 miles
northwest of the intersection of U.S. Highway 17 and
State Road 1327, about 2.4 miles northwest of the
intersection of State Road 1327 and Gum Swamp
Road, and 50 feet north of the intersection of Gum
Swamp Road and Equipment Shed Road (2,490,000X:
405,500Y):
Ap-0 to 6 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loam; weal
medium granular structure; very friable; common
fine roots; common fine pores; very strongly acid;
clear wavy boundary.
A-6 to 14 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loam; weal
medium granular structure; very friable; common
fine roots; common fine pores; strongly acid; clear
wavy boundary.
Soil Survey
• A1-0 to 3 inches; gray (10YR 5/1) fine sand; single
grain; loose; few fine roots; strongly acid; clear
smooth boundary.
A2-3 to 6 inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) fine sand;
single grain; loose; few fine roots; strongly acid;
clear wavy boundary.
C1-6 to 18 inches; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4)
fine sand; few fine faint brownish yellow mottles;
single grain; loose; few strong brown (7.5YR 5/6)
and dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) concretions Ye to 1/4
inch in diameter; few fine roots; medium acid; clear
wavy boundary.
C2-18 to 30 inches; very pale brown (10YR 7/3) fine
sand; few medium faint light gray (10YR 7/1)
mottles; single grain; loose; few strong brown
(7.5YR 5/6) and dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) concretions
1/s to 1/4 inch in diameter; medium acid; gradual
wavy boundary.
Cg-30 to 80 inches; light gray (10YR 7/2) fine sand;
few medium distinct brownish yellow (10YR 6/8)
mottles; single grain; loose; strongly acid.
The sandy horizons extend to a depth of 80 inches or
more. The soils range from very strongly acid to
medium acid throughout unless the surface has been
• limed.
The A horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 2 to
5, and chroma of 1 or 2. The upper part of the C
horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and
chroma of 3 to 8. The lower part has hue of 10YR or
2.5Y, value of 6 to 8, and chroma of 1 or 2. The C
horizon is fine sand or loamy fine sand.
Pantego Series
The Pantego series consists of very poorly drained
soils on uplands. These soils formed in moderately fine
textured sediments. Slope is 0 to 1 percent.
Typical pedon of Pantego mucky loam, 3.2 miles
northwest of the intersection of U.S. Highway 17 and
State Road 1327, about 2.4 miles northwest of the
intersection of State Road 1327 and Gum Swamp
Road, and 50 feet north of the intersection of Gum
Swamp Road and Equipment Shed Road (2,490,000X;
405,500Y):
Ap-0 to 6 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loam; weak
medium granular structure; very friable; common
fine roots; common fine pores; very strongly acid;
clear wavy boundary.
A-6 to 14 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loam; weak
• medium granular structure; very friable; common
fine roots; common fine pores; strongly acid; clear
wavy boundary.
•
J
C
Onslow County, North Carolina
Btg-34 to 48 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) clay; common
fine distinct light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), few
fine prominent red (2.5YR 5/8), and few medium
distinct strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) mottles; moderate
fine angular blocky structure; very firm, sticky and
very plastic; thin clay films on faces of peds and in
pores; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
BCg-48 to 55 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) clay loam;
common coarse distinct yellowish brown (10YR 5/8)
and common fine prominent red (10R 4/8) mottles;
moderate fine angular blocky structure; firm, sticky
and plastic; very strongly acid; clear wavy
boundary.
Cg-55 to 80 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy loam that
has lenses of loamy sand and sandy clay; common
coarse distinct light gray (10YR 7/1) and few
medium distinct reddish brown (5YR 5/4) mottles;
massive; friable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic;
very strongly acid.
The combined thickness of the A and B horizons
ranges from 40 to 60 inches. The soils are very strongly
acid or strongly acid throughout unless the surface has
been limed.
The A horizon has hue of 10YR, value of 4 to 6, and
chroma of 1 or 2. The BA horizon has hue of 10YR and
value and chroma of 4 to 6. It is clay loam, loam, or
sandy clay loam. Some pedons do not have a BA
horizon.
The Bt horizon has hue of 10YR, value of 5 to 7, and
chroma of 4 to 8. The Btg horizon has hue of 10YR,
value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 1 or 2. The Bt and Btg
horizons are dominantly clay but in some pedons are
silty clay, silty clay loam, or clay loam.
The BCg horizon is similar in color to the Btg
horizon, or it is mottled. It is sandy clay loam, clay
loam, or clay.
The Cg horizon is similar in color to the Btg horizon.
It is loamy sand to clay.
Croatan Series
The Croatan series consists of very poorly drained,
organic soils on uplands. These soils formed in
herbaceous plant residue over loamy material. Slope
ranges from 0 to 2 percent.
Typical pedon of Croatan muck, 4 miles northwest of
Deppe Lookout Tower, 0.5 mile northwest of the
intersection of Deppe Trail and Roper Road, 50 feet
northeast of Deppe Trail (2,501,000X; 417,500Y):
Oat-0 to 9 inches; black (N 2/0) muck; about 8
percent fiber, 2 percent rubbed; weak fine granular
69
structure; very friable; common fine and medium
roots; few clean sand grains; about 80 percent
organic material; very strongly acid; gradual wavy
boundary.
Oa2-9 to 23 inches; black (N 2/0) muck; about 5
percent fiber, 1 percent rubbed; weak medium
granular structure; very friable; few fine and medium
roots; few clean sand grains; about 75 percent
organic material; extremely acid; gradual wavy
boundary.
Oa3-23 to 34 inches; black (7.5YR 2/1) muck; about
10 percent fiber, 2 percent rubbed; massive; very
friable; few fine roots; few clean sand grains; about
65 percent organic material; extremely acid; diffuse
wavy boundary.
2Cg1-34 to 40 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 2/2)
mucky sandy loam; massive; very friable; about 80
percent mineral material; extremely acid; gradual
wavy boundary.
2Cg2-40 to 50 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2)
sandy clay loam that has strata of sandy loam;
massive; friable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic;
few nearly decomposed medium roots; extremely
acid; gradual wavy boundary.
2Cg3-50 to 70 inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2)
sandy clay loam that has strata of sandy loam;
massive; slightly sticky and slightly plastic; few
nearly decomposed medium roots; extremely acid;
gradual smooth boundary.
2Cg4-70 to 80 inches; light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)
sandy loam that has strata of sandy clay loam;
massive; very friable; extremely acid.
The organic material ranges from 16 to 51 inches in
thickness. It is extremely acid unless the surface has
been limed. The underlying mineral horizons range from
extremely acid to slightly acid. Logs, stumps, and
fragments of wood make up 0 to 10 percent of the
organic layers in undisturbed areas. Some pedons have
charcoal particles and pockets of ash.
The organic horizons have hue of 7.5YR to 5Y, value
of 2 or 3, and chroma of 1 or 2, or they are neutral in
hue and have value of 2 or 3. The content of fibers in
the organic layers is 5 to 25 percent before rubbing and
less than 10 percent after rubbing. The organic material
is typically massive under natural wet conditions. If the
soils are drained and cultivated, however, a granular or
blocky structure develops in all or part of the organic
material, depending on the nature and depth of the
organic material and the duration of drainage.
The underlying mineral horizons commonly have hue
of 5YR to 5Y, value of 2 to 6, and chroma of 1 to 3.
They are sandy clay loam or sandy loam.
•
APPENDIX 4
1997 VEGETATION SURVEY
APPENDIX 4

0
1997 VEGETATION SURVEY
87
• Vegetatieventory
•
Block 1 - PC -Ag
Block 1 - PC -Ag
Plot # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
TREES No. of trees
Pinus taeda PINTAE 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0

No. of saplings
SAPLINGS 0 0 0 0 0 0
Liquidambar styraciflua LIQSTY 2
Pinus taeda PINTAE 2

Plot # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SHRUBS Percent Cover
Acer rubrum . ACERUB 0 T 1 10 50 30 50 25
Baccharis! halimifolia BACHAL 5 20 50 3 3 0 1 5
Cyrilla racemiflora CYRRAC 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Ilex glabra ILEGLA 0 0 0 T 0 0 1 0
Ilex opaca ILEOPA 0 0 0 T 0 0 T 0
Liquidambar styraciflua LIQSTY 0 0 0 0 0 1 5
Lyonia lucida LYOLUC 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0
Myrica cerifera MYRCER 0 5 T 25 10 10 5 1
Myrica heterophylla MYRHET 0 0 30 0 5 5 0 0
Persea borbonia PERBON 0 T 5 0 0 0 0 0
Pinus serotina PINSER 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0
Pinus spp. PINUS T 0 0 0 0 7.5 0 30
Pinus taeda PINTAE 0 0 7 25 0 0 0 0
Rubus spp. RUBUS T 1 0 T 0 T 0 1
Vaccinium spp. VACCIN 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0

• VegetatiolTfnventory
•
Block 1 - PC -Ag
Plot # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
GROUND COVER Percent Cover
Acer rubrum ACERUB 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.75 4.00 1.00 3.00 1.75
Andro ogonspp. ANDROP 49.50 60.00 44.75 25.75 2.50 6.50 3.00 7.00
Asteraceae spp. ASTERA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.25 1.50 5.00
Baccharis halimifolia BACHAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Carphephorusspp. CARPHE 5.75 5.25 4.00 2.50 1.50 0.25 1.00 2.50
Eupatorium capillifolium EUPCAP 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50
Gelsemium sempervirens GELSEM 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.25 4.25 3.00 1.25 0.00
Juncas spp. JUNCAS 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Krigia virginica KRIGIA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00
Ludwigia spp. LUDWIG 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Myrica cerifera MYRCER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00
Panicum/Dicanthecum spp. PANICU 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25
Poacaea spp. POACAE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.50 0.00
Rhexia spp. RHEXIA 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Rubus spp. RUBUS 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25
Solidago spp. SOLIDA 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 1.50
Spaghnum spp. SPAGHN 4.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 8.25 0.00 0.00 0.00

• Vegetatio7f'fnventory
•
Block 1 - PC -Ag
WINDROWS Block 1 - PC-Ag
1 2 3 4
Acer rubrum ACERUB X X X X
Andropogon spp. ANDROP X X
Aronia arbutifolia AROARB X X
Arundinaria gigantea ARUGIG X
Asteraceae spp. ASTERA X
Baccharis halimifolia BACHAL X X
Cardamine hirsuta CARHIR X
Carphephorus spp. CARPHE X X
Clethra alnifolia CLEALN X X X
Cyrilla racemiflora CYRRAC X
Eupatorium capillifolium EUPCAP X
Gelsemium sempervirens GELSEM X X
Gordonia lasianthus GORLAS X X X
Hypericum hypercoides HYPHYP X X
Ilex glabra ILEGLA X X X
Ilex opaca ILEOPA X X X
Liquidambar styraciflua LIQSTY X
Lyonia lucida LYOLUC X
Magnolia virginiana MAGVIR X X X
Myrica cerifera MYRCER X
Myrica heterophylla MYRHET X X
Osmunda cinnemomea OSMCIN X
Persea borbonia PERBON X X X
Pinus taeda PINTAE X X
Pteridium aquilinum PTEAQU X
Rubus spp. RUBUS X X X X
Smilax.laudfolia SMILAU X X X X
Smilax rotundifolia SMIROT X
Spaghnum spp. SPAGHN X
Vaccinium spp. VACCIN X
Vitis spp. VITIS X
Zenobia pulverulenta ZENPUL X
• Vegetatoventory
•
Block 2
Block 2
PLOT # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TREES 0 0 0 0 0
Li uidamber s raciflu LIQSTY 11 1
Pinus serotina PINSER 1 2 0 1

SAPLINGS 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gordonia lasianthus GORLAS 1
Pinus serotina PINSER 3 3 2
Pinus s pp. PINUS 1
Plot # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SHRUBS Percent Cover
Aronia arbutifolia AROARB 5 5 T
Clethra alnifolia CLEALN 5 3 1
C villa racemiflora CYRRAC 7.5 5 15 5 5 T 1 1 10 5
Ga lussacea frondosa GAYFRO 3 10 5 2.5 T
Gordonia lasianthus GORLAS 3 3 3 1 1 1.5 1
Ilex coriacea ILECOR 3 10 10 80 80 55 50 50 75
Ilex labra ILEGLA 3 3 5 5 10 10 T
Ilex o aca ILEOPA T
Kalmia an ustifolia KALANG 1 10 5 T 1 10 3 1.5
L onia li ustrina LYOLIG T T T T T T T
L onia lucida LYOLUC 1 3 T T 7.5
M rica cerifera MYRCER T
Persea borbonia PERBON 3 3 T 3 T T
Pinus spp. PINUS 3
Pinus serotina PINSER 8 3
Rhododendron s
I RHODOD T 10 3 5 5
Vaccinium spp. VACCIN 5 7.5 2 5 10 10 40 40 40 15
• Vegetataentory
•
Block 2
Plot # 1 2 3 4 5 6T--7T-8 9 10
GROUNDCOVER Percent Cover
Andro 0 on s pp. ANDROP 27.50 46.25 22.50 9.00
Aronia arbutifolia AROARB X X X
Cassandra cal culata CASCAL 0.50 X
Clethra alnifolia CLEALN 0.50 X
C rilla racemiflora CYRRAC 5.88 1.25 7.50 1.50 X X X X X X
Ga lussacea frondosa GAYFRO X X X
Gordonia lasianthus GORLAS X X X
Ilex coriacea ILECOR X X X X X X
Ilex labra ILEGLA 3.12 7.50 5.00 X X X
Kalmia an ustifolia KALANG 2.00 X X X X X X
L onia li ustrina LYOLIG X X X
L onia lucida LYOLUC X X X X
Magnolia vir iniana MAGVIR
Muhlenber is spp. MUHLEN 0.5
M rica cerifera MYRCER X
Persea borbonia PERBON X X
Pinus serotina PINSER X X
Sphagnum s pp. SPHAGN 26.25 25
Rhododendrons . RHODOD 3.75 X X X
Rubus s pp- RUBUS
Smilax laurifolia SMILAU 1.5 X X
Smilax spp. SMILAX X X
Vaccinium spp. VACCIN 1.25 1 X X X X X X
Vitis rotundofolia VITROT 0.25
WINDROW 1W 2W
Clethra alnifolia CLEALN X
C rilla racemiflora CYRRAC X
Gordonia lasianthus GORLAS X
Ilex coriacea ILECOR X
Ilex labra ILEGLA X X
Kalmia an ustifolia KALANG X
L onia li ustrina LYOLIG X X
Pinus serotina PINSER X X
Rhododendrons . RHODOD X
Smilax laurifolia SMILAU X

Smilax rotundifolia
I
SMIROT
X
E Ltl
Vaccinium spp. VACCIN
Vegetatilsventory
•
Block 3
Block 3
PLOT # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

TREES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pinus serotina PINSER 1 1 3 1

SAPLINGS 0 0 0 0 0
Pinus serotina PINSER 3 2 2 2 1
Pinus taeda PINTAE 1
Plot # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
SHRUBS Percent Cover
Aronia arbutifolia AROARB 3 30 5
Cassandra cal culata CASCAL T
Clethra alnifolia CLEALN 40 75
C rilla racemiflora CYRRAC 40 25 5 50 25 15 5 3 8 5 10
Ga lussacea frondosa GAYFRO 1 T
Gordonia lasianthus GORLAS 3
Ilex coriacea ILECOR T 12 T 25 5 15
Ilex labra ILEGLA 3 8 30 8 40 15 15 5 2 3 10
Ilex o aca ILEOPA
Kalmia an ustifolia KALANG 8 1 6 5 10 3 15 1 20 3 1
L onia li ustrina LYOLIG
L onia lucida LYOLUC T
Magnolia vi inia MAGVIR T
Persea borbonia PERBON 1 T T T T T
Pinus taeda PINTAE 3
Pinus serotina PINSER 1 10 20 15 25 20 15 7.5
spp. RHODOD 5 3 8
Vaccinium spp. VACCIN 5 5 50 8 20 50 30 5
• VegetatOnventory •
Block 3
Plot # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
GROUNDCOVER Percent Cover
Andro ogon s . ANDROP 0.75 5.00
Aronia arbutifolia AROARB 4.00
Cassandra cal culata CASCAL X X
Clethra alnifolia CLEALN X X
C rilla racemiflora CYRRAC 1.00 1.13 X X X X X X
Ilex coriacea ILECOR X X X
Ilex labra ILEGLA 1.25 2.50 X X X X X X
Kalmia angustifolia KALANG 1.25 2.50 X X X X X X DOM DOM X
L onia lucida LYOLUC X
Persea borbonia PERBON 0.25 X X X X X X X
Pinus serotina PINSER X X X X X
Smilax laurifolia SMILAU T X X X X X X X X
Vaccinium s. VACCIN X X X X X
Woodwardia areolata WOOARE T T
PLOT # 1 W Windrow
Species
Acer rubrum ACERUB x
Andro 0 on s pp. ANDROP x
Aronia arbutifolia AROARB x
Cassandra cal culata CASCAL x
C rilla racemiflora CYRRAC x
Gordonia lasianthus GORLAS x
Ilex labra ILEGLA x
Kalmia an ustifolia KALANG x
Persea borbonia PERBON x
Pinus s pp. PINUS x
Smilax laurifolia SMILAU x
Vaccinium s VACCIN x
• Vegetateventory
•
Block 4
Block 4
PLOT # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

TREES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pinus serotina PINSER 1

SAPLINGS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pinus serotina PINSER 2 5 3
Plot # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
SHRUBS Percent Cover
Aronia arbutifolia AROARB T 5 20 5 5 15 5 7.5 7.5
Clethra alnifolia CLEALN 5 T
C rilla racemiflora CYRRAC 20 5 5 5 20 5 3 3 3 3
Ga lussacea frondosa GAYFRO T 3 50 35 15 25 10 20 7.5 17.5 15
Gordonia lasianthus GORLAS 1 5 T
Ilex coriacea ILECOR 3 T 30 20 20 7.5 7.5 50 20 35
Ilex labra ILEGLA T 10 10 10 15 10 25 25 15 25 5
Kalmia an ustifolia KALANG 1 3 T 5 T 3 5 5 3
L onia li ustrina LYOLIG 5 T T
M rica cerifera MYRCER T
Persea borbonia PERBON T
Pinus serotina PINSER 1 1 7.5 12.5 17.5 25 20 5 1
Rhododendrons . RHODOD T 1
Rubus s pp. RUBUS T
Vaccinium s pp. VACCIN 15 3 10 7.5 25 10 20 3 5
• Vegetalonventory is
Block 4
Plot # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
GROUNDCOVER Percent Cover
Andro 0 on s pp. ANDROP 6.10 12.00
Cassandra cal culata CASCAL 15.80 1.25
C rilla racemiflora CYRRAC 6.30 1.50
Gordonia lasianthus GORLAS X
Ilex coriacea ILECOR T
Ilex glabra ILEGLA 3.10 11.25 XXXXXX
Kalmia an ustifolia KALANG X X X XXX)UUC
L onia lucida LYOLUC 0.75
M rica cerifera MYRCER T
Persea borbonia PERBON X X X X X X X
Smilax laurifolia SMILAU T X XXXXX X X X X X X
Vaccinium s pp. VACCIN 0.25
Woodwardia areolata WOOARE X
Zenobia ulverulenta ZENPUL T
PLOT # 1 W Windrow
Species
Cassandra cal culata CASCAL X
Clethra alnifolia CLEALN X
Ga lussacia frondosa GAYFRO X
Gordonia lasianthus GORLAS X
Ilex coriacea ILECOR X
Ilex labra ILEGLA X
Kalmia an ustifolia KALANG X
Persea borbonia PERBON X
Pinus serotina PINSER X
Rhododendrons . RHODOD X
Smilax laurifolia SMILAU X
Vaccinium s VACCIN X
• Veget Inventory
•
'Pk 5
Block 5
PLOT # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
TREES 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0
Pinus serotina PINSER
SAPLINGS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Acer rubrum ACERUB 1
Pinus serotina PINSER 2
Plot #

SHRUBS 1 2 3 4 5

Acer rubrum
ACERUB Percent Cover
1
Aronia arbutifolia AROARB 5 5 10 5
Clethra alnifolia CLEALN T 3 5
C rilla racemiflora CYRRAC T 3 1
Ga lussacea frondosa GAYFRO 1 8 25 30 25 20
Gordonia lasianthus GORLAS T 10
Ilex coriacea ILECOR 1 3 3 35 15 15
Ilex labra ILEGLA 5 15 5 3 5 T
Kalmia an ustifolia KALANG T T T T 3
L onia li ustrina LYOLIG T T 7
5
L onia lucida LYOLUC 5 .
Magnolia vi iniana MAGVIR T 3 T T
M rica cerifera MYRCER 5 1
Persea borbonia PERBON 1 T T
Pinus serotina PINSER T 1 10 25
Rhododendrons .
il RHODOD 1
Rubus s pp. RUBUS
Vaccinium spp. VACCIN 3 10 25 35 25 20
Zenobia pulverulenta ZENPUL
7 8 9 10 11

20 10 10 T 3
7.5 3 10 25 20
T

20 20 3 5 10

15 40 45 50 60

3 3 7.5
3 3 3 3 T

10 5 15
3

T T T T

17.5 10 5 5 3

T
T

20 15 10
T 6
10
• Vegetenventory
•
Block 5
Plot # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
GROUNDCOVER Percent Cover
Andropo on sp . ANDROP 19.38 36.25
Cassandra cal culata
Clethra ainifolia CASCAL
CLEALN
T X X X X X X X
C rilla racemiflora CYRRAC T X
Ga lussacea frondosa GAYFRO T T
Gordonia lasianthus GORLAS T X X
Ilex coriacea ILECOR T
Ilex glabra ILEGLA
Ilex o aca ILEOPA X
Kalmia an ustifolia
L onia lucida KALANG
LYOLUC
2.50 X X X
M rica cerifera MYRCER
Osmunda cinnemomea
Persea borbonia OSMCIN
PERBON
X
X
X
X X X
X X
X
Poacaea s pp. POACAE T
Smilax laurifolia
Vaccinium s pp. SMILAU
VACCIN T X X X X X X X X
Woodwardia areolata WOOARE
Zenobia ulverulenta ZENPUL X X
PLOT # 1w Windrow
Species Qt
Clethra alnifolia CLEALN x
Gelsemium sem rvirens GELSEM x
Gordonia lasianthus GORLAS x
Ilex labra ILEGLA x
Kalmia an ustifolia KALANG x
L onia lucida LYOLUC x
M rica cerifera MYRCER x
Persea borbonia PERBON x
Pinus serotina PINSER x
Smilax laurifolia SMILAU x
Vaccinium s
I VACCIN x
Woodwardia areolata WOOAREI x
APPENDIX 5
• BLACK BEAR POPULATION SURVEY
APPENDIX 5
BLACK BEAR POPULATION SURVEY

0 99
•
• r. `t',
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
® Division of %\'ddlife Ntana?ement
Charles R. Fullwood David T. Cobb, Ph.D., Chief
Executive Director ?'tarch 21, 2000
Dr. J.B. Jett
Associate Dean for Research and Extension
College of Forest Resources
NC State University
Box 8001
Raleigh. NC 2769-5001
SUBJECT: Final Research Report on Hofmann Forest Bear Study
Dear Dr. Jett:
Please accept and review the attached research report from the Hofmann Forest Black
• Bear Population Study. Our stated research objective was to test the feasibility of using
remote camera resights to generate a population size estimate for black bears on the
Hofmann Forest in Jones and Onslow counties, North Carolina. We believe we have
met this goal though the technique did not work as well in the area as we might have
hoped due to circumstances discussed in the report.
A larger issue is the importance of the Hofmann Forest as a "core area" for the central
coastal region supporting one OF the largest continuous bear populations in the area. In
this report, we offer a discussion of??t recommended docunnent and direct any questioonsrto?ark
bear population. Please review the
tunes our Black Bear Project Leader. Thank you.
' cer ? v.
l?
David T. Cobb. Ph.D.
Chic C. Divisiun of %Vildlife 'L\Igt.
cc: mark D. -10nes. Black Bear Project Leader
•
•
Section:
Project:
Period Covered:
Project Tenure:
FINAL PROJECT REPORT
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Wildlife Management
Research and Regulations
Principal Investigator:
Participants:
Prepared By:
•
Date:
INTRODUCTION
Hofmann Forest Black Bear Population Status
1 January 1999 - 31 December 1999 t
9 May 1999 - 7 November 1999
Mark D. Jones, Black Bear Project Leader, P.O. Box
1231, Bridgeton, NC 28619-1231 (262-244-0668)
3 Field Technician II's
Scott Osborne, Big Came Program Coordinator,
2508 Valley Road, Sanford, NC 27330
''lark D. Jones, Black Bear Project Leader
21 March 2000
Black bear (Ursus am(Ticanus) managers often are forced to make management
0
decisions without knowing how many individuals are present in a population. When
available, density estimates can allow managers to make better, more reliable decisions
about harvest levels and associated management actions. Unfortunately, estimating bear
densities in any area is difficult and expensive. In the past, long-term mark-recapture studies
were used to produce reliable density estimates. These studies involved multiple capture
periods, extensive field time, large amounts of money, and stress to study animals. Due to
the difficulty of obtaining reliable population estimates, managers traditionally used bait-
station surveys to track population trends over large areas. These surveys record the number
• of baits taken by bears during a specific survey period, and trends are then tracked annually.
However, bait station results provide only a visitation index, not a density estimate. As
Stich, bait stations are only useful for comparisons of trends in relative densities within an
area over time. The need continues for an inexpensive and accurate method of estimating
black bear population densities.
Trapping follO%ved by remote camera resights offers promise as a method of
estimating black bear numbers (Garshelis et ,it. 1994, Mace et at. 1994, Martorello 1998).
The mark-resight technique is similar to mark-recapture methods commonly used by
biologists, but it eliminates the need to capture bears multiple times. Using cameras to
replace recaptures also reduces the cost of trapping and the stress associated with handling
animals. Remote cameras are employed immediately following trapping and tagging to
reduce violations of popelation closure inherent in many trap-recapture methods. Remote
•
cameras usually produce numerous captures, often more than were initially marked, and
increase the statistical power of estimates generated from population models. Similar to
mark-recapture methods, camera resight data can be used in simple population size
estimation models, like Bailey's binomial, that provide sound estimates Nvith known
confidence intervals. V
0
• OBJECTIVE
This project tested the feasibility of using remote camera resights to generate a
Population size estimate for black bears on the Hofmann Forest in Jones and Onslow
counties, North Carolina.
STUDY AREA
The Hofmann Forest (HF) is an area of forest and farmland located in Jones and
Onsto,v counties in the central Coastal Plain of North Carolina. The HF consists of
approximately 332 km2 managed by the North Carolina Forestry Foundation. Weyerhaeuser
Forest Products Company and private individuals own areas adjacent to the HF. Our Effective
Study Area (ESA) was composed primarily of a section of the HF with areas of Weyerhaeuser
and other private lands forming the periphery.
Our ESA was approximately IS 1 km2 defined following our trapping period by
• circumscribing all trapsites .vith a radius of 1.6 km (Fig. 1). This radius was based on the
mean radius of male and female black bear home ranges on the Neuse-Pamlico Peninsula of
eastern North Carolina (Jones 1996). Many researchers determine study area size based on
convenient political boundaries that may have no direct relationship to the population under
study (Caughley 1977). Our procedure provides a more accurate study area because it is
based on known home range characteristics of a nearby bear population and is defined by both
Successful and unsuccessful trap sites. This technique reduces any biases associated with
unequal probability of resight of marked and unmarked bears. Similar techniques have been
used for wild turkeys and other species (Lint et at. 1992, Weinstein et al. 1997). Our ESA
was a mosaic of hardwood forests, pocosins, pine plantations in various age classes, and
wetlands. An area of aMTricultural cropland was located in the southern section of the ESA.
E
3
•
•
•
METHODS
Trapping
We trapped the ESA in 4 sections from 12 May to 25 July, 1999. Traps were placed in
areas of abundant bear sign when possible, but we also distributed traps in each section with
approximately the same amount of traps and trap nights. Bears were captured using Aldrich
spring-activated foot snares and immobilized by injection of a mixture of ketamine
hydrochloride and xylazine hydrochloride (KX). The mixture was administered at lcc per 25
kg of estimated bear weight using ajab pole syringe. Immobilized bears were measured,
weighed, ear-tagged, and lip-tattooed. Additionally, a premolar tooth was extracted for
determining age, and 2 orange or yellow ear streamers were placed on each ear tag to allow
identification of bears in photographs. Bears were revived by injection of Yohimbine at the
appropriate dosage to counteract the YX
Remote Camera Resight
Following the trapping effort and beginning 1 August 1999, we placed 36 remote
cameras throughout the ESA (Fig. 2). Initially, cameras were evenly distributed in 36 equally
sized Grids within the study area and placed at least 0.4 km from trap sites. All cameras were
systematically moved within the 36 grids around l September and again around 1 October,
and we continued to avoid placing cameras close to prior locations of trap sites. We did this
to reduce the probability of biasing photographs with a predominance of marked bears.
Following problems with theft, vandalism, and hurricanes, some cameras were relocated to
sites as close as 0.2 km from trap sites. However, cameras were rarely placed closer than 0.4
4
km from trap sites. A tripwire attached to bait hanging from a nearby tree (?lartorello et at.
• 1998, in press) activated cameras. We added a modified wooden structure to the design for
holding bait away from the tree in an attempt to reduce problems with non-target animals like
opossums and raccoons.
RESULTS
Population Estimate
We chose Bailey's binomial model to estimate the bear population on the ESA. The
advantage of this model is that it was developed for studies designed with the possibility of re-
sampling the same individual multiple times. This was important in our study due to the
difficulty in marking bears so individuals could be identified. Bailey's binomial model uses
the binomial distribution to correct for replacement and calculate the number of individuals
• and the variance of the estimate (Seber 1982). The model is similar to the Lincoln/Petersen
model, with a few modifications:
_ M(n+l)
N (m+l)
where: N= population estimate.
Nl= number of individuals marked during the first sample,
n = total number of individuals captured in the second sample,
in = number of marked individuals in second sample.
The approximate unbiased estimate of variance for Bailey's binomial equation is calculated as
follows:
\,,12(n+ 1)(n-m)
0

(m+1)1 (m+2)
is where UZH is the estimated variance of the population estimate.
The estimate from Bailey's binomial model was N= 144 adult black bears, with a 95%
confidence interval of 61-227, or, 144 + 83 black bears. This estimate was generated using
the following numbers from the trapping and camera results: M= 34, n = 33, and m = 7. The
C; 0
variance associated with these numbers was (y^ = 1,774, and the sighting probability was p
=0.21. The ESA density of black bears was 0.80 black bears per km'- (144 bears/181 km'-).
The 95% confidence interval yielded a density estimate of 034 - 1.25 bears per km2.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This project successfully produced the minimum statistical numbers necessary to
provide a population size estimate for black bears on the ESA (Seber 1982). However, there
• were numerous shortcomings to using the technique on the area: large size of the HF and
associated ESA, inaccessible areas within the ESA, weather, and disturbances by humans and
non-target animals. Combined, these factors reduced sample sizes, increased confidence
intervals of the final estimate, and affected confidence in the final models.
The HF consists of over 332 km', whereas other study areas in remote camera studies
have concentrated on much smaller areas. \Martorello (1998) evaluated areas of 149 km' and
119 km', and Eason and Eason (1998: unpublished data) evaluated an area of S2 km'. We
Were forced to define a smaller ESA comprising slightly over one-half of the HF in order to
coyer as much of the area as possible with cameras. Additionally. manpower limitations
allowed us to place only 36 cameras on the 181 km2 ESA. This resulted in a camera density
•
6
of 0.2 cameras/km'- in our ESA. By comparison, Martorello (1993) placed cameras at rates of
• 0.2 cameras/km'- on the Big Pocosin (BP) and 0.34 cameras/km' on the Gum Swamp (GS).
Eason and Eason (1998; unpublished data) placed 0.4 cameras/km'- on the Asheville
Watershed. Bear visitation rates were lower on the BP area and our HF ESA when compared
to the GS and Asheville Watershed areas. {Respoii'se § 'T-- lik-ly are';correlated to ca nera ,'?.
et no definitive evidence 'or study of optimal camera densities exists.
The ESA was divided into 36 grids of equal size, and one camera was placed within
each area. We attempted to place cameras near the center of grids to cover as much of the HF
as possible. However, 3 roadless areas of pocosin existed within the ESA. These roadless
pocosins were unavailable for camera resight due to extremely thick vegetation, absence of 2
suitable paired trees for camera set-up, and logistic concerns of attempting to check cameras
on a regular basis in such inaccessible areas. Therefore, we attempted to survey these areas by
placing cameras.on the edges of grids close to roads, trails, and other accessible areas. Some
•
bears with small home ranges may not have been available for trapping or camera-resight
based on telemetry analyses conducted in a similar study area (Jones 1996). The impact of
this cannot be measured, but we assumed that the inaccessibility problem impacted trapping
and resight efforts equally. Therefore. animals that were captured were assumed to be
available for camera resight.
Camera surveys ran from early August to early November. An unusually severe
hurricane season, from Auvust-October 1999. reduced our ability to effectively perform these
surveys. The ESA was hit by 4 hurricanes and tropical storms during this period. At least 88
potential camera nights were lost due to flooding which caused many areas of the HF to be
•
7
inaccessible. Hurricane Floyd caused the greatest disruption when almost 2 weeks were
is required to get all 36 cameras operating after the storm.
Lost opportunities to photograph bears ,vas a problem due to vandalism and theft by
people and visits by non-target animals. ?L,t,?l3easf,_4:cameras «erestolen or destroyed,-' 44%
numerous catrieras"Were dtsturb:ed by humans grid 'rendered incapable of photographin 'bears..'-
Non-target animals frequently disturbed camera sites despite efforts to hang baits in a manner
only accessible to bears. We recorded 69 opossum and 6 raccoon pictures. OOverall'there
were"atglea?ldentiftable instances where ?ti.eather, humans, or non-target animals
. t•........,..
rendered cameras Incapable of photographing bears. Any future use of the camera-resight
technique in the Coastal Plain should attempt to minimize the effects of each of these factors.
Additional money and manpower should be focused on increasing camera densities,
developing better stn?ctures to reduce impacts by non-target animals, and increasing the
•
ability to work in adverse weather conditions. If sample sizes of photographs can be
improved, the camera-resight technique will be a viable mana?,ement tools for managing
Coastal Plain bears.
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS FOR HOFMANN FOREST
Despite low sample sizes of bear photographs, it is clear from our efforts that the ESA
harbors a healthy black bear population. Furthermore. it is logical to assume that the bear
density on the ESA can be extrapolated to the entire HF because landscape conditions are
similar throughout. Even ..vith the wide confidence interval for the density estimate, the mean
of 0.80 black bears/km' for the ESA lies between estimates for 2 intensively studied areas on
the ``ease-Pamlico peninsula of the central Coastal Plain of North Carolina. These areas are
•
similar in habitat composition and hunting history to the HF. Martorello (1993), using
•
capture-recapture data from multiple years combined with capture-relight camera data,
estimated densities of 0.53 and 1.35 bears/ km' in the BP and GS study areas, respectively.
Examination of historical hunting strategies on these areas may be useful for guiding harvest
management activities on the HF. For example, both areas primarily consist of Weyerhaeuser
lands where huntin- was limited to relatively low quotas until 1998. Furthermore,
Weverhaeiaser does' riof'allow.bear hiihiiria wi4h do_s`on'their lands;'the GS area includes an
established black bear sanctuary, and in 1998, the quota system was eliminated and both areas
were opened consistent with the county bear seasons.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCN%RC) personnel have
L'
intensively monitored harvest on the BP and GS areas since 1992. This experience may
provide insight into better black bear management on the HF. All 3 areas provide the core
habitat for counties that were closed to black bear hunting in the 1980's due to perceived
over-harvest. As previously mentioned, hunting activities on all 3 areas have been reinstated
through careful management, and bear hunting has become less restricted over the last decade.
However, we recommend that decisions regarding expanding bear hunting opportunities on
the HF consider the easy access available on the HF and public perceptions dealing with
allocation of bear harvest bet?,veen HF clubs and surrounding lands.
The HF is an important "core area" for the central coastal region supporting one of the
largest contiguous bear populations in the area. Currently, each HF club is limited to a 2-bear
quota. With an estimated bear population of 0.80 bears/km' on the ESA. which included a
little over one-half of the HF, it is logical to extrapolate to a overall population estimate of
0
266 bears on the HF (0.80 bears/km' on 332 km'). Many of the estimated 266 bears from the
• HF are available for harvest on surrounding lands in Jones and Onslow counties each season.
With an estimated population of 266, the HF should be able to sustain a harvest of 20% (53
bears). Jones and Onslow Counties harvested an average of 89.7 bears in the 3 seasons from
1996-1998. Certainly, a significant number of these bears inhabited the HF prior to harvest,
and it is impossible to determine what percentage of the total count}, harvest originated on the
HE Furthermore, it is difficult to extrapolate mortality rates from larger NCWRC Bear
Management Units (BMU) because the HF lies in 2 separate units with different seasons and
mortality rates. The Jones County section of the HF lies in the Neuse Bv1U which has an 18-
day bear season, and the Onslow County section lies in the Southeastern BMU which has a
49-day season.
The results from our remote camera resight technique are not accurate enough to be
used alone to determining management actions for the HE Final management actions should
•
?
be determined using the population estimates from this study, information generated in the 2
BMU's encompassing the HF, and the professional judgement of NC%%RC and HF personnel.
I recommend that representatives from NCWRC and the HF meet annually and work
cooperatively to develop a bear management and harvest plan for the HE
The following issues should be addressed in meetings betvveen NCWRC and HF
personnel: 1) bear population goals of HF and N'C\VRC managers. 2) the role of the HF as a
core area for the region's bears, 3) impact of hunting on surrounding farms and hunt clubs on
mortality rates of HF bears, 4) the effects of 2 different season lengths on,HF bear mortality
rates, and 5) the ability for NCW[ZC and HF personnel to monitor mortality levels for the

10
area's bears and monitor the effects of management actions. `Many of these issues will have to
• be evaluated based only on professional judgement due to a lack of empirical data. For this
reason, management decisions about future bear harvest levels on the HF must be evaluated
annually and generated using a combination of science and common sense.
LITER-4TURE CITED
Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
N.Y. 232pp.
Garshelis, D.L., P.L. Coy, and B.D. Kontio. 1994. Applications of remote animal-activated
cameras in bear research. International Union of Game Biologists 21:32-37.
Jones, M.D. 1996. Black bear use of forest and agricultural environments in coastal North
Carolina. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA.
Lint, J.R., B.D. Leopold, G.A. Hurst, and W.J. Hamrick. 1992. Determining effective study
area size from marked and harvested wild turkey gobblers. Journal of Wildlife
• Management 56:556-562.
Mace, R. D., S.C. Minta, T.L. Manley, and K.E. Aune. 1994. Estimating grizzly bear
population size using camera sightings. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:74-83.
Martorello, D.A. 1998. Ecology of black bears in coastal North Carolina. Thesis, University
of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA.
Seber,G.A.F. 1982. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. Second
edition. Griffin, London, England. 654 pp.
Weinstein, %M., G.A. Hurst, and B.D. Leopold. 1997. Calculating probability of site use.
study area size. and density of wild turkey hens. Proceedings of the Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 51:373-380.
E
L,", it Hit,
cc?!_... _ (? ,, / •.? ?Y ^
-rte L .oi Ile /
tfl,tion/ lLY
Iqa a'
Ov -v
? °
4
nd a`/ v !1^
153+, v ?..??? nJ ?•tl /"
i r , i? ? ? • ?i p 7l L7 O C
';? ,-?.,. T •?? .. /,. .///?'? dab?. \ / sF• noca?n H^,nrv ,\ _ ° ?(' %?/.,'? ?G'
y?T,?WY _ I Jl ? e '' ry/r
?"V+IL-: t •i.\ ? il''? pJ i / •'V 3Ij47M.?'i1571,?n _._
1 o I ?/ J? W?'dn -- I 3d 53a'L.?sl`.1'L3M \.r
rr"
3.z ()UaAe. L----
Cli-I ` r, vtrr j r. ' L h rv 1.? ?a I ' r S .. \ ti 67'd
'•y ,.III' / F I`?''C r????
!?J \ f .? ' • '3' r._,,. I•,\ -ff R n?.?I
? F `- ICY ,as•o•('.?F?? I ,? * ?, ?'2i^1j,?^? ?,%"??.?o.3Hd3r?i1/ ; :,,-ss'?^aM ? •?j^ ??1I
?, ? ?` ??` ? .fix 'i~.` F' v?'? ?? q?.,, ? '?.? Q\ y1 \p6 i?jo/
tioar,?? oo\a.r? ?,l'a
OY
r--?//t -aF?' •I 9? ~- 1 wd V<` \ q- °o _.C/TC -!~'?\r ?".p \ r
,? '?_?;? .l •?• ?? n?11+?\ %
Row • ??'• ,FOC Co?ltolnFz`
pay 5 01:19
INC
kkk
,- / ?' -?? ?_'_ . -/ J•,,, or• I'r ., i ' dies ? ?? -
'y' - ? Hue 4 '•` ? ithli
/J X,
Black Bear Trap Sites.
171mire I. Hofinann Fot-
?_ Forest BOUlIdarv = Pin.
w
ESA Boundan = Yell)
", / -•?? ? _ ? ?•?.? ? -, _?__ Trap Stts Blue --- - -
14
tu:r ?!?Q'^,/ ?• ;?r.l--_ r; a
A/.???
rsa& .;z cr /
1Gp'? ~rj n' CCLg tion c?fH _,`. ,/. ?i? 6u1 ???. ,? /?' '•`?J\ir /?
Y \0 1 -1 ""+ 9a a 2-;?/Jff ?Lr??sS30 by _-'?1 y/. r
-?3 It
$? y-
rf-
!?...,? 1 "? / :' Y -mow r .?t'•,•' ?.,// /' ?.t? - --?'C' .
•.? : ? ! 3r \ '? ?P: :??.. ? .;? rl 'Pf ylq •j •,C??7o ? i i? \ ct ??l/i ?
/ .}?•.•/! ` Y` .r F?' ?? y``?? ,:?' ,yam ?? /? ?l• ?.IT
1`Tc?'•?.v -I'1 lu.~% C i / tl ?r i? rll ,V 'I?yO_IHMO?'?,?_ - ./,-y.
'tom ?V 14° • \??`/ r I\ ° ?L 37N7N1;,157T. •;. ?, w^.
I \ /, ; \ f(?,? W'da Doe ?y ?1 _ ?J~ 1\ y-,?
-1-/,
d3 Qua-
cJ _ --F- ?I F Jay
e4?µ
/M?VK - i j_I' ??.._ •/?"., I?y' O ? -A?
o
7
35
C'
3
u0s,a ?,
HIT
\° ?" tip y> co\ J.?\.
C X01
/0/.
IIwnn %1 ?•, .?.. \y? ?q Q ?i? •?qJ -
r.
lF-,,'
Red c
r"
Ed En. Q for
fC?urr j;?', 'ryY yr
jJI ?= , ^? ??, .i: ?.? ,.r 1?,° rp5 alo •F' dl
=J!'t`. ?_ ? ? 4s-a? / 'c ' f.. .J.r?--_1?' r .. u ? \ F2 rr N r F J -0? ••:.
Nut
t ti C " p---T a v
Figure ?. Hofmann Forest Camera Sites.
?``?°••? - ? ' " ? -?' Figure
r '? -/ _ 2 ?
Boundary = BIII.,
ESA Boundary Pin,
Camera Sites = Yello%?
I - -
APPENDIX 6
• PLANT COMMUNITY ESTABLISHMENT
APPENDIX 6
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTABLSIHMENT
•
0 114

Block 1

WI
GA
BC
LL
CB
•
A
0 200 400 600 Feet
RM
Ditches
Roads
- Hardwood/Cypress
- Longleaf
Wildlife Strips
Species Trial
BC Bakl Cypress
CB Cherry Bark Oak
GA Green Ash
LL Lonalear Pine
RM Red Maple
BW Bwestaum
WA Water Oak
Wl Willow Oak
0 %
O
O
LL ' LL
CB WI
WI RM
R CI
WA ,?
F
sw
BC
LL
BC
WA
CB
WI
sW
Appendix 6. Figure 1. Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank, Block 1, vegetation
0 establishment. (Not to scale)
115
•
Block Z
B
LL
11
BC
GA
CI
asss Ditches
Roads
- Hardwood/Cypreee
Wildlife Strips
Species Trial
BC Bald Cypress
CB Cherry Berk Oak
OA OresnAsh
LL Longleaf Pine
RM Red Maple
SW Sweetpum
WA Water Oak
WI Willow Oak
N
°C
A0
0
o?
IP_
a
LL
SW
CB
V C
GA
A
SW
0 300 600 Feet
Appendix 6. Figure 2. Hofmann Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank, Block 2, vegetation
establishment. (Not to scale)
s
116
• Appendix 6
Table 1. Species, stocking and planting bed specifications for Blocks I and 2 of the Hofmann
Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank.
•
Block 1

Species Species
Code
Stocking # of trees
planted
Planting bedspecifications
ater Oak 1C1 3010' x 100' = 6.91 ac. x 605 t pa = 4,180 9 beds x 11' = 99'
Mix 1R1 3010" x 132'= 9.12 ac. x 605 t pa = 5,518 12 beds x 11' = 132'
Willow Oak 1C2 2975'x 132' = 9.02 ac. x 605 t pa = 5,454 12 beds x 11' = 132'
Mix 1R2 2930'x 132'= 8.88 ac. x 605 t pa = 5,372 12 beds x 11' = 132'
Red Maple 1C3 2350'x 132' = 7.12 ac. x 605 t pa = 4,308 12 beds x 11' = 132'
Green Ash 1C4 2310'x 132' = 7.00 ac. x 605 t pa = 4,235 12 beds x 11' = 132'
Bald Cypress 1C5 2320'x 132'= 7.03 ac. x 605 t pa = 4,253 12 beds x 11' = 132'
Sweet Gum 1C6 2320'x 132'= 7.03 ac. x 605 t pa = 4,253 12 beds x 11' = 132'
Mix all wlf 10,675 x 33'= 8.08 ac. x 605 t pa = 4,886 12 beds: 3 beds/ditch cut
OTAL 42,459
Block 2

Species Species
Code
Stocking # of trees
planted
Planting bedspecifications
Water Oak 2C1 2640'x 144' = 8.73 ac. x 605 t pa = 5,280 12 beds x 12'= 144'
Mix 2R1 2640" x 132'= 8.00 ac. x 605 t pa = 4,840 11 beds x 12'= 132'
Willow Oak 2C2 2640'x 96' = 5.82 ac. x 605 t pa = 3,520 8 beds x 12'= 96'
Mix 2R2 2640'x 132'= 8.00 ac. x 605 t pa = 4,840 11 beds x 12' = 132'
Sweet Gum 2C3 2575'x 132'= 7.80 ac. x 605 t pa = 4,720 11 beds x 12'= 132'
Bald Cypress 2C4 2575'x 132' = 7.80 ac. x 605 t pa = 4,720 11 beds x 12' = 132'
Green Ash 2C5 2550'x 132'= 6.32 ac. x 605 t pa = 3,825 9 beds x 12'= 108'
Red Maple 2C6 2550'x 120' = 7.03 ac. x 605 t pa = 4,250 10 beds x 12' = 120'
Mix all wlf 10,440 x 33'= 7.91 ac. x 605 t pa = 4,785 12 beds: 3 beds/ditch cut
TOTAL 409780 E

• Appendix 6
Table 2. Applications of biosolids and wood ash to reduce soil pH in Blocks 1 and 2 respectively
where acreages were treated and established with species indicated.

Block 1 A lied bio-solids from Raleigh Municipal Waste facili '
Treatment Acres Tons per acre applied
Hardwood and Cypress 45 2.75
Wildlife Enhancement 8 2.75
Species Trial Area 1 9 5.5
Species Trial Area 2 9 8.3
[Total Acreage 71 Total applied: 270 tons
Block 2 (Wood ash from Hydroco Plant in New Bern)Z
Treatment Acres Tons per acre applied
Hardwood and Cypress 29 4.5
Hardwood and Cypress 15 No amendment
Wildlife Enhancement 6 4.5
Species Trial Area 1 8 22.7
Species Trial Area 2 8 13.6
Total Acreage 66 Total applied: 456 tons
i Calcium equivalent compared to agricultural lime: 50%
2 Calcium equivalent compared to agricultural lime: 33%