20021794 Ver 1_Complete File_20001221

> NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
• ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
NCDENR V DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
\ December 18, 2000
Mr. David Le on IW ( j 5
JAMES B. HUNT JR. Field Office Manager, Regulatory Branch - -
GOVERNOR Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889 'tte ,I L::;.rwl
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
Dear Mr. Lekson,
Re: Action ID No. 199910477 / Neu-Con Mitigation Bank
KERR T. STEVENS Greene, Lenoir, and Jones Counties
DIRECTOR
This correspondence references the Banking Instrument (MBI) for the Neu-Con
Wetlands/Stream Mitigation Bank being proposed by Environmental Banc and Exchange,
LLC. Although at this time, the Division approves of the "Umbrella-banking" concept, our
policy of not signing an MBI without an approved site-specific restoration plan remains. We
would like to take the opportunity, though, to comment on the proposed MBI.
(1) DWQ recommends the use of the Credit Formula (DWQ, 1999) in determining number
of available credits. The advantage of this process wraps up all site acres into the credit
make-up.
(2) In section III. E. 4, the addition of word perennial to all waterways (streams, ditches).
(3) Section III. G, DWQ does not support a phased approach to restoration. We want to see
all land in the Bank acquired and protected by Conservation Easement as quick as
possible. DWQ believes protected land should not revert back to unprotected.
(4) Section IV. B, Access to the site must also be granted to holder (grantee) of the
Conservation Easement.
(5) Section IV. E. 1. (a), Note that State requires 1:1 ratio so release of preservation credit
will correspond to restoration credit release (ex. With signing of MBI, only 15% of
restoration acres are available so 15% restoration acres multiplied by 5 will give you
amount of preservation that is readily available).
(6) Credit Release Schedule-In V-5th year, credit is released after success criteria is met.
Final 25% after MBRT has dpproved.
(7) Section IV. E. 1. (b), 30 days is not sufficient amount of time to review, suggest 60 days.
(8) Section V. D. 1, Hydrologic data should be collected from site and reference site
continuously. Report should reflect yearly data.
The Division remains committed to the establishment of high-quality private mitigation
banks. Private banks should not only address compensatory mitigation, but also help address
problems within the watershed. With this approach, private mitigation banking not only
fulfills its regulatory role but also a critical environmental role.
+1 a, s YH
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
1619 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1 6 1 9
website: h2o.enr.state.mus PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
Sincerel ,
Jeff rek, DWQ
cc: John Dorney, Wetlands/401 Unit, DWQi
Jim Mulligan, Regional Supervisor, Washington
Deborah Sawyer, Washington Regional Office, DWQ
Bennett Wynne, NCWRC
Kelly Williams, CAMA
Howard Hall, USFWS
Kathy Matthews, EPA
George Kelly, EBX
I
Neu-Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank
Alexander Wetland Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report For 2003 (Year 1)
Environmental Banc 8v Exchange, LLC
Managers, Bankers, and Traders of Environmental Rights
"we I vi west i w the EVI'V ro wwKe vt t'I
WETLANDS/ 401 GRO()P
NO V 1 4 2003
WATER QUALI7Y SECT)(,,.:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ .. 2
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ .. 2
1.2 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................... .. 2
1.3 PROJECT HISTORY AND SCHEDULE ..................................................................... .. 3
HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA ..................................................................................................... 5
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING EFFORTS ................................. 5
2.3 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING ............................................................ 7
2.3.1 Site Data .................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.2 Climatic Data ............................................................................................................ 9
2.4 HYDROLOGIC CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 9
VEGETATION ............................................................................................................................. 10
3.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 10
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND MONITORING PROTOCAL ............................. 10
3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATIVE MONITORING ............................................................ 11
3.4 VEGETATION CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 11
REFERENCE SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 12
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 13
WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................... 13
VEGETATION OBSERVATIONS .............................................................................................. 13
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION - ALEXANDER MITIGATION SITE ..............................4
FIGURE 2. ALEXANDER WETLAND MITIGATION SITE AS-BUILT DRAWING ............6
FIGURE 3. 2003 GROUNDWATER GAUGE DATA GRAPH ..................................................8
FIGURE 4. COMPARISON OF REFERENCE WETLAND DATA TO RESTORATION
SITE DATA ............................................................................................................12
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS FOR 2003 (YEAR 1) ...........................7
TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF AVERAGE RAINFALL TO OBSERVED RAINFALL ........... 9
TABLE 3. TREE SPECIES PLANTED WITHIN THE ALEXANDER WETLAND
RESTORATION AREA ............................................................................................10
TABLE 4. 2003 VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT SPECIES COMPOSITION ............... 11
TABLE 5. VOLUNTEER TREE SPECIES IDENTIFIED IN THE ALEXANDER
WETLAND RESTORATION AREA ........................................................................11
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. HYDROGRAPH DATA
APPENDIX B. PHOTO LOG
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2003 (YEAR 1)
Alexander Wetland Mitigation Site
November 2003
SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities performed during the 2003 growing season
on the Alexander Wetland Mitigation Site. The data represent results from the first year of
hydrologic and vegetation monitoring.
The design for the Alexander Wetland Mitigation Site involved the restoration of a non-riverine
wet hardwood forest system as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). In these types of
systems, the wet hardwood flats are dominated by bottomland hardwood species that are found
on flats not typically flooded by rivers or tides. These communities may grade to small stream
swamp at the heads of drainages. After construction, it was estimated that 18.5 acres of wetland
hydrology were restored, with an additional 0.9 acres of wetland created and 2.15 acres of
wetland were preserved.
This Annual Report presents the data from three wetland monitoring stations, as specified in the
approved mitigation plan for the site. Two stations are equipped with manual groundwater
gauges (A-M1 and A-M2) and the remaining station is equipped with an automated gauge (A-
A1) and a manual calibration gauge. Additionally, the gauges are points from which
photographs are taken and referenced. Weather station data from the Snow Hill Weather Station
are used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the site to document climatic
conditions. To date, both rainfall gauges corroborate that the total rainfall was over eight inches
above average for the period between the first of March and the middle of October.
Findings from the groundwater and vegetation monitoring stations for the first growing season
after construction are presented. In 2003, all three groundwater monitoring stations met the
hydrologic success criteria based on the data collected. During this period, higher than normal
rainfall amounts were documented.
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, four vegetation plots, 0.1 acre in size, are used
to document the success of planted trees on the mitigation site. The vegetation monitoring
indicated an average survivability of over 440 stems per acre, which is on a trajectory to achieve
the initial vegetation survival criteria of 320 stems per acre after the third growing season. The
average survivability included isolated areas (totaling approximately one acre) with high
mortality due to the species incompatibility with the restored hydrology. This mortality was
observed where oaks were planted in areas that have longer hydroperiods; the areas are
scheduled to be replanted with cypress and swamp gum. Existing dead trees will be replaced
with the aforementioned wetter species.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Located in Greene County, North Carolina, the entire Alexander Wetland Mitigation Site parcel
encompasses 28 acres. It is situated approximately five miles east of the town of Snow Hill, off
of State Road 1490 (Figure 1). This project provides compensatory mitigation for wetland
impacts associated with NC Department of Transportation projects within the resident
hydrologic unit. The Alexander Site was designed to restore a non-riverine wet hardwood forest
system as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Construction, planting, and installation of
groundwater and rain gauge monitoring equipment were all completed in March 2003. This
report documents the first year of monitoring for the site.
The Mitigation Plan predicted that approximately 18.5 acres of wetlands restoration and 2.4
acres of wetland creation were available on the site. Restoration practices were implemented on
an area that was surveyed and verified at 18.5 acres, and the amount of created wetlands was 0.9
acres. Because of the wet conditions during construction, it was difficult to move fill material
from one area of the site to another. For this reason, the non-hydric soil area in the lower
southwestern corner of the site that was originally targeted for wetland creation was left
ungraded, resulting in only 0.9 acre of creation instead of the targeted 2.4 acres. An additional
2.15 acres of existing wetlands were preserved on the western side of the mitigation site through
the conservation easement placed on the entire mitigation site.
1.2 PURPOSE
Monitoring of the Alexander Site is required to demonstrate successful mitigation based on the
criteria described in the Mitigation Plan and the Neu-Con Umbrella Wetland Mitigation Bank
Instrument, and through a comparison to reference site conditions. Both hydrologic and
vegetation monitoring are conducted throughout the growing season. Success criteria must be
met for five consecutive years. This Annual Report details the results of the hydrologic and
vegetation monitoring for 2003 (Year 1) at the Alexander Mitigation Site, which represents the
first year of monitoring following construction.
2
1.3 PROJECT HISTORY AND SCHEDULE
May 2000 Pre-Restoration Monitoring Gauges Installed
March 2003 Approved Mitigation Plan
March 2003 Construction Began
March 2003 Construction Completed
March 2003 Post-Construction Monitoring Plots Established
March 2003 Planting Completed
April 2003 As-Built Report Submitted
November 2003 1St Annual Monitoring Report
November 2004 (scheduled) 2nd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2005 (scheduled) 3rd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2006 (scheduled) 4th Annual Monitoring Report
November 2007 (scheduled) 5th Annual Monitoring Report
3
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Managers, Bankers and Traders of Environmental Rights
--Finding Enuironmentol Solutions through Economic Incentives"
www.ebxusa.com
November 15, 2003
10055 Red Run Boulevard. Suite 130
Owings Mills. MD 21117-4860
410 356-5159 FAX [phone]
8000 Regency Parway. Suite 200A
Cary. North Carolina 27511
919 459-9039 FAX [phone]
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
NOV 1 4 2003
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Circulatiorr
Mitigation Bank Review Team ("MBRT') Members (list attached)
Alexander Site - Nue-Con Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank
Re: Year 1 Monitoring Report
Dear MBRT Members:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Alexander Annual Monitoring
Report for 2003 (Year 1). This Annual Monitoring Report is being
submitted as directed by the approved Mitigation Banking Instrument
("MBI").
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please call me
at [phone].
Best regards,

Tara Disy Allden
Southeast Regional Manager
\\7'l
r ,rC?
f

ci
1-4 ":?v

Circulation List
Mr. Michael F. Bell
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Department of the Army
Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
PO Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Phone: [phone]
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Phone: Work (404) 562-
9373
Mr. Todd StJohn
NC DENR
Division of Water Quality,
Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Phone: [phone]
Mr. Travis W. Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project
Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resource
Commission
1142 I-85 Service Rd.
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Mr. Gary Jordan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone]
Mr. George Kelly
EBX
10055 Red Run Boulevard, Suite
130
Owings Mills, MD 21117-4860
E-mail: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mr. Kevin Tweedy
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite
200
Cary, NC 27511
E-mail:
ktweedy@buckengmeerin?.com
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
f
ii
Project Location

Pitt
s0N ® Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
01E k 10055 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 130
C? Owing Mills, MD 21117
elk
P
WAY E
Figure 1.1
SCALE Project Location
1500 0 1500 3000 Feet 1 Alexander Mitigation Site
4
HYDROLOGY
2.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA
As stated in the approved Mitigation Plan, the hydrologic success criteria for the site is
restoration of the water table so that it will remain within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least
7% of the growing season (17 consecutive days). The day counts are based on the growing
season for Greene County, which is 242 days long, beginning on March 16 and ending
November 13, as determined from National Weather Service Wetlands Determination Tables
(WETS) for the Greeneville 2, NC3638 station. The Mitigation Plan specified that data would
be collected from manual and automated groundwater gauges.
The Mitigation Plan further specifies that in order for the hydrologic data to be considered
successful, the data must demonstrate wetland conditions are present in normal or dryer than
normal conditions. For comparison, we have included monitoring data from the reference
system identified in the Mitigation Plan because it demonstrates positive correlations between
the restoration site and the natural hydrology of the target system.
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING EFFORTS
Two manual groundwater gauges (A-M1 and A-M2), one automated Infinities groundwater
gauge (A-Al), and one rain gauge were installed to monitor site hydrology (Figure 2).
Groundwater gauges, both manual and automated, were installed to a minimum depth of at least
32 inches below the ground surface. The monitoring protocol for the site specifies that automated
monitoring stations will be downloaded and checked for malfunctions on a monthly basis.
During monthly site visits, manual groundwater gauges are read and rainfall totals are collected
from the on-site rain gauge. Raw hydrograph data from monitoring gauges are presented in
Appendix A.
Monitoring stations were established across the site to document the restoration of wetland
hydrology. Groundwater monitoring stations A-M1 and A-A1 were established on March 13 and
groundwater monitoring station A-M2 was installed on April 16, 2003 to fulfill the monitoring
requirements on the site. Monitoring data collected thus far have demonstrated that a range of
hydrologic conditions have been successfully restored to the Alexander Site.
LEGEND
TREE LINE
-- kE;--- - -- CONSERVATION EASEMENT
- PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
----- - EDGE OF CONCRETE/ASPHALT ROAD
- - - - TOP OF DITCH BANK
BASELINE
-+?- CONTOUR
PROPERTY LINE
p PHOTO POINT
w WELL
B BUCK CONTROL POINT
R RAIN GAUGE
RESTORED WETLAND AREA
CREATED WETLAND AREA
A%% e
z r
0
15+50
13+00
`+V f10 AUTO WELL AND
/,,PHOTO POINT
lJ
EXISTING
WETLAND
AREA
O
REFERENCE WELL
I PLAN VIEW OF '
Asawir CONDYT ows
GETATI
d•IU LL'4° PLOT NI ?$
TO POINT
O MANUAL WELL 1 AND
VEGETATION r oe'a'' PHOTO POINT
PLOT02
r ooner
?.Oe a+-ee
,,.co
.??
``p'ro
1 1S BUCK Rpanry PaMaY5uM 2e0
tan. Nnm c.+anna ns++
3.500
PF- 01"3-500
Far.
}` 1
x'11 1l?
1 g1R`
a
,1} % y
0
a1Ae 3,ro ' ?? ' $
1; 6
yVO G ON s
T#3
J $8 }?? y1 11
os +eY-? r
a ?
•NE FENCE qNS 4ONG WOGS ROM
POWER POE ?
N
5047.1
TBM E 5024.4340
E 4912.4281
EL 500
?? Ab
J}p0
2?.p0©
1.N00
aeae
iM Ks Tp --.?? \ ' ay5.0e
s+s+?o
Mao Alz-v
AQ-
-tea ---.?e^
lob"
Mem "' ?ro
ew no+ru
^vr`t.r!..r^, ,•n ,r., Win,
}}
h
3
ti
I' al »I
I?
Ilo I SITE CONT
41
.. III ?h E 4894.833
E 4654.986
60 30 0 60 120
FEET
2.3 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
2.3.1 Site Data
The following hydroperiod statistics were calculated for each monitoring station during
the growing season: 1) most consecutive days that the water table was within twelve
inches of the surface; 2) total number of days that the water table was within twelve
inches of the soil surface; and 3) number of times that the water table rose to within
twelve inches of the soil surface. The results of these calculations are presented in Table
1. Figure 3 provides a chart of the water depth for each of the monitoring gauges on the
site; locations of each gauge are shown in Figure 2. Precipitation is shown across the top
of the hydrograph in Figure 3. These graphs demonstrate the reaction at each monitoring
location of the groundwater level to specific rainfall events.
The site was designed to function with rainfall as its primary hydrologic influence.
Monitoring has thus far demonstrated the influence of rainfall on site hydrology. During
most site visits in the 2003 monitoring season, evidence of surface inundation was
observed in areas across the monitored restoration area.
Table 1. Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2003 (Year 1).
Percentage indicates percent of the growing season.
Monitoring
Station Most Consecutive Days
Meeting Criteria' Cumulative Days
Meeting Criteria2 Number of Instances
Meeting Criteria3
A-A1 26 (11%) 152(63%) 13
A-M1 > 26 (11%) > 152 (63%) -13
A-M2 -26(11%) -152(63%) - 13
' Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table
less than 12 inches from the soil surface.
2 Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less than
12 inches from the soil surface.
3 Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to less
than 12 inches from the soil surface.
a Groundwater gauge A-M1 is a manual gauge. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from
gauge A-Al. The data indicate that, in general, wetter conditions are experienced at the location of A-
M1 than A-Al.
5 Groundwater gauge A-M2 is a manual gauge. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from
gauge A-Al. The data indicate that, in general, the hydrologic conditions at A-M2 are very similar to
those documented at A-Al.
7

r N

Q Q Q
C C C
O O O

O O O

I ?

O N qt co O
(ul) llelule?j
M
O
O
O
M
O
00
N
ti
O
N
N
0
M
O
co
O
O
M
O
O
O
M
O
co
N
O LO CD LO N N M M O
(ui) eoe}ing punoiLZ) o} 9AIJeJa?:j Ian9-1 J918M
14
a
A
a?
bA
r?
V
O
M
O
O
N
M
b?A
Gz,
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Table 2 is a comparison of the 2003 monthly rainfall to historical precipitation (collected
between 1961 and 1990) for the Pitt County area. Data presented were collected from an
automated weather station in Greenville, since no long-term weather data were available for
Greene County. For the period of record in which rainfall measurements were collected on-
site (March 14 through October 13), the rainfall total from the Snow Hill gauge (39.43
inches) correlates well with data collected from the onsite manual rain gauge (40.03 inches).
In general, monthly rainfall amounts for the area were higher than average for the 2003
monitoring season, with the exceptions of the months of January, June, and August. This
comparison gives an indication of how 2003 compares to historical data in terms of average
rainfall. For the 2003 period of record shown, total rainfall was approximately seven inches
higher than the long-term average. Monthly rainfall for October, November, and December
2003 were not available at the time that this report was compiled.
Table 2. Comp arison of Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall.
Month Average 30% 70% Observed 2003
Precipitation
January 4.22 3.16 4.93 1.10
February 3.75 2.78 4.4 5.64
March 3.86 2.86 4.52 5.85
April 3.33 1.97 4.04 5.75
May 4.33 2.86 5.19 10.0
June 4.85 3.06 5.85 1.73
Jul 5.27 3.57 6.29 11.57
August 6.26 3.96 7.55 2.72
September 4.25 2.38 5.17 2.98
October 3.01 1.63 3.68 N/A
November 2.9 1.94 3.47 N/A
December 3.3 2.13 3.97 N/A
2.4 HYDROLOGIC CONCLUSIONS
Data collected from all the groundwater monitoring gauges on the Alexander Mitigation Site
indicate that hydrologic success criteria have been met during the 2003 growing season. All
gauges have demonstrated constant saturated conditions for greater than 7% of the growing
season. In general, constant saturated conditions have been documented for approximately 11 %
of the growing season, with cumulative saturated conditions for over 60% of the growing season.
Although wetter than average conditions were experienced during 2003, the site has performed
well and it is expected that wetland hydrology will be documented under more normal climatic
conditions.
9
VEGETATION
3.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA
The interim measure of vegetative success identified in the approved Mitigation Plan will be the
survival of at least 320 3-year old planted trees per acre at the end of year 3 of the monitoring
period. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 5-year old planted trees
per acre at the end of the monitoring period. Up to 20% of the site species composition may be
comprised of volunteer species. Remedial action may be required should these species (e.g.
Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda), Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Sweet Gum (Liquidambar straciflua)
present a problem and/or exceed the 20% composition.
Construction of the site was completed in March 2003. Monitoring plots for tree survivability
were located on March 18, 2003. Approximately 14,000 trees were planted over 18.5 acres.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND MONITORING PROTOCAL
Table 3. Tree species planted within the Alexander Wetland Restoration Area.
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
1 Fraxinus ennsylvanica Green Ash FACW
2 Nyssa biflora Swam Tupelo OBL
3 Nyssa sylvatica Black um FAC
4 Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak FACW
5 Quercus michauxii Swam Chestnut Oak FACW-
6 Quercus phellos Coastal Willow Oak FACW-
7 Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak FACW-
8 Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress OBL
The following monitoring protocol was designed to observe vegetative survivability. Four plots
were established on the Alexander Mitigation Site, to monitor approximately 2% of the site. The
vegetation monitoring plots were designed to be 0.1 acre in size, or 66 x 66 feet dimensionally.
The plots were randomly located and randomly oriented within the wetland restoration area.
Plot construction involved using metal fence posts at each of the four corners to clearly and
permanently establish the area that was to be sampled. Then ropes were hung connecting all four
corners to help in determining if trees close to the plot boundary were inside or outside of the
plot. Trees immediately on the boundary, and trees just outside of the boundary that appear to
have greater than 50% of their canopy inside the boundary were counted inside the plot. A piece
of white PVC pipe ten feet tall was placed over the metal post on one corner to facilitate visual
location of each sampling plot throughout the five-year monitoring period.
All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged to mark them as the planted stems, (rather
than volunteer species) and to help in locating them in the future. Each stem was then tagged
with a permanent numbered aluminum tag.
10
3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATIVE MONITORING
Table 4 presents stem counts for each of the monitoring stations. Each planted tree species is
identified across the top row and each plot is identified down the left column. The numbers on
the top row correlate to the ID column in Table 3. Trees are flagged regularly before they
degrade. Flags are utilized because they will not interfere with the growth of the tree. Volunteer
species are also flagged during this process.
Table 4. 2003 Vegetation Monitoring Plot S ecies Com osition.
Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Stem/ac
Al 13 2 4 1 1 1 1 7 30 300
A2 13 7 7 7 4 3 6 4 51 510
A3 6 1 2 2 12 5 13 3 44 440
A4 1 0 4 2 12 0 33 0 52 520
Average Stems/Acre: 442
Volunteer species are also monitored throughout the five-year monitoring period. Table 5
presents the most commonly found woody volunteer species. The current volunteer count on the
Alexander site is minimal, consisting mostly of sweetgums near the forest edges. Only a few
volunteers were seen in the vegetation monitoring plots, and they were deemed too small to flag
(less than 6 inches tall).
Table 5. Volunteer Tree Species Identified in the Alexander Wetland Restoration Area.
ID Species Common Name FAC Status
A Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum FAC+
B Platanus occidentalis Sycamore FACW-
C Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC
D Carya spp. * Hickory
E Fraxinus spp. * Ash
* First year sapling; positive identification not possible
3.4 VEGETATION CONCLUSIONS
Approximately 18.5 acres of this site were planted in non riverine wet hardwoods species in
March 2003. There were four 0.1acre vegetation monitoring plots established throughout the
planting area. The 2003 vegetation monitoring revealed an average tree density greater than 440
stems per acre. The average includes some mortality from inundated trees in Plot 1 and does not
include volunteers. The replacement of certain non-surviving trees with species more
compatible with minor inundation will put the site on a trajectory for meeting the minimum
interim success criteria of 320 3-year old planted trees per acre by year three and the final
success criteria of 260 5-year old planted trees per acre by year five.
11
REFERENCE SITE CONDITIONS `
The approved Mitigation Plan provides that if the rainfall data for any given year during the
monitoring period is not normal the reference wetland data can be accessed to determine if there
is a positive correlation between the performance of the restoration site and the natural hydrology
of the reference site.
Although appropriate hydrology was observed-at the site during the 2003 monitoring season,
data from the reference site are compared to restoration site data in Figure 4 since rainfall totals
were higher than normal. Data from the reference wetland groundwater gauge show a positive
correlation with the automated and manual groundwater gauges located across the restoration
site. The automated gauges from both the restoration site and the reference wetland show the
similarity of the natural hydrology of the reference site and the restored hydrology of the
Alexander Mitigation Site. Since the reference site is adjacent to the restoration site, the sites are
subject to the same climatic conditions.
so
2
c 4
6
10
5
c
0
-5
c
C7 -10
0
-15
m
-20
a?
J
? -25
-30
-35
1_ - Ikk ,1'4.._ Ake
f?
\? - \ . . . V YL
- Restoration A-A1 • Restoration A-M1
Restoration A-M2 - Reference Wetland
02/28/03 04/19/03 06/08103 07/28/03
Date
Figure 4. Comparison of Reference Wetland Data to Restoration Site Data.
09/16/03
12
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• First year hydrologic monitoring data show that wetland hydrology criteria have been
achieved.
• Vegetation monitoring efforts have calculated the average number of stems per acre on
site to be 442.5 which is an overall survival rate of almost 80% based on the initial
planting count of 562.5 stems per acre.
• Replacement of the non-surviving trees near Plot 1 with species more compatible with
minor inundation, such as swamp blackgum and/or cypress.
• Monitoring of vegetation and groundwater and surface water levels will continue.
WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
During the 2003 growing season, deer tracks were common during site visits. Rabbit and raccoon
skat were observed on numerous occasions. Frogs are commonly found around the perimeters of
more saturated areas that maintain ponded water for extended periods of time. Wading birds and
herons have also been observed occasionally near these ponded areas. Crayfish chimneys can be
found in many areas of the site.
VEGETATION OBSERVATIONS
After construction of the mitigation site a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia wild
rye (Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea)
was broadcast on the site at a rate of ten pounds per acre. These species and volunteering panic
grass (Dicanthelium spp), rice cut grass (Leersia spp) and a bent grass (Agrostis spp) dominate
the site, thought they pose no threat to the survival or health of the planted or naturally occurring
hydrophytic vegetation. Hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation is also volunteering on site. Rush
(Juncus effusus), sedge (Carex sp. & Cyperus sp.), tear-thumb (Polygonum sagittatum), giant
cane (Arundinaria gigantean), and spike-rush (Eleocharis obtusa), all hydrophytic herbaceous
plants, are frequently observed across the site particularly in areas of inundation. Cat-tail (Typha
latifolia) is also on site. The presence of these herbaceous wetland plants helps to confirm the
presence of wetland hydrology on the site.
There are a few drier weedy species occurring on the site, though none seem to be posing any
problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. The majority of the weedy
species are annuals found on isolated hummocks and they are believed to pose very little threat
to survivability of planted species. Weedy vegetation includes ragweed (Ambrosia
artemisiifolia), partridge pea (Cassia fasciculata), and a sedge (Cyperus spp.). The hummock
dynamic is consistent with the targeted wetland system. No vines or perennials were observed.
Any threatening weedy vegetation found in the future will be documented and discussed.
13
APPENDICES
(APPENDIX MATERIALS ARE INCLUDED ON ENCLOSED CD)