20080868 Ver 2_Inventory of Bonnerton Tract_20100205

v .
L
ATERSHED HYDROLOGY
CONSULTANTS
Inventory of the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road
Wet Flat Hardwoods and Associated Stands
James D. Gregory, Ph.D., CPSS, PWS
Principal/Senior Scientist
Watershed Hydrology Consultants LLC
6301 Deerview Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606
February 4, 2010
72

4
Executive Summary
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) identified two forest tracts owned by PCS
Phosphate Co., Inc. as nonriverine wet hardwood forest and as Significant Natural Heritage Areas
(SNHA); Bonnerton Road Wet Hardwood Forest and Seep (A-Nationally Significant) and Sparrow Road
Wet Hardwood Forest (B-Statewide Significant).
Watershed Hydrology Consultants LLC (WatHydro) conducted a quantitative inventory of the tracts.
The Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road hardwoods tracts, totaling 385 acres, are a diverse assemblage
of 13 forest stands. I identified three principal components of the NHP definition of nonriverine wet
hardwood:
1. The site is an area with mineral soils that is located on a low relief interstream area that is not
adjacent to a stream or water body, i.e. an interstream flat.
2. The site is also a wetland, i.e. an interstream wet flat.
3. The forest stand is mixed hardwood composed of typical canopy tree species as listed in the
Schafale and Weakley (1990) definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest.
Only five of the stands potentially satisfy these components. However, these stands do not satisfy the
'third component unless the key definition is applied so broadly and loosely that it becomes almost
meaningless. Under no circumstances do those five stands meet the definition of the Society of
American Foresters forest cover type SAF 91 Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak that NHP describes
as a synonym for NHP's forest community type nonriverine wet hardwood forest. The EPA/Corps
definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest is likewise not met by any of the five wetland mixed
hardwood stands.
None of the five wetland mixed hardwood stands, totaling 204 acres, meet the stated NHP standard of
being natural communities. The five stands are not natural stands and are poor quality, resulting from
logger's choice timber harvesting.
• From the perspective of silvicultural science, the five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands are
low quality when evaluated on the basis of their current condition compared to the potential
condition and productivity of the site and the cover type.
• The stands are immature, dominated by relatively young and small trees. The few scattered
older and larger trees are also mostly younger than the expected age and size at physiological
maturity for such stands.
• The stocking levels of the stands are well below the full stocking basal area expected of a natural
wetland mixed hardwood stand and have a patchy, highly variable density across the stands.
2
Y
• Repeated selection timber harvesting has resulted in reduction of the density of desirable tree
species and an increase in density of undesirable tree species, a reduction in the genetic base of
desirable tree species, and a reduction in the timber quality of the remaining trees.
• Unplanned and uncontrolled log skidding on wet soils has resulted in severe and widespread soil
disturbance, including compaction, mixing of the profile, and destruction of soil structure.
• The degradation of soil physical properties in turn has degraded the hydrologic properties of the
soils and degraded the productive capacity of the soils.
The descriptions of the two tracts in various NHP reports have a number of inaccuracies, including the
following:
• The acreage of nonriverine wet hardwood forest on both tracts is overstated.
• The tracts are described as mature, high quality forest, which is not true.
• The brief qualitative description of the forest vegetation by NHP overstates the importance of
oaks in the tract, particularly the density of the keystone oak species, laurel oak and swamp
chestnut oak.
• Vegetation and soils evidence both indicate that the so-called Suffolk Scarp seepage community
purported to be a part of the Bonnerton Road hardwoods is not present.
• The NHP descriptions of the sites fail to take into account or even mention the degraded soil
properties.
• The site descriptions make statements about long duration inundation across the surface of the
tracts that are unsupported by data and contradicted by lack of surface hydrologic indicators.
The process utilized by NHP to rate the Bonnerton Road hardwoods as a SNHA of National Significance
and the Sparrow Road hardwoods as a SNHA of Statewide Significance is a relative comparison process.
• The Bonnerton Road hardwoods and the Sparrow Road hardwoods do not meet the criteria to
be identified as natural heritage areas, presumably a step in the process of listing a site as a
"significant" natural heritage area.
• NHP apparently does not have the inventory data across the potential natural range of the
nonriverine wet hardwood forest type to justify the Nationally significant ranking of the
Bonnerton Road hardwoods and the Statewide significant ranking of the Sparrow Road
hardwoods.
• Evaluation of the significance rating factors of size, condition, and landscape context confirms
that the Bonnerton Road hardwoods and Sparrow Road hardwoods do not qualify for
significance rankings above that of county significance.
3
The procedures used by NHP to conduct surveys of natural elements are quite limited and inadequate. A
review of available data suggests that nonriverine wet hardwood forest as defined by NHP can be
expected to be more common and have a much broader distribution than suggested (without reference
to any data) by NHP.
4

Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .........................................................................................................................................7
1.2 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS REPORT ....................................................................................................................8
1.2.1 Forest Tracts, Stands, and Communities ..................................................................................................8
1.2.2 Tree and Stand Basal Area .......................................................................................................................9
1.2.3 Dominant Species .....................................................................................................................................9
1.2.4 Forest Maturity ........................................................................................................................................9
1.2.5 Full Stocking .............................................................................................................................................9
1.2.6 Wetland Types .......................................................................................................................................10
1.2.7 Forest Type Names .................................................................................................................................11
2 DEFINITIONS AND QUALITY OF NONRIVERINE WET HARDWOOD FOREST ...................................................11
2.1 VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OF THE NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ...................................11
2.1.1 NHP Definition of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest ...........................................................................11
2.1.2 Applying the NHP Definition of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest ......................................................15
2.1.2.1 Criteria for Interstream Wet Flats ................................................................................................................. 15
2.1.2.2 Criteria for Wetland Sites .............................................................................................................................. 16
2.1.2.3 Tree Species Composition of the Forest Stand ............................................................................................. 17
2.1.3 NHP Quality Criteria ...............................................................................................................................18
2.2 EPA/CORPS DEFINITION AND QUALITY CRITERIA ..................................................................................................19
3 DISTRIBUTION OF THE NONRIVERINE WET HARDWOOD FOREST TYPE ........................................................20
3.1 NATURAL RANGES OF TREE SPECIES TYPICAL OF THE NONRIVERINE WET HARDWOOD FOREST TYPE ................................21
3.2 NATURAL RANGES OF SITES TYPICAL OF THE NONRIVERINE WET HARDWOOD FOREST TYPE ........................................ ..24
4 SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................................... .26
5 INVE NTORY METHODS ................................................................................................................................28
5.1 GIS APPLICATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ ..28
5.2 INVENTORY DESIGN ....................................................................................................................................... ..28
5.3 GPS APPLICATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... ..29
5.4 PLOT DATA COLLECTION AND DATA SUMMARIZATION .......................................................................................... ..29
5.5 STAND DIFFERENTIATION WITHIN TRACTS .......................................................................................................... ..31
6 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... . 32
6.1 STAND DIFFERENTIATION WITHIN THE TRACTS .................................................................................................... ..32
6.2 TERRAIN, HYDROLOGIC CHARACTER, AND SOILS OF THE TRACTS AND STANDS ........................................................... ..35
6.2.1 Bonnerton Road Tracts ........................................................................................................................ ..35
6.2.2 Sparrow Road Tracts ..............................................................................................................................37
6.3 TREE SPECIES PRESENT ON THE TRACTS ............................................................................................................. ..38
6.4 THE STANDS OF WETLAND MIXED HARDWOOD FOREST ....................................................................................... ..39
6.4.1 Basal Area by Species .............................................................................................................................40
6.4.2 Tree Diameter Distributions .................................................................................................................. .45
6.4.3 Sapling Density ...................................................................................................................................... .48
6.5 THE STANDS THAT ARE NOT WETLAND MIXED HARDWOOD ................................................................................... .52
5

6.5.1 Bonnerton Road East Tract, Stand B: Nonwetland; Yellow Poplar-Red Maple ......................................52
6.5.2 Bonnerton Road East Tract, Stand C: Riverine Wetland; Red Maple-Yellow Poplar ..............................53
6.5.3 Bonnerton Road East-West Connector Tract : Nonwetland; Yellow Poplar-Loblolly Pine-Sweetgum ...54
6.5.4 Bonnerton Road West Tract Stand B: Nonwetland; Sweetgum-Red Maple-Loblolly Pine ....................55
6.5.5 Bonnerton Road North-South Connector Tract: Mineral Flat Wetland; Loblolly Pine-Sweetgum-Yellow
Poplar 57
6.5.6 Sparrow Road Hardwoods Tract, Stand B: Nonwetland; Yellow Poplar-Swamp Chestnut Oak-American
Beech 58
6.5.7 Sparrow Road Hardwoods Tract, Stand C: Nonwetland; Loblolly Pine-Sweetgum ................................60
6.5.8 Sparrow Road Pine Tract: Nonwetland; Loblolly Pine Plantation ..........................................................61
7 DISCUSSION -THE WETLAND MIXED HARDWOOD STANDS ........................................................................62
7.1 SUMMARY OF STAND STRUCTURE ...................................................................................................................... 63
7.2 COMPARING INVENTORY DATA TO THE NHP DESCRIPTIONS OF BONNERTON ROAD AND SPARROW ROAD HARDWOODS .... 63
7.2.1 Areas of the Stands of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood ............................................................................... 64
7.2.2 The Suffolk Scarp Seep Community at the Bonnerton Road Site ........................................................... 64
7.2.3 Descriptions of the Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 65
7.2.4 Soils and Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 66
7.3 ARE THE WETLAND MIXED HARDWOOD STANDS NATURAL COMMUNITIES? .............................................................. 66
7.3.1 Degraded Stand Structure and Quality - The Effects of Frequent Timber Harvesting ........................... 67
7.3.2 Degraded Soil and Hydrologic Conditions - The Effects of Frequent Timber Harvesting ....................... 69
7.4 DO THE STANDS MEET THE NHP AND EPA/CORPS DEFINITIONS OF NONRIVERINE WET HARDWOOD FOREST? .................... 69
7.4.1 Forest Type - Common Name ................................................................................................................ 70
7.4.2 Forest Type - Dominant Canopy Species ............................................................................................... 70
7.4.3 Natural, Generally Undisturbed Stand ................................................................................................... 70
7.4.4 NHP Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest Definition: .............................................................................. 70
7.4.5 Oak Flat Subtype Definition ................................................................................................................... 70
7.4.6 Schafale 2008 Definition ........................................................................................................................ 70
7.4.7 EPA/Corps Definition .............................................................................................................................. 71
7.4.8 SAF 91 Definition .................................................................................................................................... 71
7.5 ARE THE PCS WETLAND MIXED HARDWOOD STANDS OF HIGH QUALITY? ................................................................. 73
7.5.1 Quality Compared to Site and Forest Cover Potential ........................................................................... 73
7.5.2 EPA/Corps Quality Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 73
7.5.3 The NHP Process for Adding Sites to the SNHA List ............................................................................... 73
7.5.3.1 Do the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road Sites Qualify as Natural Heritage Areas? ................................. 74
7.5.3.2 Do the Bonnerton and Sparrow Road Site Qualify as SNHAs? ...................................................................... 75
8 CON CLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 77
8.1 INVENTORY RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................77
8.2 NHP DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BONNERTON ROAD HARDWOODS AND SPARROW ROAD HARDWOODS ................................78
8.3 CLASSIFICATION OF THE WETLAND MIXED HARDWOOD STANDS ..............................................................................78
8.4 QUALITY OF THE PCS WETLAND MIXED HARDWOOD STANDS .................................................................................79
9 REFERENCES CITED ......................................................................................................................................80
10 APPENDIX - MAPS ....................................................................................................................................... 83
6
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Scope
Tracts of wet flat hardwoods on two sites, the Bonnerton Road hardwoods and Sparrow Road
hardwoods, have been identified by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) as nonriverine
wet hardwood forest (NHP, Undated A, B, & C), based on a forest community type description in
Schafale and Weakley (1990). Along with associated secondary tracts of other forest types, the four
primary tracts on the two sites identified by NHP as nonriverine wet hardwood forest are also listed by
NHP as Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) in North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Biennial
Protection Plan, List of Significant Natural Heritage Areas (NHP,2009). In that list, the Bonnerton Road
site, labeled as Bonnerton Road Wet Hardwood Forest and Seep is listed as having "Natural Area
Significance" rating of "A -Nationally significant natural areas..."; and the Sparrow Road site labeled as
Sparrow Road Wet Hardwood Forest is listed as having "Natural Area Significance" rating of "B -
Statewide significant natural areas.." (NHP 2009). Located on lands of PCS Phosphate Co., Inc., Aurora,
NC (PCS) the two sites are described in more detail below.
Watershed Hydrology Consultants LLC (WatHydro) independently determined the presence or absence
of the nonriverine wet hardwood forest type in the forest tracts within the Bonnerton Road and
Sparrow Road hardwoods, and where present, the quality of the nonriverine wet hardwood forest by:
Examination of the definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest in Schafale and Weakley
(1990) and the potential natural range of the forest type,
• Conducting a quantitative inventory of the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road tracts, and
• Comparing results of the inventory to the NHP descriptions of the tracts on the two PCS sites
and to the NHP criteria for identification and SNHA ranking of tracts of nonriverine wet
hardwood forest.
The purposes of WatHydro's inventory of the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road hardwoods were to
differentiate stands within the tracts and provide a quantitative characterization of the stands to
include: tree species composition and stand density by species, tree diameter distribution, wetland
status, forest type, and stand quality.
Specific objectives of WatHydro's inventory of the Bonnerton Road hardwoods and the Sparrow Road
hardwoods and application of the inventory data to testing NHP's identification and ranking of the sites
were to:
1. Conduct the forest inventory and differentiate and describe the forest stands of the Bonnerton Road
and Sparrow Road hardwoods :
A. Determine the tree species composition and tree density by species of the overstory and sapling
strata in sample areas across each forest tract including:

(1) The basal area per acre by species of all canopy trees and the total basal area,
(2) The range of tree sizes (i.e. diameter at breast height), and
(3) The density (number/ac) by species of saplings of canopy tree species.
B. Examine the soil profile at sample locations across each tract to:
(1) Confirm the presence or absence of hydric soils as an indicator of the wetland status of the
forest ecosystem across each tract and
(2) Determine the degree of soil disturbance from timber harvesting activities.
C. Examine terrain features and soil surface conditions to assess the effects of timber harvesting
and the presence or absence of hydrology indicators.
D. Based on the characteristics of the forest canopy and the wetland or nonwetland status in the
sample areas, differentiate and map the forest stands within each tract.
2. Compare the forest inventory data to the NHP descriptions of the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow
Road hardwoods.
3. Determine whether each forest stand meets the NHP definitions of nonriverine wet hardwood
forest and the oak flat subtype.
4. Determine whether each forest stand meets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest.
5. Describe the quality of the PCS stands that may meet the NHP definition of nonriverine wet
hardwood forest in relation to:
A. Scientific forestry standards,
B. Criteria of the EPA and Corps for determining whether a stand is high quality, and
C. The NHP process for rating sites in the SNHA list as Nationally significant or Statewide
significant.
1.2 Terminology Used in This Report
1.2.1 Forest Tracts, Stands, and Communities
The term "forest tract" as used in this report refers to a specific forested area, usually under one
ownership, that is the focus of forest assessment and management activities. A "forest stand", also
"forest ecosystem", is a forested area that is relatively uniform in terms of characteristics of the site and
of the forest and is amenable to management as a unit. A tract may contain one or more stands.
Analogous to "forest stand" are "forest community" and "vegetation community", terms commonly
used by botanists. These distinctions are important because this inventory revealed that the PCS wet flat
8
hardwood forest tracts that have been referred to in NHP documents as nonriverine wet hardwood
forest communities (stands) are actually composed of 2 or more stands, some of which are not
nonriverine wet hardwood forest.
1.2.2 Tree and Stand Basal Area
"Tree basal area" is the horizontal cross-sectional area of the bole of a tree measured at 4.5 ft above
ground, the standard height for measurement of tree diameter or dbh (diameter at breast height) in
forest measurements. "Stand basal area" is the average total basal area per acre of the trees in the
stand, estimated by measuring the total basal area per acre of the trees in a series of sample plots. The
units of stand basal area are ftz/ac in the English system of units. Foresters commonly use stand basal
area as the preferred measure of tree density because total basal area per acre is highly correlated to
and is an easily measured surrogate for total leaf area per acre which is the optimum measure of stand
density. In addition, the proportion of stand basal area represented by a tree species is an excellent
estimate of the ecological importance of that species in the forest community.
1.2.3 Dominant Species
"Dominant species" is a standard term in the fields of forestry, forest ecology, and plant ecology that
means the species of highest density that together constitute more than 50 % of the density of a plant
community. For forest stands, the dominant tree species are those with the highest percent of stand
basal area that combined constitute more than 50 % of stand basal area.
1.2.4 Forest Maturity
"Physiological maturity" of a forest stand is reached when the annual increments of height and diameter
of the dominant overstory trees decline to near zero. For good quality mixed hardwood stands in the
Coastal Plain of North Carolina, the dominant trees are 150+ years old and 30+ inches in diameter in
mature stands. In this report, the term "immature" as used when describing the PCS forest stands refers
to physiological maturity.
An "ecologically mature" forest, also often called a climax forest, is one in which the canopy is
dominated by shade tolerant, long lived tree species, many of which are oaks in stands that are within
the natural range of oak species. Several centuries of undisturbed natural succession are needed to
attain ecological maturity in a forest stand that developed on an old field or after a clearcut or after a
natural disturbance such as a severe wildfire.
1.2.5 Full Stocking
Stocking level in a forest stand refers to the density of the trees in the stand, expressed as total tree
basal area per acre. "Full stocking" is the density of a stand that is fully utilizing the light, water, and
nutrient resources of the site. In managed stands, landowners manipulate stocking levels via periodic
partial or clearcut harvesting to attain specific management objectives. Natural stands not subject to
anthropogenic manipulation are generally fully stocked unless a natural event such as disease or insects
has damaged or killed trees in the stand. The data collected in this inventory combined with my
experience in several very high quality mixed hardwood stands at other locations in the Coastal Plain of

the Southeast provide evidence that full stocking of nonriverine wet hardwood forest stands likely is
average basal area of approximately 300 ft2/ac.
1.2.6 Wetland Types
The term "nonriverine" used by Schafale and Weakley (1990) is a generalized blanket term for wetlands
not associated with riparian zones of streams, lakes, ponds, or estuaries that is used by the EPA and
Corps in particular applications such as wetland mitigation programs. However, the term "nonriverine"
is not used in any wetland classification system, e.g.,.the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification system
developed by the Corps (Brinson 1993, Smith 1995) or the National Wetlands Inventory classification
system developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al., 1979). In this report, standard
wetland type names will follow the HGM terminology. Nonriverine wet hardwood forest stands may
occur on three HGM wetland types, all with mineral soils and with hydrology on the dry end of the
wetland hydrology spectrum:
Depressional wetlands - occur in topographic depressions with a closed elevation contour that
allows accumulation of surface water. Depressional wetlands may have any combination of
inlets and outlets or lack them completely. Many depressional wetlands accumulate ponded
water during shallow water table conditions' both because of receiving groundwater or interflow
discharge from a surrounding watershed and because of restrictive soil layers that limit vertical
seepage. The hydrologic conditions in depressional wetlands range from those with infrequent
and short periods of ponding to those that are ponded year round in years of normal rainfall.
Depressional wetlands occur in all physiographic regions of North Carolina but are much more
common in the Coastal Plain (Carolina Bays and limestone sinkholes) than in the Piedmont and
Mountains.
• Mineral flat wetlands - occur in relatively large areas of low topographic relief with mineral
soils and are most common on broad flat interfluves (high elevation areas between streams
flowing in the same direction), extensive relic lake bottoms, and large flood plain terraces. The
dominant source of water is often precipitation on interfluvial flats but many mineral flats also
receive lateral groundwater or interflow input from adjacent organic soil wet flats or mineral soil
wet flats that are at higher elevation or from adjacent uplands. Vertical water loss is often very
slow due to restrictive layers in the soil or, in the coastal zone, low hydraulic gradients due to
proximity to sea level. Mineral flat wetlands are located predominantly in the Coastal Plain but
may occur on broad stream terraces in the Piedmont.
Slope wetlands - are normally found where there is a discharge of ground water to the land
surface on sloping land, often due to a restrictive layer in the soil. Elevation gradients may range
from steep hillsides with gradients to 100 % or more in the Mountains to slight slopes with
gradients of less than 5 % in the Coastal Plain. Slope wetlands occur in all physiographic regions
in North Carolina.
10
1.2.7 Forest Type Names
The common names used for forest types by foresters and forest ecologists vary regionally and by the
particular application for a stand description. Standard practice in forestry and forest ecology is that
forest type names refer to the dominant tree species in the stand. Examples are loblolly pine,
sweetgum-red maple, and swamp chestnut oak-laurel oak-cherrybark oak. When the general character
of the tree species composition of a stand is known but inventory data are not available, more general
type names may be used such as pine stand, mixed hardwood stand, etc. Common names for forest
types may often include a reference to the landscape position such as bottomland hardwood, wet flat
hardwood, and gum-cypress swamp. Because the wetland status of stands within the Bonnerton Road
and Sparrow Road hardwoods tracts is an important issue, the convention of stand type common names
to be followed in this report after detailed inventory data is applied to differentiate the stands is:
wetland or nonwetland plus dominant tree species.
2 Definitions and Quality of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
2.1 Vegetation Classification System of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program
Nonriverine wet hardwood forest is a forest community type defined in Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation (Schafale and Weakley,1990), a specialty
classification of vegetation communities for use in the conservation programs of NHP. Schafale and
Weakley (1990, p.2) state that "this document presents a framework for the classification of natural
communities in North Carolina" and that "natural communities are valuable elements of natural
diversity." Nonriverine wet hardwood forest does not appear in any of the ecoregion or forest cover
classification systems that are commonly used by forestry professionals and state and federal forestry
agencies (Bailey, 1995; Cleland et al., 1997; Eyre, 1980; USDA Forest Service, 1977, 1991, and 2005).
Under the heading "Wet Nonalluvial Forests of the Coastal Plain" in Schafale and Weakley (1990) are
three forest community types that are wet flat hardwood forests: nonriverine wet hardwood forest,
nonriverine swamp forest, and wet marl forest.
2.1.1 NHP Definition of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
Identification of a forest stand by NHP as nonriverine wet hardwood forest is based, at least in part, on
the description in Schafale and Weakley (1990):
NONRIVERINE WET HARDWOOD FOREST
Sites: Poorly drained interstream flats with fine-textured mineral soils, not associated
with rivers or estuaries. Typically on the margins of large peatland areas.
Soils: Poorly drained loamy or clayey mineral soils. Series include Arapahoe (Typic
'Humaquept), Argent (Typic Ochraqualf), Roanoke (Typic Ochraquult), Stockade (Typic
11

Umbroqualf), Brookman (Typic Umbroqualf), Deloss (Typic Umbraquult), Pantego
(Umbric Poleaquult), and Masontown (Cumulic Humaquept).
Hydrology: Polustrine. Seasonally saturated or flooded by high water tables, poor
drainage, and perhaps by sheet flow from adjacent pocosins.
Vegetation: Forest dominated by various hardwood trees typical of bottomlands.
Typical species include Quercus michouxii, Q. lourifolia, Q. pagoda (falcata var.
pagodoefolia), Liriodendron tulipifera, Liquidamborstyraciflua, Ulm us americana, Acer
rubrum, and Nyssa biflora. The understory includes species such as Carpinus caroliniana,
Acer rubrum, Ilex opoca, and Asimina triloba. The shrub layer is generally sparse to
moderate but may be dense. Species include Lindera benzoin, Persea polustris,
Leucothoe oxillaris, Clethra alnifolia, Vaccinium corymbosum, Myrica cerifera,
Arundinaria gigantea, Sabal minor, and Callicarpa americana. Vines such as Bignonia
(Anisostichus) copreolata, Toxicodendron (Rhus) radicans, Campsis radicans, Berchemia
scandens, and Vitis spp. may be common. The herb layer may include Carex spp.,
Soururus cernuus, Boehmeria cylindrica, Woodwardia areolato, Athyrium filix femino
var. asplenioides, and Mitchella repens.
Dynamics: These communities appear to be stable climaxes when hydrology is not too
altered. They seem unlikely to carry fire even if adjacent areas burn. However, some
sites may have once supported understories of Arundinaria gigantea, which would have
been highly flammable. Hughes (1952) described extensive, frequently burned
canebrakes, with dense cane and sparse trees. Some such cane occurred with "lowland
hardwoods." Some of these canebrakes may have succeeded to Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest vegetation when frequent fire was suppressed.
Range: Primarily in the outer parts of the embayed section of the Coastal Plain,
potentially scattered farther inland and farther south.
Associations: These communities often occur on the margins of large peatlands, grading
into Pond Pine Woodland or other pocosin communities on one side and better drained
upland communities such as Mesic Mixed Hardwoods Forest or Dry- Mesic Oak--Hickory
on the other side. They may grade to Small Stream Swamp at the head of drainages.
They may also occur on smaller upland flats.
Distinguishing Features: Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are distinguished by the
combination of bottomland oak or mixed hardwood vegetation with location on flats not
flooded by rivers or tidal waters. They are distinguished from Wet Marl Forest by the
lack of marl-derived soils (though they may occur on Alfisols) and substantial occurrence
of calciphilic plants. They are distinguished from Nonriverine Swamp Forest by drier
conditions and by the predominance of bottomland hardwood species over Taxodium
distichum, Nysso biflora, and other swamp species. They maybe distinguished from
Mesic Mixed Hardwoods Forests by the dominance of bottomland trees as listed above.
12
If upland mesic species such as Fagus grandifolia and Quercus alba are present, they are
a minor component and are confined to the highest microtopography. The Upland Flat
Variant of the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) may contain
significant numbers of Quercus michauxii and Q. pagoda, but has a less wet vegetational
composition overall.
Synonyms:
SAF 91: Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak (but in a different habitat from described).
Oak Flats (Ashe and Pinchot 1897).
Bottomland hardwoods (general usage).
Two synonyms for nonriverine wet hardwood forest listed by Schafale and Weakley (1990) are
both forest types that are defined as dominated by swamp chestnut oak and cherrybark oak.
1. The forest cover type SAF 91 Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak, which is widely used
by forestry professionals, is part of a forest classification system published by the
Society of American Foresters (SAF), Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada
(Eyre, 1980). The naming convention for SAF forest cover types is that the tree species in
the name are the predominant species as determined by basal area and each species in
the name must constitute at least 20 % of the stand basal area. Thus to be classified as
SAF 91, a forest stand must have at least 20 % of the stand basal area in swamp
chestnut oak, at least 20 % of the stand basal area in cherrybark oak, and more than 50
% of the stand basal area in the two species combined.
2. Pinchot and Ashe (1897) in their treatise on the forests of North Carolina in the
1800's, Timber Trees and Forests of North Carolina, defined "Oak Flats" as a forest type
dominated by swamp chestnut oak, overcup oak, and cherrybark oak. "The oak flats
border most of the gum and cypress swamps... Swamp chestnut oak and overcup oak,
Spanish oak (southern red oak and/or cherrybark oak), and occasional white oaks form a
great part of the growth of the interior; with them, elms, red maple, cottonwood, and
more or less sweet gum and water gum."
In Site Survey Report Form, Bonnerton Road Wet Hardwood Forest and Seep, NHP (Undated A)
described the presence of two subclasses of the nonriverine wet hardwood forest type: oak flat
subtype and oak-gum slough subtype. Those subtypes are not identified or described in Schafale
and Weakley (1990). However, at my request, Michael P. Schafale provided the unpublished
March, 2009 version of the Fourth Approximation Guide, Coastal Plain Communities of North
Carolina (Schafale, 2009a) that includes the definitions of the two subtypes of nonriverine wet
hardwood forest.
NONRIVERINE WET HARDWOOD FOREST (OAK FLAT SUBTYPE) G2
Synonyms: Quercus michauxii - Quercus pagoda /Clethro alnifolia - Leucothoe axillaris
Forest (CEGLOO7449).
13

Atlantic Coastal Plain Nonriverine Swamp and Wet Hardwood Forestsystem (CES203.304).
Concept: Type covers wetland forests of nonalluvial flats not underlain by limestone,
dominated by wetland oaks and other hardwoods. Subtype covers the more mesic
(though still wet) examples, dominated by combinations of Quercus michauxii, Quercus
pagoda, and Liquidambar styraciflua.
Distinguishing Features: The Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest type is distinguished by
the dominance of bottomland oaks and Liquidambar in a site not subject to overland
flooding. The dominance of the shrub layer by Leucothoe axillaris or Clethra alnifolia
distinguishes them from Brownwater Bottomland Hardwoods and most Blackwater
Bottomland Hardwoods. The canopy composition also distinguishes them from
Blackwater Bottomland Hardwoods. Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are
distinguished from Nonriverine Swamp Forests, which may occur in similar settings and
are sometimes associated, by the canopy dominance of oaks or Liquidambar rather than
Nyssa or Taxodium. Disturbed examples of either may become strongly dominated by
Pinus toedo, and may be distinguishable only by undergrowth.
The Oak Flat Subtype is distinguished by a canopy consisting of Quercus michauxii,
Quercus pagoda, or a mixture of oaks rother.than dominated by Quercus laurifolia and
Nyssa biflora.
Comments: These community often become strongly dominated by Pinus toedo or
Liquidambar styraciflua if clearcut. It is possible that some naturally Liquidambor-
dominated examples occur.
NONRIVERINE WET HARDWOOD FOREST (OAK-GUM SLOUGH SUBTYPE) G2G3
Synonyms: Quercus laurifolia - Nyssa biflora/Clethra alnifolia - Leucothoe axillaris
Forest (CEGL007447).
Atlantic Coastal Plain Nonriverine Swamp and Wet Hardwood Forest (CES203.304).
Concept: Type covers wetland forests of nonalluvial flats not underlain by limestone,
dominated by wetland oaks and other hardwoods. Subtype covers the wetter examples,
dominated by Quercus laurifolia, often with abundant Nysso biflora. These examples are
transitional to Nonriverine Swamp Forest.
Distinguishing Features: The Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest type is distinguished by
the dominance of bottomland oaks and Liquidambar in a site not subject to overland
flooding. The dominance of the shrub layer by Leucothoe axillaris or Clethra alnifolia
distinguishes them from Brownwater Bottomland Hardwoods and most Blackwater
Bottomland Hardwoods. The canopy composition also distinguishes them from
Blackwater Bottomland Hardwoods. Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are
distinguished from Nonriverine Swamp Forests, which may occur in similar settings and
are sometimes associated, by the canopy dominance of oaks or Liquidambar rather than
14
Nyssa or Taxodium. Disturbed examples of either may become strongly dominated by
Pinus taedo, and may be distinguishable only by undergrowth.
The Oak-Gum Slough Subtype is distinguished by the dominance of Quercus laurifolia
and Nyssa biflora, usually with only minor amounts of Quercus michauxii or Quercus
pagoda.
Comments: There are fewer records for this subtype than for the Oak Flat Subtype. It
may, however, be overlooked. It is generally associated with the Oak Flat Subtype and is
less extensive. Quercus pagoda - Quercus michauxii - Quercus alba /Arundinaria
gigantea ssp. Tecta - Sabal minor/Chasmanthium laxum Forest is a related community
of South Carolina and Georgia. Quercus phellos - Nyssa biflora / Panicum hemitomon
Carex spp. - Woodwardia virginica Forest (CEGL004014)$$ is a more pond-like
community of South Carolina.
2.1.2 Applying the NHP Definition of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
The NHP definitions of nonriverine wet hardwood forest and the two subtypes fail to provide clear,
specific criteria that can be applied to inventory data to determine the presence of a nonriverine wet
hardwood forest. My interpretation is that a stand meets the NHP definition of nonriverine wet
hardwood forest if three principal components of the definition are present in the stand:
1. The site is an area with mineral soils that is located on a low relief interstream area that is not
adjacent to a stream or water body, i.e. an interstream flat.
2. The site is also a wetland, i.e. an interstream wet flat.
3. The forest stand is mixed hardwood composed of typical canopy tree species as listed in the
Schafale and Weakley (1990) definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest.
2.1.2.1 Criteria for Interstream Wet Flats

The landscape positions on which nonriverine wet hardwood forest occurs are known by many similar
names, e.g., interstream flat, wet flat, nonalluvial flat, interfluvial flat, and interstream wet flat. Such
positions are best described by the definition of mineral flat wetlands: occur in relatively large areas of
low topographic relief with mineral soils and are most common on broad flat interfluves (high elevation
areas between streams flowing in the same direction), extensive relic lake bottoms, and large flood plain
terraces. Such sites occur predominantly in the Coastal Plain and the largest areas of these sites are in
the eastern Coastal Plain.
Assessment of topographic maps and soil mapping units can suggest potential locations of interstream
wet flats. Surface slope gradients are typically less than 0.5 % (approximately 25 ft/mi). Soil map unit
descriptions available from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) on the Soil Data Mart
web site (http:Hsoildatamart.nres.usda.gov/) provide the information needed to select appropriate soil
map units, landscape position and drainage class. Soil map units that occur on interstream flats and that
are poorly drained or very poorly drained are likely interstream wet flat sites.
15
Schafale and Weakley (1990) provide a list of soil map units typical of nonriverine wet hardwood forest
which includes very poorly and poorly drained mineral soils typically found on interstream wet flats in
North Carolina (Table 1). There is an error in the soils list in Schafale and Weakley (1990) in that
Masontown muck loam is a very poorly drained alluvial mineral soil typically found on floodplains of
blackwater streams in the lower Coastal Plain and does not occur on interstream flats.
Table 1. Soil map units noted as typical for nonriverine wet hardwood forest stands by Schafale and
Weakley (1990).
Soil Map Unit Classification Drainage Class Landscape Position
(Subgroup)
Arapahoe loamy fine

sand Typic Humaquepts very poorly drained interstream flats
Brookman clay loam Umbric Endoaqualfs very poorly drained broad shallow depressions &
floodplains
Deloss fine sandy loam Typic Umbraquults very poorly drained interstream flats
Pantego loam Umbric Paleaquults very poorly drained interstream flats & broad
shallow depressions
Stockade fine sandy interstream flats, shallow
Umbric Endoaqualfs very poorly drained
loam drainages & depressions
poorly or very poorly
Argent clay loam Typic Endoaqualfs interstream flats
drained
Roanoke silt loam Typic Endoaquults poorly drained terraces and drainageways
floodplains along streams of the
Masontown muck loam Cumulic Humaquepts very poorly drained
Lower Coastal Plain
Because of the variability and complexity of soils on broad interstream flats, large depressions, and large
sloping areas in the Coastal Plain, soil map unit designations are often inaccurate. In addition, soil map
units that are named for a soil series (i.e. dominant series in the map unit) that is classified as a hydric
soil often have significant areas of inclusions of nonhydric soil series. Thus, the presence of certain soil
map units on a soil survey map cannot be relied upon to confirm that a particular site is indeed a
wetland. It follows that the presence of map units of poorly drained or very poorly drained soils on
interfluvial zones on a soils map do not confirm the presence of a nonriverine wet hardwood forest
stand regardless of the character of the forest community. Only field confirmation of the presence of
wetland indicators, including hydric soils, can confirm the presence of a wetland and the presence of a
nonriverine wet hardwood forest stand.
2.1.2.2 Criteria for Wetland Sites
In the definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest, Schafale and Weakley (1990) do not provide a
specific definition nor field-assessable criteria for what they call a wet or wetland site. The hydrologic
descriptors in the definition, "seasonally saturated or flooded by high water tables", are not specific
enough to test with field data. Those hydrologic descriptors are similar to the nontidal water regime
16
modifiers in Cowardin et al. (1979), but all of the hydrologic definitions in that publication are similarly
nonspecific and not testable with field data. The term "wetland forest of nonalluvial flats" in the
definition of the oak flat subtype is equally nonspecific.
For this inventory, we presumed that nonriverine wet hardwood forest stands occur only within wetland
boundaries as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands manuals (USACE,
1987 and 2008). The Corps criteria and indicators are much more specific for a wetland determination
than the general soils and hydrology terms in Schafale and Weakley (1990) and the water regime
modifiers in Cowardin et al. (1979).
2,1.2.3 Tree Species Composition of the Forest Stand
The most problematic of the three principal components of the NHP nonriverine wet hardwood forest
definition to test with data is the tree species composition of the forest stand in question. Unlike
standard forest type definitions widely used in forestry and forest ecology, such as SAF 91, the definition
of nonriverine wet hardwood forest in Schafale and Weakley (1990) does not have specific testable
criteria. The definition does not specify dominant tree species but provides a long list of "typical
species". The broad wording of that definition as applied by NHP means that the definition covers a
wide range of stand compositions. The list of canopy tree species in the definition leads with swamp
chestnut oak, laurel oak, and cherrybark oak but also includes the phrases "typical of bottomlands" and
"typical species include" that leave open the door to include stands that do not have a significant
component of the keystone oak species or even stands that have no oak species. Rheinhardt and Z
Rheinhardt (1998) described four NHP SNHAs identified by NHP as nonriverine wet hardwood tracts that
had no cherrybark oak, or swamp chestnut oak, or laurel oak in their sample area and only a very small
percent of the stand basal area in other oaks.
The NHP definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest is also internally inconsistent because forest
cover type SAF 91 Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak is listed as a synonym. As discussed in Section
2.1.1 above, the definition of SAF 91 has very specific criteria that are testable with data. To be classified
as SAF 91, the stand must be dominated by swamp chestnut oak and cherrybark oak with each species
representing at least 20 % of the stand basal area.
NHP was inconsistent in applying the definition of nonriverine wet hardwood in the Site Survey Report
Forms for the Sparrow Road hardwoods (NHP, Undated C) and the Bonnerton Road hardwoods (NHP,
Undated A). At the Sparrow Road site, the primary forest tract was described as "Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest", presumably based on the broad and nonspecific definition in Schafale and Weakley
(1990). The primary forest tract at the Bonnerton Road site was described as "Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest (Oak Flat Subtype)". This subtype is not mentioned in Schafale and Weakley (1990) but
is described in the unpublished March, 2009 draft version of the Fourth Approximation Guide. Coastal
Plain Communities of North Carolina (Schafale, 2009a). The definition of that forest community subtype
specifies "dominated by combinations of Quercus michauxii, Quercus pagoda, and Liquidambar
styraciflua." (Schafale, 2009a). The definition of CEGL007449 Quercus michauxii - Quercus pagoda/
Clethra alnifolia - Leucothoe axillaris Forest that Schafale (2009a) lists as a synonym of the oak flat
subtype is even more specific, "The canopy is dominated by Quercus michauxii, Quercus pagoda,
17
Quercus laurifolia, Liquidambarstyraciflua (especially in logged examples), Quercus nigra, and Fagus
grandifolia (on mesic microsites)." (NatureServe, 2009). 1 interpret that statement to mean that
-?t-v examples of CEGL007449 always have swamp chestnut oak, cherrybark oak, and laurel oak as the
dominant species, i.e. composing in combination more than 50 % of the basal area of the stand.
2.1.3 NHP Quality Criteria
According to Article 9A of NCGS 113A, Nature Preserves Act, an area can be a "natural area" based on
its natural character if it "retains or has reestablished its natural character"(NCGS 113A-164.3(3)).
Published NHP rules provide that "for an area to qualify as a natural heritage area .... it must possess one
or more of the following natural values" (15A NCAC 12H .0202):
1. "a habitat for individual species of plants or animals that are in danger of or threatened by
extirpation;
2. an exemplary terrestrial natural community;
3. an exemplary aquatic community;
4. an outstanding geologic or geomorphic feature that illustrates geologic processes or the history
of the earth;
5. a unique or unusual natural feature such as old growth forest conditions or unusual vegetation
types;
6. other biological or ecological phenomena of significance, such as a major bird rookery or bat
colony."
Presumably, a qualification as a "natural heritage area" is a first step in rating a site as a "significant"
natural heritage area (SNHA). The NHP site significance rating process, October 2005 version, lists 4
significance categories (see below), the definitions of which indicate that the site significance rating
process is based on relative comparisons among sites (NHP, 2005). Additional guidelines in NHP (2005)
for ranking element occurrences (EOs) are discussed in Section 7.
"National significance indicates a site that contains one of the handful (generally five) of
best examples in the nation for a natural heritage element, suite of elements, or other
ecological features.
State significance indicates a site that contains one of the handful of best examples in
the state for a natural heritage element, suite of elements, or other ecological features,
after the nationally significant examples.
Regional indicates a site that contains one of the handful of best examples in the sub-
state region for a natural heritage element, suite of elements, or other ecological
features, after the national and state significant examples.
18
County significance indicates a site that contains one of the handful of best examples in
the county for a natural heritage element, suite of elements, or other ecological
features, after national, state, and regionally significant examples."
Schafale (2008) provides insight on NHP's approach for rating a nonriverine wet hardwood forest as a
significant example:
"Besides abundance of oaks in the canopy and understory, other indicators of good
condition in Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are canopy maturity, canopy age
structure, extent, and connection to other natural communities. The most mature
examples known have many trees 16-24 inches in diameter, with some exceeding 36
inches. However, given the scarcity of these communities, examples with trees averaging
12 inches in diameter are considered significant examples. Even those with trees
averaging 8 to 10 inches in diameter are significant if the canopy composition is good
and the example is extensive." (Schafale 2008, p. 4).
2.2 EPA/Corps Definition and Quality Criteria
The EPA/Corps definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest is found in "Memorandum: Application of
Best Management Practices to Mechanical Silvicultural Site Preparation Activities for the Establishment
of Pine Plantations in the Southeast" (EPA/Corps 1995), a guidance document issued jointly by EPA and
the Corps on November 28, 1995. The memorandum was also published in the Federal Register (Vol. 61,
No. 39, pp. 7242-7245) on February 27, 1996. For additional information regarding the characteristics of
the wetland forest types described in the EPA/Corps guidance memorandum that occur in North
Carolina, see Gregory (2005).
The EPA/Corps guidance defines nonriverine wet hardwood forest as one of two forest community types
within the group Non-riverine Forest Wetlands. The guidance incorporates the term "high quality wet
forests" as part of the definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest.
"Non-riverine Forest Wetlands: wetlands in this group are rare, high quality wet forests, with mature
vegetation, located on the Southeastern coastal plain, whose hydrology is dominated by high water
tables. Two forest community types fall into this group:
a) Non-riverine Wet Hardwood Forests -- poorly drained mineral soil interstream flats
(comprising 10 or more contiguous acres), typically on the margins of large peatland
areas, seasonally flooded or saturated by high water tables, with vegetation dominated
(greater than 50% of basal area per acre) by swamp chestnut oak, cherrybark oak, or
laurel oak alone or in combination.
b) Non-riverine Swamp Forests -- very poorly drained flats (comprising 5 or more
contiguous acres), with organic soils or mineral soils with high organic content,
seasonally to frequently flooded or saturated by high water tables, with vegetation
dominated by bald cypress, pond cypress, swamp tupelo, water tupelo, or Atlantic white
cedar alone or in combination.
19
The term "high quality" used in this characterization refers to generally undisturbed
forest stands, whose character is not significantly affected by human activities (e.g.,
forest management). Non-riverine Forest wetlands dominated by red maple, sweetgum,
or loblolly pine alone or in combination are not considered to be of high quality, and
therefore do not require a permit."
The EPA/Corps definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest is more specific than the NHP one in that
dominant species are defined as those comprising greater than 50 % of basal area per acre in a forest
stand and three keystone oak species are specified as the required dominant tree species. The
EPA/Corps 'definition of dominant tree species is the standard one in forestry and forest ecology as
described in Section 1.3.6.
Thus, nonriverine wet hardwood forest must meet four criteria:
• A rare wetland forest with mature vegetation on the Southeastern Coastal Plain,
• Vegetation dominated (greater than 50 % of basal area per acre) by swamp chestnut oak,
cherrybark oak, or laurel oak alone or in combination,
• A generally undisturbed forest stand whose character is not significantly altered by human
activities, and
• Not dominated by red maple, sweet gum, or loblolly pine alone or in combination.
3 Distribution of the Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest Type
In a report on the status of nonriverine wet hardwood forests in North Carolina, Schafale (2008) stated
that the natural range of nonriverine wet hardwood forests is quite limited, although no data, scientific
justification, or references were provided to support that opinion.
"The primary range of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests is northeastern North
Carolina. They range from Craven County north into the southeastern counties of
Virginia. None are definitely known south of North Carolina or north of Chesapeake Bay.
Although one example was known inland nearly to Tarboro, the vast majority of acreage
was, and is, on the outermost terrace of the Coastal Plain, east of New Bern,
Washington, and Plymouth." (Schafale 2008, p. 3).
My teaching, research, extension, and consulting have taken me into wet flat hardwood forest stands
that meet the Schafale and Weakley (1990) definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest in Virginia,
South Carolina, and Georgia and in many areas of the North Carolina Coastal Plain. For many years, I
have used a stand that meets the Schafale and Weakley (1990) definition of nonriverine wet hardwood
20
forest, albeit a low quality example, located in western Johnston County, NC for wetland delineation
classes.
The available evidence indicates a potentially broad distribution of wet flat hardwoods that are likely to
meet the NHP definition of the nonriverine wet hardwood forest type, much broader than stated in
Schafale's opinion above. Considering the natural ranges of the indicator tree species plus the
distribution of the soil types common to Coastal Plain interfluvial wet flats, mixed hardwood stands on
Coastal Plain wet flats that meet the nonriverine wet hardwood forest definition of Schafale and
Weakley (1990) likely occur throughout much of the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern Coastal Plain regions
and in the lower Mississippi Valley.
3.1 Natural Ranges of Tree Species Typical of the Nonriverine Wet Hardwood
Forest Type
Sweetgum, red maple, and yellow poplar are the ubiquitous canopy tree species of mineral flat mixed
hardwood stands that may meet the broadly worded NHP definition of nonriverine wet hardwood, if
applied loosely by, for example, ignoring the SAF 91 criteria. Avery adaptive species, the natural range
of sweetgum extends across the Mid-Atlantic, the Southeast, and the Mississippi Valley north to
southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio and across wide ranges of landscape positions, soil types, and soil
moisture regimes (Burns and Honkala, 1990) (Figure 1). The east-west extent of the natural ranges of
yellow poplar and red maple are similar to that of sweetgum but the ranges of both extend much
farther northward (Burns and Honkala,1990). Red maple shares the ecological adaptability of
sweetgum. Nonriverine wet hardwood forest stands that meet the EPA/Corps (1995) definition of
nonriverine wet hardwood forest are limited to the natural ranges of the keystone oak species. Within
the Southeast and Mississippi Valley, the natural ranges of cherrybark oak and swamp chestnut oak are
similar to that of sweetgum (Figures 2 and 3) but the range of laurel oak is much smaller, nonetheless
the range of laurel oak covers the entire Southeastern Coastal Plain (Figure 4) (Burns and Honkala,
1990).
21
? 1I'tI
i
'f .
r!f fr:
F k- 4 t•?'slr ?T`-I

-I

r.
Figure 1. Natural range of sweetgum (Burns and Honkala,1990)
i
f + !i 11 i r! ?I ?! f/
r ' ;k ,rj t
f-?
r -f
t sr
Figure 2. Natural range of cherrybark oak (Burns and Honkala, 1990)
22
F?
Figure 3. Natural range of swamp chestnut oak (Burns and Honkala,1990).
-41
Figure 4. Natural range of laurel oak (Burns and Honkala, 1990).
23

3.2 Natural Ranges of Sites Typical of the Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
Type
The distribution of the wetland types on which the nonriverine wet hardwood forest type as defined by
NHP occurs can be deduced from the distribution of the soil map units dominated by hydric soils that
occur on mineral flat, depressional, and slope wetlands within the natural ranges of the tree species
listed in the NHP definition of nonriverine wet hardwood. NHP-defined nonriverine wet hardwood forest
stands most commonly occur on soils classified in one of three soil suborders: Aqualfs, Aquepts, and
Aquults (Rheinhardt & Rheinhardt 1998, 2000; Schafale, 2008; Schafale & Weakley, 1990; personal
experience of the author). The soil survey areas (a single county or sometimes two adjacent counties)
within the United States in which occur soil map units classified in those three suborders are shown in
Figures 5-7. Source of the maps of soil map unit distribution in Figures 5-7 is the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Extent Mapping Tool (http://www.cei.psu.edu/soiltool/semtool.html).
Soil map units in all three suborders are quite common across the natural ranges of the indicator tree
species of the nonriverine wet hardwood forest type. Soils of the Aquepts suborder occur in both
riverine and nonriverine wetlands but Aqualfs and Aquults occur only on nonriverine sites.
%
3 . 7x d ' t u'F
t'?
1 ."es l..' so'. survc area map created 2,51 PM 12/3112009 h tp Iiv ,cel.psu.edu/so I ool/ssemtool-p 6 l .
y - p hase3.hlm _
Data available (.
M Data not available No This application is a product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey partnership of The
acres reported Pennsylvania State University (Center for Environmental Informatics), west VUglnla University, ,
= 33,78 or less and the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (National Geospatial
1 2384 to 11278 Development Center and National Soil Survey Center).
11299 to 44114 Cooperative Ecological Studies Unit (CESU) Cooperative Agreement s 68-3A75-4-104
a4131 to 314493
Figure S. Distribution (acres/soil survey area) of soil map units classified as Aqualfs.
24
i
l
t
4 i
I lA
ac es per so I survey area ? Map created 3 00 FM 12{31/200:3 http r I w?sw.cei.U vwr.v ,woUsem[ool..phase3.html
ble
Data available
r - Data not available
j ® No acres reported This application is a product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey partnership of The
r 1990 or less '. Pennsylvania State University (Center for Environmental Informatics). West Virginia University,
and the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (National Geospanal
{ FW 1992 to 7567 Development Center and National Soil Survey Center).
;I M 7568 to 23139 ( Cooperative Ecological Studies Unit (CESU) Cooperative Agreement z 66-3A75-4-ID4 f
Figure 6. Distribution (acres/soil survey area) of soil map units classified as Aquepts.
Soils where soilorder-ULTISOLS.subordersAO00LTS
r3,h ' t
r .
t 01? rrc. r'
i I k
Y
r-
r a q.x .
I,-='
re3 per Sed Sm.cy awa - Map created 7 Sri FM 12, 31;,Q 09
hrtp7Jx+rn.<el.psi.a;:w>WI[ooll5em[pUL.pna3i S.f.tml
Data available 1
L-? Data not available
No acres reported `J This application is a product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey partnership of The
833 or less Pennsylvania State University (Center for Environmental Informatics). West virginal University,
835 to 5626 i and the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (National Geospatial
Development Center and National Soil Survey Center).
5661 to 25903 Cooperative Ecological Studies Unit ICESU) Cooperative Agreement 1+68-3A75-4-104
25972to308179
Figure 7. Distribution (acres/soil survey area) of soil map units classified as Aquults.
25
The data on the distribution of tree species and hydric soil map units support the conclusion that forest
stands that meet NHP's broad application of the nonriverine wet hardwood forest type are likely to
occur across the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern Coastal Plains and the Mississippi Valley. Supporting
evidence is provided by the forest cover type SAF 91 Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak, described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990) as a synonym for nonriverine wet hardwood forest "but in a different
habitat from described". That phrase refers to the fact that SAF 91 is described in Eyre (1980) as a
"bottom Iand type", i.e. a forest type that occurs in floodplains. However, where mixed hardwoods occur
on floodplains, similar types of stands usually occur on interstream wet flats. The geographic distribution
of SAF 91 is described in Eyre (1980) as "scattered over a large part of the South within the floodplains
of the major rivers, except that of the Mississippi, where the type is rare." The EPA/Corps (1995)
guidance does not agree with Schafale (2008) that the range of nonriverine wet hardwood forest is
limited to North Carolina. "Non-riverine Forest Wetlands" which include "Non-riverine Wet Hardwood
Forests" are described as "located on the Southeastern Coastal Plain."
Confirming the geographic distribution of the nonriverine wet hardwood forest type and particularly,
the location and distribution of extant stands of high quality examples of the forest type could be
determined by a statistically sound survey across the natural range of the keystone oak species. The
surveys for natural heritage elements conducted by NHP are quite limited in scope and do not meet the
minimum standards of a statistically sound forest type survey, even at the county level.
4 Site Description
Map and aerial photo assessments of the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road hardwoods provided basic
information on the locations of the sites and the topography, soils, and forest vegetation in preparation
for planning the inventory. A preliminary rapid "walk-thru" of the tracts had also been conducted by the
author previous to planning the inventory.
The locations of the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road hardwoods are shown on Map 1 in Appendix 1-
Maps. All other maps referred to in this report are in Appendix 1- Maps and details of map and aerial
photo sources are provided in that appendix. The tract labels and shorthand codes used throughout this
report are listed in Table 2 and the tract boundaries and tract labels are shown on Maps 2 and 3. The
tract boundaries on the maps were obtained from NHP GIS files of SNHAs and divide the Bonnerton
Road hardwoods into five tracts and the Sparrow Road hardwoods into two tracts.
26
Table 2: Forest tracts described in this report. See Maps 2 and 3, Appendix 1- Maps.
Site Tract Code Tract Area, ac*
Easternmost of the three primary tracts - mixed
BonEast 49.21
hardwood
Westernmost of the three primary tracts - mixed
BonWest 132.91
hardwood
Northernmost of the three primary tracts - mixed
Bonnerton Road: located
hardwood BonNorth 44.64
at Bonnerton and Gray Total Area of Primary Tracts 226.76
Roads; Map 2. Secondary connector tract between BonEast and
BonEWCon 8.86
BonWest - mixed hardwood-pine
Secondary connector tract between BonWest and
BonNSCon 23.94
BonNorth - pine-mixed hardwood
Total Area of Secondary Tracts 32.8
Bonnerton Road Hardwoods, Total Area 259.56
Sparrow Road: located Primary tract - mixed hardwood with area of pine SparHdwd 80.85
arrow and
between S
p
Bergin Roads; Map 3 Secondary tract - loblolly pine SparPine 44.63
Sparrow Road Hardwoods, Total Area 125.48
* Tract areas determined from NHP GIS data files (SigNatHeritAreasGIS.zip) downloaded from the NCOneMap web
site, http://www.nconemap.net/Default.aspx?tabid=286) on 7-29-2009.
The tract areas noted in Table 2 were determined from the tract boundaries in the NHP GIS file as shown
on Maps 2 and 3. The locations and sizes of the areas identified by NHP as nonriverine wet hardwood
forest in the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road hardwoods are uncertain because the "primary" area
noted by NHP in several reports is not identified on the tract maps in the NHP GIS file. The primary
acreage in the Bonnerton Road site has also varied among the reports: 194 ac (NHP, Undated A), 239 ac
(NHP, Undated C) and 198 ac (Schafale, 2008). The NHP has identified approximately half (about 40 ac)
of the mixed hardwood primary tract of the Sparrow Road hardwoods as nonriverine wet hardwood
forest (NHP, Undated B; Schafale, 2008). Based on very brief and unclear references to secondary areas,
presumed to be forest types other than nonriverine wet hardwood, in the NHP reports, the tracts were
labeled as in Table 2 for planning the inventory.
The mixed hardwoods and associated tracts of the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road hardwoods are
located on Coastal Plain sites of low topographic relief that likely contain areas of mineral flat wetlands,
according to the soil map units (to be described later in the report) in the Soil Survey of Beaufort County,
North Carolina (Kirby 1995, Soil Survey Staff 2009). The forest type name commonly applied by foresters
in North Carolina and the Southeast to mixed hardwood forest tracts on mineral flat wetlands is "wet
flat hardwood". Pine tracts on mineral flat wetlands are classified as "wet flat pine". Sites with similar
forest stands on similar terrain that are not wetland are commonly called "hardwood flat" and "pine
flat" respectively. The more general forest type names shown in Table 2 that can be ascertained from
aerial photos and preliminary ground reconnaissance are appropriate until inventory data elucidates the
forest type more specifically.
27
5 Inventory Methods
5.1 GIS Applications
In order to assess the existing conditions of the two sites, analyze possible significant historical land use
changes, and develop field inventory maps, WatHydro compiled thematic Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) maps for the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road hardwoods (Maps 1-9). The locations and
tract boundaries for the two sites were obtained from the GIS file labeled Significant Natural Heritage
Areas (SigNatHeritAreasGIS.zip) referred to on the NHP web site (http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/gis.htmi)
and downloaded from the NCOneMap web site (http://www.nconemap.net/Default.aspx?tabid=286)
on July 29, 2009. Metadata in the file states that the most recent data update was May 28, 2009.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle map, Aurora, NC (digital raster
graphic) was reviewed for mapped surface features within each NHP tract boundary. A portion of the
quadrangle map depicting each site is provided in Maps 1-3.
Digital aerial photography (Beaufort County 1:400 scale, 2005) obtained from the Beaufort County GIS
Department is the background of the soils maps and stand maps (Maps 4-9). Digital soil survey maps
provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are overlaid on the aerial photography
in Maps 4-5
Topographic maps and aerial photographs of the two sites with SNHA boundaries superimposed are
included in Maps 2-5. During the field inventory, several small errors of the boundary locations were
noted at several sites. At the northeast corner of BonWest, an area within the boundary is part of an
adjacent area recently clearcut. Other errors of the boundary locations occur at several sites along the
tract boundaries due to straight lines being drawn along stand boundaries that are not in reality straight.
If more accurate boundaries of the tracts or stands are required in the future, a GPS boundary survey
with submeter equipment should be conducted.
5.2 Inventory Design
The forest tracts were inventoried with a grid-plot design with a random start that was established in
GIS at each site to preclude any bias in sampling the stand variability. A 3-acre square grid, oriented to
the cardinal directions, was randomly superimposed on each site and the center of each grid square that
fell within tract boundaries was designated as the center of an inventory plot. The coordinates of the
plot centers were determined from the GIS. Standard 0.1 ac circular inventory plots (37 ft radius) were
located at the center of each 3 ac square grid for inventory of the trees and saplings. Some of the plot
centers that fell on a tract boundary were eliminated and some were moved into the tract to prevent
sampling the tract edge. Table 3 lists the number of plots in each tract and the resultant sampling
intensity. The plot centers are noted with brown (nonhydric soil) or blue (hydric soil) dots on Maps 6-9
along with the plot numbers.
Note that the Bonnerton Road hardwoods site within the SNHA boundary includes two relatively small
areas that connect the primary tracts that have been described by NHP as secondary areas (NHP,
Undated A and C). The Sparrow Road hardwoods site within the SNHA boundary includes a loblolly pine
28
plantation adjacent to the wet hardwood forest tract also described by NHP as a secondary area (NHP,
Undated B). Those secondary areas were inventoried at much lower intensities than the wet hardwood
forest main tracts.
Table 3: Number of plots in each tract, area of each tract, and the sampling intensity.

Tract
Tract Area, acres
Number of Plots Sampling
Intensity,
acres/plot
BonEast 49.21 16 3.08
BonWest 132.91 44 3.02
BonNorth 44.64 14 3.19
BonEWCon 8.86 2 4.43
BonNSCon 23.94 4 5.99
Bonnerton Road Total 259.56 80 3.24
SparHdwd 80.85 26 3.11
SparPine 44.63 4 11.16
Sparrow Road Total 125.48 30 4.18
Total 385.04 110 3.50
5.3 GPS Applications
The coordinates of each plot center as specified by the GIS grid center point was located on the ground
with a dual-frequency Trimble GPS system operating on the North Carolina Virtual Reference System
(VRS) for real-time differential corrections. Sampling plot radii were established by tape measure with
the location of the GPS antenna as the plot center. Varying performance of the GPS under areas of
dense canopy was not considered in placement of the GPS to determine coordinates and locate the plot
centers. The plot centers were established in the random grid location schema at the coordinates
specified. For those plot center locations resulting in relatively poor GPS acquisition of satellite signal, a
longer stationary recording time and post-processing strategies resulted in an overall estimated average
horizontal accuracy of recorded GPS positions of ± 3 ft.
5.4 Plot Data Collection and Data Summarization
Field work for the inventory was conducted during October 30-November 1 and November 7-10, 2009.
We navigated to the pre-established plot centers with GPS and collected the data described below in
each 0.1 ac circular plot. Data were recorded on a plot data sheet specifically designed for this project
and were later transferred to an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. Field data collected were:
Tree tally - species and diameter at breast height (dbh) to nearest 0.1 in of each tree that was
4 in dbh within each sample plot. Tree diameter was measured with a diameter tape.
2. Sapling tally - species and number of saplings of each tree species within each plot that were
less than 4 in dbh and taller than 4.5 ft in height. The initial plan to count saplings in a 0.01 ac
plot was abandoned in favor of counting saplings in the entire 0.1 ac plot when we noted the
very low density of saplings in the area first inventoried.
29
In the vicinity of each plot center (within 4-5 ft of the GPS), the soil was evaluated for the
presence of hydric soil indicators in accordance with the indicators defined in the Interim
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf
Coastal Plain Region (USACE, 2008). The soil was examined with a soil auger to depths of
approximately 20 in and sometimes deeper, up to 40 in. The soil cores were examined for the
presence of hydric soil indicators and for evidence of past soil disturbance, including soil
compaction and mixing. When present, the type of hydric soil indicator was recorded and notes
were taken regarding evidence of soil disturbance.
4. Hydrology indicators were noted when present.
5. Information on microtopography, evidence of timber harvesting, presence of ditches, etc. was
also noted as appropriate.
The basal area of each tallied tree was computed from dbh. The tree data for each plot (total tree basal
area and number of saplings by species) multiplied by 10 represent an estimate of the stand
characteristics per acre. The average of the plot data then provide an estimate of the average data per
acre of the stand. However, it is instructive to examine the plot data to assess the spatial variability of
the stand. Analysis and summarization of the field inventory data were conducted to provide the data
needed to differentiate and classify the forest stands within the tracts and to provide quantitative
characterization of those stands. After the differentiation of stands as described below, two types of
stand tables were constructed from the summarized plot data in the spreadsheet:
1. Basal area stand table including:
a. Total basal area (ftZ/ac) by species by plot and average basal area per acre by species for the
stand.
b. Total basal area (ftZ/ac) by plot and average total basal area per acre for the stand (i.e. stand
basal area).
c. Percent of average total basal area per acre in all oak species combined.
d. Percent of average total basal area per acre in cherry bark, laurel, and swamp chestnut oaks
combined.
2. Sapling stand table including:
a. Total number of saplings per acre by species by plot and average number of saplings per
acre by species.
b. Total number of saplings per acre by plot and average total number of saplings per acre for
the stand.
The average number of trees per acre (all species) in 2 inch dbh classes was presented as a diameter
distribution chart.
30
5.5 Stand Differentiation Within Tracts
The primary and secondary tracts of the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road hardwoods as mapped by
NHP and listed in Tables 2 and 3 and depicted on Maps 2-5 provided the first subdivision of potential
stands because they represent differentiation of forest types easily discernable on aerial photos. The
inventory provided the necessary detailed data for the secondary subdivision of the primary and
secondary tracts into forest stands. The criteria for stand differentiation were based on the three
principal components of the NHP definition of the nonriverine wet hardwood forest type.
1. The site is an area with mineral soils that is located on a low relief interstream area that is not
adjacent to a stream or water body, i.e. an interstream flat. Assessments of the landscape and
soils on maps were confirmed by systematic evaluations on the ground during the inventory.
2. The site is also a wetland, i.e. an interstream wet flat. Occurrence on a wetland was determined
at each plot by the methods of the Corps' wetland delineation manuals (USACE, 1987 and 2008).
The presence of all three factors, hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soil
were evaluated.
3. The forest stand is mixed hardwood composed of typical canopy tree species as listed in the
Schafale and Weakley (1990) definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest. The WatHydro
inventory tallied the tree and sapling components which are the most important components of
the definition, including canopy trees, subcanopy trees, and saplings of tree species.
Steps in data assessment to differentiate the stands were:'
1. The plot data within tracts were examined and plots were grouped as wetland or nonwetland
based on the presence of at least one hydric soil indicator in wetland plots, providing the
preliminary differentiation of stands within tracts. Wetland hydrology was assumed to be
present when a hydric soil indicator was present even if hydrology indicators were absent.
2. The basal area and sapling stand tables for each stand were then constructed from the
summarized plot data and examined to determine if further differentiation of stands within the
wetland and nonwetland areas was warranted. The stands were initially differentiated based on
the broad definition of nonriverine wet hardwood in Schafale and Weakley (1990) with 20 % of
stand basal area in pine (on a wetland site) as the maximum to be potentially classified as
nonriverine wet hardwood. Then the stands were evaluated to determine if additional
differentiation was warranted based on the more restrictive criteria, with regard to dominance
by swamp chestnut oak or cherrybark oak or laurel oak, of the descriptions of SAF 91 (Eyre,
1980), EPA/Corps (1995), Schafale (2008), and the oak flat subtype (Schafale, 2009a).
3. The basal area and sapling stand tables were also examined to determine if any stand confirmed
as wetland by the presence of a hydric soil indicator did not meet the Corps' criteria for the
presence of hydrophytic vegetation.
31
i
6 Results
Objective 1 of the WatHydro inventory of the Bonnerton Road hardwoods and the Sparrow Road
hardwoods is addressed in this section:
1. Conduct the forest inventory and describe the forest stands of the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow
Road hardwoods :
A. Determine the tree species composition and tree density by species of the overstory and sapling
strata in sample areas across each forest tract including:
(1) The basal area per acre by species of all canopy trees and the total basal area,
(2) The range of tree sizes (i.e. diameter at breast height), and
(3),The density (number/ac) by species of saplings of canopy tree species.
D. Examine the soil profile at sample locations across each tract to:
(1) Confirm the presence or absence of hydric soils as an indicator of the wetland status of the
forest ecosystem across each tract and
(2) Determine the degree of soil disturbance from timber harvesting activities.
E. Examine terrain features and soil surface conditions to assess the effects of timber harvesting
and the presence or absence of hydrology indicators.
F. Based on the characteristics of the forest canopy and the wetland or nonwetland status in the
sample areas, differentiate and map the forest stands within each tract.
6.1 Stand Differentiation Within the Tracts
Applying the criteria described in Section 5.5 above for differentiation of stands within tracts to the soil,
forest canopy, and sapling data resulted in differentiating nine stands at the Bonnerton Road site and
four stands at the Sparrow Road site (Table 4 and Maps 2-3 and 6-9). Stand boundaries on the maps are
approximate. The three secondary tracts BonEWCon, BonNSCon, and SparPine were each uniform
enough to be designated as a stand. BonWest and BonNorth were each subdivided into two stands and
BonEast and SparHdwd were each subdivided into three stands.
Results of testing the three principal components of the NHP definition of nonriverine wet hardwood
forest for stand differentiation were:
1. The site is an area with mineral soils that is located on a low relief interstream area that is not
adjacent to a stream or water body, i.e. an interstream flat. Twelve of the 13 stands meet this
criterion, the exception being BonEast Stand C which is on a riverine wetland in the riparian zone of
a large canal with a clearly defined floodplain zone. The canal extends westward of the western
boundary of BonEast Stand C as a large ditch but that western boundary was placed approximately
where the floodplain appeared to end on the ground.
32
2. The site is also a wetland, i.e. an interstream wet flat, as determined by the methods of the Corps'
wetland delineation manuals (USACE, 1987 and 2008). All plots labeled as wetland have at least one
hydric soil indicator, wetland hydrology was presumed to be present in the presence of a hydric soil
indicator, and examination of the tree and sapling stand tables confirmed the presence of
hydrophytic vegetation. Of the 13 stands, six are mineral flat wetland and one is riverine wetland.
3. The forest stand is mixed hardwood composed of typical canopy tree species as listed in the
Schafale and Weakley (1990) definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest, thus has the potential
to be identified as that forest type when the first two components described above are met. For
wetland stands with significant density of loblolly pine, I selected 20 % basal area of loblolly pine as
a reasonable limit for a stand to be identified as nonriverine wet hardwood forest. Common practice
in the field of forestry is that stands with greater than 20 % basal area in loblolly pine are classified
as pine-hardwood or hardwood-pine, depending on relative density of pine to the hardwoods. Of
the 13 stands, only five meet components 1 and 2, plus component 3.
Five stance within the nnnerton Road hardwoods and the Sparrow Road hardwoods can meet the
criteria of all three principal components of the NHP definition of nonriverine wet hardwood, but only if
the canopy composition component is applied so broadly and loosely that it becomes almost
meaningless. None of the five stands were dominated by swamp chestnut oak, cherrybark oak, or laurel
oak, alone or in combination. Only one small patch, represented by the data collected at one plot, in
each of BonEast Stand A, BonWest Stand A, and SparHdwd Stand A has more than 50 % of the stand
basal area within that patch in swamp chestnut and/or laurel oak. Cherrybark oak is absent

(94
0U !
A-
33
U(?
Table 4. Forest type and area of the stands at th Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road sites.
%BAin
Site Tract Stand Area, ac Wetland loblolly Forest Type
pine
mineral mixed hardwood: swamp chestnut oak -
*
A 25
97 flat 1 American beech-sweetgum-red maple***
BonEast B 18.41 No 0.5 mixed hardwood: yellow poplar-red maple
C 4.83 riverine 0 mixed hardwood: red maple-yellow poplar
mineral mixed hardwood: swamp tupelo-red
A **
104.62 flat 6 maple-American holly-sweetgum
BonWest mixed hardwood-pine: sweetgum-red
B 28.29 No 14 maple-loblolly pine
Bonnerton mineral mixed hardwood: sweetgum-yellow
Road A 30.80 flat poplar-red maple-swamp chestnut oak
BonNorth mineral mixed hardwood: red maple-
flat 3 American holly
mixed hardwood-pine: yellow poplar-
BonEWCon 8.86 No 34 loblolly pine-sweetgum
mineral pine-mixed hardwood: loblolly pine-
BonNSCon 23.94 flat 28 sweetgum-yellow poplar
l
Site Total 259.56
stan
ds
mineral mixed hardwood: swamp chestnut oak-
flat 1 red maple-laurel oak
mixed hardwood: yellow poplar-swamp
SparHdwd B 44.31 No g chestnut oak-American beech
Sparrow
pine-mixed hardwood: loblolly pine-
Road C 7.61 No 46

SparP ine 44.63 No 80 loblolly pine plantation
l
Site Total stan
ds 125.48
* Stand data in bold font indicates stands of wetland mixed hardwood that have the potential to be classified as
nonriverine wet hardwood in accordance with Schafale and Weakley (1990).
** Approximately 22.1 ac of this stand is outside the PCS property line (Map 7).
*** Species are listed in order of percent of stand basal area.
The forest type names in Table 4 include the dominant tree species in each stand, i.e. the tree species in
order of the percent of stand basal area contributed by each, including the minimal number of species
needed for the basal area sum to exceed 50 % of the stand basal area. In bold font are the five stands
that are mineral flat wetland (with inclusions of depressional wetlands) with a mixed hardwood stand
(wetland mixed hardwood) with no more than 20 % of the stand basal area in loblolly pine. These stands
were identified as possibly meeting the definition of nonriverine wet hardwood in accordance with
Schafale and Weakley (1990). The other eight stands are not mineral flat wetlands and/or have a loblolly
pine component of 28 % or more of the stand basal area and are definitely not nonriverine wet
hardwood forest in accordance with any of the definitions in EPA/Corps (1995), Schafale and Weakley
C? t-'7

12
l=?s
C?5
34
(1990), Schafale (2008), and /or Schafale (2009a). In the Bonnerton Road hardwoods, the area of stands
that definitely are not nonriverine we hardwood forest totals 84.33 ac or 32 % of the area within the
NHP SNHA boundary. In the Sparrow Road hardwoods, the area of stands that definitely are not
nonriverine wet hardwood forest totals 96.55 ac or 777 % of the area within the NHP SNHA boundary.
6.2 Terrain, Hydrologic Character, and Soils of the Tracts and Stands
6.2.1 Bonnerton Road Tracts
The Bonnerton Road hardwoods site is located on a peninsula between two tidal creeks, Durham Creek
to the west and Porter Creek to the east, that flow northward to the Pamlico River Estuary (Maps 1 & 2).
The surface water divide in the vicinity of the site is the north-south oriented crest of the Suffolk Scarp
which is located west of the site a short distance west of Bonnerton Road. Very slow subsurface
drainage of groundwater across the site is eastward in response to a very gentle surface gradient of
approximately 0.2 % (10 ft/mi) in the eastward direction. That surface gradient increases to
approximately 1 % at the western edge of the site at the foot of the eastern slope of the scarp. There is t?
no evidence of surface runoff from the site, though slow dispersed overland flow may occur during
extreme storm events that cause the water table to rise to the surface. s
The terrain throughout the Bonnerton Road site is typical of interfluves in the lower Coastal Plain that
overlie the Castle Hayne limestone formation relatively close to the surface. The terrain is slightly rolling,
often with enough microrelief to have small rises of nonhydric soil within wetland areas. The wetland
areas of Stand A and the nonwetland areas of Stand B (Map 6) in BonEast have soils that are similar in
texture and profile character but Stand A is at slightly lower elevation than Stand B.
There are small, shallow closed depressions randomly scattered throughout the Bonnerton Road site,
the highest density of which is in the wetland areas. Some of the larger depressions are likely of sinkhole
origin. Many of the smallest depressions were likely created by skidder "mud holes", common on
intensively utilized skid trails during timber harvesting on wet soils and/or under very shallow water
table conditions. Many of those depressions have stained leaves and the deeper ones have water marks
on the trees (4-8 in above ground) and soil surface horizons enriched with organic carbon, indicators of
periods of long duration inundation. In BonWest Stand A (Map 7), there is a series of relatively deep (12-
24 in depth), oval to longitudinal shaped, east-west oriented closed depressions that are much larger
and deeper than the depressions in the other tracts. The soils in several of the largest and deepest
depressions have thin muck surfaces, indicative of very long periods of inundation.
The depressions were the only locations throughout the entire tract where hydrology indicators from
the Corps' wetland delineation manual were present (USACE, 2008). Except for the depressions, there
are no indications of sustained surface inundation anywhere on the Bonnerton Road site. Auger holes
excavated to 40+ in depth at a number of locations across the site did not encounter the water table,
even in the deep depressions.
There are a couple of currently functional relatively deep drainage ditches and several old, partially
filled, and nonfunctional ditches in the BonEast tract, indicative of previous agricultural use of the site.
35
We saw no old ditches in the BonEWCon tract nor in the BonWest tract. Several old, nonfunctional
ditches are present in the BonNSCon tract and in the BonNorth tract.
Soils maps of the Bonnerton Road hardwoods and Sparrow Road hardwoods provided by NRCS (Kirby,
1995; Soil Survey Staff, 2009) are shown on Maps 4 and 5. Soil map unit names, taxonomic
classifications, and hydric soil ratings for the soil map units depicted on the maps of the two sites are
provided in Table 5. Soil series are classified as hydric by NRCS based on criteria established by the
National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/). The percent of hydric
soil in a map unit as described by NRCS county lists of map units with hydric soils (available from Soil
Data Mart http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov/) is based on the typical composition of that map unit in
the county in question. But as noted above, the actual presence of hydric soils can only be determined
by on-site assessment of the presence of hydric soil indicators.
Table 5. Hydric Rating of the Soil Map Units Depicted on NRCS Soils Maps of the Bonnerton Road and
Sparrow Road Sites.
Map Map Unit Name Taxonomic Class Hydric Hydric Drainage Class
Symbol (Subgroup) Component Percent

AaA Altavista fine sandy
Aquic Hapludults
Tomotley
5 moderately. well
loam, 0-2 % slopes drained
somewhat poorly
At Augusta fine sandy loam Aeric Endoaquults Tomotley 5 drained
CnB Conetoe loamy sand Arenic Hapludults Leon 5 well drained
Leaf 5 somewhat poorly
Le Lenoir loam Aeric Paleaquults Bethera 2 drained
Tomotley 1
poorly & very poorly
Lo Leon sand Aeric Alaquods Leon 80 drained
Pt Portsmouth loam Typic Umbraquults Portsmouth 90 very poorly drained
Ro Roanoke fine sandy Typic Endoaquults Roanoke 90 poorly drained
loam
Nimmo 2 moderately well
Sb Seabrook loamy sand Aquic Udipsamments Leon 1 drained
somewhat
Tab Tarboro sand Typic Udipsamments None 0 excessively drained
Tomotley 85
To Tomotley fine sandy Typic Endoaquults Arapahoe 3 poorly drained
loam Nimmo 3
Soils on BonEast are mapped as Tomotley fine sandy loam (Map 4). The soil in some cores matched the
Tomotley profile description whereas the cores from other areas did not. At every location where the
soil was examined and throughout all depths of soil examination, the soil is mixed and compacted. Such
soil disturbance is the result of logger's choice logging on wet soils or during shallow water table
conditions that results in crisscrossing deep skidder ruts across a tract and widespread destruction of
soil structure. Evidence of skidder ruts crisscross the tract although the shallow depth and smooth
36
transitions across the surface indicate that the last timber harvesting likely occurred several decades
ago.
Soils on BonEWCon are mapped as Tomotley fine sandy loam (Map 4) but the soil profile is very
disturbed throughout the tract. Soil cores showed evidence of the mixing and compaction caused by
deep skidder ruts but the tract had also been bedded after the most recent timber harvest.
The dominant soil map unit in BonWest is also Tomotley fine sandy loam although there are transitions
within the tract to small areas of several other map units (Map 4). As in BonEast, the soil profiles
examined in BonWest were sometimes similar to the mapped series but often differed. Mixing and
compaction of the profile were present at all locations of soil sampling. Skidder ruts crisscrossing
throughout the tract that are deeper and more visible than in BonEast indicate that the last timber
harvesting occurred more recently than in BonEast. Intensively used skid trails are clearly visible.
The mapped area of Leon sand shown on Map 4 as present on the low gradient lower side slope of the
Suffolk Scarp is not present. A soil profile of deep sand similar to Leon sand, a Spodosol, is present only
in the vicinity of plots 0 and 1 (Map 7). That soil does not have a spodic layer but only a thin layer of low
density and non-cemented spodic materials at a depth of about 14-20 in. The hydric indicator there (S7
Dark Surface) is at the dry end of the wetness range of hydric sandy soils. The soil at plots 2, 3, 5, & 6 is
sandy loam. The centers of Plots 4 & 7 were in relatively deep depressions in which the soil was sandy
loam with a thin muck surface.
The nonwetland northern portion of the BonWest tract is mapped in areas of Lenoir loam and Altavista
fine sandy loam both of which are nonhydric soils (Table 5 and Map 4). As with all the other map units,
the soil in this area was similar to the mapped profiles at some plots and not at others.
Across BonNSCon and BonNorth, the slightly rolling terrain has a lower west to east gradient
(approximately 0.1 % or 5 ft/mi) than in BonWest and BonEast and is wetland throughout except for a
slight rise in the vicinity of plot 62 (Map 8). There are also several closed depressions in BonNorth and
BonNSCon that are similar to but smaller and shallower than those in BonWest. Timber harvesting
occurred much more recently in BonNSCon and BonNorth than in the remainder of the Bonnerton Road
site. Crisscrossing skidder ruts and highly disturbed skid trails are prominent throughout these tracts and
the deep disturbance of the profile described in the other tracts is also present here. The soil across
BonNorth is mapped as Roanoke fine sandy loam. There was typical variability of the soil profile across
the tract with some sampled profiles similar to Roanoke and others dissimilar.
6.2.2 Sparrow Road Tracts
The Sparrow Road site is located on a very low relief interfluve with a surface gradient of about 0.1 % (5
ft/mi) northeastward and eastward toward Cypress and South Creeks (Maps land 3). Though located
more than a mile east of the Suffolk Scarp, the groundwater gradient from the upland west of the scarp
likely influences the hydrology of the Sparrow Road site. Located on the same hydrologic peninsula as
the Bonnerton Road site, groundwater gradients are likely significantly lower than at the Bonnerton
Road site because the Sparrow Road site is located much farther from the surface water divide, the
Suffolk Scarp, and is also located near the low relief origins of Durham Creek and South Creeks (Maps 1
37
& 3). There is no evidence of surface runoff from the site, though slow dispersed overland flow may
occur during extreme storm events that cause the water table to rise to the surface.
The terrain on the Sparrow Road site is similar to that of the Bonnerton Road site. The soil surface is
slightly rolling with scattered small depressions, the larger of which appear to be of sinkhole origin and
the small ones are likely former skidder mud holes. There is complex microtopography throughout
SparHdwd with relief of 18-24 inches in some areas. An interesting element of that microtopography in
the eastern portion of SparHdwd is pit and mound topography resulting from wind throw of scattered
large trees. The wood from those trees has completely decomposed, so that wind throw occurred
several decades or longer ago. Many of the deeper depressions have indicators of long duration
inundation but there is no evidence of inundation elsewhere across the site. Crisscross skidder ruts and
intensively utilized skid trails occur throughout both SparHdwd and SparPine. The skidder ruts are much
more prominent on the west side of SparHdwd than on the east side, indicating more recent timber
harvesting activity. SparPine likely was bedded prior to planting the loblolly pine trees and there has
been relatively recent skidder activity for at least one or possibly two thinnings.
The soil of the Sparrow Road site is mapped as Roanoke fine sandy loam throughout (Map 5), though
the variability typical of large flat interfluves in the Coastal Plain is evident, particularly the effect of
small changes in elevation on the hydric character of the soil. Mixing and compaction of the soil deep
into the profile throughout the site is also quite similar to the severely disturbed soils of the Bonnerton
Road site. My plot data sheet notes for the Sparrow Road site constantly repeat the phrase, "soil
severely compacted and rutted throughout", even in the nonwetland areas.
6.3 Tree Species Present on the Tracts
Listed in Table 6 are the 15 canopy tree species and 5 subcanopy tree species that were tallied on the
two sites. Also noted were: (1) one small Atlantic white cedar sapling (Chamaecyparis thyoides L.,
Britton, Sterns & Poggenb.) in the southwest corner of BonWest (plot 0), (2) two blackgum saplings
(Nyssa sylvatica Marsh.) in BonWest, Stand B, (3) one small flowering dogwood tree (Corpus florida L.)
in BonWest, Stand B, and (4) one small black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.) tree in SparHdwd, Stand B.
Table 6. Tree Species Tallied on the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road Sites.
Species
Code Common Name Wetland
Indicator Scientific Name
Cano Trees
AB American beech FACU Fa us randi olia Ehrh.
AE American elm FACW Ulmus americana L.
CO cher bark oak FAC uercus pagoda Raf
GA green ash FACW Fraxinus enns Ivanica Marshall
LO laurel oak FACW uercus lauri olia Michx.
LP loblolly pine FAC Pin us taeda L.
RM red maple FAC Acer rubrum L.
SRO southern red oak FACU uercus alcata Michx.
SCO swam chestnut oak FACW uercus michauxii Nutt.
ST swam tupelo swam black um OBL N ssa bi ora Walter
SG sweet um FAC Li uidambar s raci ua L.
38
Species
Code Common Name Wetland
Indicator Scientific Name
YP yellow poplar (tulip poplar) FAC Liriodendron tuli i era L.
WAO water oak FAC uercus ni ra L.
WHO white oak FACU uercus alba L.
WIO willow oak FACW uercus hellos L.
Subcano Small Trees
AH American holly FAC Ilex o aca Ait.
IW ironwood FAC Car inus caroliniana Walt.
LB loblolly bay FACW Gordonia lasianthus L. J. Ellis
SW sourwood NI Ox dendron arboreum L. DC.
SB sweetba magnolia FACW Magnolia vir iniana L.
The wetland indicator categories in Table 6 (definitions below) are from the National List of Plant
Species That Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2) (Reed 1988), the list of wetland plant indicators
required by the Corps for delineation of jurisdictional wetlands. The assumption for all of the wetland
indicator categories is that they apply to plants growing under natural conditions to which the plants are
adapted. Most tree species that became established in soils with a soil water regime to which they are
adapted will continue to survive and grow if the hydrologic conditions change to make the site wetter or
drier. Thus the presence of trees of particular wetland indicator categories are not always good
indicators of the soil water regime in forest stands subject to management activity.
The definitions of the wetland indicator categories are described below. Some plant species may have a
different indicator in other regions of the country.
Obligate Wetland Plants (OBL): Occur almost always (estimated probability > 99%) under natural
conditions in wetlands.
Facultative Wetland Plants (FACW): Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67%-99%), but
occasionally found in nonwetlands.
Facultative Plants (FAQ Equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands (estimated probability 34%-
66%).
Facultative Upland Plants (FACU): Usually occur in nonwetlands (estimated probability 67% -99%), but
occasionally found in wetlands.
Obligate Upland Plants (UBL): Occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) under natural
conditions in nonwetlands in region, may occur in wetlands in other regions.
No Indicator (NI): Insufficient information available to determine an indicator status.
6.4 The Stands of Wetland Mixed Hardwood Forest
The structure of the five stands of mixed hardwood on mineral flat wetlands (wetland mixed hardwood)
(Table 7) that have the potential to be classified as nonriverine wet hardwood forest are described in
39
detail as a group. These results are the basis for the discussion of classification of the stands later in this
report.
Table 7. Summary of stand structure, wetland mixed hardwood stands.

Stand Dominant
Species Stand Basal
Area, ft2/ac Basal Area Range
Among plots, ft2/ac % BA in All
Oak Species % BA in LO
+ SCO
BonEast A SCO, AB, SG, RM* 154 80 - 201 33 22
BonWest A ST, RM, AH, SG 160 77 - 216 26 15
BonNorth A SG, YP, RM, SCO 113 75-142 29 13
BonNorth B. RM, AH 180 70 - 238 13 11
SparHdwd A SCO, RM, LO 135 106-161 43 37
* AB-American beech, AH -American holly, RM - red maple, LO - laurel oak, KU - swamp cnestnut oaK, ,)u - sweeigum, zoi -
swamp tupelo, YP - yellow poplar. Species are listed in order of percent of average total stand basal area.
6.4.1 Basal Area by Species
The distribution of tree basal area among plots by species for the five stands of wetland mixed
hardwood are shown in the basal area stand tables, Tables 8-12. None of the stands are fully stocked,
with stand basal area ranging from a low of 113 ft2/ac in BonNorth Stand A to a high of 160 ftZ/ac in
BonWest Stand A. Average stand basal area for the four Bonnerton Road stands is 152 ft2/ac and the
average stand basal area for the Sparrow Road stand is 135 ft2/ac. Total basal area is highly variable
across the stands. Stand basal area as measured at the plots varies by a factor of 2-3 in all five stands.
The range of plot basal area among all five stands is 70-272 ft2/ac.
In all five wetland mixed hardwood stands, the tree species mix is well balanced with 3-4 of the highest
density species required to total over 50 % of the basal area. However, the species that compose that
dominant group differ among the stands. In BonEast Stand A, the tree species present in the highest
density are swamp chestnut oak, American beech, and sweetgum (53 % of stand basal area) with red
maple and water oak close behind (Table 8). In BonWest Stand A, the highest density species are swamp
tupelo, red maple, American holly, and sweetgum (54 % of stand basal area) with water oak close
behind (Table 9). In BonNorth Stand A, the highest density species are sweetgum, yellow poplar, red
maple, and swamp chestnut oak (58 % of stand basal area) with willow oak next (Table 10). In BonNorth
Stand B, red maple and American holly constitute 61 % of the stand basal area with swamp tupelo a
distant third in percent basal area (Table 10). In SparHdwd stand A, the highest density species are
swamp chestnut oak, red maple, and laurel oak (55 % of stand basal area) with yellow poplar and
swamp tupelo trailing (Table 11).
All five of the wetland mixed hardwood stands on PCS lands have low total density of all oak species
combined and laurel oak plus swamp chestnut oak combined. The percent of stand basal area in all oak
species ranges from 13 % in BonNorth stand B to 43 % in SparHdwd stand A. Among the four Bonnerton
Road stands, the average percent of stand basal area in all oak species is 25 %. Only in SparHdwd Stand
A does the percent of stand basal area in the keystone oak species, laurel and swamp chestnut oaks,
exceed 30 % at 37 %. In the four stands at the Bonnerton Road site, the percent of stand basal area in
the keystone oak species ranges from 11 % in BonNorth Stand B to 22 % in BonEast Stand A with an
40
average for the four stands of only 15 %. Only one cherrybark oak tree was tallied across both the
Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road sites, a 21 in dbh tree in Bon West plot 3.
Table 8. Basal area stand table: Bonnerton Road East tract, Stand A; mineral flat wetland; wetland
mixed hardwood forest; basal area by species (ftz/ac) in each plot and average stand basal area
(ftz/ac).
Plot AB AE GA LO LP RM Sc0 ST SG YP WAO AH Iw Total %all
oaks % LO'
+Sco
76 3.7 2.3 26.5 7.9 21.4 18.0 80 10 10
84 91.9 5.2 1.0 83.4 4.8 2.1 188 45 0.5
87 5.0 37.1 21.8 31.0 22.6 7.8 125 25 25
88 42.3 18.9 12.3 7.7 86.6 14.7 18.8 201 52 52
89 11.0 19.1 3.8 53.1 20.9 15.7 124 3 3
92 15.3 2.0 31.5 25.4 23.6 41.4 2.3 142 51 22
94 23.6 16.9 14.7 49.6 68.3 17.9 1.9 5.6 199 42 42
Ave. 24.2 3.4 8.0 4.8 1.8 18.8 32.9 5.3. 22.3 6.4 17.8 1.0 7.4 151 33 22
%BA 16 2 5 3 1 12 21 14 4 12 1 5
-7
i

41
-jr
n
N1
I-
b
h
W
u
a)
CL
N
,c
eE
at
r..
y
41
h
al
L
w
't7
O
O
3
V
1~
,C
Q)
x
3
'v
C
e?
v
3
?o
f0
a)
Q
V
G
V
r4 u
N ?
L ?
V.
? R
C1
a?
c u
R
i. PC
r r.
4.
CI V,
? a
d R
? a
?+ 17
R
.C PC
R
h ?.
? C
i"0 R
rn a
0? .
? R
N
F
+o
u q* r4 O N 0 0 N tD n O
+ .--? O H 0 o r, o Ln q M N M H M m a N N M m (V Ln H

N O H m q* H C14 O co lD 0) N O 00 N
m
o t
0 H N N m V m tD N L(1 N N LA m N lD N

(o N tD N H C) O
01 0) N LD n lD H Ln N 00 H 1.1 CO O
^ t` H V N n rl N w O lD H ? Ln O
0 Ln H t\ n d'
^ M a m N H r, H m m H M O N
^ O H ?t N
- Ln tD M H
H O
H a
-1 O
N H
N m
H 1D
H
F H H N H H H H H H H N H H H H 'i H N H N N H 1
1 H H H 1
m Ln at O Ln Q1 V W In H
Ln H N tD N O H O O
3 M H Ln ^? o
to
co
H
m
Ln
Ln
N
o
00
0o
H
N
a
iD
a0
n
o
n
r
J m
H m M N N Ln N O N M N Ln N Ln
H tD Ln O

00 H n rn H W n n I H o0 O oo co H rn n r*? m tD o o n Ln Ln n ,n 00 m r` a O ci
x
Q N O H N c-i t` lD M n Ln t` t\ 06 w N M M O V N lD m ei n V, Ln N co
H 1-1
H q N (V H H H N N N H H H N M H H N N H H N m H

; N
: M
o O
3 n r
O ^ o Ln o 0o m H 00 tD o H r? rn v LD o a LD a o v m rl n m o
.-i
Lri
LO ? 00 N V a ui rml N rmi LLn n ? N a 'l V t(1 NO LLnn ° lD -1 '?'1 H

D_ O M 00 N 01 C1 C1 M t 0) H

I l0 n Ln rl N
a 00
(3) N
V
} N V d' M O n t` LD O ^ Ln ?..? 00 N Ln
M uj m H H
M H H N m m N Ln H LD
m Lr V Ln a M lD m v o0 m ^ H (n H 00 m H o 00 rn r- O) ( H m et rl
N cn !
a m 01 00 r1 r, N ^ 00 H N tD m oo Ln tD ci rj O H O O H O M r, H
0) H m m H N N H m H H H H m m m H tD H H
O N l0 00 n M V V' V M V t` 01 O M 01
V n
Ln
H
V
N
00
f\
H
F
Ln ui 00
H N
m 0o
N tD
-* O
H Ln tD
H Li)
-q Ln
Ln m
Ln v
Oo m
M H
N w
H LD
N 00 a Ln
H t`
LD N
H to Ln H
N M
Ln V
H N -4 N
O Ln lD n H ^ M ^ Ln H ^ Ln Ln r, M H t\ r\ Ln
Ln r4

-i
o0
N Ln tD H M N m
to
m
r-4
Ln
N
N
N
H
to

0

H

O
¢ o0 O
n

1 M
o O
N 1* L
C a 00 LD O r- H [T N V t0 I? H tD N 00 N H I? V Ln p Ln Ll O H ^ Ln Lq r,
n tD
V N
a C)
N
H
L
cr-
M N M M O M 00 O tD M V 00 00 N
^ N
H
M
V
N H
V
Q1 N
tD
Q1 M
N
H M
"I
LD c
H
tD
H
N ,
i
i m H N M m V V m V H N Ln

(2 N m m oq

O Ln a o

O
?
J
? . N H H
H co O H
I
n
O
Q)
Ln
M
H
lD
tD
W
H
O
(n
tq
tD
N
C)
n
co

N
H N (+'1 lD
H H
m
N
.
00
M
LO
0)
V
N
O
V
N
O
a
H
H
H
N H c( H m
I
Q
H
^
p
M
H
I m N O

0

Ln
V t`
O

H
I N
I W O
i a
r
m 00 l0 an H H Ln ^
r Ln O
N
Q O H Ln 00 LD
H H
H r-f r4 M
r H N H H

M V Ln tD t\ N N N ? M 00 V n > m
a O H N '
-I H N N N N N N N N m m m m m V V V L Q

N
n
s
ca
L
t0
H
Y
h
L
w
V
O
O
3
a
L
O
J.
V
d
s
X
V
Cr
O
3
v
G
f?
0
3
R?
f?
L
O
a
C ?
c? u
y ?
N ?
? L
L ?
O ?
Z In
.O to
a°c a
a ?
O N
t
C'. L
C y
O
R] fE
d 'U
? fd
C 0.
H u
t0 ?
6
? u
N ?
Y
W
-- h
? u
C7 O
N ?
O M Ol O O

\p V)
C M N N N ri
- H
0
O 0) m N 111 O m M
0 N N '* m W N M .--I N m rl
-1 r-I - -
co V M H
V) O
00
J O lO O
N 1 O

Q
0
O Lq c-9
m
0 m
O oo m r? m
3 ni
-I
N r,
-I v
-I o
? r r Ln
Q 1r1 m ?? rn M ^1 00 W
V1 N M N N n

o_ 1n vi o O -1 Lr,
} ^ 1 n r m ? M 1
r
r
? n N ? 00 tT M 01 V1 ? n
N N M r-1
M •I
r N V .
-1 N -4

N Q1. Vl
? O
ri l0
cn

O
? 00 V' V) ci Q1

V1
M V
r-I N
m Ol
N 00
N O
N N
r-I
1n n m r1 V1 r' m to O N
t0 O Ql M
N Vi M 00
N lD ,..I
N N r-I N M N r-I
CL
J 00
M N
r-I rn °1
c-I
00
m m -I 00
O
J `? 00 n
N
V1 ri

Q n
n 00
O
co ^ ^' 1n
a oi l

O V1
v lO n N V1 M 01 O e-I Q
co
a l 1n 1n to tc o0 00 Q
i.
cle
n \
s
m
a?
L
fE
rn
lb
N
O
L
W
.O
O
O
3
b
L
O
'b
O
iC
C'r
tE
3
•o
q
fE
O
3
L
d
C.
•O
? O
v ?
Y
t
O ?
z y
ed
O ?
a c
O y
O ?
m ?
.O tC
O
? a
?s
y u
O O
O O
L C
t4 ...
v
iE O
M? N
W
6r
cc =
F rA
+
O
N
O
00 00

r-I
o V1
N

(o
0
0 0

v-1 0

N

0

.1
O
M O ^ O 00
H N N N -4
M r4 '-I N N
Q
?
v
m
.+
m N
Q tD 01
N
M M
? N O N O ?
V1 N
t\

m V1 cI n

N -4 M -4
o 11 o
L N
V) m
00 00 w
i
r\ oo
00 ri
N n
n

J e-1
M
T

m
N
M
N
r-1

Q lD
M
L6
M
N
O im I
- >- [o
n r
- < M

ea
v
ea
A
h
y
Gl
fr
LLO.
O
Q
3
.a
it
K
G
RS 'o
d ?
ie u
h m
A ?
00 ?
N v
t?l to
01 .di
t0 ?
F W
O O
^ n 0 to O v + o m r,
+ N M H LO H [r r, LO M
m -C H N W H O H N O m m

10
a° O N M [f LO M V 00 LO V
Y H LO n rn M Ln N cr cr O Ln
O l0 O V H N M c m m Ln M
F H H H H H H H H H H H
co N 01 N O1
V) -1 Ln N O
3 m
m r'
H N
o a
i o
n H o
o 00
- O r L .4 r
l
= M O1 'n
O a
N
Q N N
O m m O r, cr
m Ln
3 O N H 00

O_ N n V H a o H I? LO m
N
} M N N V H N LO Ln n
H H L V m Ln

H LO
H 0
H ni O)
H ri V1 Ln
N 01

n Oo v Lq OR 1. Ln
N Ln r; H LO H 0)
H H N H
O a N N N W rI rI H [} O 1? O
V) M N H H N H H M zr
0) r,
LO Lo
N N
V 00 N Ln OR 0) N tO
6 Ln
6 O
1
Q
OC Ln M O m m r? k 0 Ln H
LO H O N N N H N
O
H r1
O H La
? Ln n V 4 p?
?
V n -1 N N H
L
LU
Q n?
i H
O O
m R v i1 m rn Ul C1
Q n N H ?--1 M V1
m
O H 1, 00 01 r, co H to 0) O >
n. H H N N N m Q o

I\
o p
N1
J ` 1 ? I

6.4.2 Tree Diameter Distributions
The tree diameter distributions of the five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands are shown in Figures 8-
12 as the chart of the number of trees per acre in 2-inch diameter classes. The charts show a common
diameter profile among the five stands: the numbers of trees per acre in each diameter class decline
rapidly from the 4-6 inch class to very small numbers of trees per acre for all diameters above 20 inches.
That diameter distribution profile is the classic one for uneven-aged stands and provides additional
evidence that the structure of these stands is highly influenced by selection harvesting. The very small
number of large trees are those of undesirable species or quality that were left behind in the most
recent harvest and the large number of small trees are the result of regeneration from seed or stump
sprouts in the openings. Note the difference in the y-axis scale for BonWest Stand A where the number
of trees in all diameters below 10 inches is much greater than in the other four stands (Figure 9). Many
of the inventory plots in this stand had large numbers of small American holly trees ( up to 240 trees/ac)
while others had relatively large numbers of small swamp tupelo, sweetgum, or red maple trees.
Throughout all five wetland mixed hardwood stands, the large numbers of small trees were dominated
by undesirable species with a relatively small component of oaks.
60 -
50
>V 40
U
M
a 30
N
a
a
20
10
0 - - ?r. . . __¦
4"- 6" - 8" - 10" - 12" - 14" - 16" - 18" - 20 22" - 24" - 26" - 28" - 30-1- 32" -
1 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" a8" 20''22" 24" 26" 28" 30" 32" 34"
iameter Class
Figure 8. Diameter distribution: Bonnerton Road East tract, stand A, wetland mixed hardwood forest.
72
Figure 9. Diameter distribution: Bonnerton Road West tract, stand A, wetland mixed hardwood forest.
70
60
50
d
U
f0 40
a
a
w 30
a
~ 20
10
0
Figure 10. Diameter distribution: Bonnerton Road North tract, stand A, wetland mixed hardwood
forest.
46
4" - 6" - 8" - 10" - 12" - 14" - 16" - 18" - 20" - 22" - 24" - 26" - 28" - 30" - 32" -
6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 22" 24" 26" 28" 30" 32" 34"
Diameter Class
80
-
-
70

60

d
50

a 40

N
30

20
10

0

4" - 6" - 8" - 10" - 12" - 14" - 16" - 18" - 20" - 22" - 24" - 26" - 28" - 30" - 32" -
6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 22" 24" 26" 28" 30" 32" 34"
Diameter Class
Figure 11. Diameter distribution: Bonnerton Road North tract, stand B, wetland mixed hardwood forest.
90
0
.
80
0
.
70
0
.
60
0
.
;v
u
50
0
.
a
CL
40
0
.
a
1= 30
0
.
20
0
.
10
0
.
0.0
Diameter Class
Figure 12. Diameter distribution: Sparrow Road Hardwood tract, stand A, wetland mixed hardwood
forest.
47
4" - 6" - 8" - 10" - 12" - 14" - 16" - 18" - 20" - 22" - 24" - 26" - 28" - 30" - 32" -
6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 22" 24" 26" 28" 30" 32" 34"
6.4.3 Sapling Density
Sapling density by species of overstory and subcanopy tree species for the five PCS wetland mixed
hardwood stands are shown in Tables 13-17.
We made only qualitative observations about the understory in the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road
hardwoods. The density of woody underbrush, including tree seedlings, shrubs, woody vines, and
greenbrier (Smilax spp.) varies from nothing to very high density across the stands. The density of brush,
of course, is greatest in the stands that had been most recently harvested and had the most openings
for sunlight to reach the ground. Large patches of dense brush are present in BonWest Stand A,
BonNorth Stand A, and the west side of SparHdwd Stand A. Many large areas within all five wetland
mixed hardwood stands were completely devoid of any woody or herbaceous plants below shoulder
level when WatHydro's field work was conducted. We occasionally saw small patches of recently
germinated swamp chestnut oak seedlings in areas devoid of brush where large trees of that species
were in the vicinity but very few seedlings of any tree species that appeared to have survived for at least
one growing season. Tree seedlings were also present in very low density in the areas with dense brush.
Sapling density is a better predictor of the potential for certain tree species to increase in relative
density over time than is seedling density. Saplings of moderately to highly shade tolerant tree species,
such as most oak species, will tend to remain in the understory and grow slowly or die back and re-
sprout from the root collar frequently. Such saplings are building a large root system and are prepared
to grow at a very rapid rate when they are released from overtopping canopy trees and provided with
an increased supply of light, water, and nutrients by the death or removal of large adjacent trees.
In BonEast Stand A, the sapling community is dominated by ironwood with an average of 80 stems/ac,
American beech with an average of 51 stems/ac followed by red maple and American holly with 17 and
14 stems/ac respectively (Table 13). Of the average of 177 saplings/ac, only 10 oak saplings are present.
In BonWest Stand A, the sapling community is somewhat more abundant than in BonEast Stand A at an
average of 238 stems/ac (Table 14). However that community is thoroughly dominated by American
holly at an average of 138 stems/ac with red maple and sweetgum trailing far back at 25 and 19
stems/ac respectively. On average, only 14 oak saplings/ac are present.
In BonNorth Stand A are an average of 694 sapling stems per acre, that very high density reflecting the
low canopy density and many canopy gaps of this most recently harvested stand (Table 15). Sweetgum,
yellow poplar, and red maple are the highest density canopy species in this stand and are well
distributed throughout the stand. These pioneer, i.e. early successional, species with very light, winged
seeds are showing their ecological advantage for increasing their numbers at the expense of the oaks in
stands that have experienced logger's choice partial harvesting. Sweetgum has an average of 264
saplings/ac, American holly has an average of 95 saplings/ac, red maple has an average of 83
saplings/ac, and yellow poplar and loblolly pine (also a pioneer species with winged seeds) each have an
average of 77 saplings/ac. Oak species represent an average of 63 saplings per acre in this stand, not far
behind yellow poplar and loblolly pine but still a very small percentage (9 %) of the total sapling
population.
48
The sapling community in BonNorth Stand B (Table 16) reflects the relatively dense overstory with a
significant number of large trees with wide-spreading crowns. Both the number of species and the
number of stems of saplings are much smaller than in the neighboring Stand A with just seven species
and average total of 223 stems/ac. American holly has the second highest percent of basal area of the
overstory and dominates the sapling community with an average of 115 stems/ac. Sweetgum and red
maple trail far behind with an average of 53 and 23 saplings/ac respectively. There are an average of 20
stems/ac in oak species or about 9 % of the total sapling community.
SparHdwd Stand A has by far the highest proportion of oaks in the overstory of the five nonriverine wet
hardwood stands with the percentage of stand basal area at 43 %. However, that relativelyl high
proportion of overstory oaks has not resulted in a relatively high proportion of the sapling community in
oak species (Table 17). The relatively low density of this stand (average basal area of 135 ft2/ac) with
many canopy openings is reflected in the relatively high density of saplings at an average of 473
stems/ac. That sapling community is dominated by ironwood at 212 stems/ac, with sweetgum and red
maple trailing at 112 and 50 stems/ac respectively. Oak species represent an average of 38 saplings/ac
or 8 % of the total.
Table 13. Sapling stand table: Bonnerton Road East tract, stand A; mineral flat wetland; wetland
mixed hardwood forest; saplings/ac.
Plot AB GA LO RM SCO SG WAO AH IW Total % all
oaks % LO
+SCO
76 40 30 20 20 60 170 12 12
84 100 10 50 160 6 0
87 10 40 140 190 0 0
88 80 10 50 30 170 0 0
89 20 10 20 10 140 200 10 10
92 100 10 20 20 50 200 0 0
94 10 10 20 20 90 150 13 13
Ave. 51 1 3 17 6 3 1 14 80 177 6 5
49
Table 14. Sapling stand table: Bonnerton Road West tract, stand A; mineral flat wetland; wetland mixed
hardwood forest; saplings/ac.
Plot AB GA LO RM SCO ST SG YP
I
WAO
WHO
AH
IW
LB
SW
SB
I
Total
%all
oaks
%LO
+SCO
0 90 30 30 20 60 50 280 7 0
1 20 40 10 80 100 60 310 3 0
2 300 300 0 0
3 20 150 10 180 0 0
4 10 10 90 110 9 9
5 10 60 70 0 0
6 10 20 10 40 25 0
7 50 70 170 290 0 0
10 20 20 50 150 240 0 0
11 20 10 10 10 50 150 280 29 11
12 10 10 20 10 180 230 9 4
13 200 150 350 0 0
14 60 180 240 0 0
15 20 40 70 10 140 0 0
19 80 80 120 20 300 0 0
20 20 10 10 210 250 4 0
21 10 10 20 270 20 330 0 0
22 10. 20 20 80 10 140 0 0
23 10 10 20 20 60 0 0
24 10 100 110 0 0
25 10 20 30 0 0
28 30 20 10 250 310 10 10
29 10 400 150 40 60 180 840 1 1
30 10 10 130 60 210 10 5
31 10 10 10 110 10 160 6 0
32 10 20 20 120 20 190 11 11
33 10 10 90 110 0 0
34 20 10 150 20 20 220 0 0
38 20 10 80 10 10 60 30 300 10 530 4 4
41 10 30 10 130 180 0 0
42 10 10 340 360 0 0
47 10 10 60 20 40 30 250 60
M 480 6 6
48 90 10 40 30 10 60 240 58 54
59 70 40 10 S- 40
1 100 260 0 0
Ave. 4 2 5 25 4 8 19 6 4 1 138 9 7 1 5 238 5 3
50
Table 15. Sapling stand table: Bonnerton Road North tract, stand A; mineral flat wetland; wetland
mixed hardwood forest; saplings/ac.
Plot AB LO LP RM SCO ST SG YP WAO WIO AH IW LB SB Total % all
oaks % LO+
SCO
55 10 40 50 10 560 70 100 10 850 11 2
56 10 80 70 410 70 180 10 830 17 8
57 10 30 10 270 30 370 720 7 3
62 20 120 10 90 10 10 130 390 5 3
65 200 80 60 300 20 90 20 770, 22 8
73 90 310 10 110 140 70 30 20 780 13 0
74 20 50 30 500 170 20 790 4 4
79 380 110 100 10 20 620 2 2
80 20 30 50 120 220 0 0
81 30 20 260 600 10 50 970 2 2
Ave. 7 2 77 83 21 1 265 77 35 5 95 5 2 19 694 8 3
Table 16. Sapling stand table: Bonnerton Road North tract, stand B; mineral flat wetland; wetland
mixed hardwood forest; saplings/ac.
Plot AB RM SCO SG WAO AH SB Total % all
oaks % SCO
63 10 20 160 190 11 11
64 30 20 30 170 10 260 12 0
71 10 10 190 10 40 10 270 7 4
72 10 50 10 90 10 170 6 6
Ave. 5 23 10 53 10 115 8 223 9 5
Table 17. Sapling stand table: Sparrow Road Hardwood tract, stand A; mineral flat wetland; wetland
mixed hardwood forest; saplings/ac.
Plot AB GA LO RM SCO SG YP WAO AH IW LB SB Total % all
oaks % LO
+SCO
1 10 20 130 290 20 80 340 890 11 2
7 20 10 80 30 30 30 320 520 8 8
8 70 30 170 20 60 290 20 660 5 5
9 30 30 40 30 10 100 10 250 16 16
17 20 30 30 80 240 10 410 7 7
18 80 20 10 60 20 120 10 200 520 6 6
21 60 30 10 30 20 160 310
26 20 10 10 250 290 7 3
29 70 20 250 80 420 5 5
30 40 10 50 60 140 40 140 480 15 15
Ave. 32 3 5 50 24 112 8 9 16 212 2 473 8 7
51
6.5 The Stands that are not Wetland Mixed Hardwood
Of a total of 259.56 ac within the NHP SNHA boundary of the Bonnerton Road hardwoods, 84.33 ac (32
kk? %) are in five stands that are not wetland mixed hardwood and do not have the potential to be classified
J _?4 as nonriverine wet hardwood (Table 4). Similarly, of a total of 125.48 ac within the NHP SNHA boundary
of the Sparrow Road hardwoods, 96.55 ac (77 %) are in three stands that are not wetland mixed
hardwood and do not have the potential to be classified as nonriverine wet hardwood. Those eight
stands represent forest types that are very common across the Coastal Plain of North Carolina and the
Southeast. Those stands are briefly described in this section to confirm their character compared to the
s wetland mixed hardwood stands.
p 6.5.1 Bonnerton Road East Tract, Stand B: Nonwetland; Yellow Poplar-Red Maple
?T BonEast Stand B is a nonwetland area dominated by yellow poplar and red maple and that has a tree
species mix that is similar to that in the adjacent wetland mixed hardwood stand, BonEast Stand A, but
with several major differences in terms of density among the species (Table 18). Yellow poplar is the
most abundant species in Stand B with 35 % of the stand basal area but is a minor component of Stand
A. The density of American beech is opposite that normally assumed on such sites. Beech, which has
wetland indicator category of FACU, represents 14 % of the stand basal area in wetland Stand A but only
3 % in nonwetland Stand B. The percent of stand basal area represented by oak species in Stand B is
about half that of Stand A. There are relatively fewer small trees in the 4-8 in and 8-10 in diameter
classes of Stand B than in Stand A and most of the other wetland mixed hardwood stands (Figure 13).
The density of the sapling community is relatively low at 203 stems/ac. The sapling community is
dominated by ironwood with only 7 % of the stems represented by oak species (Table 19).
Table 18. Basal area stand table: Bonnerton Road East tract, stand B, nonwetland; yellow poplar-red
maple, basal area by species (ft2/ac) in each plot and average stand basal area (ft2/ac).
Plot AB AE GA LO LP RM SCO ST SG YP WAO AH BC IW Total %all
oaks % LO
+SCO
83 14.5 6.0 10.7 80.8 80.7 3.5 20.7 1.1 4.0 222 42 41
86 44.9 8.0 77.8 8.0 137 6 6
90 2.7 50.3 6.5 31.6 71.2 162 4 4
91 11.3 5.2 5.5 42.6 79.1 3.0 2.6 149 2 0
93 6.8 11.6 8.3 32.1 33.3 8.0 7.2 7.3 115 17 10
4.1 26.9 34.4 14.2 107 25 25
ff 4.4 33.0 3.0 6.6 80.5 26.6 154 0 0
Ae. 4.9 5.1 0.9 1.5 0.7 30.8 19.1 1.6 21.5 51.8 1.7 1.0 9.0 149 14 12
52
60
50 -
y 40
L
u
M
L
a 30 -
d
a
L
20
10
4" - 6" 6" - 8" 8" - 10" - 12" - 14" - 16" - 18" - 20" - 22" - 24" - 26" - 28" - 30" - 32" -
10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 22" 24" 26" 28" 30" 32" 34"
i
! Diameter Class
Figure 13. Diameter distribution of Bonnerton Road East Tract, Stand B; nonwetland; yellow poplar-
red maple.
Table 19. Sapling stand table: Bonnerton Road East tract, stand B, nonwetland; yellow poplar-red
maple; saplings/ac.
Plot AB AE GA RM SCO SG YP IW Total % all
oaks %
SCO
83 70 40 10 140 260 0 0
86 10 10 20 60 100 20 20
90 10 160 170 0 0
91 70 10 10 280 370 0 0
93 20 10 10 150 190 10 10
95 10 100 110 0 0
96 10 20 20 180 230 20 20
Ave. 23 1 1 7 7 7 4 153 203 7 7
6.5.2 Bonnerton Road East Tract, Stand C: Riverine Wetland; Red Maple-Yellow Poplar
BonEast Stand C is a small (4.83 ac) riverine wetland in the riparian zone of a large deep drainage canal.
The area was clearcut in the recent past and is now dominated by tall, dense brush overrun by woody
vines and greenbrier with a few scattered trees, predominantly red maple and yellow poplar. This stand
is not ecologically part of the adjacent wetland mixed hardwood stand and is extremely low quality.
53
Table 20. Basal area stand table: Bonnerton Road East tract, stand C; riverine wetland; red maple-
yellow poplar ; basal area by species (ftz/ac) in each plot and average stand basal area (ftz/ac).
Plot GA RM YP Total % all
oaks
97 13.6 14 0
98 1.3 23.7 27.1 52 0
Ave. 0.7 18.7 13.6 33 0
Table 21. Sapling stand table: Bonnerton Road East tract, stand C; riverine wetland; red maple-yellow
poplar; saplings/ac.
Plot AE GA RM WAO Total % all
oaks
97 10 50 20 80 0
98 50 50 0
Ave. 5 25 25 10 65 0
6.5.3 Bonnerton Road East-West Connector Tract : Nonwetland; Yellow Poplar-Loblolly
Pine-Sweetgum
BonEWCon is a small (8.86 ac) nonwetland stand between two of the primary tracts of the Bonnerton
Road hardwoods that was likely added to the SNHA by NHP simply to provide ecological connectivity
between the primary tracts. Composed of a dense mixture of young yellow poplar and sweetgum trees
and saplings, the stand has about 50 hardwood trees per acre that have attained dbhs in the 4-8 in
range and a fewer number of scattered loblolly pine trees that are larger. We did not attempt to
conduct an accurate sample count of the extremely dense community of yellow poplar and sweetgum
saplings.
Table 22. Basal area stand table: Bonnerton Road East-West Connector tract; nonwetland; yellow
poplar-loblolly pine-sweetgum; basal area by species (ft2/ac) in each plot and average stand basal
area (ftz/ac).
Plot LP SG YP Total % all
oaks % LO
+SCO
60 13.4 4.9 7.9 26 0 0
68 5.8 7.1 13 0 0
Ave. 6.7 5.4 7.5 20 0 0
54
Figure 14. Diameter distribution Bonnerton Road, East-West Connector Tract; nonwetland; yellow
poplar-loblolly pine-sweetgum.
6.5.4 Bonnerton Road West Tract, Stand B: Nonwetland; Sweetgum-Red Maple-Loblolly
Pine
BonWest, Stand B is a nonwetland, low quality mixed hardwood and pine stand with several indicators
of frequent harvesting. Very low stand basal area (137 ftZ/ac) (Table 23) consists of very high numbers of
small trees (Figure 15). The stand is dominated by sweetgum, red maple, and loblolly pine, with a
significant component of water oak, all of which have FAC wetland indicator categories. Present in lower
densities are FACU species American beech, southern red oak, and white oak. In this stand, swamp
tupelo belies its OBL wetland indicator at 7.6 % of stand basal area. An average of 253 saplings per acre
are dominated by American holly at 131 stems/ac with sweetgum and red maple far behind (Table 24).
Table 23. Basal area stand table: Bonnerton Road West tract, stand B; nonwetland; sweetgum-red
maple-loblolly pine; basal area by species (ftz/ac) in each plot and average stand basal area (ftz/ac).
Plot AS LO LP RM SRO SCO ST SG YP WAO WHO AH SW SB Total %all
oaks %LO+
SCO
8 23.1 27.2 14.6 73.3 26.6 1.0 14.9 5.0 1.1 189 0.5 0
9 10.7 17.1 22.0 21.0 3.2 38.4 1.3 4.9 118 34 0
16 76.4 8.8 15.2 5.5 19.9 21.6 37.4 6.0 5.2 195 11 0
17 8.7 1.2 18.3 1.3 22.3 6.2 12.0 4.3 74 30 0
18 2.1 34.9 10.4 7.9 35.8 1.3 6.3 1.5 100 36 0
26 3.9 3.0 48.5 40.8 28.1 27.7 20.4 2.0 0.9 175 18 2
27 26.9 7.6 27.0 33.8 11.2 4.5 113 10 0
39 20.1 24.6 5.7 13.5 15.1 33.8 4.5 23.9 141 7 4
40 2.0 5.5 16.1 34.5 2.4 55.9 11:2 10.7 2.6 141 13 6
49 4.4 30.0 31.9 15.9 20.1 16.2 1.8 121 29 16
Ave. 1.7 1.3 19.5 23.5 7.3 2.4 7.6 27.6 10.4 17.7 1.4 11.3 3.6 1.3 137 17 3
55
Figure 15. Diameter distribution; Bonnerton Road West Tract, Stand B; nonwetland; sweetgum-red
maple-loblolly pine.
Table 24. Sapling stand table: Bonnerton Road West tract, stand B; nonwetland; sweetgum-red maple-
loblolly pine; saplings/ac..
Plot GA LO RM SRO SCO SG YP WAO WHO AH IW LB SW SB Total % all
oaks % LO+
SCO
8 10 20 40 20 300 10 10 410 7 2
9 100 10 40 20 10 180 6 0
16 10 10 10 30 20 80 25 0
17 40 80 30 150 0 0
18 20 60 30 120 10 10 60 310 10 0
26 30 10 210 40 290 3 0
27 30 160 10 140 20 360 3 0
39 .10 30 70 10 20 70 210 24 14
40 10 10 210 10 240 4 4
49 40 10 10 20 80 10 10 110 10 300 13 10
Ave. 4 2 14 1 6 55 2 9 3 131 1 4 8 13 253 10 3
56

6.5.5 Bonnerton Road North-South Connector Tract: Mineral Flat Wetland; Loblolly Pine-
Sweetgum-Yellow Poplar
BonNSCon is on a predominantly wetland area but is a low quality mixed stand of pine-hardwood. As
with BonEWCon, this stand was likely included by NHP in the SNHA simply as an ecological connector
between two primary tracts. Dominated by loblolly pine, sweet gum, and yellow poplar, this stand is
unusual in that it has only 10 species of trees (Table 25) and 10 species of saplings (Table 26).
Domination of the stand by saplings and small trees with just a few large, very low quality relic trees
indicates relatively recent partial harvesting (Figure 16 and Table 26).
Table 25. Basal area stand table: Bonnerton Road North-South Connector tract; mineral flat wetland;
loblolly pine-sweetgum-yellow poplar; basal area by species (ftz/ac) in each plot and average stand
basal area (ft2/ac).
Plot AB LO LP RM SCO ST SG YP WAO AH Total % all
oaks % LO
+SCO
35 68.2 15.4 17.3 11.5 113 10 0
43 69.4 3.3 4.3 11.9 3.1 27.7 1.1 121 4 4
45 1.5 9.0 1.9 21.6 50.3 23.7 6.8 115 24 3
54 0.9 3.3 53.2 7.3 6.1 20.4 21.4 20.5 133 23 8
Ave. 0.2 1.2 34.4 16.4 3.4 9.9 22.2 16.6 14.2 1.7 121 15 4
140 -
120
100
a
U
80 -
C
CL
W 60
~ 40
i
20 - -- --
0 - 4"-6"6"-8" 8"- 10"- 12"- 14"- 16"- 18"- 20"- 22"- 24"- 26"- 28"- 30"- 32"-
10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 22" 24" 26" 28" 30" 32" 34"
Diameter Class
Figure 16. Diameter distribution; Bonnerton Road North-South Connector tract; mineral flat wetland;
loblolly pine-sweetgum-yellow poplar.
57
Table 26. Sapling stand table: Bonnerton Road North-South Connector tract; mineral flat wetland;
loblolly pine-sweetgum-yellow poplar; saplings/ac.
Plot AB LO LP RM SCO SG YP WAO AH SB Total % all
oaks % LO
+SCO
35 10 60 10 190 30 50 60 110 520 13 4
43 10 100 110 600 40 30 30 920 15 12
45 10 10 60 200 10 10 180 480 17 15
54 50 10 40 280 30 10 50 470 11 9
Ave. 13 5 3 45 55 318 28 25 80 28 598 14 10
6.5.6 Sparrow Road Hardwoods Tract, Stand B: Nonwetland; Yellow Poplar-Swamp
Chestnut Oak-American Beech
At 44.31 ac, the nonwetland Stand B is much larger than the adjacent wetland mixed hardwood Stand A
at 28.93 ac in the Sparrow Road hardwoods tract. Stand B has relatively low stand basal area at 152
ftZ/ac (Table 27). Dominated by yellow poplar, swamp chestnut oak, and American beech, the stand also
has significant components of red maple, sweetgum, loblolly pine, and water oak. The relatively low
numbers of small trees indicates, as with Stand A, that Stand B has not received partial harvesting for
some time (Figure 17). Also, as with Stand A, the sapling community in Stand B is dominated by
ironwood with extremely low numbers of oak saplings, indicating that the oak component in the stand is
not increasing (Table 28).
Table 27. Basal area stand table: Sparrow Road hardwoods tract, stand B; nonwetland; yellow poplar-
swamp chestnut oak-American beech; basal area by species (ftz/ac) in each plot and average stand
basal area (ft2/ac).
Plot AB AE LO LP RM SCO ST SG YP WAO AH BC IW LB SB Total % all
oaks % LO
+SCO
2 19.5 16.1 8.8 19.3 3.4 1.6 3.9 73 5 0
3 15.8 19.7 6.0 10.5 24.7 35.5 14.6 2.7 10.1 1.1 141 29 19
4 9.2 4.3 1.0 44.2 53.8 11.6 1.3 125 8 8
10 1.1 16.2 22.2 60.6 2.5 36.7 70.2 13.3 2.0 0.9 1.1 227 34 34
19 21.7 8.2 29.5 39.4 17.7 25.1 23.1 165 33 18
20 56.9 44.5 11.7 16.9 58.5 10.8 199 22 22
27 83.8 5.5 17.5 7.2 11.9 6.9 133 22 13
28 74.5 4.1 4.6 18.3 33.2 5.7 140 27 6
31 2.2 115.5 2.2 27.8 7.1 24.6 24.9 204 26 14
35 8.7 35.4 3.0 11.5 7.5 15.9 6.2 88 0 0
36 14.7 39.1 48.7 15.8 48.2 1.8 3.7 172 28 28
37 3.1 31.2 14.1 45.6 29.1 10.6 134 57 23
38 3.4 8.0 79.3 48.2 50.2 6.8 4.7 2.6 203 27 24
39 30.4 51.8 23.1 21.0 1.5 128 57 40
Ave. 19.8 1.2 3.2 11.6 15.7 26.9 6.0 14.5 28.4 13.3 6.4 0.2 4.2 0.1 0.2 152 29 20
58
80.0
70.0
60.0 -
a
`v 50.0
c?
c 40.0
a
02 30.0 - - -
20.0 -
10.0 - ------
0.0
4" - 6" - 8" - 10" - 12" - 14" - 16" - 18" - 20" - 22" - 24" - 26" - 28" - 30" - 32" -
6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 22" 24" 26" 28" 30" 32" 34"
Diameter Class
I
i
Figure 17. Diameter distribution: Sparrow Road hardwoods tract, stand B; nonwetland; yellow
poplar-swamp chestnut oak-American beech.
Table 28. Sapling stand table: Sparrow Road hardwoods tract, stand B; nonwetland; yellow poplar-
swamp chestnut oak-American beech; saplings/ac.
Plot AB GA LO RM SCO ST SG YP WAO AH IW LB SB Total % all
oaks % LO
+SCO
2 10 20 10 60 60 340 500
3 50 40 80 530 10 10 720
4 50 20 40 20 110 60 440 800
10 140 40 30 50 30 60 350
19 230 20 10 80 60 400
20 80 10 10 200 10 310
27 180 70 30 60 10 10 30 390
28 100 50 140 20 120 430
31 60 20 20 20 480 600
35 20 10 80 70 30 380 590
36 50 60 10 50 390 560
37 10 30 70 160 180 450
38 20 10 10 40 10 380 470
39 30 40 30 250 350
Ave. 61 1 2 33 16 4 67 .15 6 9 272 5 1 452 5 4
59
6.5.7 Sparrow Road Hardwoods Tract, Stand C: Nonwetland; Loblolly Pine-Sweetgum
Stand C in the Sparrow Road hardwoods tract is a nonwetland loblolly pine-Sweetgum stand with
significant components of red maple, and yellow poplar (Table 29). Apparently this small stand (7.61 ac)
was added to the SNHA by NHP simply to increase the total area. The pines constitute the intermediate
and larger trees of the overstory and the hardwoods are a successional mid-story of smaller trees
(Figure 18). The relatively high density sapling community is dominated by ironwood and red maple
(Table 30).
Table 29. Basal area stand table: Sparrow Road hardwoods tract: stand C; nonwetland; loblolly pine-
sweetgum; basal area by species (ft2/ac) in each plot and average stand basal area (ftz/ac).
Plot AE LO LP RM SG YP WAO IW Total % all
oaks % LO
6 3.5 2.1 58.0 22.4 29.2 22.6 2.8 2.6 143 3 1
16 1.7 7.8 77.3 10.8 46.6 6.2 151 5 5
Ave. 2.6 5.0 67.7 16.6 37.9 14.4 1.4 1.3 147 4 3
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
d
M 60.0
CL 50.0
40.0
~ 30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
4" - 6"6" - 8" 8" - 10" - 12" - 14" - 16" 18" - 20" - 22" - 24" - 26" - 28" - 301.- 32" -
10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 22" 24" 26" 28" 30" 32" 34"
Diameter Class
Figure 18. Diameter distribution: Sparrow Road hardwoods tract, stand C; nonwetland; loblolly pine-
sweetgum.
60
Table 30. Sapling stand table: Sparrow Road hardwoods tract, stand C; nonwetland; loblolly pine-
sweetgum; saplings/ac.
Plot AB AE LO RM SCO SG YP WAO IW Total % all
oaks % LO
+SCO
6 10 180 20 50 20 20 520 820
16 20 10 30 130 10 20 240 460
Ave. 10 10 15 155 15 35 10 10 380 640 6 5
6.5.8 Sparrow Road Pine Tract: Nonwetland; Loblolly Pine Plantation
Stand C in the Sparrow Road hardwoods tract is a loblolly pine plantation on a nonwetland site. It was
apparently added to the SNHA by NHA to increase the area and provide ecological connectivity to
nearby forest. However, this plantation is a high quality, high value timber stand that is close to
economic maturity for a loblolly pine plantation. Recent thinning of the stand is indicated by the
relatively low basal area of the overstory (89 ftZ/ac) as well as the tree spacing that indicates the type of
thinning, fifth row plus select. As is common with pine stands and pine plantations everywhere, the
overstory of pioneer pine trees has a rapidly expanding subcanopy and sapling community of early
successional hardwoods. Yellow poplar and sweetgum dominate the larger trees of the subcanopy
(Table 31 and Figure 19) and the extremely high numbers of saplings in the openings created by thinning
the overstory are dominated by red maple, sweetgum, and ironwood.
Table 31. Basal area stand table: Sparrow Road pine tract; nonwetland; loblolly pine plantation; basal
area by species (ftz/ac) in each plot and average stand basal area (ftz/ac).
Plot LP RM SCO SG YP W Total
13 69.1 2.2 18.2 89.4
15 100.1 12.0 V 112
32 59.9 5.5 1.0 2.5 12.0 80.9
34 56.4 1.1 9.7 5.1 1 74.2
Ave. 71.4 1.4 0.5 6.6 8.8 0
3 O. 89.1
61
70.0
60.0
50.0 -
40.0
v
CL
a 30.0
a
L
~ 20.0
10.0
0.0
4"-6"6-'-8" 8"- 10"- 12"- 14"- 16"- 18"- 20"- 22"- 24"- 26"- 28'.- 3011- 32..-
10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 22" 24" 26" 28" 30" 32" 34"
Diameter Class
Figure 19. Diameter distribution: Sparrow Road pine tract; nonwetland; loblolly pine plantation.
Table 32. Sapling stand table: Sparrow Road pine tract; nonwetland; loblolly pine plantation;
saplings/ac.
Plot GA LO LP RM SCO SG YP WAO AH IW Total % all
oaks % LO
+ SCO
13 20 30 180 10 290 170 120 10 40 870
15 10 80 310 10 320 40 110 40 920
32 170 160 150 60 30 120 690
34 130 220 50 150 30 40 390 1010
Ave. 3 5 103 218 18 232 75 75 3 148 873 11 3
7 Discussion - The Wetland Mixed Hardwood Stands
Objectives 2-5 of the WatHydro inventory of the Bonnerton Road hardwoods and the Sparrow Road
hardwoods are addressed in this section:
2. Compare the forest inventory data to the NHP descriptions of the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow
Road hardwoods.
3. Determine whether each forest stand meets the NHP definitions of nonriverine wet hardwood
forest and the oak flat subtype.
62
4. Determine whether each forest stand meets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest.
5. Describe the quality of the PCS stands that may meet the NHP definition of nonriverine wet
hardwood forest in relation to:
A. Scientific forestry standards,
B. Criteria of the EPA and Corps for high quality nonriverine wet hardwood stands, and ,L'Ot
C. The NHP process for rating sites in the SNHA list as Nationally significant or Statewide
significant.
7.1 Summary of Stand Structure
The focus of the remainder of this report will be on the five stands of wetland mixed hardwood because
Olt- e5 sw1?,
only those stands may potentially meet the nonriverine wet hardwood definitions of EPA/Corps (1995), ,IA
Table 33. Summary of stand structure, wetland mixed hardwood stands.
Schafale (2008), Schafale (2009a) and/or Schafale and Weakley (1990). These include BonEast Stand A, ? -
BonWest Stand A, BonNorth Stands A & B, and SparHdwd Stand A (Maps 6-9). A summary of the (; ?? ?*an:
structure of those stands is in Table 33. The other eight stands that are not w nds and/or that have a
loblolly pine component exceeding 20 % of the average stand basal area are efinitely not nonriverine
wet hardwood forest (Table 4).
Ave. Stand

Stand
Dominant Species
Basal Area Basal Area Range
2 % BA in All % BA in LO +
,
ft2/ac Among Plots, ft /ac Oak Species SCO
Bon East A SCO, AB, SG, RM* 154 80 - 201 33 22
Bon West A ST, RM, AH, SG 160 77 - 272 26 15
BonNorth A SG, YP, RM, SCO 113 75-142 29 13
BonNorth B RM, AH 180 70 - 238 13 11
SparHdwd A SCO, RM, LO 135 106-161 43 37
" AB - American beech, AH - American holly, RM - red maple, LO - laurel oak, SCO - swamp chestnut oak, SG -
sweetgum, ST- swamp tupelo, YP - yellow poplar
7.2 Comparing Inventory Data to the NHP Descriptions of Bonnerton Road
and Sparrow Road Hardwoods
The inventory data collected by WatHydro in the PCS Bonnerton Road hardwoods and the Sparrow Road
hardwoods and presented in this report point out several inaccuracies in what NHP identifies as
nonriverine wet hardwood forests at the two sites. Many of the inaccuracies are repeated in the
successive NHP reports that include descriptions of the PCS SNHAs ( NHP, Undated A, B, and C; Schafale,
2008 and 2009). Throughout the NHP reports (including NHP, 2009) there is an absence of information
on methods used to conduct surveys for and discover forest tracts that are purported to be nonriverine
63
wet hardwood forest, methods used to inventory and describe the tracts, and methods used to rate the
significance of the tracts.
7.2.1 Areas of the Stands of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood
Compared to the inventory data, the areas of tracts purported to be nonriverine wet hardwood on the
Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road sites are overstated in all NHP reports. Those differences are
summarized in Table 34.
Table 34. Summary of Acreages of Forest Communities Identified as Nonriverine Wet Hardwood
Forest in NHP Reports Compared to WatHydro Inventory Data (acreage numbers are rounded).
Actual Area of Area of Stands That
Area of NRWHF Wetland Mixed are not Wetland
Site Total Area Within Listed in Various Hardwood Mixed Hardwood
SNHA Boundary NHP Reports Within SNHA Within SNHA
Boundary Boundary
Bonnerton Road 260 194, 239, 198 175 84
Sparrow Road 125 40 29 97
NRWHF = nonriverine wet hardwood forest
7.2.2 The Suffolk Scarp Seep Community at the Bonnerton Road Site

The NHP reports describing the Bonnerton Road Wet Hardwood Forest and Seep include a description of
a community referred to as the "Suffolk Scarp seepage community" but give no information on the
location or area of this community (NHP, Undated A and Q. Based on topographic and soils maps, the
Suffolk Scarp seepage community can only be located along the western edge of BonWest Stand A
where the eastern slope of the Suffolk Scarp begins (Maps 2, 4, and 7). The composition of the canopy`
and the sapling strata in the westernmost N-S tier of plots in BonWest Stand A is not significantly
different than in the remainder of the stand (Tables 9 and 14). The understory is relatively dense in that
area but the species composition is similar to that of other areas of dense understory in the stand. All of
the patches of dense understory in BonWest Stand A occur where the canopy density is lower than
average. The vegetation evidence indicates that the Suffolk Scarp seepage community is not present in
BonWest Stand A.
The soil along the western edge of BonWest Stand A at the base of the Suffolk Scarp does not have the
characteristics described by NHP in the Site Survey Report Form (NHP, Undated A) to support the so-
called Suffolk Scarp seepage community: "The scarp here is a moderate slope with sandy soil with a
muck surface all the way to the top". The presumed meaning of that statement is that the eastern slope
of the Suffolk Scarp is within the Bonnerton Road hardwoods SNHA and has sandy soil with a muck
surface that extends to the top of the scarp. There is an imperceptible rise in elevation to the west near
the western boundary of the stand, not "a moderate slope". As noted above (Section 6.2.1), the
mapped area of Leon sand (Map 4) is not present within BonWest Stand A. There is only a small area in
the vicinity of plots 0 and 1 with sandy soil and that soil does not have a muck surface. In plots 2-7 (Map
7), the soil is sandy loam with relatively low organic matter content in the surface except for the two
plots that were in relatively deep depressions. Most of the side slope and top of the scarp to the west of
the western edge of BonWest Stand A and Bonnerton Road are mapped as nonhydric soils: Seabrook
L?

64
loamy sand (SB) is moderately well drained, Tarboro sand (TaB) is somewhat excessively drained, and
Conetoe loamy sand (CnB) is well drained (Table 5 and Map 4 ). The soil evidence indicates that the
Suffolk Scarp seepage community is not present in BonWest Stand A.
An NHP comment about the purported seepage community is, "The unclassified seepage community
may also potentially be one of the best examples in the state." (NHP, Undated A). In fact, there are likely
thousands of small forested slope wetlands throughout the state of North Carolina that meet the
Schafale and Weakley (1990) definition of Low Elevation Seep, suggesting that a valid survey may
contradict the NHP comment.
7.2.3 Descriptions of the Vegetation
Generalized, inaccurate descriptions of the vegetation in the Bonnerton Road hardwoods and Sparrow
Road Hardwoods are common in all of the NHP reports (NHP, Undated A, B, and C). The importance of
oaks, particularly the keystone species swamp chestnut oak and laurel oak, is exaggerated. The
composition of the secondary areas, the additions to the SNHAs that are definitely not nonriverine wet
hardwood, are not described in the NHP report.
As shown by the WatHydro inventory data, the stands of wetland mixed hardwood on the Bonnerton
Road hardwoods site are quite diverse. The NHP description does not address that diversity but applies
a qualitative, generalized description to the entire site. The forest vegetation of the area identified by
NHP as nonriverine wet hardwood forest in the Bonnerton Road hardwoods is described as:
• "The canopy is dominated by a mix of Quercus laurifolia and Quercus michouxii..." (NHP,
Undated A). The variant in NHP (Undated C) is "The forest is dominated by a characteristic mix of
laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) and willow oak (Quercus
phellos) ....". Such is not the case. See Table 4 and the basal area stand tables of Section 6.4.1.
Laurel oak is a minor canopy component of all stands within the Bonnerton Road Hardwoods,
reaching its greatest density at an average of 7 % of average total stand basal area in BonWest
Stand A. Only in BonEast Stand A is swamp chestnut oak more than a minor overstory
component at an average of 19 % of average total stand basal area. Willow oak was tallied in
only one of the nine stands that comprise the Bonnerton Road hardwoods, representing an
average of 9 % of the average total basal area of BonNorth Stand A.
• "The understory is dominated byAcer rubrum and oaks in parts...". Oak saplings of any species
are a very minor component of the understory throughout all stands. See sapling stand tables in
Section 6.4.3.
• "The canopy is quite mature in parts...". Not so. As described extensively above, the forest V661
vegetation in the Bonnerton Road hardwoods is immature in all areas.
• The ubiquitous presence of swamp tupelo with the highest average basal area per acre (18 % of
stand basal area) among all canopy tree species throughout the 105 acres of BonWest Stand A
was not described. In the Site Survey Report Form for the Bonnerton Road site (NHP, Undated
A), the community type Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum Slough Subtype), which
includes swamp tupelo as a dominant, was mentioned as present in "a couple of narrow bands
65
in low swales that are incipient drainages." The inventory data for plots centered in several
large, deep depressions show that the forest canopy composition in the depressions is not
significantly different than the main area of the tract.
The forest vegetation of the area identified by NHP in Sparrow Road hardwoods as nonriverine wet
hardwood is described as: "The canopy is dominated by Quercus michouxii alone or mixed with Quercus
laurifolia."
The canopy of SparHdwd Stand A is not dominated by swamp chestnut oak with or without
laurel oak, but swamp chestnut oak does have the highest basal area of the canopy species at an
average of 20 % of the stand basal area. Laurel oak has the third highest density of the canopy
species behind red maple with 17 % of the stand basal area.
The 7.61 acres of SparHdwd Stand C, nonwetland, loblolly pine-sweetgum (46 % and 26 % of
stand basal area), apparently added to the SNHA simply to increase the area, is not mentioned.
• The secondary area of 45 acres, an intensively managed, excellent quality, loblolly pine
plantation is referred to as "The secondary area is a successional pine stand...."
7.2.4 Soils and Hydrology
A key omission in all of the NHP descriptions of the Bonnerton Road hardwoods and Sparrow Road
hardwoods is the tremendously degraded soil conditions from the logging impacts. The NHP reports
make blanket statements about the hydrologic character of the sites with no indication that data have
been collected to support those statements. An example is the statement about the Bonnerton Road
yr,?,x
site in both NHP reports (NHP, Undated A and C), "The flats have shallow standing water through much
of the growing season...." As noted in Section 6.2 above, the only areas within all thirteen stands and
385 acres inventoried and systematically traversed at the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road sites
where surface indicators of extended inundation are present (stained leaves plus water marks on trees)
are the relatively large and deep depressions in BonWest Stand A. Many of the smaller and shallower
depressions in other stands have stained leaves, an indication of short duration inundation, usually in
late winter/early spring. But except for the depressions, there are no indicators of extended inundation
across the sites.
7.3 Are the Wetland Mixed Hardwood Stands Natural Communities?
Are the stands natural communities (NHP) and are the stands "generally undisturbed forest stands,
whose character is not significantly affected by human activities..." (EPA/Corps)? -- --` .
WatHydro's inventory provides overwhelming evidence that the five PCS wetland mixed hardwood
stands and the associated stands that are part of the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road hardwoods
SNHAs are not natural forest communities and do not meet the EPA/Corps requirement of being
generally undisturbed and not significantly affected by human activities. Three of the five wetland mixed
hardwood stands, BonEast Stand A and BonNorth Stands A and B have very old, nonfunctional drainage
ditches in them, evidence that the sites were historically used for agriculture. The five PCS stands of
wetland mixed hardwood have been shaped not by natural processes but by 300-400 years of human
66
)rIk:PI
disturbance and manipulation, including agriculture, woods grazing, and frequent logger's choice partial
timber harvests, either diameter limit harvesting or single tree selection harvesting.
Schafale and Weakley (1990) list "Oak Flats" as described by Pinchot and Ashe (1897) as a synonym for
nonriverine wet hardwood forest, presumably assuming that the oak flat stands of the 1800s were
similar to those of today. According to Pinchot and Ashe (1897), the oak flats of the 1800s were equally
degraded by anthropogenic uses and disturbances as the nonriverine wet hardwood forests of today
with the major impacts being woods grazing of cattle and hogs, clearing and draining for agriculture, and
selection timber harvesting. "In most localities pasturage is regularly practiced, this woodland being
esteemed the best grazing ground for cattle during the spring and summer, and the young growth of
tender broad-leaf species is systematically suppressed..... The seed of the swamp chestnut oak, overcup
and white oaks are largely destroyed by hogs; the seed of the other oaks to a less extent..... Much of the
best white oak, the several species, and Spanish oak, (southern red oak and/or cherrybark oak) has been
culled for making staves or for large-sized timber - tun timber (larger than 12 in diameter) -for
shipbuilding, water and willow oaks or pine having replaced them. The soils, being fertile, extensive
areas have been drained and put under cultivation. Where such areas are abandoned the loblolly pine
with sweet gum, and if seed-bearing trees be very near, water and willow oak and Spanish oaks establish
themselves; the pines first and most abundantly, the others later and in less numbers."
7.3.1 Degraded Stand Structure and Quality -The Effects of Frequent Timber Harvesting
CV
r?
The forest canopy in each of the five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands is moderate to low density
compared to the potential full stocking level of stand basal area of approximately 300 ftZ/ac that should
be present in high quality mixed hardwood natural stands on mineral flat wetland sites that have high
productive potential. There is very high variability in stocking level of overstory and subcanopy trees and I4
saplings within and among the stands (Table 33), evidence of the effects of selection harvesting. The fact ,r_Z+ T?u?'
that many. lop is among the five stands have total basal area well above 200 ftZ/ac supports 300 ftZ/ac as
the criterion for full stocking of a natural stand.
The five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands do not have the stocking level of oaks expected in a
natural nonriverine wet hardwood forest stand. There is significant variability in the group of tree
species that dominate each of the five wetland mixed hardwood stands, with high density of undesirable
tree species prevalent, more evidence of the negative impacts of selection timber harvesting on stand
structure.
The dominant role of the light-seeded early successional species, red maple, sweetgum, and yellow
poplar, referred to by Schafale (2008, p. 3) as "weedy species", in the PCS wetland mixed hardwood
stands is further evidence of frequent partial harvests that are followed by regeneration in the openings
dominated by early successional tree species. BonNorth Stand A, in particular, is a very low density, low t/
quality stand, recently subjected to harvesting. BonNorth Stand B is a classic example of dysgenic
(causing deterioration of the gene pool) selective harvesting with the basal area dominated by large, low
quality red maple (43 % of total basal area) and American holly (18 % of total basal area) trees with only
13 % of total basal area in oak species. Many of the oaks that are present in the stand are relatively
large, low quality relics that were left behind in the last timber harvest.
67
Frequent timber harvesting that disproportionately removes desirable tree species with the FACW
wetland indicator category likely causes a degradation of the expected affinity of tree species to soil
moisture regimes on mineral flat wetlands. Morris (2004) and Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt (1998, 2000)
concluded that frequent selective harvesting that resulted in greatly increased relative density of red
maple and sweet gum (both FAC species) affected the assumed natural relationship of the dominant
tree species to soil wetness in nonriverine wet hardwood forests.
The uneven-aged stand structure indicated by the tree diameter profiles of the five PCS wetland mixed
hardwood stands is also indicative of the impacts of selection harvesting. A small number per acre of
larger trees unwanted by the logger are left behind after a harvest and the harvested trees are replaced
by a large number per acre of small trees that develop from seed or stump sprouts. BonNorth Stand A, L/
which sustained timber harvest in the recent past, illustrates this effect with its very high number of
saplings and small trees per acre and low number of larger trees.
An uneven-aged stand structure is also the theoretically expected diameter distribution for natural,
ecologically mature forests. Frequent death of the oldest trees due to old age; fire, insect, or disease
damage; or windfall creates canopy openings that can be populated by young trees established from
seed. Schafale (2008, p.4) rightly notes that among the hardwood forests of North Carolina, "In no
-we over time in the ?s"
remaining examples is this slructure_ well develo ed titcan be_ -e _V
oldest exomple5"1?Lfact, the time required for current badly degraded nonriverine wet hardwood
stands to develop the natural uneven-aged structure of an ecologically mature forest is likely 2-3 ?Tt
centuries.
The range of stand densities and the time since the most recent harvest among the five PCS wetland
mixed hardwood stands provide a small scale opportunity to assess the potential for the density of oaks
to increase in the stands over time if the stands are simply preserved. In his January, 2008
report, Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests in North Carolina: Status and Trends, Schafale (2008) opines
that nonriverine wet hardwood stands that have a minimum component of oaks (at least 10 % of basal
area) "have the best potential to recover to natural oak abundance in time, and are most likely to retain
species associated with oaks". In a similar vein, he also opines that "Those that are selectively cut may be
expected to recover if a substantial amount of oak is left in the stand". The data collected by WatHydro
on the character of the PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands contradicts those opinions. The two stands, ?o
BonEast Stand A and SparHdwd Stand A, that have not sustained any harvesting disturbance for at least
.two decades and likely longer show no evidence that the density of oaks is on the increase. In BonEast
Stand A, the relative density of all oak species combined in the overstory is 33 % of stand basal area
while the relative density of all oaks species combined in the sapling stratum is just 6 % of stem density.
Comparative numbers for SparHdwd Stand A are 43 and 8, respectively.
Other than this report, the only published data on overstory and sapling density by species that exists
for wetland mixed hardwood forests identified as nonriverine wet hardwood forests in North Carolina is
from 15 tracts sampled by Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt (1998), all tracts from NHA's SNHA list available in
1997. The data collected by Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt (1998) is not directly comparable to WatHydro's
data because they sampled the overstory and sapling strata in one arbitrarily selected small area in their
study tracts rather than from a systematic set of sample plots across the entire tracts as did WatHydro
68
for the PCS tracts. Their data do not represent the entire study tracts but only the small areas sampled,
the selection of which had a high probability of bias. However, within the relatively small areas sampled
by Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt (1998), in stands that contained oaks in the overstory, the relative density
of sapling oaks was much lower than the relative density of the same species in the overstory.
7.3.2 Degraded Soil and Hydrologic Conditions - The Effects of Frequent Timber
Harvesting
All five of the PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands have strong evidence of logger's choice logging.on
wet soils:
• Evidence of skid trails that crisscross the stands with no apparent plan or control, thus causing
severe soil disturbance over a very high proportion of the area of the stand.
• Evidence of rutting and soil disturbance on the secondary skid trails, those used one to a few times
and evidence of severe, deep rutting of the primary skid trails, those used numerous times.
• Soil compaction and mixing of the profile is ubiquitous across the stands, resulting from the log
skidding operations.
The log skidding operations on wet soils noted above degrade soil physical and hydrologic properties.
Soil structure is destroyed and the soils are mixed and compacted to depths of 30 in or more as shown
by the auger sampling during the inventory. Those soil impacts result in greatly reduced infiltration
capacity, hydraulic conductivity, and soil water holding capacity.
The degradation of soil physical properties resulting from logger's choice timber harvesting results in
reduced productive capacity of the site, including reduced seedling and sapling survival and reduced
growth rates of trees, saplings, and lesser vegetation. The degraded soil physical properties may also
degrade the ability of sprouting acorns to take root, thus reducing the potential for oak regeneration.
7.4 Do the stands meet the NHP and EPA/Corps definitions of nonriverine
wet hardwood forest? ?r rely
Of the total of 385 ac in 13 forest stands in the Bonnerton Road hardwoods and the Sparrow Road
hardwoods, only the five stands of wetland mixed hardwood totaling 20 ac have the potential-to be
classified as nonriverine wet hardwood forest in accordance with the definitions in Schafale (2008) and
Schafale and Weakley (1990), the oak flat subtype definition in Schafale (2009a), and/or the EPA/Corps
definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest in EPA/Corps (1995). As discussed in Section 2.1.2.3, the
challenge in determining whether a particular stand meets one or more of the NHP definitions is that.
those definitions do not have specific criteria for testing them when detailed inventory data are
available. Forest stands may be classified a number of different ways and those classifications all lend
insight into the character of the stands. Table 35 is a summary of the classification of the five wetland
mixed hardwood stands. Each column of the table is discussed below.
69
7.4.1 Forest Type - Common Name
The forest type common name is a very general name that provides information on the type of site on
which a stand occurs and the composition of the forest canopy.
7.4.2 Forest Type - Dominant Canopy Species
Classifying a forest stand in accordance with the dominant canopy tree species provides more detail on
the species structure of the stand. The tree species names in the type name for each stand in Table 35
consist of the species in order of average relative basal area including the species required to equal
more than 50 % of the stand basal area.
7.4.3 Natural, Generally Undisturbed Stand
As discussed in Section 7.3 above, none of the five stands of wetland mixed hardwood are natural
(NHP), or generally undisturbed (EPA/Corps) forest stands. Therefore, the stands do not meet NHP or
EPA/Corps criteria for classification as a nonriverine wet hardwood stand.
7.4.4 NHP Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest Definition:
All five of the PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands satisfy two of the three principal components of the
NHP definition of nonriverine wet hardwood that I identified in Section 2.1.2. However, the third
component, composition of the forest stand, is only satisfied if it is applied so loosely and broadly that it
is almost meaningless. The broad wording of that definition as applied by NHP means that the definition
covers a wide range of stand compositions. The list of canopy tree species in the definition leads with
swamp chestnut oak, laurel oak, and cherrybark oak but also includes the phrases "typical of
bottomlands" and "typical species include" that leave open the door to include stands that do not have
a significant component of the keystone oak species or even stands that have no oak species.
Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt (1998) described four NHP SNHAs identified by NHP as nonriverine wet
hardwood tracts that had no cherrybark oak, or swamp chestnut oak, or laurel oak in their sample area
and only a very small percent of the stand basal area in other oaks.
7.4.5 Oak Flat Subtype Definition
None of the five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands meet the definition of the oak flat subtype that is
"distinguished by a canopy consisting of Quercus michauxii, Quercus pagoda, and Quercus laurifolia, or a
mixture of oaks rather than dominated by Quercus laurifolia and Nyssa biflora." Cherrybark oak is
absent from the stands with the exception of a single tree tallied in BonWest Stand A. None of the
stands are dominated by swamp chestnut oak or even by a mixture of several oak species.
7.4.6 Schafale 2008 Definition
In Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests in North Carolina: Status and Trends, Schafale (2008) describes
nonriverine wet hardwood forest thusly, "Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests, as defined by Schafale
and Weakley (1990), are wetland forests of poorly drained mineral soils on interstreom flats. They
correspond to the Quercus michauxii-Quercus pagoda/Clethra alnifolia-Leucothoe axillaris Forest and
Quercus laurifolia-Nyssa biflora Forest associations of the International Classification of Ecological
Communities (NatureServe 2007). They would be classified as type 91, Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark
Oak in the Society of American Foresters system, where they represent a small minority amid the more
70
common bottomland hardwoods along rivers (Eyre 1980). Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are
naturally dominated by some of the some trees as bottomland hardwood forests along large
brownwater rivers: swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michouxii), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), and
cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)."
As defined above, nonriverine wet hardwood forest stands must be dominated by the keystone oak
species, swamp chestnut, laurel, and cherrybark oaks. The inventory data show that none of the five PCS
wetland mixed hardwood stands are naturally dominated by swamp chestnut oak, or laurel oak, or
cherrybark oak, alone or in combination.
7.4.7 EPA/Corps Definition
The EPA/Corps (1995) definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest requires that a stand must be
dominated by the keystone oak species, to wit, "... with vegetation dominated (greater than 50 % of
basal area per acre) by swamp chestnut oak, cherrybark oak, or laurel oak alone or in combination."
None of the five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands meet that standard.
7.4.8 SAF 91 Definition
Schafale (2008) and Schafale and Weakley (1990) list Society of American Foresters (SAF) forest cover
type 91 Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak (Eyre, 1980) as a synonym for nonriverine wet hardwood
forest. The naming convention for SAF forest cover types is that the species in the name are the.,
predominant species as determined by basal area and each species in the name must constitute at least
20 % of the stand basal area. Thus to be classified as SAF 91, a forest stand must have at least 20 % of
the stand basal area in swamp chestnut oak, at least 20 % of the stand basal area in cherrybark oak, and
more than 50 % of the stand basal area in the two species combined. None of the five PCS wetland
mixed hardwood stands meet those standards.
71
d
AI
3 y
in
x
b?
0
L.?
R
GL
O
.O
c
R
h
0
3
R
x
v
R
O
O
O
a
O
Qa
4)

H
.Q
a
H
.O
O
O
.a
R
x
PC
O
k
2
'C
C
R
v
3
O
O
N
v
?. y
.y
y ?
U ?
Li V1
M yr
O o
!7 •R
F >
LL C
? O
.? = O O O O o
y Cn
? z z z z z
d

N L
fl O
r
O
z
z
z
z
z
Q
a d
W

H W O
05 a o o o o o
N z z z z z
N
O
CL o
N LL
?, " O o O O o
, z z z z z
?
O of G

O
LL

x 3 c
°1
a
i w W w w w
z c
M
' a

A
A C h
w 'a CA
z
z
z
z
z
Z
?

C
¦ V

D ?

O
d N T A
•u Gl O E O O E
CU
a E m
Q ¢ m - L
V
l - O1 E O
C' C
O
to +
a v (
O
u
Y

O
O E
E N
u
Gl m
O O
c Y o v 3 O
- a E " v
=3 to W
N r v o a m w
3 -
O. C L 3 a L O O L
a
O E v o_ v m
E dl E
.o
U. 3 a

H m

N 3

N
d
E x v X 'O (U U d v v v
z E o E oo E oo E oo E °o
C o
c
o ?
f0 c v c v
° c v
`0 c v
`0
E to m m a ra
3 L 3 L 3 L 3 L
L
(U
O

y n
m N o
00 a
Co M
Cl)
M
Q
N v
?
M
"i
l
06
N
r

Ca t t 3
w Cu zoa zom =¢
H O C C
O C
O 0.
m Co Co Co
V1
0
v o 'o

C Cr n W
o v,
Co
v1
N
OA
C
f9
41

PC
w
.O
O
O
po
r.
R
x
pa
m
O '
H
O
+e
O
O
ti
R
x
0
C7C
d
a
0
N
E `
!.
H 11
.Q
O
O
3
V
R
x
k
2
C
eC
a7
a?
3
O
?i
N
a
id v
-60
Cy
? y
M H
Ca p
F ?
u
a a ',
x ' "O
z
aR
o
o
o
o
o
Q? z z z z z
y R
?z?
Ln
R R
R Q
a a W 0 0 0 0 0
0 R z z z z z
Rz=
a x

dUU O O O O O
a? z z z z z

0
a
d d ?
R O r
E ?" ;: C4 OG C4 CG LsS
o'eo 0 0 0 0 0
U?a+ 0 0 0 0 o
y_; a a a a a
is v? o
a°"
Q Q Q 0.l Q
b
R W 3 z z x

O Cl

o

a

Y o

b ?
3

H
o? 0

oa ?
coo
N
7.5 Are the PCS Wetland Mixed Hardwood Stands of High Quality?
In Table 36 is a summary of four approaches to assessment of the quality of the five PCS wetland mixed
hardwood stands. Each of the columns of the table are discussed below.
7.5.1 Quality Compared to Site and Forest Cover Potential
In the field of silvicultural science, forest site quality for a cover type is an estimate of the potential
productivity, as measured by various objective quantitative standards, of a particular combination of a
characteristic site and a particular forest cover type. Measuring current productivity of the five PCS
wetland mixed hardwood stands and comparing that to potential productivity of mixed hardwoods on
those sites would require much additional data. However, based on my experience in researching,
teaching about, and conducting assessments of forest site quality for different forest cover types, the
five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands are all low quality mixed hardwood stands compared to their
natur I I. As already noted, those forest stands are the result of frequent dysgenic partial
harvesting conducted by logger's choice techniques that have:
• degraded the tree species mix, decreasing the density of desirable species and increasing the
density of undesirable species,
• degraded the genetic base of the forests, particularly of the highly desirable oak species,
• virtually extirpated cherrybark oak, by far the most desirable tree species that occurs in mixed
hardwood stands of floodplains and interfluvial flats.
• greatly degraded the physical and hydrologic properties of the soil that in turn resulted in
degradation of the productive capacity of the site, and
• degraded the timber quality of the canopy trees.
7.5.2 EPA/Corps Quality Criteria
This column refers to the 1995 EPA/Corps guidance that includes the concept of high quality nonriverine
wet hardwood stand. "The term "high quality" used in this characterization refers to eng erally
undisturbed forest stands, whose character is not significantly affected by human activities (e.g., forest
management). Non-riverine Forest wetlands dominated by red maple, sweetgum, or loblolly pine alone
or in combination are not considered to be of high quality, and therefore do not require a permit." None
of the five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands meet the EPA/Corps criteria for high quality.
7.5.3 The NHP Process for Adding Sites to the SNHA List
The next two columns refer to the NHP process for listing a site in the SNHA list and ranking them as
Nationally significant or Statewide significant as applied to the nonriverine wet hardwood forest
community type. The Bonnerton Road hardwoods are rated by NHP as Nationally significant and the
Sparrow Road hardwoods are rated by NHP as Statewide significant. Evaluating a site, also known as an
element occurrence (EO), for consideration to be listed as a SNHA appears to be a process that
4-µ;(lp
0
?rCe
72
incorporates at least the following steps: (1) identifying the site as a "natural heritage area" and (2)
determining the site's qualification to be listed as an SNHA and the SNHA ranking.
7.5.3.1 Do the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road Sites Qualify as Natural Heritage Areas?
The NHP rule for qualification of an area as a "natural heritage area" states the following (15A NCAC 12H
.0202).
15A NCAC 1211.0202 CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY
(a) For an area to qualify as a natural heritage area and thus be eligible for registration, or dedication, it must possess
one or more of the following natural values:
(1) a habitat for individual species of plants or animals that are in danger of or threatened by extirpation;
(2) an exemplary terrestrial natural community;
(3) an exemplary aquatic community;
(4) an outstanding geologic or geomorphic feature that illustrates geologic processes or the history of the
earth;
(5) a unique or unusual natural feature such as old growth forest conditions or unusual vegetation types;
(6) other biological or ecological phenomena of significance, such as a major bird rookery or bat colony.
(b) In addition to the criteria stated in (a) of this Rule, an area shall be evaluated with respect to the following
factors:
(1) presence of natural values not adequately represented in previously registered natural heritage areas;
(2) diversity of natural types of flora and fauna;
(3) quality and viability of the natural features (i.e., self-sufficiency of the natural ecosystem when properly
managed; degree of vulnerability to disturbances and intrusions);
(4) absence of damaging land uses, logging, grazing, erosion, intrusion by exotic species, etc., or extent to
which past disturbances have altered natural features; Considering that nearly all areas of the state have
been altered by human intrusions to some extent and considering that certain natural elements require
manipulative management, an area should not be denied recognition solely because of past disturbances;
(5) capability of being managed so as to protect and maintain natural features in a natural condition; A
buffer zone is desirable to assure protection (a buffer zone, where possible, should follow naturally
defensible boundaries and should help protect the site against adverse effects from use and development of
adjacent land; the buffer zone may be included in the designated area but need not itself possess special
natural values);
(6) compatibility of protective management practices with current use practices on adjacent lands;
(7) scientific and educational value.
The criteria for qualification as a natural heritage area that the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road sites
might potentially satisfy are:
(a)(2) an exemplary terrestrial natural community- Neither the Bonnerton Road hardwoods nor the
Sparrow Road hardwoods are natural communities nor are they exemplary examples of nonriverine wet
hardwood forest. ??CS, J g '61 GM_
i C'-q\ 449
74
(a)(5) a unique or unusual natural feature such as old growth forest conditions or unusual vegetation
types - The Bonnerton Road hardwoods and the Sparrow Road hardwoods are certainly not old growth
forest. They are also not unusual vegetation types.
(b) (1) presence of natural values not adequately represented in previously registered natural heritage
areas -The Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road hardwoods are low quality sites that, to my knowledge,
have not been proposed for registration.
(b) (3) quality and viability of the natural features (i.e., self-sufficiency of the natural ecosystem when
properly managed; degree of vulnerability to disturbances and intrusions).
(b) (5) capability of being managed so as to protect and maintain natural features in a natural condition.
(b) (6) compatibility of protective management practices with current use practices on adjacent lands.
The Bonnerton Road hardwoods and the Sparrow Road hardwoods fail the three criteria above for the
reasons discussed below regarding landscape context.
7.5.3.2 Do the Bonnerton and Sparrow Road Site Qualify as SNHAs?
Criteria that must be applied to a site to determine qualification as a SNHA and the SNHA ranking are
not available in the NHP rule. In 15A NCAC 12 H are several references to "significant natural area" but
the term SNHA does not appear anywhere in the rule. The "natural heritage areas list" is defined as:
"'Natural heritage areas list' means a list of those natural areas recommended by the Natural Heritage
Program that are of special importance to the maintenance of the state's natural diversity and that may
warrant protection by registration or dedication. "(15A NCAC 12H .0103). In 15A NCAC 12H .0203 is the
statement, "For each nominated site worthy of registration, the Natural Heritage Program staff
coordinator shall prepare a statement of significance and shall sign a statement of recommendation that
the area is found eligible for the registry." No objective criteria are listed in the rule for determination of
"special importance to the maintenance of the state's natural diversity" and "statement of significance".
As discussed in Section 2.1.2, there are two NHP documents that provide insight into the NHP process
for determining the significance of a natural heritage element occurrence: (1) North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program Site Significance Rating Process, October 2005 version (NHP, 2005) and (2)
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests in North Carolina: Status and Trends (Schafale, 2008).
In NHP (2005), the significance rating process is described as a comparison among element occurrences
(EOs), "The handful of best examples in the national, (sic) state, region, and county, represent
conservation goals for each element. The best EOs for each element are picked to meet these goals,
using 'scorecard' analysis that compares all of the EOs of an element to each other."The process of
determining EOs of national and state significance is described as:
"Determining North Carolina's number of Nationally-significant examples
a. Ideally this would be done comparing EO ranks and data across the range of the
element, irrespective of state lines. This is readily done for state endemic elements.
Status surveys, network or TNC-based range-wide or ecoregional assessments may offer
similar national perspective.
b. In the absence of range-wide knowledge of EOs, a goal for North Carolina's portion of
the National set of five should be determined, based on the proportion of their range and
abundance that is in North Carolina.....
Number of State, Regional, and County significant examples
75
a. This goal will usually be 5 principle EOs.....
Determining which EOs are best:
i. The factors in the new data standard for EO ranking - siJ condition,
and landscape context are the major factors in determining the best examples.....
Schafale (2008) provides insight on NHP's approach for rating a nonriverine wet hardwood forest as a
significant example:
"Besides abundance of oaks in the canopy and understory, other indicators of good
condition in Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are canopy maturity, canopy age
structure, extent, and connection to other natural communities. The most mature
examples known have many trees 16-24 inches in diameter, with some exceeding 36
inches. However, given the scarcity of these communities, examples with trees averaging
12 inches in diameter are considered significant examples. Even those with trees
averaging 8 to 10 inches in diameter are significant if the canopy composition is good
and the example is extensive." (Schafale 2008, p. 4).
Schafale's statement contains several nonspecific, un-testable criteria, e.g. "abundance of oaks, canopy
maturity, canopy age structure, if the canopy composition is good". The NHP reports on Bonnerton Road
hardwoods, Sparrow Road hardwoods, and other sites identified by NHP as having nonriverine wet
hardwood forest and listed as SNHAs do not specify methods of site inventory, methods of comparing
sites across the potential natural range, or any inventory data. (NHP, Undated A, B, and C; NHP, 2009;
Schafale, 2008 and 2009).
In a recent brief description of the Bonnerton Road site, Schafale (2009b) offered the following opinion
about the site: "With 198 acres of mature forest, this site is rated by the Natural Heritage Program as
having national significance because it is one of the handful of best remaining examples of Nonriverine
Wet Hardwood Forest in the nation. It was rated as having state significance when it was discovered, but
gained national significance when better examples were destroyed or degraded. Only three examples are
known that are better combinations of condition, size, and landscape context, and only one of these is
protected." Accurately rating the Bonnerton Road site as "one of the best remaining examples.... in the
nation" would require data on the character of all of the stands in the nation or at least of an adequate
sample of those stands. Publicly available NHP reports do not indicate that NHP has acquired that data.
Likewise, NHP has apparently not acquired the appropriate data to identify or characterize the
?' uS
ec5
4"-
population of nonriverine wet hardwood stands within North Carolina. In his 2008 report, Schafale JZ,
(2008) admitted that the limited data of Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt (1998) is "The only extensive
quantitative study of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest composition..". In fact, Rheinhardt and
Rheinhardt (1998) did not conduct a comprehensive or systematic survey of extant stands regionally or
statewide, but only recorded their observations of small areas of tracts already known to NHP.
Applying the "factors in the new data standard for EOs - si e, condition, and landscape context ...."
(NHP, 2005) to the five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands at the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road
sites is the only somewhat objective approach at ranking these sites.

76
Size - (1) The Bonnerton Road stands in aggregate total 175.26 ac. Compared to the most recent NHP
list of known nonriverine wet hardwood tracts (Schafale, 2008), the Bonnerton Road stands are the
fourth largest. (2) The Sparrow Road stand of 28.93 ac is the 19th of 26 tracts in size and thus is
inconsequential.
Condition - As described above, all five of the PCS wetland mixed hardwood tracts are poor quality by
whatever standard they are measured.
Cam' y
V_141
v?
Landscape Context -This factor weighs heavily against ranking the significance of the Bonnerton Road
hardwoods and the Sparrow Road hardwoods at any ranking above county significance is the landscape
context (Maps 10 and 11).
w..s ?
The Bonnerton Road site currently is adjacent to the phosphate mine in a significantly altered landscape
(Map 10).
The Sparrow Road site is surrounded on three sides by hundreds of acres of drained and intensively
managed agricultural fields (Map 11). The narrow and tenuous connection that NHP made to forests to
the north of the wetland mixed hardwood stand by adding a loblolly pine plantation to the SNHA will
not serve the purpose of improving the landscape context. As noted earlier, that plantation has
excellent quality timber that is approaching economic maturity; it will be clearcut in the near future.
8 Conclusions
8.1 Inventory Results
1. The Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road hardwoods tracts, totaling 385 acres, area diverse
assemblage of 13 forest stands. Nine of the stands are mixed hardwood forest with varying W"e
mixes of dominant tree species in the overstory, three of the stands have a significant C?
component of loblolly pine and one is a pine plantation. Six of those stands occur on mineral flat Qp(Ps
wetlands, one on a riverine wetland, and five on nonwetlands. Of the 13 stands, only 5 occur on k_ si?,Jax` ;
a mineral flat wetland and constitute a mixed hardwood stand and thus have the potential to be cV''
classified as nonriverine wet hardwood forest.
2. The five wetland mixed hardwood stands, totaling 204 acres, are not natural stands and are
poor quality, resulting from logger's choice timber harvesting.
a. The stands are immature, dominated by relatively young and small trees. The few i®r,
scattered older and larger trees are also mostly younger than the age and size expected r
at physiological maturity for these stands. 7
b. The stocking levels of the stands are well below the full stocking basal area expected of /
a natural wetland mixed hardwood stand and have a patchy, highly variable density
across the stands.
c. Repeated selection timber harvesting has resulted in reduction in density of desirable
tree species and an increase in density of undesirable tree species, a reduction in the
77
genetic base of desirable tree species, and a reduction in the timber quality of the
remaining trees.
d. Unplanned and uncontrolled log skidding on wet soils has resulted in severe and
widespread soil disturbance, including compaction, mixing of the profile, and
destruction of soil structure.
e. The degradation of soil physical properties in turn has degraded hydrologic properties of
the soils and degraded productive capacity of the soils.
8.2 NHP Descriptions of the Bonnerton Road Hardwoods and Sparrow Road
Hardwoods
The descriptions of the two tracts in various NHP reports have a number of inaccuracies:
1. The acreage of nonriverine wet hardwood forest on both tracts is overstated. u
2. The tracts are described as mature, high quality forests, which is not true. ?A\
3. The brief, qualitative descriptions of the forest vegetation overstate the importance of oaks in Y?
the tracts, particularly the density of the keystone oak species, laurel oak and swamp chestnut
oa k.
4. Vegetation and soils evidence both indicate that the so-called Suffolk Scarp seepage community
purported to be a part of the Bonnerton Road hardwoods is not present.
5. The NHP descriptions of the sites do not mention the degraded soil properties.
6. The site descriptions make statements about long duration inundation across the surface of the
tracts that are unsupported by data and are contradicted by the lack of surface hydrology
indicators.
8.3 Classification of the Wetland Mixed Hardwood Stands
1. The five wetland mixed hardwood stands are not natural communities as required for the NHP
definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest and are not generally undisturbed forest stands
ret?uired-by3h _fE=A Corps fos identification as nonriverine wet hardwood stands. The
Bonnerton Road hardwoods and the Sparrow Road hardwoods have not retained and have not
reestablished their natural character and are therefore not natural areas in accordance with
NCGS 113A-164.3(3).
2. The five wetland mixed hardwood stands meet the criteria of the three principal components of
the NHP definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest if component three (Item C below) is
interpreted broadly and loosely to the point of being meaningless:
a. The site is an area with mineral soils that is located on a low relief interstream area that
is not adjacent to a stream or water body, i.e. an interstream flat.
78
b. The site is also a wetland, i.e. an interstream wet flat.
c. The forest stand is mixed hardwood composed of typical canopy tree species as listed in
the Schafale and Weakley (1990) definition of nonriverine wet hardwood forest.
3. The five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands do not meet the NHP definition of nonriverine wet ) tY??
hardwood forest, oak flat subtype that requires dominance by the keystone oak species swamp
chestnut oak, laurel oak, and cherrybark oak.
4. The community type, Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum Slough Subtype), is not
present as described in NHP (Undated, A).
5. The five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands do not meet the definition of the SAF cover type `oN
91 Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak (identified by NHP as a synonym for nonriverine wet
hardwood forest).
6. The five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands do not meet the EPA/Corps definition of
nonriverine wet hardwood that requires dominance by the keystone oak species.
7. The five PCS wetland hardwood stands do not meet the definition of nonriverine wet hardwood
that requires dominance by the keystone oak species as described by Schafale (2008).
8.4 Quality of the PCS Wetland Mixed Hardwood Stands
1. From the perspective of silvicultural science, the five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands are
low quality when evaluated on the basis of their current condition compared to the potential
condition and productivity of the site and the cover type.
2. The five PCS wetland mixed hardwood stands do not meet the EPA/Corps criteria for high
quality stands of nonriverine wet hardwood.
3. The Bonnerton Road hardwoods and the Sparrow Road hardwoods do not meet the criteria in
NHP rules to be identified as natural heritage areas, presumably a step in the process of listing
sites as Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA).
4. Even if the two sites were high quality nonriverine wet hardwood forest, NHP apparently does
not have the inventory data across the potential natural range of the nonriverine wet hardwood
forest type to justify the Nationally significant ranking of the Bonnerton Road hardwoods and
the Statewide significant ranking of the Sparrow Road hardwoods.
5. Evaluation of the NHP significance rating factors of size, condition, and landscape context
confirms that the Bonnerton Road hardwoods and Sparrow Road hardwoods do not qualify for
significance rankings above that of county significance.
79
9 References Cited
Bailey, R. M. 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.
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.
Burns, R. M. and B. H. Honkala (Tech. Coords.). 1990. Silvics of North America:1. Conifers; 2. Hardwoods.
Agriculture Handbook 654. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Cleland, D. T., P. E. Avers, W. H. McNab, M. E. Jensen, R. G. Bailey, T. King, and W. E. Russell. 1997.
National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. In: M. S. Boyce and A. Haney, eds.
Ecosystem Management: Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31(1979, reprinted. 1985). U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC.
EPA/Corps. 1995. Memorandum: Application of Best Management Practices to Mechanical Silvicultural
Site Preparation Activities for the Establishment of Pine Plantations in the Southeast,
November 28, 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC.
Eyre, F. H. ed. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters,
Washington, DC.
Frost, C. C., H. E. Legrand, Jr., and R. E. Schneider. 1990. Regional Inventory for Critical Natural Areas,
Wetland Ecosystems, and Endangered Species Habitats of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
Region: Phase 1. For the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, N.C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study, Project No. 90-01.
Gregory, J. D. 2005. Forested wetland types of North Carolina where mechanical site preparation for
planting pines requires a 404 permit. Unpublished report. Department of Forestry &
Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Kirby, R. M. 1995. Soil Survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC.
Legrand, H. E., Jr., C. C. Frost, and J. 0. Fussell, III. 1992. Regional Inventory for Critical Natural Areas,
Wetland Ecosystems, and Endangered Species Habitats of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
Region: Phase 2. For the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study, Project
No. 92-07.
80
Morris, T. C. 2004. Tree Composition Along Edaphic and Hydrologic Gradients in Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forests. M.S. Thesis, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
NatureServe. 2009. Ecological System Comprehensive Report: CEGL007449 Swamp Chestnut Oak-
Cherrybark Oak/Coastal Sweet-Pepperbush - Coastal Doghobble Forest. NatureServe Explorer:
An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: January 30, 2010 ).
NHP. Undated A. Site Survey Report Form. N.C. Natural Heritage Program. Site Name: Bonnerton Road
Wet Hardwood Forest and Seep. Dates Visited: April 15, 2005 and January 26, 2005.
Unpublished report. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
NHP. Undated B. Site Survey Report Form. N.C. Natural Heritage Program. Site Name: Sparrow Road Wet
Hardwood Forest. Date visited: January 26, 2005. Unpublished report. North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
NHP. Undated C. Bonnerton Road Wet Hardwood Forest and Seep. Significant Natural Heritage Area.
Unpublished report. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
NHP. 2005. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Site Significance Rating Process. October 2005
Version. Unpublished report. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
NHP. 2009. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Biennial Protection Plan, List of Significant Natural
Heritage Areas. February 2009. Unpublished report. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Pinchot, G. and W. W. Ashe. 1897. Timber Trees and Forests of North Carolina. Bulletin No. 6. North
Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC.
Reed, P. B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2). Biological
Report 88 (26.2). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Rheinhardt, M. C. and R. D. Rheinhardt. 1998. Canopy and woody subcanopy composition of nonriverine
wet hardwood forests in eastern North Carolina. Department of Biology, East Carolina
University, Greenville, NC. Unpublished report submitted to North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Rheinhardt, M. C. and R. D. Rheinhardt. 2000. Canopy and woody subcanopy composition of wet X
hardwood flats in eastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia. Journal of the Torrey
Botanical Society 127(1): 33-43.
81
Schafale, M. P. 2008. Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests in North Carolina: Status and Trends.
Unpublished report. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Schafale, M. P. 2009a. Fourth Approximation Guide, Coastal Plain Communities. March 2009 Version.
Unpublished report. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Schafale, M. P. 2009b. Background on PCS Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest. February 27, 2009.
Unpublished report. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina.
Third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Smith, R. D., A. A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M. M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing wetland
functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Wetlands Research Program Technical
Report WRP-DE-9.
Soil Survey Staff. 2009. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/.
Accessed November 2009. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical
Report Y-87-1 (online edition). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory,
Wetlands Research Program, Vicksburg, MS.
USACE. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble (eds.).
ERDC/EL TR-08-30. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center,
Environmental Laboratory, Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, Vicksburg, MS.
USDA Forest Service. 1977. Vegetation and Environmental Features of Forest and Range Ecosystems.
Agricultural Handbook No. 475. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
USDA Forest Service. 1991. Ecological Classification and Inventory Handbook. Forest Service Handbook
2090.11. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Inventory and Analysis, National Core Field Guide. Volume 1: Field
Data Collection Procedures for Phase 2 Plots. SRS Version 3.0. USDA Forest Service, Southern
Research Station , Forest Inventory and Analysis Research Work Unit, Knoxville, TN.
82
10 Appendix - Maps
The following set of maps of the Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road hardwoods are based on digital
maps obtained by web page downloads as follows:
(1) Topographic maps, U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale digital raster graphic maps, 7.5 minute
Topographic Quadrangle map, Aurora, NC.
(2) Digital aerial photography, 1:400 scale, 2005, Beaufort County, NC GIS Department.
(3) Digital soil maps, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
(4) The tract boundaries (Maps 2 & 3) are from NHP GIS data files labeled Significant Natural Heritage
Areas (SigNatHeritAreasGIS.zip) referred to on the NHP web site (http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/gis.html)
and downloaded from the NCOneMap web site (http://www.nconemap.net/Default.aspx?tabid=286)
on 7-29-2009. Metadata states that the most recent data update was May 28, 2009.
The internal stand boundaries are approximately located based on the characteristics of the forest
stands and the soil at the plot locations. Those boundaries were not delineated in the field. Spatial
accuracy of measurement provided by source agencies can be obtained by contacting WatHydro.
Map 1. Location of Bonnerton Road and Sparrow Road Wet Flat Hardwood Forest Tracts.
The Bonnerton Road tract is located at the intersection of Bonnerton and Gray Roads approximately 4.7
mi northwest of Aurora, NC in Beaufort County. The Sparrow Road tract is located between Sparrow and
Bergin Roads approximately 3.5 mi southwest of Aurora, NC in Beaufort County.
Map 2. Topographic Map of the Bonnerton Road Tract.
This map illustrates the five components of the SNHA as mapped by NHP and described in Table 1.
Map 3. Topographic Map of the Sparrow Road Tract.
This map illustrates the two components of the SNHA as mapped by NHP and described in Table 1.
Map 4. Soil Map Units on the Bonnerton Road Tract.
AaA Altavista fine sandy loam, 0-2 % slopes
At Augusta fine sandy loam
CnB Conetoe loamy sand
Le Lenoir loam
Lo Leon sand
Pt Portsmouth loam
83
Ro Roanoke fine sandy loam
Sb Seabrook loamy sand
TaB Tarboro sand
To Tomotley fine sandy loam
Map S. Soil Map Units on the Sparrow Road Tract.
Ro Roanoke fine sandy loam
To Tomotley fine sandy loam
Map 6. Bonnerton Road East Tract with Stand Boundaries and Plot Locations.
Stands were determined in accordance with soil and forest community characteristics. Plot locations in
brown have nonhydric soils; plot locations in blue have hydric soils.
Map 7. Bonnerton Road West Tract with Stand Boundaries and Plot Locations.
Stands were determined in accordance with soil and forest community characteristics. Plot locations in
brown have nonhydric soils; plot locations in blue have hydric soils.
Map 8. Bonnerton Road North Tract with Stand Boundaries and Plot Locations.
Stands were determined in accordance with soil and forest community characteristics. Plot locations in
brown have nonhydric soils; plot locations in blue have hydric soils.
Map 9. Sparrow Road Mixed Hardwood Tract with Stand Boundaries and Plot Locations.
Stands were determined in accordance with soil and forest community characteristics. Plot locations in
brown have nonhydric soils; plot locations in blue have hydric soils.
Map 10. Bonnerton Road site with stands of wetland mixed hardwood.
Map 11. Sparrow Road site with the stand of wetland mixed hardwood.
84
` i
s ;.Y

?t t

r,#

)it r
F
k ,
d
v 1 .?g
?;? AM.
OOOZ69
00000 000999
D ??5 ? y i ? O
O s .- O
a a+
a i•
N
,, m f' 7
Z ':•4if
m ?fi, FF •?. }7
Z U j 'E+
m?? <
O
0
a 1S d
LO i ^y CC
Jll
cj CL
o rA/
•s U O
n o
°o ti ?rO? r + co °na a
00
to CD
N } O
.'• C ?l ''yam'. afl ? ? + w _ °- O
U) 0
R'; ? 7 , ? rxJ••. -rya 'ag. «se'.'"R -.. 1-..u ? ^?-?K'^?? ? /? ? J
??3.?.?
2?y ??`?? &?S :?' '!`.*?a. ?a?i?'a...rc.v'""'' ? `•.?,"?, ,>1.,'.?.,. ? 'i?`A"y'?`-''rT`? p
3 2
.' + ./ 4" Gp, 1?,,?1.,?1s1 rte" ,?^?.".' "?^"`w?"?rr?? h``.A..-^•R ~t t vr° ^t" '+r .t,.? "' ,r_ o =5
12
""""`k.,,_ 1 ? b?N/Gym- ?_. ? ``6..?r`r ?`? ?•'? '`+,? ? ; g ?
rf j r 1 +
M +
D
V
N 000269 UUMM5
000999
00OZ99
D dN rr / i; 1? ??t?
j t
? ?23 y
t-C7
,u
Cl) .w cu m
. rqJ?
t
a
?,I o Z
0
d m
o ?- < Z
N
U O
f L
f f' ( ,72
Co
o
O
t !" , -? o O
Q
C
I? ?? ? 0 O N
C
}
Ell
v
SS 4 °
? G N
D
D
t0
N
10
N

0
0
0
M
N
C4
N
0
0
0
0
h
m
N
0
0
0
n
to
`4
N
000959 OOOZ99
0
0
0
0
N
O
O
O
r
a
m
N
O
O
O
M
W
N
C
C
OOOZ69
000888
a
V
7
r
a
a
V
D
D
D
co
M
C4
N
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
to
co
N
O
O
O
M
N
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
r
a
N
000999
00OZ99
r
1
1
1
1
0000f, 000999 00 ,, 00OZ99
000889
U
0
0
0
a
v
m
N
000989
000889
0
O
r
a
?o
N
O
0
0
O
N
%
'.yr" = YF .w ?,r 4'wr r'c ?, t G ? a #* d'
?'
5, Q?fi s w'#'?'^r{u GPs L# L`am` iy xr.+*"r?.,`
of,
VA\I ? ® °'S*}'".^+aC ? ? ii ? .t k ? ? ' ,0'S 't$4''?u? fi? r 'Wig rn Itl a
'" o Y k*U, zq r, 1 :r ?:? zby C a t is?:
.41,
,.+k.Pa`„. a w a, ,t M w -s
Y` 'r, sn, x '?€„€?, +r+•,?, dry. '"-'?
' .. +?`?Ar N'- ? + l a Y.`:w } ? t '" ? '? `• ??N v ? v ? ?? ?,'?+` ?'?`? e,? ?tM µ ??
1
y4 v 5 P z xy. t*.m o 5 ,.t & „?,.. e+ i?' n ?' } r n < '? r '4§ ? ? ? . ?.
* a d an m s a n y w.K ..
a t
!m 1
J r1' r ? i ? k .,,, yry, •, "Rt nA h ? ? 3. r g ,
,? a rt +±Ya a xti.Z x
J, r
.y_ 'r 1' ax e! 'a ,"'^ e?i `z t f' 7 € ' {+T? p'i 2
i?A
j, JN
M 4 t 0
r cur ?s Y!a s v S, .? " w' ti a ?'?' 3 ,.M ar
1?C r >w"n t T . x a e^ + "" ? `" § ? fi "'qJ r ? ?'? •? *r•.. #?s t ! x o ?
-° 'Q {k r`iC M? ° M N * ;5` .,' 1M 1. .,t:M ¢ F ?'Ql; 1 u t OJ R"v"ri.y ,}44s' :k „Y ig 1 `
i
W ».M aN t' a I G
14 41
' ? Z Lu` r 4 m ti a '% a `°? Nv rt + Ar ?
{« m s t w?9 v F *' r 0
N
C4, C,4
06
i
634 kMeM
d x GO s9 N z,?fr4h ?Ma rT i0.f N 4y1'
w Y d t 'mr ,? ar I
'
'o '07 o', 7 A
? r ii. r. y d r ,• t ?` C a >+ ant 1 B r cu r.
°' "r' ?Ou. .? L r ??a ? '? a" k 4 uDJ t r r M r ?+ E ti
,G, w.' } r x ,n e t M t ' 'S, rs 3
*iwyt'? o
11. < a" d v a '`7"a t, k ^44 x * o- F e"! t t? ' x„ '1 V N O
a "+o 72
e s r t ,, , r I ^y ?+ °' z
4.4
'D cc
ad F `4 'x, 4 7sb dr` d Y? C O
00 ac):
ryvs& ey b r '4 R
dC n
1 C
'pr 4" 0 0
".{*`k"1'r :'wk^?` ''" a c ,,, +gn ?"s ro Ch. rru? xr a,F 'v .€ ..>y w.K. 'ya4 LL. m o a>
vF 1"*` ,r' '?"'," )' ? +w„ f } iv W ?' .r' t, 1 M , dr y } „ .p wit, ,4' J pll Z7 ?y
F e
#t
h f r`
s+x K rn .. ?.? O c °3 o
W
7 t <sz a x >
41
i ,
0
0
a
co
N
O
0
0
Cl)
O
N
000989
ooow, OOOZ69
U }
N L
? U a
? "p C
4) o
J
m

Ue
t ?
k +
?? 1pA s yb
% 1
L s0
CO V
O °i, a War i .r ,,,
l i-
e? II ? ?,• x f
$ #
' JS
4t c.. r " „a
«t• ?..?# ? ,ti abe*,R«=• ? „_ ? {ter
* elk--
4n?r _
t rl ' "...
,f i-11
r "«° ?'vd..:w art '? •„if II r•,Y:j "? j'yyf.< u/ • ?) ?'+:?. T ? l ' f. ,d' t. ,?,{',yr.,.:
s s•_ x ax ..zg ,;;`t ... Y + r, *ai"' „, '„'z ...r ,d FL' ?'? J r 71
'? ? .,.,tom ? :. •..± •%?.?+`. s .?. .- rte, . ?V ? a ? /?'« „? a'e+.'fi?'Y. '? ? r :? r .f¢ +J.
' .. ,r. $ ' ,fir: •:R ?+" ,a ;`"„,; ,, ?'
? ? a? 5 ? ` .? ,;e- a«. ? ?',! '"`?. ? 4 tllr'? 2 SF•. ?f[ r ?' i ?fffj '.?`' t
?, ? ? ?,c ? • I R? xt t??"1 :
?'?.'" ?. }?` p.' • y,.?, 'L ?'?+?' a "r',{«°t '?7 F M1 ?'L?'S?1? ft("f,/' ???r ? fJ ?,' «
+? ±. .. ?° Ye=p •? y ? ?. * ?. ?'`?' ,:,. ,? f ?y /i j/ a ?x ? ,'? ? i r
ar !3s `r'• 4 /{r ?.'^ +Y? , Il fy JdF "rr,?y
Jt
tl?l •
J Aw/
- u
i
r V
r+rrt '"?
d
?Vl
N { 7`•_' a3 .M1 \V
? 4 3iF i ..Y 'AL
wx m $ c. eD. ti 4 m'l „O `fie}. dv"a,'Z• .?J
a
g off Y ? r„ 4 w-r n.? - - O L
'03 cLo
wt?. „. ' t P y/ f6 U
x ? ? 3 .- sYP ? ?, a? x??+.. i ` X.,;w..? ? ?v,1 4i? •q? Z co C $u
'x ,? ?u-T ? k ?' ",e ,. y'f ? .ary fg, • 1 .A ,. 4 a ? +-sp ? {•AAw '? p ? C
M- - ,? ,III" ." +x,. ,t1r , n'` i +!' `?'.;•. co
•< " !`* •_w s .+ is
F r 4a a?y. a"f s 'Ik ,, .ee O o
.r r t ??s r'{?? k b? s r°?? s 2 t 0
_..}''Y'c
j 'f
• ? x ?4, ?3r? [i.g«' „„m '} ? +r °?, ?'SM^ F ?„e .af'? ? ?,; ?-? IO
1? } R 1 ? , d a+ P. a rt`,? 1 Ak s+ Ik ",'.:s y4 Lu -° xr e
,.« ? ? ? ?. t ., ? $ + r?}?'?"u ¢ ,gyp •+n, t' '`" r?? 3` ?° ='" ?'`'s.' Q. ? ?
".. ,°? d`'u A.:. dF. y 'ayp..r ..e{. ? S il'? 3» w y,
?.
O
O
O
r
v
!O
N
eoooa: 00OZ6S
000299
O
O
O
M
N

tt _ r

I i
f
4
#
4
4 , k ,„,?

A,
A
§ t ;
,
'
J 4 AT

Y# ' j
Jj S

y.
l

# ?,
v K
o
.
i
,.
7
.o
O
O
O
O
N
t0
N
000Z99
0
0
0
M
N
to
N

O
O
O
a
to
N
O
O
O
a
a
`o
N
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
co
M
w
N
O
O
O
O
N
O
N
O
O
O
O
N
co
N
V
O
O
O
T
N
CD
N
O
O
O
O
N
f0
N
O
O
O
M
N
t0
N
0
0
0
0
O
co
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
e}
N
UUUUyy GUUyyS vv??» vvvor?
,' G $ :j
4 pr
,:, r i ?' f'aM1* q l J, C' p E
,1" r t R i l R? ry,:a2 N? rhY
17 4:
. a tf?
a} . ?' ?? ? (i nC ay n v R 1 ?V
1 ,'•ia .? ?? .ter m ,, "1 at J `? ? r a''?'?;r a???? • s, w s ? r
R?",,,ke.?Y
;.e
t}? ?' z a , ?'u• "3w ``, 1"° i Ef aw's 4fy, ?'?' r . ; i ;, x r +:'h} w', x .?? Sa
s?*? , at a}d?vx' < d--x Y. *" .? , c '•a ? x ?` k< ? ? s
X-V ii"
ai Y ~u * 6 ti" y an
'? ? ? ? 'a" k,( do •s.? 's ?? ? ? ?y; a '?6 ? *? a' ?* ">?
lax#N }x ,ra ms. rr~> '' xIRa §G ti' gyres 7' L .r ''tb,? ?}.
t Sr. r . rn d '? 4 ld? m k +• w s
.
higa ". A Q
e" PQ
J a a A Q
.r -R a? e z a
"*a "a'? N In ""?r,+v ?x}
??: e ti,a 3
IA,
.
? *++"- ?: .? ate,
Al;
F••r ng?T?` t ? ? C
,T +{?` 7
t R.ay t d
N Z
3
i co o
% 'Q d 3:
r- ca
k9 ?. , p i, O 2
cli 'a
'41N << I
a UO 4.0
°
!` m m o
C, o
qqr A":
?,?31 r ?sF4wi:?$r'r g x E w a A r#t, ?? ??# i ?. ry ? c
,. ''N 2 , w+ 5 R, c`r 1 #e A tx r t in c- 2
+ 44.*,, „5w £ T4`* ,ga ''7 5 ''+?`* ".> yy C u u X t r f T? P x`? ` 1?{{ f
3fi* YSW,?;j` G "" Y #`'. F '? ;3..3.t Y 6N f"}9 7 X b `j`d k yTMP'Y?. y7A a C
0 n
.r'dr sr ??*,?fi''-.•S r `j s?', a(':a S' g "?.7"t L c o q
ty n # wyr 1?, + 'd'M?}"'r??r'r. w rr kt t u''t4 't • a•. ?. v C j p a 3
?ar?, :i s 4 ,d"a. t m
u
ad 4 x WAARX"
cE.y^w _` p, a1 ?: = nY ,?"ja,"^rg(n ,fir" r", <.. en, ank t 'tr`'`}uR"?„ a yr C ;
a may' a+y2,

UUUU95 000999
OOOZ99
000M
0
n
h
NN
10
O
O
O
V
?O
N
O
O
O
N
• Kingsmill Farm Planting Calculations - February 2010
Pond 1
Zone 1 Buffer: Planting of 6 species on 8-foot centers (680 stems/ac.)
Originally Specified Buffer
Trees: Substitutions available from DFR
(pending approval)
Number:
River Birch River Birch 21
Elderberry Green Ash 21
American Sycamore Persimmon 20
Tulip Poplar Pignut Hickory 20
Silky Dogwood Black Cherry 20
Black Willow Water Oak 20
Pond 2
Zone 1 Buffer: Planting of 6 species on 8-foot centers (680 stems/ac.)
Pond 3
Stream E
Originally Specified Buffer
Trees: Substitutions available from DFR
(pending approval)
Number:
River Birch River Birch 40
Elderberry Green Ash 41
American Sycamore Persimmon 41
Tulip Poplar Pignut Hickory 41
Silky Dogwood Black Cherry 41
Black Willow Water Oak 41
L45
Zone 1 Buffer: Planting of 6 species on 8-foot centers (680 stems/ac.)
Originally Specified Buffer
Trees: Substitutions available from DFR
(pending approval)
Number:
River Birch River Birch 98
Elderberry Green Ash 98
American Sycamore Persimmon 99
Tulip Poplar Pignut Hickory 99
Silky Dogwood Black Cherry 99
Black Willow Water Oak 99
592
Zone 1 and 2 Buffer: Planting of 6 species on 8-foot centers (680 stems/ac.)
izz
Originally Specified Buffer
Trees: Substitutions available from DFR
(pending approval)
Number:
River Birch River Birch 204
Elderberry Green Ash 204
American Sycamore Blackgum 204
Tulip Poplar Overcup Oak 204
Silky Dogwood Willow Oak 203
Black Willow Water Oak 203
1222
Stream E Live Stakes (Mellow
Marsh Farms):
Price per foot:
Number:
Silky Dogwood $0.55 25
Silky Willow $0.55 25
Elderberry $0.55 25

75 Live Stakes
Total
T
Seedlina Totals:
Seedling Totals (Substitutions, pending approval)
River Birch 363
Green Ash 364
Persimmon 160
Pignut Hickory 160
Black Cherry 160
Water Oak 363
Overcup Oak 204
Willow Oak 203
Water Oak 363
2,340 Seedlings Total

Mcmillan, Ian
From: Kevin Martin [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 4:02 PM
To: Mcmillan, Ian
Subject: FW: Kingsmill DFR Plant Substitutions
Attachments: Kingsmill PlantingCalculations_2010.pdf
Ian, I pasted your email address in wrong the first time, Since I am sure Amy will be backlogged upon her return can you
handle this? you handled the original approval in her absence, Martin just asked that I copy here and you. Kevin
From: Kevin Martin
Sent: Fri 2/5/2010 3:15 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Bob Zarzecki
Subject: Kingsmill DFR Plant Substitutions
Amy, Martin and Ian, per a discussion with Martin and Danny yesterday we are proposing to substitute some of the
species that were listed in our previously approved restoration plan for some others due to current availability. Attached is
the list of potential substitution plants (pending your approval) available from DFR and Mellow Marsh Farms for the
Kingsmill pond buffers and Feature E. We have broken up the plants by area, and also provided a tally of the number of
each seedling species we will need. The trees will be planted ASAP while the live stakes will be planted in coordination
with the installation of the structures on Feature E.
Let us know if this is OK so they can get these ordered and planted before the end of Feb (if it ever quits raining and
snowing!). Thanks Kevin