20080868 Ver 2_Comments on Inventory Method from NCNHP_20090216

Dorney, John
From: Schafale, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:36 PM
To: Dorney, John
Subject: Notes on Jim Gregory Bonnerton inventory
Attachments: Gregory2010inventoryresponse to issues raised.doc
Hi John,
You have probably have heard that PCS dropped their suit against us, though with the option of bringing it back in the
future.
In the process of stowing stuff away, I wrote some notes about the Jim Gregory inventory. Which I yet might. I don't
know if you're dealing with that side of things, but if you are maybe you'd benefit from them. They're not really
polished, and were mainly meant to capture the thoughts I'd had to date.
Michael P. Schafal
Note new email address: [e-mail]
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Office of Planning and Conservation, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
919-715-8689
E-mail messages to and from this address are subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.
1
Response to issues raised in James D. Gregory February 4, 2010 Inventory of the Bonerton Road and
Sparrow Road Wet Flat Hardwoods and Associated Stands.
Methods: The sampling method uses a threshold of 4 inches dbh for separating canopy and subcanopy
trees. This is a common practice in forestry and some plant ecology sampling, but it not readily
comparable to our field methods. Some trees larger than 4 inches are still in the understory. Our
method of measuring trees estimated to be of average size is less exact but gives a more correct value of
the size of trees actually in the canopy. Gregory's methods will give an underestimate, making the
forest appear less mature than it is. Because the subcanopy usually has different species composition,
with more red maple, ironwood, and other non-oak species, it will also make the canopy appear to have
a smaller proportion of oak than it has.
However, Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt used a similar method, though with a different understory
threshold. So, the Gregory data are more readily compared to those data than to our operation EO rank
specifications.
Definition of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
Misuse of SAF synonymy: The 3rd approximation lists the SAF swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak cover
type as a synonym. Gregory argues that this requires the 3rd approximation type to meet SAF's standard
of being dominated by oaks. This is obviously an inexact synonym, and not a definition of NRWHF. In
fact, the SAF type includes bottomland hardwoods that clearly don't meet the definition of NRWHF, and
includes laurel oak communities that don't meet SAF's definition.
Confusion of jurisdictional wetland status with ecological effects of wetness: Although we believe that
most places meeting our definition of NRWHF are jurisdictional wetlands, our definition of "wet" in the
3rd approximation is not precisely tied to federal wetland jurisdiction as currently defined. This is most
obvious in other parts of the 3rd approximation, such as the floodplains and pine savannas, which are
influenced by water and are called wet, but often are not determined to be jurisdictional wetlands.
Mistaken insistence that all three major oak species be present: The 3rd approximation definition does
not specify this, and a number of other NRWHF occurrences also don't have all three species.
Mistaken insistence on dominance by oaks: The 3rd approximation definition of NRWHF does not insist
they be dominated by oaks. We think that the true natural condition of them would be dominated by
oaks. We use abundance of oaks as an indicator of condition. But many examples that are still viable
and not fully degraded have oaks as a minority of the canopy. Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt's plots
showed that most of our occurrences, including other nationally significant examples, had less than 50%
oak by basal area or density. Bethel-Grindle had 12% oaks, Scranton Hardwoods had 8-31% oaks in
different plots. Gum Swamp had 39% oaks. Gregory found 11-22% oak at Bonnerton, despite including
some understory trees.
Confusion of the nature of natural community classification: Gregory appears to be trying to create a
definition of NRWHF that is similar to the definition of jurisdictional wetlands, with multiple criteria that
must all be met and an assumption that if any is not met the site cannot be a NRWHF. But natural
community classification necessarily works differently - taking a continuum of community variation and
dividing it into categories. Descriptions in the 3rd approximation are based around a central concept,
with guidance of where the boundaries of the categories are. All sites that have enough natural
character remaining to classify as some natural community are placed in the category they best fit. A
NRWHF is classified when the characteristics fit that category better than any of the adjacent categories.
Nonriverine Swamp Forests are too wet to have oaks, so any natural community with any appreciable
amount of oaks, even if a minority, can be classified as NRWHF.
Incomplete measure of vegetation in determining jurisdictional wetland status: Gregory's methodology
sampled only the trees. Determination of wetland vegetation should look at all vegetation.
Inappropriate determination of wetland status: Gregory asserts that a large number of his plots were
not jurisdictional wetland. For all but one of these, the reason given is that they did not have wetland
vegetation. However, what they had was not upland vegetation, but vegetation dominated by
facultative tree species, which could be either wetland or upland. It is likely that the shrub and herb
layers would be more definitive in this circumstance, about whether the area was wet. I don't know
how wetland regulators would handle this situation, but for our ecological purposes we would look to
the component of vegetation that gave the strongest indication of wetness. If the shrub and herb layers
in these places were dominated by facultative or obligate wetland species and lacked appreciable
obligate or facultative upland species, we should conclude that the site is wet.
Condition of the Sites
overemphasis on impacts: We are aware that the sites show evidence of selective logging, decades ago
in the most mature portions and more recently in the northern primary area. We are aware of the
presence of skid trails and ruts from skidders. We are aware that the canopy has not completely
recovered to its natural basal area after the logging. This does not indicate that this site has lost its
significance. With no examples remaining that have not been logged, the best examples are going to
show some such damage. The fact that this site had selective logging that left some of the older canopy
trees means it is in better condition than examples that regenerated after clearcutting and have young,
uneven-aged canopies, let along the more numerous examples that have been destroyed by
clearcutting.
Lack of comparison of impacts or condition: While Gregory notes the damage caused by past logging, he
offers no evidence that there are other sites without such damage that would be better examples than
this one.
Misinterpretation of uneven-aged canopy: Gregory suggests that the uneven-aged canopy is the result
of logging and is a sign of degradation. But uneven-aged canopy is also the natural structure of these
communities. The uneven-aged canopy is present because selective logging removed some trees and
left some, rather than removing all the canopy trees. It is therefore a sign that the community is less
degraded than other examples, rather than more.
Misinterpretation of EPA guidance on mechanical site prep in forested wetlands: The EPA guidance was
worked out in negotiations between timber industry representatives and environmental groups for the
specific purpose of determining wetlands that would be subject to increased regulation. A NHP
representative provided input to the negotiations but did not determine the outcome. The
negotiations led to a very narrow definition of which NRWHFs would qualify under this guidance, so
narrow that virtually no existing examples met it. This definition was the result of compromise between
interested parties, and was not set by any clear scientific criteria (Scientific information was used to
define a continuum of condition, but the threshold chosen on that continuum has no scientific basis).
NHP did not change its definition of NRWHF because of its participation in negotiations for this purpose,
any more than it changed its definition to match the NCWAM wetland categories during participation in
that committee. NHP determines significance by identifying the best remaining examples of each
community type, rather than by identifying arbitrary points on a continuum of condition. Such an
approach is necessary to carry out NHP's mission.