20040425 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20030522

~
~~---
(<< - ()
~ ~5 (/t; ~4- ~
,\' &M- aPt~:r :::l:ii~ - 5Wf'L
Present at meeting: I IJ I ..J.--
Mickey Suggs - USACOE ~;~ ckS:it' vv..~ oJ lA.W(l.,$ '\ h...../
Rob Maul - Land Management Group
Christian Preciozi -""" ;:;j' ,.~. 101/ ~,r;, vk 4 ~ ~
Howard Hall- USFWS ... it rtt
Bill Herbert - EcoBank (Mitigation banker) I efff' "~III 'f'Id1tK' ~~ J y~~
Bennet Wynn - WRC il tJ/J-1' Yt..f U 0 u.;".
~:: :~~fo~::;~::::::.. ro discuss ve~~cess criteria forl~e ooooDd phase of fue~ ~ t~

Farms Mitigation Bank. Phase II consists of 907 acres of restoration, 215 acres of enhancement, 621 acres .
of preservation, and 69 acres of upland buffer. Phase I was just completed and the final monitoring report
was submitted. Hydrologically the project was a success, however, there were some problems with the
establishment of the desired vegetation. Alternating flooding and drought may have affected the planted
species, and, because of mortality 40,000 trees had to be replanted. The abundance of Red Maple was most
problematic, as it comprised over half of the density of trees and it was considered a "non-preferred
species" .

To: John Dorney and Amanda Mueller
From: Ed Schwartzman
Date: May 22, 2003
Re: Barra Farms Mitigation Project Phase II

The purpose of the meeting was to address issues such as the one outlined above ahead of time and to
establish success criteria that can address these problems. Unfortunately the group did not reach consensus
as to the final criteria, however, progress was made and some potential criteria were proposed. We did
agree that the prime goal was to successfully ensure the survival of the specified number of planted trees
(320 after 3 years and 260 after 5).

There was disagreement with regards to what to do when the planted species did not meet this threshold.
The success criteria from Barra I state that volunteer species can be used to meet the criteria, as long as no
more than 20% of the total is undesirable species and no species represents more than 30% of the total
species composition at the site. Various approaches were discussed including introduction of height
requirements for volunteers to be counted and elimination of the 30% limit on any given species. Another
approach would require that relative density of species not vary more than one standard deviation, e.g. if
Bald Cypress were planted at 20% density, it's final density would could not exceed 10-30%.

The final alternative reviewed by the group was to use the initial criteria (320 planted trees in 3 years, etc.)
and then in the case of volunteers, assess whether anyone non-desirable species accounted for 50% of the
total density or more. In this case, a walk through to assess the site would be necessary and remedial action
(i.e. replanting or volunteer thinning) proposed. A possible sub-clause to this criteria, would allow greater
than 50% density of a non-desirable species given that its mean height was less than the planted/desired
species. This latter approach takes into account the fact that non-desirable species may not be problematic
if they are not overshadowing and out-competing planted/desired species.

It was generally agreed that the requirement that no species comprise more than 30% of the total density
should be discarded and that another requirement that at least 3 planted species per acre be present was not
worth saving. The group also considered the use of mechanical removal and herbicide application in
commenced converted (CC) fields where maples had already colonized. A plan was proposed to spray in
the spring/early summer preceding hydrological restoration in the summer and wetland tree planting in the
winter/early spring.

The group also agreed that the planting list should reflect the composition of the desired community to be
restored and that references communities should be used to determine suitable species. Based on these
points, the condition of reference areas around the site, and community characteristics according to

Schafale and Weakley, it was agreed that oaks were probably not appropriate for the site and that bays
(Loblolly, Red, and Sweet Bay) were more suitable and should be included in the planting.

The group also considered sampling protocol for monitoring. It was generally agreed that a larger sample
size would be helpful to more accurately determine the survival of planted species and the spread of
undesirables. We also considered the possibility of using randomly located plots selected each year in
addition to permanent plots for monitoring. Randomly located plots would improve the ability to assess
broad areas of the site and look at the distribution of species such as maple. Random plots also give the
monitors a reference in order to judge if trends in permanent plots are widespread or localized.

,IiI

In regards to the issue of Red Maple, several points were made. First off, it was observed that Red Maple
was a primary component of a the bay forest on the northwest end of the tract and that Red Maple is usually
present to some degree in all wetland communities. Furthermore, despite its abundance, it may not pose a
threat to the planted/desired species if it does not overshadow them. In areas in Barra Farms with dense Red
Maple, the planted oaks, cypress, gum, and cedar were tall enough to avoid shading by maples. One
method for assessing the threat posed by undesirable species would be to measure vegetative dominance,
i.e. some index of density and height. This would probably be used as a tool for assessment rather than a
measure for meeting success criteria.

~