The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190865 Ver 1_Laurel Springs_AMP for IRT Review_20232023 Adaptive Management Plan LAUREL SPRINGS STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Avery County, North Carolina French Broad River Basin Cataloging Unit 06010108 DMS Project No. 100122 Full Delivery Contract No. 7890 DMS RFP No. 16-007725 (issued 11/13/18) USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835 DWR Project No. 2019-0865 Restoration Systems, LLC 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Contact: Raymond Holz 919-755-9490 (phone) 919-755-9492 (fax) Final MY0 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Table of Contents Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina August 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 2 PLANTING, MONITORING, AND MAINTENANCE TO DATE .........................................................2 2.1 MY0 SUMMARY FOR VEGETATION .............................................................................................................. 2 2.2 MY1 SUMMARY FOR VEGETATION .............................................................................................................. 2 2.3 MY2 PRELIMINARY VEGETATION DATA ........................................................................................................ 2 APPENDICES A. MY0 Data B. MY1 Data C. MY2 Preliminary Data 2023 Adaptive Management Plan (Project No. 100122) page 1 Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina August 2023 1 INTRODUCTION Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site) is an NCDMS Full-Delivery site located in Avery County at coordinates 35.9941, -81.9821. The project is currently in Year 2 of Monitoring. The final mitigation plan is dated February 2021 and the Monitoring Year 1 was completed in 2022. As noted in the Year 1 monitoring report and confirmed by a site visit in July, 2023, the Site is not currently meeting vegetation success criteria for vegetation, with an average of 220 stems/acre. Success criteria requires 320 stems/acre at year three (See Table A). Multiple factors are involved including areas of over- abundant hydrology, dense herbaceous vegetation, and some upland areas of poor soil. Table A. Success Criteria Streams • All streams must maintain an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05. • Continuous surface flow must be documented in intermittent reaches each year for at least 30 consec days. • Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section. • BHR at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline condition during any given monitoring period. • The stream shall remain stable, and all other performance standards shall be met through four separate bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring years 1-7. • Intermittent streams will demonstrate at least 30-days consecutive flow. Wetland Hydrology • Annual saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 12 percent of the growing season during average climatic conditions. Vegetation • Within planted portions of the Site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7. • Trees must average 6 feet in height at year 5 and 8 feet in height at year 7 in each plot. • Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the Site; natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case-by-case basis. • Areas of herbaceous vegetation establishment will have a minimum of four species present. Table B. Vegetation Success Criteria from Approved Mit. Plan (2021) and Approved Supplement (2022) Vegetation Parameters Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported Vegetation establishment and vigor Permanent veg plots 0.0247 acres (100 square meters) in size; CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) As-built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 16 plots & three (3) random transects spread across the Site Species, height, planted vs. volunteer, stems/acre 2023 Adaptive Management Plan (Project No. 100122) page 2 Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina August 2023 2 PLANTING, MONITORING, AND MAINTENANCE TO DATE 2.1 MY0 Summary for Vegetation The site was planted with 18,850 bare root stems plus 2,500 live stakes on January 13, 2022. The streamside zone was planted at a density of 2,720 stems/acre while the rest of the site was planted at 680 stems/acre. This initial effort included nineteen species of bare root. Please note that during the MY0 review process the IRT approved four species not listed in the mitigation plan for inclusion in the planted stem count. The MY0 vegetative survey was completed on February 1, 2022. Monitoring resulted in a sitewide stem density average of 688 planted stems per acre, well above the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre required at MY3. Additionally, all 16 fixed vegetation plots met the interim success criteria. See Appendix A for complete MY0 vegetation data. 2.2 MY1 Summary for Vegetation The MY1 vegetative survey was completed between September 14 and November 8, 2022. Measurements of all 16 permanent plots and three (3) temporary plots resulted in an average of 300 planted stems/acre. Additionally, 9 of the 19 individual plots met success criteria during MY1. See Appendix B. Maintenance included removal of a shed from within the easement, supplemental boundary marking, and targeted invasive treatment of several species found as small patches or individual stems. A supplemental planting was conducted on March 14, 2023 over 2.67 acres of the site with 1,800 bare-root stems. The area included the 0.107-acre area of encroachment noted in the MY1 monitoring report. 2.3 MY2 Preliminary Vegetation Data A preliminary vegetation survey was completed 6/28/2023 to assess vegetative conditions and allow the development of an adaptive management plan based on the low stem counts observed in MY1. Sitewide the average tree density was found to be 220 stems/acre. This survey included all permanent plots as well as ten random transects and nine herbaceous diversity plots. Tree density continues to be an issue, with only three of ten temporary transects meeting success criteria and only eight of sixteen permanent plots meeting density requirements. However, all nine herbaceous plots were found to be meeting success criteria for diversity (minimum four species) and coverage. As indicated in the mitigation plan, up to 20% of the site was expected to be herbaceous dominated wetlands lacking in tree cover. See Appendix C for complete data. Maintenance in 2023 to date has included additional boundary marking and invasive treatments. There are no significant areas where invasive species are a notable issue. There are also no notable issues from other pests such as beavers or deer. 2023 Adaptive Management Plan (Project No. 100122) page 3 Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina August 2023 3 PROPOSED ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS After receiving the preliminary data RS staff walked the site thoroughly to better identify the causes of low tree survival. Overall the vegetation on the site looks great. The floodplain herbaceous vegetation is lush and diverse, including both species from the seedbank and planted species. Some floodplain areas are especially wet as expected. The upland areas are also supporting a diverse though less dense herbaceous layer, and the areas of heavy cut/fill are continuing to fill in with herbaceous cover and supporting some planted woody stems. There are also numerous volunteer tree stems around the uplands and floodplain margins (mostly tulip poplar and white pine). Unfortunately, the woody stem count is disappointingly low and does not meet success criteria. Even surviving live stakes appear to be sparse, though stream banks are well stabilized by herbaceous cover. Competition and shading are definitely an issue, particularly in the floodplain. However most planted species can be found and are becoming established in suitable niches across the site. The upland areas are more on track based on the reduced herbaceous competition and more abundant volunteer stems. To bring the site back on track additional planting is needed. RS proposes to plant additional stock this winter across the entire restoration area to ensure the density and vigor requirements are met. 3.1 SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS A. BARE ROOTS: RS proposes to plant 2,600 additional bare root stems in winter 2023-2024. This planting will focus on the floodplain and stream-side assemblage, but will also encompass the lower portions of the adjacent slopes. Total planted area will include approximately 13 acres, adding an additional 200 stems/acre to the planted areas. While this exceeds the necessary density it will provide additional onsite diversity and allow a reasonable buffer for tree mortality as monitoring continues. Species from the approved mitigation plan will be used. B. LIVE STAKES: RS proposes to plant 1,000 live stakes in winter 2023-2024. The live stakes will be planted streamside and in areas of exceptional hydrology where herbaceous openings are expected to persist and will consist primarily of shrubby species, including button bush, elderberry, willow, ninebark, alder, and silky dogwood. C. CONTAINERS: RS proposes to plant 150 one-gallon containerized trees, focusing the effort in upland portions of the site with especially challenging soil conditions. These upland areas overlap with the earlier replant, and while those plots are largely meeting success criteria today RS anticipates additional challenges in tree growth and vigor in those areas compared to the rest of the site. Species may include: Tilia americana (basswood), Amelanchier arborea(serviceberry), Quercus rubra (red oak), Quercus alba (white oak), Quercus coccinea (scarlet oak), and other species from the approved mitigation plan. # Species Common 500 Alnus serrulata Smooth alder 400 Betula lenta Sweet birch 300 Celtis laevigata Sugarberry 400 Cornus amomum Silky dogwood 800 Nyssa sylvatica Black gum 200 Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 2,600 2023 Adaptive Management Plan (Project No. 100122) page 4 Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina August 2023 Appendix A MY0 Data ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( #* #* !.2 3 1 8 1 5 7 2 6 4 9 3 11 16 13 10 12 14 15 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 13 12 11 10 NC Center for Geographic Information & Anaylsis FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: PHP NOV 2022 1:2000 19-006 Title: Project: Prepared for: Avery County, NC LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE MY0CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW 1 Notes: 1. Background Imagery Source: 2018 aerial photography provided by the NC OneMap program (online, provided by the NC Geographic Information Coordination Council) 0 300 600150Feet Legend Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement (Level I) Stream Enhancement (Level II) Stream Preservation Stream Generating No Credit Instream Structures Creditable Wetland Reestablishment Area Wetland Reestablishment Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland Enhancement Wetland Preservation Permanant Vegetation Plot Temporary Vegetation Plot - 50m x 2m ^_Vegetation Plot Origins !(Groundwater Gauge !.Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature #*Stream Crest Gauge Cross Sections Observed Low Stem Density - 2023 Replant Areas Shed/Mowing Encroachment - 2023 Replant Areas ³ XS-1XS-2 XS-3 XS-4 XS- 5XS- 6 XS-7 XS- 8 XS-9 XS-10 X S - 1 1 X S - 1 2 X S - 1 3 X S - 1 4 XS-15XS-16 UT- 4 UT - 3 U T - 2 UT-1 Fork Cr e e k Rain Gauge MY0 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Page 10 Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina November 2022 Table F. As‐Built Planted Species and Stems Vegetation Association Montane Alluvial Forest* Acidic Cove Forest* Stream‐side Assemblage** TOTAL Area (acres) 9.0 4.7 2.5 16.2 Species Indicator Status # planted* % of total # planted* % of total # planted** % of total # planted Basswood (Tilia americana) FACU 100 2% 200 6% 300 Cherry birch (Betula lenta) FACU 100 500 2% 8% 400 600 13% 18.75% 500 1500 7% 15.96% 1000 2600 Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) FACU 100 400 2% 6.4% 100 600 3% 18.75% ‐‐ ‐‐ 200 1000 Red oak (Quercus rubra) FACU 500 650 10.4% 300 650 9% 20.31% ‐‐ ‐‐ 300 1300 White ash (Fraxinus americana) FACU 100 2% 300 9% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 White oak (Quercus alba) FACU 100 550 2% 8.8% 400 13% 550 5.85% 500 1100 White pine (Pinus strobus) FACU 300 600 2% 9.6% 400 13% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500 600 Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) FACU 100 200 2% 3.2% 300 9% 500 300 7% 3.19% 900 500 Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) FAC 600 10% 100 3% 500 7% 1200 Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) FAC 200 3% 300 9% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500 Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) FAC 200 600 3% 9.6% 100 500 3% 15.63% ‐‐ ‐‐ 300 1100 Shadbush (Amelanchier arborea) FAC 100 2% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 6% 500 Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) FAC 600 450 10% 7.2% 200 600 6% 18.75% 500 1100 7% 11.70% 1300 2150 American elm (Ulmus americana) FACW 600 10% 100 3% 500 7% 1200 Hackberry (Celtis laevigata) FACW 600 10% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500 7% 1100 River birch (Betula nigra) FACW 600 500 10% 8% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500 950 7% 10.10% 1100 1450 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) FACW 600 10% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 6% 1000 Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) FACW 600 10% 9.6% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500 1500 7% 15.96% 1100 2100 Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) FACW 300 5% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 6% 700 Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) FACW 200 3% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 600*** 6% 6.38% 600 Black willow (Salix nigra) OBL 300 5% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 800*** 6% 8.51% 800 Elderberry (Sambucus nigra) OBL ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 400*** 6% 4.26% 400 Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) OBL ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 400*** 6% 4.26% 400 ^Common ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius) FACW ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 300*** 3.19% 300 ^Arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum) FAC 400 6.4%400 4.26% 800 ^Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) FACU 800 12.8%800 ^American hazelnut (Corylus americana) FACU 600 6.38% 600 ^Red spruce (Picea rubens) FACU 250 7.81%250 TOTAL 6200 6250 100% 3200 100% 6800 9400 100% 16200 18850 ^Species Added *Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre. ** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre. *** These species were live staked and planted along the stream channels – Total of 2500 live stakes were planted in addition to the 6900 bare‐root Stream‐Side Assemblage planting. MY0 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina December 2022 Table 7. Planted Vegetation Totals Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Plot # Planted Stems/Acre Success Criteria Met? 1 648 Yes 2 810 Yes 3 364 Yes 4 1093 Yes 5 769 Yes 6 364 Yes 7 810 Yes 8 810 Yes 9 810 Yes 10 688 Yes 11 729 Yes 12 567 Yes 13 607 Yes 14 688 Yes 15 648 Yes 16 607 Yes Average Planted Stems/Acre 688 Yes Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool 16.2 2022‐01‐12 2022‐02‐01 0.0247 Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 11 Betula lenta sweet birch Tree FACU 1 1 2 2 11 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 10 10 3 3 Betula sp.11 222255774444 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 2244332222 88 Other 11 11 Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 114444 11 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 6611 115522 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree 11 22 Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 33 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU Quercus sp.1212 223322114433 Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU 1122 44 22 Sum Performance Standard 13 13 19 19 9 9 22 22 13 13 7 7 12 12 20 20 18 18 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 445511 Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 77 11 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 3 3 11111111 11 Sum Proposed Standard 16 16 20 20 9 9 27 27 19 19 9 9 20 20 20 20 20 20 13 19 9 22 13 7 12 20 18 364 648 364 891 526 202 445 810 729 353862575 77 63 44 27 31 71 58 25 44 211112211 000000000 16 20 9 27 19 9 20 20 20 486 688 364 1093 769 283 769 810 810 4631084777 63 60 44 22 26 56 35 25 40 211111111 000000000 1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved. 2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized). 3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems. Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count % Invasives Average Plot Height (ft.) Dominant Species Composition (%) % Invasives Average Plot Height (ft.) Dominant Species Composition (%) Species Count Stems/Acre Current Year Stem Count Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation Plan Species Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 FIndicator Status Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S hrub Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date(s) Mowing Veg Plot 1 F Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool (continued) Acreage 16.2 Plant 2022‐01‐12 Supplemental Date(s) Mowing Survey 2022‐02‐01 (ACRES)0.0247 Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R Veg Plot 3 R Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC Betula lenta sweet birch Tree FACU Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 113377 Betula sp.44 334433 33 1 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 5511224433 1 Other Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 2 2 66221122 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 2 Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 2 Quercus sp.332222221133 11 Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU 1122 Sum Performance Standard 10 10 2 2 10 10 13 13 10 10 13 13 15 15 3 5 1 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 4 4 Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 2233 222222 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 4 4 13 13 5511 Sum Proposed Standard 17 17 18 18 14 14 15 15 17 17 16 16 15 15 3 5 1 10 2 1013101315351 405 40 405 526 405 526 607 81 202 40 4 1 3 4 6 5 4241 40 100 50 46 30 31 47 67 40 100 1 1 1 1 2 1 2113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 17 18 14 15 17 16 15 3 5 1 688 688 567 607 688 648 607 81 202 40 7 3 4 5 8 7 4241 12 72 36 40 29 25 47 67 40 100 2 2 1 1 2 1 2113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 Stems/Acre Current Year Stem Count Veg Plot 11 FScientific Name Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation Plan Species Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard % Invasives Average Plot Height (ft.) Dominant Species Composition (%) Species Count Stems/Acre Current Year Stem Count % Invasives Average Plot Height (ft.) Dominant Species Composition (%) Species Count 1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved. 2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized). 3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems. Veg Plot 16 FVeg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 F Veg Plot 15 FCommon Name Tree/S hrub Indicator Status 2023 Adaptive Management Plan (Project No. 100122) page 5 Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina August 2023 Appendix B MY1 Data ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( #* #* !. ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ 5 4 3 21 2 3 1 8 1 5 7 2 6 4 9 3 11 16 13 10 12 14 15 9 8 7 6 5 4 1 13 12 11 10 3 2 NCCGIA, NC 911 Board FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: PHP FEB 2023 1:2000 19-006 Title: Project: Prepared for: Avery County, NC LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE MY1CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW 1 Notes: 1. Background Imagery Source: 2022 aerial photography provided by the NC OneMap program (online, provided by the NC Geographic Information Coordination Council) 0 300 600150Feet Legend Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement (Level I) Stream Enhancement (Level II) Stream Preservation Stream Generating No Credit Instream Structures Creditable Wetland Reestablishment Area Wetland Reestablishment Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland Enhancement Wetland Preservation Permanent Vegetation Plots Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements Permanent Vegetation Plots Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement ^_Vegetation Plot Origins !(Groundwater Gauges Meeting Success Criteria !(Groundwater Gauges Not Meeting Success Criteria !.Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature #*Stream Crest Gauge Cross Sections ^_Permanent Photo Point Locations Observed Low Stem Density - 2023 Replant Areas Shed/Mowing Encroachment - 2023 Replant Areas ³ XS-1XS-2 XS-3 XS-4 XS- 5XS- 6 XS-7 XS- 8 XS-9 XS-10 X S - 1 1 X S - 1 2 X S - 1 3 X S - 1 4 XS-15XS-16 UT- 4 UT - 3 U T - 2 UT-1 Fork Cr e e k Rain Gauge UT- 5 U T - 3 A UT-2A MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2023 Table 6A. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation Laurel Springs Mitigation Site Vegetation Association Montane Alluvial Forest* Acidic Cove Forest* Stream-side Assemblage** TOTAL Area (acres) 9.0 4.7 2.5 16.2 Species Indicator Status # planted* % of total # planted* % of total # planted** % of total # planted Cherry birch (Betula lenta) FACU 500 8% 600 18.75% 1500 15.96% 2600 Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) FACU 400 6.4% 600 18.75% -- -- 1000 Red oak (Quercus rubra) FACU 650 10.4% 650 20.31% -- -- 1300 White oak (Quercus alba) FACU 550 8.8% 550 5.85% 1100 White pine (Pinus strobus) FACU 600 9.6% -- -- 600 Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) FACU 200 3.2% 300 3.19% 500 Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) FAC 600 9.6% 500 15.63% -- -- 1100 Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) FAC 450 7.2% 600 18.75% 1100 11.70% 2150 River birch (Betula nigra) FACW 500 8% -- -- 950 10.10% 1450 Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) FACW 600 9.6% -- -- 1500 15.96% 2100 Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) FACW -- -- 600*** 6.38% 600 Black willow (Salix nigra) OBL -- -- 800*** 8.51% 800 Elderberry (Sambucus nigra) OBL -- -- -- -- 400*** 4.26% 400 Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) OBL -- -- -- -- 400*** 4.26% 400 ^Common ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius) FACW -- -- -- -- 300*** 3.19% 300 ^Arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum) FAC 400 6.4% 400 4.26% 800 ^Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) FACU 800 12.8% 800 ^American hazelnut (Corylus americana) FACU 600 6.38% 600 ^Red spruce (Picea rubens) FACU 250 7.81% 250 TOTAL 6250 100% 3200 100% 9400 100% 18850 ^Species added post-mitigation plan approval * Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre. ** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre. *** These species were live staked and planted along the stream channels – A total of 2500 live stakes were planted in addition to the 6900 bare-root Stream-Side Assemblage planting. MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2023 Table 7. Planted Vegetation Totals Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Plot # Planted Stems/Acre Success Criteria Met? 1 81 No 2 526 Yes 3 364 Yes 4 891 Yes 5 364 Yes 6 0 No 7 445 Yes 8 648 Yes 9 40 No 10 283 No 11 405 Yes 12 324 Yes 13 202 No 14 202 No 15 243 No 16 162 No T1 81 No T2 324 Yes T3 121 No Average Planted Stems/Acre 300 No Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool 16.2 2022‐01‐13 NA NA 2022‐11‐08 0.0247 Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 22 2211 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 22 Betula sp.11 22 liriodendron tulipifera Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1155441122 11 Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 4433 11 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 4411 1144 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 11 Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree 11 11 Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 11 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 2222 Quercus sp.88 33 332233 Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 2 2 Sum Performance Standard 1 1 14 14 9 9 17 17 550099161633 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 4433 Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 22 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 2 2 1111 Sum Proposed Standard 3 3 14 14 9 9 22 22 99001111161633 1 14 9 17 5 0 9 16 3 40 526 364 688 202 0 364 648 40 133840591 100 57 44 18 33 0 27 25 100 11111 111 00000 000 3 14 9 22 9 0 11 16 3 81 526 364 891 364 0 445 648 40 2331060691 67 57 44 18 33 0 27 25 100 21111 111 00000 000 1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved. 2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized). 3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems. Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) Indicator Status Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation Plan Species Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S hrub % Invasives Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date(s) Mowing Date of Current Survey Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool (continued) 16.2 2022‐01‐13 NA NA 2022‐11‐08 0.0247 Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R Veg Plot 3 R Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 2 2 2 2 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1111 Betula sp.22 1 liriodendron tulipifera 1 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 3 3 222211 21 Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 4 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 5 5 1133 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 2 Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 3 Quercus sp.111122 11 11 Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU Sum Performance Standard 33337777225555385 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 11 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 3 3 11 11 2211 Sum Proposed Standard 7 7 14 14 8877556655385 3377255385 121 121 283 202 81 202 162 81 324 121 3232143252 43 79 38 71 40 33 60 67 38 80 2122121111 0000000000 71487565385 283 405 324 202 202 243 162 81 324 121 5342353252 43 79 38 71 40 33 60 67 38 80 2212221111 0000000000 1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved. 2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized). 3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems. % Invasives Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date(s) Mowing Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S hrub Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation Plan Species Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Veg Plot 15 F Veg Plot 16 FVeg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 FIndicator Status November 30, 2022 Restoration Systems, LLC 1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 Raleigh, North Carolina Ph: (919) 755-9490 Fx: (919) 755-9492 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492 Kimberly Isenhour Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Subject: Laurel Springs Mitigation Site – Remedial Planting Plan (Q1-2023) DMS Project ID No. 100122; Full Delivery Contract No. 7890; RFP No. 16-007725 (Issuance Date 11/13/2018) USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835; DWR Project No. 2019-0865 Mrs. Isenhour, During the 2022 growing season, Restoration Systems (RS) has observed areas of low stem densities at the Laurel Springs Mitigation Site (Site). Observed areas total 2.67 acres, which includes a 0.107-acre area of encroachment – see attached remedial planting figure. The encroachment area was partially due to a storage shed left within the easement used by the adjacent landowner. RS worked with the neighbor to remove the shed and cleared the area of all debris. Additionally, 6-inch treated fence posts were used to delineate the easement boundary in this area. A new shed was erected approximately 15 feet from the easement. RS has ordered trees to replant the 2.67 acres at a density of 670 stems per acre. The replant areas are within the Acidic Cove Forest Association. The following species and quantities were secured for Q1-2023 planting. Targeted Vegetation Associations: Acidic Cove Forest Area of Replant: 2.67 Acres Species Indicator Status Number of Stems American elm (Ulmus americana) FACW 600 White Oak (Quercus alba) FACU 600 Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) FAC 600 Total 1,800 These species were listed within the approved mitigation plan but not planted within the Acidic Cove vegetation association during initial planting. These three species will add to the six species planted during initial planting for nine total species within the Acidic Cove vegetation association. RS recognizes that additional "diversity plantings" may be desired by the IRT, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss a diversity planting effort with the IRT. RS will contact Andrea Leslie and Erin Davis in Q1-2023 to discuss this effort. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, Raymond Holz Operations Manager Restoration Systems, LLC Attachment – Remedial Planting Plan Figure 1 Ray Holz From:Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil> Sent:Friday, December 09, 2022 10:08 AM To:Ray Holz Cc:Wiesner, Paul; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) Subject:RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs Mitigation Site As‐Built/ SAW‐2019‐00835/ Avery County Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi Ray, Thanks for the follow‐up. In general, the IRT does not have any concerns with the Remedial Planting Plan or counting the bare root species towards success. WRC and DWR request that you contact them if you plan to supplement understory/shrub species next year. They would like to encourage diversity out there. Andrea Leslie did mention that American Hazelnut is not a typical riparian species and is often found on hillslopes. This species may not do well in the riparian zone. She would recommend Witch Hazel as an alternative. She also noted that Red Spruce is very elevation specific and survives in elevations in excess of 4,000 feet. Thanks, Kim Kim Isenhour Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers l 919.946.5107 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Ray Holz <rholz@restorationsystems.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 4:26 PM To: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil>; Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov> Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood@usace.army.mil>; 'erin.davis@ncdenr.gov' <erin.davis@ncdenr.gov>; bowers.todd@epa.gov; Youngman, Holland J <holland_youngman@fws.gov>; 'travis.wilson@ncwildlife.org' <travis.wilson@ncwildlife.org>; andrea.leslie@ncwildlife.org; Melonie Allen <melonie.allen@ncdenr.gov>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Tyler.A.Crumbley2@usace.army.mil>; John Hamby <jhamby@restorationsystems.com> Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non‐DoD Source] RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs Mitigation Site As‐Built/ SAW‐2019‐00835/ Avery County To Kim and IRT Members ‐ Firstly, my personal and sincere apologies for the lack of QA/QC on not only the Laurel Springs As‐Built/MY0 Baseline Report but also for the failure to appropriately updated all portions of the Mitigation Plan and with our ordering of non‐ approved bare‐root species and quantities. I wholeheartedly believe the IRT's mitigation plan review and comment process results in a superior product, and it is never our intent to dismiss or disregard IRT's comments. In this case, within the final/approved Mitigation Plan, RS failed to update the planting plan on Sheet L5.00 of the Construction Drawings; however, RS did apply the IRT's comments regarding the planting plan to Table 18 of the Mitigation Plan, which led to the discrepancy between the two. 2 During the bare‐root tree ordering process, when species availability became an issue, RS staff charged with ordering trees did not notice or review the IRT's draft Mitigation Plan comments concerning the planting plan. Specifically, the IRT's request to cap the amount of Eastern hemlock planted. This mistake and the ordering of non‐approved species caused us to review our bare‐root tree ordering process in detail. We have established additional QA/QC measures as a result, which include: 1.) a full review of the IRT's mitigation plan comments while ordering trees by both personnel charged with ordering trees and the project manager, and 2.) if non‐approved substitution species are required, or quantities of species change drastically due to a lack of availability, coordination with the IRT will occur immediately. With that said, I have attached, as a single .pdf, the following items: 1.Response to IRT comments which includes revised MY0 Report and Recorded Drawing pages 2.A revised Mitigation Plan Amendment Request to count bare‐root substitution species towards success criteria, and 3.A Remedial planting plan for areas of observed low‐stem density within the Site's Acidic Cove Forest vegetation community After discussing with Paul Wisner at DMS, we believe it would be best to allow the IRT to review the attached information and provide comments before updating the MY0 Report and re‐posting the document. If there are any items you wish to discuss with me directly, please feel free to email or call me at 919‐604‐9314. Thank you for your time and patience. Sincerely, Raymond H. ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Raymond J. Holz | Restoration Systems, LLC 1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 | Raleigh, NC 27604 2023 Adaptive Management Plan (Project No. 100122) page 6 Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina August 2023 Appendix C MY2 Preliminary Data ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( #* #* !. ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ 9 8 7 1 2 5 4 3 6 2 3 9 8 7 6 5 4 1 10 5 4 3 21 8 1 5 7 2 6 4 9 3 11 16 13 14 10 12 15 9 8 7 6 5 4 1 13 12 11 10 3 2 NCCGIA, NC 911 Board FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: PHP JUNE 2023 1:2000 19-009 Title: Project: Prepared for: Avery County, NC LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE MY2 EARLY CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW 1 Notes: 1. Background Imagery Source: 2022 aerial photography provided by the NC OneMap program (online, provided by the NC Geographic Information Coordination Council) 0 300 600150Feet Legend Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement (Level I) Stream Enhancement (Level II) Stream Preservation Stream Generating No Credit Instream Structures Creditable Wetland Reestablishment Area Wetland Reestablishment Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland Enhancement Wetland Preservation Permanent Vegetation Plots Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements Permanent Vegetation Plots Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Meeting MY2 Stem Density Requirement Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Meeting MY2 Stem Density Requirement MY2 Herbacous Transects ^_Vegetation Plot Origins !(Groundwater Gauges Meeting Success Criteria !(Groundwater Gauges Not Meeting Success Criteria !.Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature #*Stream Crest Gauge Cross Sections ^_Permanent Photo Point Locations Observed Low Stem Density - 2023 Replant Areas Shed/Mowing Encroachment - 2023 Replant Areas ³ XS-1XS-2 XS-3XS-4 XS- 5XS- 6 XS-7 XS- 8 XS-9 XS-10 X S - 1 1 X S - 1 2 X S - 1 3 X S - 1 4 XS-15XS-16 UT- 4 UT - 3 U T - 2 UT-1 Fork Cr e e k Rain Gauge UT- 5 U T - 3 A UT-2A MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2023 Table 7. Planted Vegetation Totals Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Plot # Planted Stems/Acre Success Criteria Met? 1 81 No 2 364 Yes 3 405 Yes 4 769 Yes 5 486 Yes 6 0 No 7 202 No 8 567 Yes 9 40 No 10 60 No 11 83 No 12 243 No 13 202 No 14 202 No 15 243 No 16 121 No T1 81 No T2 324 Yes T3 121 No T4 243 No T5 405 Yes T6 324 Yes T7 40 No T8 40 No T9 40 No T10 40 No Average Planted Stems/Acre 220 No 16.2 2022‐01‐13 NA 2023‐06‐28 2023‐06‐28 0.0247 Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R Veg Plot 3 R Veg Plot 4 R Veg Plot 5 R Veg Plot 6 R Veg Plot 7 R Veg Plot 8 R Veg Plot 9 R Veg Plot 10 R Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 11 2 2 Betula sp.11 22 22 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 3 3 6 6 1 1 1 1 22 224411167722 1 1 Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 4 4 1 1 1 1 Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 4 4 3 3 1 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 2 2 3 3 1 1 5 5 1 1 3 3 2 6 4 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 3 3 12 1 2 Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree 4 4 1 1 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 3 3 3 3 41 Quercus sp.77 4422 2233 1111 11 2 Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 1 Sum Performance Standard 1 1 11 11 11 11 19 19 9 9 0 0 5 5 14 14 3 3 2 2 2 2 5 5 7 7 2 2 7 7 4 4 1 12 13 9 11 7021 1 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 3 3 11 Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 11 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 2 2 3 3 10 10 1 1 13 Sum Proposed Standard 3 3 11 11 11 11 19 19 12 12 0 0 6 6 14 14 3 3 5 5 12 12 6 6 7 7 3 3 7 7 4 4 1 12 13 9 11 8321 1 1 1111199051432257274112139117021 1 40 364 405 769 364 0 202 567 40 81 81 202 202 40 243 121 40 486 486 243 405 283 0 40 40 40 1 337503812232142144243011 1 67 64 55 21 25 0 50 21 100 60 83 33 71 67 57 75 100 50 54 78 55 50 100 100 100 100 2 1211 2212112212112212 21 2 0 0000 0000000000000000 00 0 3 111119120614351267374112139118321 1 81 364 405 769 486 0 243 567 40 162 324 243 202 81 243 121 40 486 486 243 405 324 40 40 40 40 2 337604813342242144244111 1 67 64 55 21 25 0 50 21 100 60 83 33 71 67 57 75 100 50 54 78 55 50 100 100 100 100 2 1211 1212212212112212221 2 0 0000 0000000000000000000 0 1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved. 2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized). 3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems. Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Stems/Acre Species Count Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives % Invasives Veg Plot 15 F Veg Plot 16 F Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation Plan Species Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 FVeg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 FIndicator Status Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S hrub Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date(s) Mowing June 2023 Herbaceous Diversity Assessment Plot # Species Count Success Criteria Met? Taxa Identified Common H1 4 Yes Juncus effusus Cyperus sp. Carex sp. Vernonia noveboracensis Soft rush Nutsedge sp. Sedge sp. Ironweed H2 4 Yes Carex sp. Juncus effuses Pycnanthemum sp Trifolium repens Sedge sp. Soft rush Mountain mint White clover H3 5 Yes Carex sp. Eupatorium perfoliatum Juncus effusus Peltandra virginica Pycnanthemum sp Sedge sp. Boneset Soft rush Green arrow arum Mountain mint H4 6 Yes Juncus effusus Carex sp. Eupatorium perfoliatum Ranunculus sp. Trifolium repens Vernonia noveboracensis Soft rush Sedge sp. Boneset Buttercup White clover Ironweed H5 5 Yes Carex sp. Cicuta maculata Juncus effuses Pycnanthemum sp Vernonia noveboracensis Sedge sp. Water hemlock Soft rush Mountain mint Ironweed H6 4 Yes Carex sp. Juncus effusus Peltandra virginica Vernonia noveboracensis Sedge sp. Soft rush Green arrow arum Ironweed H7 4 Yes Carex sp. Eupatorium perfoliatum Ranunculus sp. Trifolium repens Sedge sp. Boneset Buttercup White clover H8 5 Yes Carex sp. Eupatorium perfoliatum Packera aurea Ranunculus sp. Trifolium repens Sege sp. Boneset Ragwort Buttercup White clover H9 4 Yes Asclepias incarnata Carex sp. Eupatorium perfoliatum Juncus effusus Swamp milkweed Sedge sp. Boneset Soft rush