20190661 Ver1_Sassarixa Swamp MY3 Comments+Approval20240209

Re: [External] RE: Monitoring Report Year 3 Review - Sassarixa Swamp II
Friedman -Herring, Andrew <andrew.friedman herring @deq.nc.gov>
Fri 2/9/2024 2:40 PM
To:Kaitlyn Hogarth <[e-mail]>
Cc:Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>
Hi Kaitlyn,
Thank you for including the missing vigor data and letting us know that the planting has been
completed. DWR officially approves the MY3 monitoring report for the Sassarixa Swamp II site, but asks
that you renew the monitoring bond at $80,000 again for the upcoming year. Once the bond has been
received we can process the credit release.
DWR anticipates the upcoming site visit on 4/10 to look primarily at the areas that have been
supplementally planted and the areas with high numbers of volunteers to assess the need for another
AMP in MY4.
Let me know if you have any other questions!
Best,
Andrew Friedman -Herring
Environmental Specialist II
Division of Water Resources - 401 & Buffer Permitting
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(919)-707-3644
and rew.friedman herring.@ eq.nc.gov
From: Kaitlyn Hogarth <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 2:07 PM
To: Friedman -Herring, Andrew <[e-mail]>
Cc: Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Monitoring Report Year 3 Review - Sassarixa Swamp II
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report
Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Hey Andrew,
Nice seeing you yesterday. I wanted to let you know that the supplemental planting at Sassarixa Swamp II has
been completed, so the Site is ready for you to visit in the spring. Let me know if you'd like to put tentative dates
on the calendar now or wait a few more weeks before we start coordinating a date. Either works for me.
Thank you!
Kaitlyn Hogarth I Environmental Scientist
0: 919.851.9986 X 122 M: 540.907.9432
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225

Raleigh, NC 27609
From: Kaitlyn Hogarth
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 8:57 AM
To: Friedman -Herring, Andrew<andrew.friedman [e-mail]>
Cc: Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Monitoring Report Year 3 Review - Sassarixa Swamp II
Hi Andrew,
Your comments are below in bold, while Wildlands' responses are in italics.
1. Vigor data for the vegetation plots is missing and needs to be provided as part of the MY3 review. Make
sure that all future reports include vigor data. Please note that since this comment was also made in the
MY2 review, the credit release will be on hold until vigor data has been submitted in response to this
comment. It is acceptable to provide vigor of the overall plot rather than per stem to meet this vigor
requirement.
Vigor has been added to the Vegetation Plot Success Summary table, which is attached
2. In regard to the number of volunteers in plots 9, 13, and 17, DWR acknowledges the comment in the
report remarking that the planted stems are not currently being outcompeted by sweet gums, and
therefore no thinning is planned for MY3. However, the number of volunteer stems in plot 13 is quite
extreme, with 90 sweet gums and 30 loblollies; neither of which are considered "acceptable" volunteers
that would count towards performance criteria. Additionally, the photo for plot 13 shows three loblolly
pine stems that appear to be taller than any planted stem visible. In MY4, DWR is going to need either
thinning to take place or extra vegetation transects taken of the areas surrounding plots 9, 13, and 17 to
justify the assertion that they are not representative of the volunteer density in the plots or
outcompeting planted stems.
Based on numerous on -site evaluations and best professional judgement, Wildlands is confident that even
with the large number of sweet gum and loblolly volunteers documented in the 3 plots, these species are
not at risk of outcompeting the planted stems. We recognize that DWR only has the veg plot data and
photo in which to make their conclusions in this situation. With that in mind, Wildlands requests that these
plots be observed during the upcoming site visit (See #4 below) to discuss the potential sweetgum thinning
or additional transects prior to committing to one or the other.
3. DWR approves the proposed supplemental planting and appreciates that containerized stems rather
than bare root stems will be planted. However, the inclusion of Tulip Poplar stems is surprising, as it
seems that many providers are moving away from planting this species due to high rates of mortality.
Additionally, the inclusion of Cherrybark Oak is also surprising since this species is a very slow grower
and planting this species at Year 3 may not allow for much growth between now and the anticipated
closeout for Year 5. Is there a reason that these two species were included in particular rather than
other species?
Thank you for approving the supplemental planting. The current stock of gallon container Tulip Poplar at
the local nursey is very healthy. Wildlands believes they will have a higher success rate than bare root Tulip
Poplars typically planted. The gallon container Cherrybark Oak being planted should be around 2-4 feet
tall, giving it a better chance of survival and height growth compared to a typical bare root.
a. Seeing as this is the third supplemental planting in three years, and part of the proposed planting
area has already been replanted once, DWR would like to request a site visit in the spring to see
the supplementally planted area and plots with large numbers of volunteers.
Wildlands will contact DWR about a site visit after the supplemental planting has been
completed.
Please let me know if you need anything else!

Thank you,
Kaitlyn Hogarth I Environmental Scientist
0: 919.851.9986 X 122 M: 540.907.9432
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
From: Friedman -Herring, Andrew <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 3:37 PM
To: Kaitlyn Hogarth <khogarth wildlandseng.com>
Cc: Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Monitoring Report Year 3 Review - Sassarixa Swamp II
Hi Kaitlyn,
DWR has reviewed the MY3 report for Sassarixa Swamp II and supplemental information provided on
1/8/24 about the planned adaptive management plan and provided comments below:
1. Vigor data for the vegetation plots is missing and needs to be provided as part of the MY3 review.
Make sure that all future reports include vigor data. Please note that since this comment was also
made in the MY2 review, the credit release will be on hold until vigor data has been submitted in
response to this comment. It is acceptable to provide vigor of the overall plot rather than per stem
to meet this vigor requirement.
2. In regard to the number of volunteers in plots 9, 13, and 17, DWR acknowledges the comment in
the report remarking that the planted stems are not currently being outcompeted by sweet gums,
and therefore no thinning is planned for MY3. However, the number of volunteer stems in plot 13
is quite extreme, with 90 sweet gums and 30 loblollies; neither of which are considered
"acceptable" volunteers that would count towards performance criteria. Additionally, the photo
for plot 13 shows three loblolly pine stems that appear to be taller than any planted stem visible.
In MY4, DWR is going to need either thinning to take place or extra vegetation transects taken of
the areas surrounding plots 9, 13, and 17 to justify the assertion that they are not representative
of the volunteer density in the plots or outcompeting planted stems.
3. DWR approves the proposed supplemental planting and appreciates that containerized stems
rather than bare root stems will be planted. However, the inclusion of Tulip Poplar stems
is surprising, as it seems that many providers are moving away from planting this species due to
high rates of mortality. Additionally, the inclusion of Cherrybark Oak is also surprising since this
species is a very slow grower and planting this species at Year 3 may not allow for much growth
between now and the anticipated closeout for Year 5.
Is there a reason that these two species were included in particular rather than other species?
a. Seeing as this is the third supplemental planting in three years, and part of the proposed
planting area has already been replanted once, DWR would like to request a site visit in the
spring to see the supplementally planted area and plots with large numbers of volunteers.
Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please provide an adequate response to all items
above along with supporting documents if required.
Once DWR receives a response to the comments above, issuance of monitoring report approval and
credit release can be determined.
Best,
Andrew Friedman -Herring
Environmental Specialist 11

Division of Water Resources - 401 & Buffer Permitting
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(919)-707-3644
[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an
authorized state official.

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Success Summary
Sassarixa Swamp II Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Plot
Year
Northing
Easting
Planted Living
Stems
Missing
Stems
Volunteer
Stems
Total Living
Stems
Planted Living
Stems per ACRE
Total Living Stems
per ACRE
# species
Overall
Vigor
Vegetation
Threshold Met?*
1
3
660133
191772
11
8
0
11
445
445
7
4
Yes
2
3
660137
191677
15
9
0
15
607
607
5
4
Yes
3
3
660030
191751
10
9
0
10
405
405
8
4
Yes
4
3
659920
191859
12
3
17
29
486
1,174
5
4
Yes
5
3
660363
191479
15
8
0
15
607
607
7
4
Yes
6
3
660305
191455
10
3
0
10
405
405
8
4
Yes
7
3
660108
191323
10
2
6
16
405
647
6
4
Yes
8
3
660397
191432
16
0
17
33
647
1,335
8
4
Yes
9
3
660351
191383
16
0
49
65
647
2,630
7
4
Yes
10
3
660618
191331
7
13
1
8
283
324
4
4
Yes
11
3
660627
191240
14
3
3
17
567
688
6
4
Yes
12
3
660646
191779
11
9
0
11
445
445
5
4
Yes
13
3
660664
191760
11
2
122
133
445
5,382
6
4
Yes
14
3
660988
191672
11
8
12
23
1 445
931
6
4
Yes
15
3
661006
191575
17
3
0
17
688
688
6
4
Yes
16
3
661573
191228
10
14
12
22
405
890
5
4
Yes
17
3
661653
191219
15
11
20
35
607
1,416
5
4
Yes
18
3
661798
191167
18
8
14
32
728
1,295
6
4
Yes
19
3
661810
191283
14
17
6
20
567
809
7
4
Yes
*Target density is a minimum of 260 planted trees per acre at the end of the five (5) year monitoring period.