20081317 Ver 1_More Info Received_20160314 (2)

HELL SWAMP TAR-PAMLICO RIPARIAN BUFFER PLOTS IN THE
UNCONSTRUCTED LOWER PORTION OF THE UT6 HEADWATER STREAM VALLEY
Restoration design for the UT6 headwater stream valley was for a narrower, more constricted valley flow
way than existing conditions; however, at the time of restoration activities at Hell Swamp in 2009/2010,
wetness in the wetland in the lower portion of the UT6 headwater stream valley prevented any
construction. Several pieces of equipment were mired more than once and further construction attempts
in this area were abandoned; a wider, wetter, swampier stream valley in lower UT6 was the result.
As no construction occurred, the two stream well arrays and low flow gauges planned for monitoring the
constructed stream valley in the lower portion of UT6 were never installed (UT6-1 and UT6-2) and no
buffer plots were established to monitor vegetation at or below the UT6-3 well array. Post -restoration of
hydrology to the surrounding agricultural fields, it became apparent that the combination of low slope,
wider valley width, higher water depths, long periods of ponded or low -flowing water, and colonizing
swamp vegetation in the lower UT6 stream valley portion of this wetland affected survival of the planted
stems.
It was decided that the appropriate riparian buffer edge in the lower UT6 stream valley was the edge of
the valley/flow way. As there were no small buffer plots in lower UT6 and only one planted stem
monitoring plot (82), CZR biologists took photographs of the lower valley and buffer and collected stem
data in the riparian buffer (0-100 feet) beyond the valley/flow way edge on 16 December 2015.
Four 0.06 -acre plots (two each side) were measured and all planted and volunteer woody stems counted.
The outer edge of the valley/flow way was determined to be at either a visible topographic change and/or
a change in vegetation (e.g., a combination of either less, or no, Juncus and Typha and more woody
stems). The plots were 25 x 100 feet in size with the narrow edge parallel to valley axis at the outer edge
of the valley/flow way and the long edge perpendicular. Plots A and B were along the east side and plots
C and D were along the west side (Figure 1). The two most upstream plots (B and C) were located about
halfway to the UT6-3 monitoring array.
The Tar -Pamlico Consolidated Rule for riparian buffer restoration (October 2014) requires a vegetation
plan with a minimum of at least four native hardwood tree and/or native shrub species with no one
species greater than 50 percent of established stems and planted at a density to provide at least 260
stems/acre at the end of monitoring (done- see As Built report). The Rule also states that native volunteer
species may be included to meet performance standards.
To meet the riparian buffer stem success density, at least 16 woody stems were needed within each of
the four buffer plots A - D, a minimum clearly exceeded (Table 1). While the four plots are dominated by
volunteer woody species, the two upstream plots contained a higher density of planted stems, a trend
which was apparent as the valley edge was walked on 16 December. The biologists crossed UT6 at the
UT6-3 array to access the west side, and as they walked the entire valley edges below UT6-3, it was
apparent that many more planted trees were easily visible within the 0-100 foot buffer in the area of the
valley upstream of plots B and C. Based on the increasing numbers of planted stems, year 5 planted
stem density in tree plot 82 (-324/acre; the only larger vegetation plot in the vicinity of the UT6 valley),
and the data collected in buffer plots A and B, it was determined that additional buffer plots were not
needed above UT6-3 or between UT6-3 and plots B and C.

Table 1. Numbers and species of woody stems counted in four Tar -Pamlico riparian buffer plots (25 x 100
feet each) in the lower UT6 stream valley flow way. An "*" indicates a planted species and an "**" indicates
a species not ordered but included in the nursery delivery in error and planted.
Representative photographs within the lower UT6 valley and buffers are also included below with
explanatory captions and document conditions on 16 December 2015. As shown in the photos, on the
east side of the unconstructed valley (photos 7 and 8), woody stems were consistently present within the
first several feet of the 100 -foot buffer compared to the west side where the first 25 or 30 feet appeared to
be dominated by herbaceous species (photos 9 and 10).
Plot A
Plot B
Plot C
Plot D
Species
American elm*
Ulmus americana
1
Bald cypress*
Taxodium distichum
2
2
Gallery pear**
Pyrus calleryana
1
Cherrybark oak*
Quercus paegoda
2
1
Green ash*
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1
Groundsel tree
Baccharis halimifolia
170
82
43
52
Loblolly pine
Pinus taeda
79
8
8
35
Oak sp.*
Q. sp.
1
Overcup oak*
Q. lyrata
3
1
Red bay*
Persea palustris
4
Red cedar
Juniperus virginiana
1
Red maple
Acer rubrum
1
Wax myrtle
Morella cerifera
20
9
32
28
Willow oak*
Q. phellos
4
Winged sumac
Rhus copallinum
1
TOTAL
274
110
87
119
Representative photographs within the lower UT6 valley and buffers are also included below with
explanatory captions and document conditions on 16 December 2015. As shown in the photos, on the
east side of the unconstructed valley (photos 7 and 8), woody stems were consistently present within the
first several feet of the 100 -foot buffer compared to the west side where the first 25 or 30 feet appeared to
be dominated by herbaceous species (photos 9 and 10).

PLOT A
�. �ktw17
1 -Left photo: into Plot A from inside edge of plot. 2 -Right photo: into Plot A from outside edge. Pink
flagging tied to woody stems for visibility.
3 -Left photo: up UT6 east side from Plot A, valley flow way edge indents to east and then back to west
where shrubs are visible in middle distance. 4 -Right photo: view across UT from inside edge Plot A.

PLOT B
5 -Left photo: into Plot B from inside valley edge. 6 -Right photo: across UT6 from inside edge Plot B.
7 -Left photo: up UT6 east side from inside valley edge Plot B. 8 -Right photo: down UT6 east side from
inside valley edge Plot B.

PLOT C
a
9 -Left photo: into plot from valley edge Plot C corner. 10 -Right photo: up UT6 from valley edge Plot C.
White stake in foreground marks upstream plot corner. Note width of herbaceous vegetation between
valley edge and presence of woody stems in both photos.
11 -Left photo: down UT6 from valley edge of Plot C. 12 -Right photo: into Plot C from outside corner.

PLOT D
13 -Left photo: up UT6 from valley edge of Plot D. 14 -Right photo: down UT6 from valley edge Plot D.
15 -Left photo: into Plot D from outside corner. 16 -Right photo: into Plot D from valley edge corner.