Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20160216 Ver 1 _HM Wetland Rept MY1-Binder _20180827www. www.MogMit.com MMI - MMI - Charlotte (704) 576-1111 MMI - Raleigh (919) 556-8845 MOGENSEN MITIGATION INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Environmental Field Studies ■ Wetland & Stream Delineation ■ 404-401 Permits ■ Mitigation Plans & Banking 23 August 2018 Ms. Chonticha McDaniel NC Division of Water Resources 401 Wetlands & Buffer Permitting 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Subject: Hope Mills Dam Wetland Monitoring, Cumberland County NC, MY-1 Report USACE Action ID # SAW-2010-01336 DWR Project # 16-0216 Dear Ms. McDaniel, During January 2018, two weeks before Hope Mills Lake was refilled following dam repair, Mogensen Mitigation Inc (MMI) biologists established four wetland monitoring transects through the forested areas in the upper half of the lake that would be re-flooded, and collected pre-impoundment baseline data. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with a DWR-approved plan developed in response to a Special Condition included in the Section 404 Permit issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and Section 401 Certification issued by NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) in August 2016 for the Hope Mills Dam repair project (Federal and NC project review numbers above). The re-impounded lake level (104 ft normal pool elevation) is slightly lower than the level at which these swamp forests grew during the past century (1924 to 2003), and is one foot higher than the normal pool elevation during the subsequent impoundment period (2008 to 2010) prior to the 2010 dam failure. In consideration of the eight-year period that these forests spent with non-flooded soils, and the physiological and structural adaptations that wetland trees develop in flooded versus non- flooded soils, NC-DWR expressed concern during the Section 404-401 permit review that re-flooding might adversely affect the forests. This report compares the January pre-impoundment monitoring data with first-year post-impoundment data collected in July 2018. METHODS: Selected trees and large shrubs greater than one inch diameter at breast height (dbh) along each transect line were marked with numbered tags, identified, and their diameter measured in January 2018. A plastic tag was nailed or tied to each tree approximately 6.0 ft above ground level, so that depth of inundation after re-impoundment could be measured relative to the tag. The bottoms of all trees were well above the existing water elevation (drained lake bed) during baseline setup. Health (vigor) of each marked tree was assessed visually on a 0 to 5 scale based on trunk condition, branch spread, proportion of live and dead branches, evidence of current year’s growth, and, for evergreen species, leaf abundance and color were also used. Vigor rating criteria are described below: V-0 Mostly dead; few live branches V-1 Poor; > 60% dead branches and/or extensive trunk damage V-2 Fair: 40-60% dead branches and/or moderate-extensive trunk damage MOGENSEN MITIGATION INC. www.MogMit.com Page | 2 V-3 Average: 20-40% dead branches and/or moderate trunk damage V-4 Good: 10-20% dead branches and/or minor trunk damage V-5 Excellent: healthy spreading branches & trunk The surrounding understory and groundcover plant community including saplings and shrubs, woody vines, and groundcover plants were identified and recorded at three selected points along each transect, photographed, and coverage of each species estimated within a 20-ft radius, following the USACE 4-strata method for wetland delineation data forms. Tree = Woody stems 3 inch or greater diameter at breast height (dbh) Sapling / Shrub = Woody stems less than 3" dbh; greater than 1 m tall Woody Vine = Climbing woody vines greater than 1 meter tall Groundcover = All non-woody plants & woody plants less than 1 m tall The first-year post-impoundment data (MY-1) data were collected in mid-July 2018, when new twig growth is mostly complete and leaf density is highest. Tree tag heights above the water surface were measured and the depth of flooding at each tree was calculated. Current vigor ratings for each tree were assigned by the same biologist who assigned the baseline vigor ratings in January. Damaged or faded tags were replaced or re-marked. Understory and groundcover plant community data were recorded and sample areas photographed as done in the baseline report. PRE-IMPOUNDMENT MY-0 CONDITIONS, JANUARY 2018: Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora) and Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum) are the predominant trees throughout the swamp forest and along all four transects. Other trees and large shrub species marked include Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda), Leatherleaf (Cyrilla racemiflora), and others (Table 1). The average pre- impoundment vigor ratings are similar for all four transects, ranging from 3.4 to 3.6. The study area has generally sparse understory and groundcover strata, especially along the lower portions of the transects that were submerged 2 feet or more prior to lake draining. Points along the transects with relatively higher density and diversity of shrubs, vines, and groundcover were selected for plant community sampling (Table 2). Understory and groundcover plants include saplings of trees and larger shrubs listed above, plus Water Oak (Quercus nigra), Swamp Redbay (Persea palustris), Gallberry Holly (Ilex coriacea), American Holly (Ilex opaca), Greenbrier (Smilax spp), Blackberry (Rubus spp), Muscadine Grape (Vitis rotundifolia), Yellow Jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), Crossvine (Bignonia capreolata), Virginia Sweetspire (Itea virginica), Netted Chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), and Sedges (Carex spp). Given the winter sampling season, non-persistent species may have been missed. Many of these plants likely became established after draining in 2010, but some may have grown attached to Cypress and Tupelo trunks or stumps near the water line when the lake was full. Invasive exotic plants are present but not dominant, including Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Japanese Silt Grass (Microstegium vimineum). MOGENSEN MITIGATION INC. www.MogMit.com Page | 3 POST-IMPOUNDMENT MY-1 CONDITIONS, JULY 2018: Of the 182 tagged trees and shrubs along the four transects, 21 stems (12%) showed an increase in vigor rating of +1 (Table 2). Most of these stems with increased vigor were Nyssa biflora (n=18), plus one each of Taxodium, Acer, and Cyrilla, all of which commonly persist in permanent saturation or standing water. Nyssa in particular appears to have responded well to re-inundation, with most Nyssa trees exhibiting profuse new growth this year. Considering the differences in appearance of trees in winter vs summer, a rating change of +/- 1 may also represent observational variability. Observer bias was minimized by having the same person assign all of the vigor ratings in both January and July 2018. 27 stems (15%) showed a decline in vigor rating, including 14 stems that were either found dead or small stems that were not found. Six of these dead or lost stems were species that do not tolerate prolonged inundation and presumably sprouted during the drained period (Prunus, Liriodendron, Sambucus, Rhus, and Celtis), all of which were less than 2 inches dbh. The other eight dead stems were Nyssa and Taxodium, most of which had low vigor ratings (1 or 2) during the January 2018 baseline survey, and may have been dying anyway prior to re-flooding. Only two flood-tolerant trees with vigor ratings of 3 or more in January were found dead in July: Tree # A -53 (Taxodium) which was re-flooded 2.9 ft deep, and Tree # C-29 (Nyssa) which was re-flooded 0.7 ft deep. Since many other Taxodium and Nyssa trees were re-flooded deeper and showed no decline in vigor, it is unclear whether re-flooding was a factor in these two tree deaths. The remaining 13 stems with decreased vigor ratings showed a decline in vigor of just 1 point (either from 5 to 4, 4 to 3, or 3 to 2) and were alive in July 2018 (Table 2). These include eight Taxodium, two Liquidambar, and one each of Nyssa, Chamaecyparis, and Sapium (invasive exotic). As stated above, reported changes of +/- 1 vigor rating may represent observational variability rather than a true decline in vigor. These 13 trees span a wide range of re-flooding depths from 0.0 to 4.5 feet. The change in average vigor rating at each of the four transects was +/- 0.1 rating point. Many trees and shrubs had conspicuous epicormic root growth just below the water surface, especially Nyssa, Acer, Cyrilla, and Liquidambar. These may be an adaptation for delivering oxygen to the roots in re-flooded anaerobic soils. Small Taxodium and Nyssa saplings that presumably sprouted during the drained lake period, both tagged and untagged, appeared to doing well except for those in the deepest water (3 ft or deeper). As seedlings cannot usually become established in standing water, the eight- year drained period has encouraged a new cohort of swamp forest trees in the understory. The existing canopy trees growing below 104 ft elevation are presumably older than the 1924 dam, and these recent saplings will replace them as the older trees die off due to age. Changes in the understory and groundcover community along the four sampling transects are similar to those predicted in the Section 404-401 permit application and mitigation plan (2016). Saplings, shrubs, vines, and groundcover of non-flood-tolerant plant species that colonized the drained areas between 2010 and 2017 have died or appear to be dying, while species typical of swamp forest with prolonged flooding appear to be doing well. Short herbaceous groundcover is mostly gone from areas with 1 foot or more of water depth, but some hydrophytic plants persist in shallower water and on the many hummocks and islands created by swollen trunk bases, stumps, and Cypress knees. Table 3 compares the overall vegetation community in January and July 2018 at three community sample points along each of the four transects. MOGENSEN MITIGATION INC. www.MogMit.com Page | 4 WETLAND MONITORING TRANSECT SUMMARY: Transect A: Northeast (Left) shore of Hope Mills Lake, 1200 ft east of railroad bridge Upper End Lat/Lon: 34.9804, -78.9412; Lower End Lat/Lon: 34.9805, -78.9425. Tagged trees: n = 54; ave dbh = 8.2 in; ave vigor MY0 = 3.4, MY1 = 3.3 Transect B: Northeast (Left) shore of Hope Mills Lake, 800 ft east of railroad bridge Upper End Lat/Lon: 34.9828, -78.9425; Lower End Lat/Lon: 34.9821, -78.9434. Tagged trees: n = 49; ave dbh = 10.5 in; ave vigor MY0 = 3.6, MY1 = 3.5 Transect C: Northeast (Left) shore of Hope Mills Lake, 2000 ft west of railroad bridge Upper End Lat/Lon: 34.9851, -78.9521; Lower End Lat/Lon: 34.9845, -78.9521. Tagged trees: n = 36; ave dbh = 9.0 in; ave vigor MY0 = 3.5, MY1 = 3.6 Transect D: Northeast (Left) shore of Hope Mills Lake, 2800 ft west of railroad bridge Upper End Lat/Lon: 34.9852, -78.9557; Lower End Lat/Lon: 34.9847, -78.9549. Tagged trees: n = 43; ave dbh = 11.1 in; ave vigor MY0 = 3.5, MY1 = 3.5 Transects A and B are accessed from Treasure Cove, north of Lakeshore Drive. Transects C and D are accessed from Morrozoff Drive, southeast of Camden Rd. All four transects extend from the lower limit of trees (adjacent to open water) landward to a point approximately 2 feet above the lake pool elevation. A total of 182 trees and large shrubs were marked along the four transects. This report is the first of four annual post-impoundment assessments of the Hope Mills Lake swamp forest fringe. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Gerald Pottern Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 919-556-8845 Gerald@MogMit.com Attachments: 1) List of plants species recorded along transects 2) Table of marked trees and health (vigor) ratings 3) Table of vegetation community sample plots 4) Photos of vegetation community sample plots CC: Don Sisko, Hope Mills Public Works, Deputy Director Emily Greer, US-ACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Table 1. Vegetation recorded along Hope Mills Lake swamp forest monitoring transects, Jan-July 2018. Tree & Shrub Species Acer rubrum Red Maple Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Callicarpa americana American Beautyberry Carpinus caroliniana Musclewood Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic White Cedar Clethra alnifolia Coastal Sweet-pepperbush Cyrilla racemiflora Titi, Leatherleaf Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Ilex coriacea Gallberry Holly Ilex opaca American Holly Ilex verticillata Winterberry Holly Itea virginica Virginia Sweetspire Kalmia latifolia Mountain Laurel Leucothoe axillaris Coastal Doghobble Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet (exotic) Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Liriodendron tulipifera Tuliptree Lyonia lucida Shining Fetterbush Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia Morella cerifera Southern Bayberry Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress Persea palustris Swamp Redbay Prunus serotina Black Cherry Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Sapium sebiferum Tallowtree Styrax americana Snowbell, Storax Symplocos tinctoria Horse-sugar, Sweetleaf Quercus nigra Water Oak Quercus phellos Willow Oak Rhus copallina Winged Sumac Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Styrax americana Snowbell, Storax Symplocos tinctoria Horse Sugar, Sweetleaf Ulmus americana American Elm Vaccinium formosum Highbush Blueberry Viburnum dentatum Southern Arrowwood Viburnum nudum Possumhaw Viburnum Vines & Groundcover Species Arundinaria tecta River Cane Bignonia capreolata Crossvine Boehmeria cylindrica False Nettle Campsis radicans Trumpet Creeper Carex spp Sedge species Gelsemium sempervirens Yellow Jessamine Impatiens capensis Common Jewelweed Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle (ex) Microstegium vimineum Japanese Stilt-grass (ex) Osmunda cinnamomeum Cinnamon Fern Parthenocisus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper Rubus spp Blackberry species Smilax glauca Whiteleaf Greenbrier Smilax laurifolia Laurel-leaf Greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia Common Greenbrier Sphagnum spp Sphagnum mosses Toxicodendron radicans Poison Ivy Vaccinium spp Blueberry species Vitis rotundifolia Muscadine Grape Woodwardia areolata Netted Chain-fern . NOTES: xx = tree gone; vigor = 0, flooding depth not determined. Δv = change in vigor rating Table 2. Trees marked along the Hope Mills Lake forested wetland monitoring transects, Pre-impoundment baseline and annual monitoring data. A #Species DBH "Flood B #Species DBH "Flood dep ft 01.18 07.18 Δv 07.19 07.20 07.21 dep ft 01.18 07.18 Δ v 07.19 07.20 07.21 1 Cham thyo 13.6 0.0 5 5 0 1 Nyss biflo 6.7 0.9 5 5 0 2 Nyss biflo 6.3 0.0 3 4 1 2 Taxo dist 9.4 0.2 5 5 0 3 Kalm lati 1.5 0.0 4 4 0 3 Nyss biflo 5.5 0.4 4 3 -1 4 Nyss biflo 8.0 0.0 3 4 1 4 Nyss biflo 7.3 0.0 5 5 0 5 Cham thyo 9.5 0.0 4 4 0 5 Nyss biflo 5.0 xx 2 xx -2 6 Nyss biflo 2.4 0.0 1 0 -1 6 Nyss biflo 4.5 0.1 3 3 0 7 Acer rubr 1.1 0.0 2 3 1 7 Nyss biflo 5.5 0.4 4 4 0 8 Nyss biflo 2.4 0.0 3 3 0 8 Nyss biflo 5.1 0.7 3 3 0 9 Nyss biflo 4.7 0.0 3 3 0 9 Nyss biflo 5.3 0.5 3 4 1 10 Nyss biflo 3.6 0.0 2 2 0 10 Taxo dist 8.6 1.2 4 3 -1 11 Nyss biflo 8.0 0.0 3 3 0 11 Nyss biflo 10.3 0.8 4 4 0 12 Nyss biflo 6.8 0.0 3 4 1 12 Taxo dist 10.4 0.5 3 3 0 13 Cham thyo 11.1 0.0 5 5 0 13 Taxo dist 12.8 0.4 4 4 0 14 Vibu dent 1.1 0.0 4 4 0 14 Taxo dist 9.7 0.5 4 4 0 15 Nyss biflo 4.6 0.0 3 3 0 15 Nyss biflo 5.0 0.8 3 4 1 16 Magn virg 0.9 0.0 2 2 0 16 Taxo dist 10.1 0.7 3 3 0 17 Cham thyo 3.9 0.0 3 2 -1 17 Taxo dist 11.8 1.1 4 4 0 18 Taxo dist 20.5 0.0 5 5 0 18 Taxo dist 8.5 1.6 4 3 -1 19 Pinu taed 11.5 0.0 4 4 0 19 Nyss biflo 3.2 1.7 2 2 0 20 Nyss biflo 4.7 0.0 3 3 0 20 Nyss biflo 6.8 1.4 3 3 0 21 Acer rubr 2.2 0.0 3 3 0 21 Acer rubr 1.2 2.4 4 4 0 22 Nyss biflo 6.1 0.0 4 4 0 22 Nyss biflo 6.0 1.2 3 3 0 23 Nyss biflo 3.6 0.0 3 3 0 23 Taxo dist 22.0 0.7 5 5 0 24 Cyri race 2.9 0.0 4 4 0 24 Liqu styr 3.8 2.2 4 4 0 25 Taxo dist 9.2 0.0 4 3 -1 25 Nyss biflo 6.6 0.3 3 3 0 26 Nyss biflo 5.0 0.0 4 4 0 26 Nyss biflo 8.4 1.1 3 3 0 27 Cyri race 1.0 0.0 2 3 1 27 Nyss biflo 8.2 0.7 2 3 1 28 Nyss biflo 9.8 0.0 5 5 0 28 Taxo dist 12.9 0.0 5 5 0 29 Taxo dist 9.8 0.0 3 3 0 29 Nyss biflo 9.3 0.6 4 4 0 30 Nyss biflo 11.6 0.0 5 5 0 30 Nyss biflo 6.7 0.0 3 3 0 31 Nyss biflo 6.4 0.0 2 2 0 31 Nyss biflo 9.2 0.2 4 4 0 32 Nyss biflo 9.7 0.0 3 3 0 32 Nyss biflo 8.6 3.4 3 3 0 33 Nyss biflo 18.6 0.7 4 4 0 33 Nyss biflo 13.0 3.5 3 3 0 34 Taxo dist 18.9 0.3 5 5 0 34 Taxo dist 14.5 2.4 4 3 -1 35 Nyss biflo 9.6 0.8 3 3 0 35 Taxo dist 19.0 3.0 4 4 0 36 Lirio tuli 0.9 xx 4 xx -4 36 Taxo dist 22.8 4.0 4 4 0 37 Nyss biflo 7.4 1.9 2 2 0 37 Taxo dist 30.0 3.2 4 3 -1 38 Nyss biflo 8.5 2.0 3 3 0 38 Liqu styr 2.6 4.5 4 3 -1 39 Nyss biflo 13.6 2.1 4 4 0 39 Taxo dist 8.3 4.3 1 0 -1 40 Taxo dist 12.3 0.4 5 5 0 40 Taxo dist 19.0 3.0 4 4 0 41 Cyri race 2.6 0.6 4 4 0 41 Liqu styr 2.6 3.4 4 4 0 42 Samb cana 0.8 1.8 3 0 -3 42 Rhus copa 1.4 3.1 3 0 -3 43 Nyss biflo 7.3 1.6 4 4 0 43 Taxo dist 33.8 3.3 5 4 -1 44 Taxo dist 10.0 0.9 4 4 0 44 Taxo dist 8.4 3.9 0 0 0 45 Taxo dist 12.4 1.0 0 0 0 45 Taxo dist 22.3 4.6 3 3 0 46 Nyss biflo 1.2 2.0 4 4 0 46 Sapi sebi 3.4 4.5 5 4 -1 47 Taxo dist 13.7 1.7 3 3 0 47 Taxo dist 24.2 4.4 3 4 1 48 Acer rubr 6.9 1.7 4 4 0 48 Taxo dist 33.4 4.3 5 5 0 49 Liqu styr 3.9 2.0 4 4 0 49 Taxo dist 2.5 5.5 5 5 0 50 Taxo dist 18.5 1.9 3 3 0 51 Taxo dist 19.0 2.3 4 4 0 B1 = upland, B49 = lake edge 52 Liqu styr 6.7 2.5 5 4 -1 53 Taxo dist 27.5 2.9 3 0 -3 54 Taxo dist 19.8 4.8 2 0 -2 A1 = upland, A54 = lake edge Tree Vigor Ratings Tree Vigor Ratings Transect A: North of Treasure Ct, 1300 ft ESE of railroad bridge Transect B: North of Treasure Ct, 800 ft east of railroad bridge Upper End: 34.9804, -78.9412; Lower End : 34.9805, -78.9425 Upper End: 34.9828, -78.9425; Lower End : 34.9821, -78.9434 Table 2, continued. C #Species DBH "Flood D #Species DBH "Flood dep ft 01.18 07.18 Δv 07.19 07.20 07.21 dep ft 01.18 07.18 Δv 07.19 07.20 07.21 1 Taxo dist 3.0 4.1 4 4 0 1 Nyss biflo 9.2 1.7 4 4 0 2 Taxo dist 9.4 0.0 3 3 0 2 Taxo dist 21.5 1.2 5 5 0 3 Acer rubr 8.3 0.0 4 4 0 3 Taxo dist 11.6 1.9 4 4 0 4 Acer rubr 4.9 0.0 4 4 0 4 Taxo dist 17.9 1.4 5 5 0 5 Taxo dist 15.7 2.0 5 5 0 5 Nyss biflo 8.1 0.4 4 4 0 6 Taxo dist 26.0 2.4 4 4 0 6 Taxo dist 23.1 1.2 5 5 0 7 Nyss biflo 4.5 0.9 2 2 0 7 Taxo dist 19.6 0.0 5 5 0 8 Taxo dist 13.1 1.6 4 4 0 8 Nyss biflo 5.7 0.9 3 3 0 9 Taxo dist 14.8 2.0 4 4 0 9 Nyss biflo 10.1 0.6 3 4 1 10 Taxo dist 16.8 1.5 5 5 0 10 Nyss biflo 11.9 1.9 1 2 1 11 Taxo dist 18.3 0.5 3 3 0 11 Taxo dist 11.8 1.6 2 1 -1 12 Celt laev 1.4 xx 3 xx -3 12 Nyss biflo 8.0 0.0 3 4 1 13 Taxo dist 13.5 1.4 5 5 0 13 Prun sero 0.6 xx 5 xx -5 14 Taxo dist 14.0 1.2 4 4 0 14 Taxo dist 12.1 0.0 4 4 0 15 Nyss biflo 9.7 0.8 1 2 1 15 Taxo dist 16.1 0.0 5 5 0 16 Taxo dist 16.0 2.0 5 5 0 16 Prun sero 0.7 0.0 5 0 -5 17 Taxo dist 17.0 1.3 5 5 0 17 Nyss biflo 5.8 0.0 2 2 0 18 Nyss biflo 5.0 0.9 3 4 1 18 Nyss biflo 7.9 0.0 3 3 0 19 Nyss biflo 5.6 0.9 2 2 0 19 Taxo dist 11.2 0.0 4 4 0 20 Nyss biflo 6.1 0.3 2 2 0 20 Nyss biflo 5.6 0.0 2 3 1 21 Nyss biflo 4.2 0.8 2 3 1 21 Nyss biflo 3.7 0.0 1 2 1 22 Taxo dist 16.8 0.8 4 4 0 22 Nyss biflo 8.7 0.0 4 4 0 23 Nyss biflo 7.5 1.2 3 3 0 23 Taxo dist 20.0 2.1 4 4 0 24 Nyss biflo 5.9 1.3 2 2 0 24 Taxo dist 23.0 2.7 5 5 0 25 Nyss biflo 4.7 1.3 2 3 1 25 Taxo dist 9.4 2.6 3 3 0 26 Nyss biflo 3.0 1.2 2 2 0 26 Taxo dist 25.4 1.9 5 5 0 27 Nyss biflo 7.3 1.1 4 4 0 27 Nyss biflo 6.8 1.6 3 4 1 28 Nyss biflo 3.2 1.3 3 3 0 28 Nyss biflo 6.5 1.0 4 4 0 29 Nyss biflo 5.5 0.7 4 0 -4 29 Taxo dist 15.6 1.3 1 0 -1 30 Nyss biflo 5.1 0.5 4 4 0 30 Nyss biflo 3.3 0.7 2 2 0 31 Nyss biflo 5.2 0.2 4 4 0 31 Nyss biflo 9.1 0.4 4 4 0 32 Nyss biflo 4.5 0.0 3 4 1 32 Nyss biflo 4.2 xx 1 xx -1 33 Taxo dist 10.3 0.0 5 5 0 33 Nyss biflo 5.8 2.0 3 3 0 34 Cyri race 2.2 0.0 4 4 0 34 Taxo dist 17.7 2.4 4 4 0 35 Nyss biflo 6.3 0.0 5 5 0 35 Nyss biflo 7.4 1.4 5 5 0 36 Taxo dist 10.8 0.0 4 4 0 36 Nyss biflo 8.5 1.0 3 3 0 37 Taxo dist 12.0 0.6 5 4 -1 C1 = lake edge, C36 = upland 38 Taxo dist 10.2 0.9 3 3 0 39 Nyss biflo 5.7 0.5 2 2 0 40 Taxo dist 24.5 2.8 4 4 0 41 Nyss biflo 6.7 1.8 2 3 1 42 Taxo dist 12.7 0.0 4 4 0 43 Nyss biflo 10.2 0.0 4 4 0 D1 = lake edge, D43 = upland Tree Vigor Ratings Tree Vigor Ratings Upper End: 34.9851, -78.9521; Lower End : 34.9845, -78.9521 Upper End: 34.9852, -78.9557; Lower End : 34.9847, -78.9549 Transect C: East of Morrozoff Dr, 2000 ft NW of railroad bridge Transect D: South of Morrozoff Dr, 2800 ft WNW of railroad bridge Table 3. Vegetation community samples within a 20-ft radius of selected points along the Hope Mills Lake forested wetland monitoring transects, January 2018 (Pre-impoundment Baseline) and July 2018. Percent absolute cover by stratum, US-ACE 4-strata wetland vegetation sampling method. Station Trees % Sapling-Shrub % Woody Vine % Groundcover % SA1 Cham thyo 40 Ilex cori 15 Smil laur 5 Wood areo 5 trees A1-3 Nyss biflo 20 Kalm lati 5 Bign capr 5 Sphagnum 5 Jan.2018 Frax penn 10 Pers palu 5 Vaccin spp 5 Taxo dist 10 Lyon luci 10 Quer nigr 5 Magn gran 2 July.2018 Cham thyo 30 Ilex cori 20 Smil laur 5 Wood areo 15 Nyss biflo 20 Kalm lati 5 Bign capr 10 Sphagnum 20 Frax penn 10 Pers palu 5 Vaccin spp 5 Taxo dist 20 Lyon luci 10 Osmu cinn 5 Acer rubr 10 Quer nigr 5 Station Trees % Sapling-Shrub % Woody Vine % Groundcover % SA2 Cham thyo 10 Ilex cori 10 Smil laur 5 Wood areo 5 trees A19-20 Nyss biflo 30 Cyril race 10 Bign capr 2 Lyon luci 10 Jan.2018 Taxo dist 20 Pers palu 5 Smil glau 2 Arun tect 5 Lyon luci 10 Quer nigr 5 Ilex opac 5 Itea virg 5 Morel ceri 5 Vibu nudu 2 July.2018 Cham thyo 10 Cyril race 10 Smil laur 10 Micro vimin 15 Nyss biflo 30 Pers palu 5 Parth quin 10 Wood areo 10 Magn virg 5 Cleth alni 10 Rubus spp 5 Taxo dist 20 Quer nigr 10 Acer rubr 15 Ilex cori 5 Itea virg 10 Vibu nudu 5 Liqu styr 5 Station Trees % Sapling-Shrub % Woody Vine % Groundcover % SA3 Acer rubr 10 Rhus copa 5 Vitis rotu 2 Gels semp 5 trees A50-52 Nyss biflo 10 Liqu styr 5 Gels semp 2 Quer nigr 2 Jan.2018 Taxo dist 30 Pers palu 10 Liqu styr 15 Samb cana 5 Pinu taed 5 Quer nigr 5 Acer rubr 5 July.2018 Liqu styr 15 Liqu styr 10 Vitis rotu 5 Gels semp 10 Nyss biflo 10 Pers palu 10 Taxo dist 15 Samb cana 10 Acer rubr 15 Station Trees % Sapling-Shrub % Woody Vine % Groundcover % SB1 Nyss biflo 40 Itea virg 10 Smil laur 2 Gels semp 10 trees B2-5 Taxo dist 30 Cyril race 10 Gels semp 2 Cyril race 5 Jan.2018 Pers palu 5 Bign capr 2 Wood areo 5 Liqu styr 5 Itea virg 5 Acer rubr 5 Cham thyo 5 Carp caro 5 July.2018 Nyss biflo 60 Itea virg 30 Smil laur 2 none Taxo dist 20 Cyril race 10 Gels semp 2 Styr amer 5 Liqu styr 5 Acer rubr 5 Station Trees % Sapling-Shrub % Woody Vine % Groundcover % SB2 Nyss biflo 20 Itea virg 10 Gels semp 2 Gels semp 10 trees B18-20 Taxo dist 40 Cyril race 10 Carex spp 5 Jan.2018 Liqu styr 10 Pers palu 5 Wood areo 5 Liqu styr 5 Symp tinc 5 Nyss biflo 5 Quer nigr 5 Ilex opac 2 July.2018 Nyss biflo 30 Itea virg 20 Gels semp 2 none Taxo dist 30 Cyril race 10 Liqu styr 10 Acer rubr 5 Liqu styr 5 Sapi sebi 5 Station Trees % Sapling-Shrub % Woody Vine % Groundcover % SB3 Nyss biflo 15 Cyril race 10 Gels semp 5 Gels semp 5 trees B44-46 Taxo dist 50 Calli amer 5 Micr vimi 70 Jan.2018 Liqu styr 10 Rubus spp 5 Wood areo 5 Pinu taed 5 Pinu taed 5 Carex spp 5 Acer rubr 5 Boeh cylin 5 Liqu styr 5 July.2018 Nyss biflo 10 Cyril race 10 Gels semp 5 none Taxo dist 60 Calli amer 5 Camp radi 5 Liqu styr 10 Liqu styr 5 Sapi sebi 2 Acer rubr 5 Station Trees % Sapling-Shrub % Woody Vine % Groundcover % SC1 Nyss biflo 25 Cyril race 5 none Loni japo 30 trees C4-6 Taxo dist 40 Samb cana 30 Carex spp 5 Jan.2018 Acer rubr 10 Rubus spp 10 Ilex opac 5 Calli amer 10 Ligu sine 5 July.2018 Nyss biflo 20 Itea virg 5 none Loni japo 5 Taxo dist 40 Samb cana 5 Rubus spp 5 Acer rubr 15 Acer rubr 5 Micro vimi 5 Nyss biflo 10 Itea virg 5 Calli amer 5 Ligu sine 5 Station Trees % Sapling-Shrub % Woody Vine % Groundcover % SC2 Nyss biflo 60 Pinus taed 2 none Carex spp 5 trees C23-26 Taxo dist 25 Samb cana 5 Itea virg 5 Jan.2018 Pers palu 5 Rubus spp 8 Acer rubr 2 Ligu sine 25 Ulmu amer 5 July.2018 Nyss biflo 60 Itea virg 20 none none Taxo dist 25 Styr amer 5 Acer rubr 5 Ligu sine 10 Station Trees % Sapling-Shrub % Woody Vine % Groundcover % SC3 Nyss biflo 40 Cyril race 20 Loni japo 5 Loni japo 25 trees C34-36 Taxo dist 30 Acer rubr 5 Vaccin spp 2 Jan.2018 Symp tinc 5 Ilex opac 5 Quer nigr 5 July.2018 Nyss biflo 50 Cyril race 20 Loni japo 5 Loni japo 10 Taxo dist 30 Acer rubr 5 Toxi radi 5 Toxi radi 15 Symp tinc 5 Gels semp 5 Gels semp 5 Ilex opac 5 Bign capr 5 Quer nigr 5 Carex spp 5 Station Trees % Sapling-Shrub % Woody Vine % Groundcover % SD1 Nyss biflo 20 Ligu sine 10 none Carex spp 5 trees D3-6 Taxo dist 70 Calli amer 2 Vaccin spp 2 Jan.2018 Quer nigr 2 Acer rubr 5 Ilex opac 2 July.2018 Nyss biflo 30 Ligu sine 10 Part quin 5 Itea virg 10 Taxo dist 50 Calli amer 5 Camp radi 5 Micr vimi 5 Itea virg 10 Vitis rotu 5 Smil glau 5 Acer rubr 5 Station Trees % Sapling-Shrub % Woody Vine % Groundcover % SD2 Nyss biflo 10 Ligu sine 10 Gels semp 2 Carex spp 5 trees D33-35 Taxo dist 70 Calli amer 2 Jan.2018 Acer rubr 10 Rubus spp 10 Samb cana 5 Nyss biflo 5 July.2018 Nyss biflo 10 Ligu sine 5 Gels semp 2 none Taxo dist 70 Itea virg 10 Camp radi 5 Acer rubr 10 Ceph occi 5 Samb cana 5 Nyss biflo 5 Station Trees % Sapling-Shrub % Woody Vine % Groundcover % SD3 Nyss biflo 10 Ligu sine 10 none Arun tect 5 trees D40-43 Taxo dist 70 Ulmu amer 5 Ligu sine 5 Jan.2018 Rubus spp 5 Wood areo 5 Pers palu 5 July.2018 Nyss biflo 30 Ligu sine 10 Part quin 2 Arun tect 5 Taxo dist 50 Itea virg 10 Camp radi 5 Micr vimi 5 Acer rubr 5 Wood areo 3 Quer nigr 5 Carex spp 5 Impa cape 2 ABOVE: Approximate swamp forest fringe areas (red). BELOW: Locations of four wetland monitoring transects (red). Hope Mills Lake Swamp Forest Monitoring Transects A and B. Tree tag numbers = Green. Vegetation community sample plot numbers = Red. Hope Mills Lake Swamp Forest Monitoring Transects C and D. Tree tag numbers = Green. Vegetation community sample plot numbers = Red. ABOVE 2 Photos: Transect A community sample SA1 near Trees A1-A3. BELOW 2 Photos: Transect A community sample SA2 near Trees A24-A26. ABOVE 2 Photos: Transect A community sample SA3 near Trees A50-A52. BELOW 2 Photos: Transect B community sample SB1 near Trees B2-5. ABOVE 2 Photos: Transect B community sample SB2 near Trees B18-B20. BELOW 2 Photos: Transect B community sample SB3 near Trees B44-B46. ABOVE 2 Photos: Transect C community sample SC3 near Trees C34-C36. BELOW 2 Photos: Transect C community sample SC2 near Trees C23-26. ABOVE 2 Photos: Transect C community sample SC1 near Trees C4-C6. BELOW 2 Photos: Transect D community sample SD3 near Trees D40-D43. ABOVE 2 Photos: Transect D community sample SD2 near Trees D33-D35. BELOW 2 Photos: Transect D community sample SD1 near Trees D3-D6.