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.