The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20040325 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20090904'-?Q -'?- 2 00 L} 0 32S 54C ANNUAL WETLAND MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 5) BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Prepared for: Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation 1555 Howell Branch Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 (407) 629-7774 Prepared by: Land Management Group, Inc. P.O. Box 2522 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 (910) 452-0001 November 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................ ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 2.0 HYDROLOGY MONITORING ............................................................................................4 2.1 Monitoring Program ....................................................................................................4 2.2 Monitoring Results .......................................................................................................6 Groundwater Flats (GF) .........................................................................................6 Riverine Floodplains (RF) ......................................................................................7 Headwater Slopes (HS) ...........................................................................................8 2.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria ....................................................................................8 3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING ....................................................................................12 3.1 Monitoring Program ..................................................................................................12 3.2 Monitoring Results ....................................................................................................13 Herbaceous Vegetation .........................................................................................13 Groundwater Flats ................................................................................................13 Headwater Slope ...................................................................................................13 3.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria ..................................................................................14 4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND MITIGATION CREDIT ...........18 4.1 Pre-Restoration Conditions (January 1997 to November 1997) ...........................18 4.2 Wetland Construction Activities (November 1997 to January 1998) ....................18 4.3 Post-Restoration Conditions (January 1998 to November 1998) ..........................18 4.4 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 1998 to October 1999) ..............................20 4.5 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 1999 to October 2000) ..............................21 4.6 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 2000 to October 2001) ..............................22 4.7 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 2001 to October 2002) ..............................22 5.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................24 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................... 25 7.0 APPENDICES Appendix A: Mitigation Credit Release Schedule Appendix B: Wetland Hydrology Data and Hydrographs for 2002 Appendix C: Wetland Vegetation Data for 2002 Appendix D: Summary of Hydrology and Vegetation Data (1999-2002) Appendix E: Summary of Monitoring Plan Appendix F: Photographs of Barra Farms Appendix G: Heterogeneity in Soil and Vegetation Properties of a Restored Carolina Bay Wetland LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity map ....................................................................................................................3 Figure 2. Location of vegetation plots and wells ............................................................................5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of hydrology monitoring data ............... Table 2. Woody species found in groundwater flats habitat Table 3. Woody species found in headwater slope habitat . ......................................................10 ......................................................16 ......................................................17 ii ANNUAL WETLAND MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 5) BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1.0 INTRODUCTION ECOBANK, a private sector mitigation banking company, has established the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank (the Bank) within the Coastal Plain region of the Cape Fear River Basin. The Bank comprises 623 acres located along upper reaches of Harrison Creek in Cumberland County (Figure 1). Wetland restoration/enhancement activities were completed in the winter of 1997-1998 as described in the detailed mitigation plan. A mitigation banking instrument has also been prepared through ongoing coordination with the mitigation banking review team (MBRT) as outlined in the Federal Guidance on the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banks (60 FR 12286-12293, 1995). Hydrological and vegetation monitoring are important components of a successful mitigation plan and are required for release of compensatory mitigation credits. The Barra Farms monitoring plan requires annual monitoring for a five-year period and analysis of the data to evaluate success in the establishment and maintenance of diagnostic wetland parameters. The mitigation credit schedule and monitoring plan are attached for reference in Appendices A and E. This document represents the Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR) for Year 5 of the monitoring plan. Monitoring was performed during the 2002 growing season for hydrology and vegetation, consisting primarily of a comparison between hydrology model predictions, reference wetlands, and wetland restoration areas in the Bank. Subsequently, the success criteria are analyzed and verified to facilitate issuance of mitigation credit designated in the MBI at the end of Year 5 monitoring. In the beginning of the restoration process at the Bank, extremes in weather made achieving success criteria difficult. Heavy rainfall in the winter/spring of 1998 and in the fall of 1999 created ponding over much of the site and contributed to seedling mortality. As expected, Year 2 monitoring performed in the fall of 1999 revealed low seedling survivability, and subsequent contingency measures were employed to increase survivorship. Six drainage pipes were installed to alleviate ponding and over 40,000 seedlings were planted in the winter of 2000 to increase species abundance and achieve success criteria. Because of these measures and subsequent achievement of success criteria in 2000, Year 2, 3, and 4 credits were released and the Bank is on schedule for release of Year 5 credits. Year 5 hydrologic monitoring at the Bank has been occurring throughout the year, with regular checks of manual and automated wells within the Bank and adjacent reference areas. Vegetation monitoring was conducted in October of 2002 and consisted of identifying woody and herbaceous species within 34 plots that are each 0.1-acre in size. After compiling and analyzing the data, it has been determined that the hydrology and vegetation success criteria identified in the mitigation plan have been achieved. This will be the final monitoring report for the Barra Farms Mitigation Bank. 2 2.0 HYDROLOGY MONITORING 2.1 Monitoring Program Twenty three surficial monitoring wells (manual recording) were located throughout the Barra Mitigation Bank to provide representative coverage and flow gradients extending through each of the four physiographic landscape areas: 1) uplands; 2) groundwater flats; 3) headwater slope; and 4) riverine floodplain. Figure 2 depicts the approximate location of monitoring wells in the Bank. In addition, five automated recording wells were placed on-site to provide continuous data that can be extrapolated to manual recording devices. Monitoring wells were installed and downloaded by a subcontractor in accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of Engineers' Installing Monitoring Wells / Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993). The manual monitoring wells are set to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the soil surface and had bentonite plugs to prevent surface flow introduction. Five manual monitoring wells and two automated recording wells were placed in reference wetlands to compare hydrology between the Bank and relatively undisturbed wetlands in the region. Four wells (3 manual and 1 automated) were located in the reference groundwater flats along the northwestern periphery of the Bank. Three additional wells (2 manual and 1 automated) were located in the reference riverine wetland along Colly Creek in the Bushy Lake/Horse Shoe Lake Natural Area. These wells provided comparative annual hydroperiods within the organic soil flat and riverine floodplain physiographic areas of the site. The headwater slope physiographic area was interpolated from the two adjacent systems as described in the mitigation plan and the MBI. Hydrological data continue to be collected at weekly intervals on-site and within the reference sites. The data extending from March 17, 2002 (1 s' reading within the growing season) to September 28, 2002 (last reading prior to submission of this report) have been 4 utilized in this Year 5 monitoring report. 2.2 Monitoring Results The raw well data are depicted in hydrograph and tabular format in Appendix B. Wetland hydrology criteria in number of consecutive days and percent of the growing season are also summarized in Table 1. Line intersection at 12 inches below the surface was used as the cut off for wetland hydrology, following the regulatory wetland criterion requiring saturation (free water) within one foot of the soil surface. As in previous years, groundwater levels were highest in early spring, followed by dry periods during summer months. Well data have been subdivided into three wetland physiographic wetland types: 1) groundwater flats (GF); 2) headwater slopes (HS); and 3) riverine floodplains (RF). Groundwater Flats (GF) Three wells located within reference groundwater flats provided a general indication of the average 2002 hydroperiod on groundwater flats supporting steady state forest structure and organic soils. Data indicated that the reference groundwater flats habitat maintained wetland hydrology during 15.1 % of the growing season. The automated reference well located within this same reference area was not functioning for most of the growing season and did not document wetland hydrology (Appendix B). The groundwater flats data from the restoration wetland area had an average wetland hydrology of 14.3% of the growing season and ranged from 9.2 to 15.1 % (Table 1). Year 1 and Year 2 monitoring indicated that the wetland hydrology within this habitat correlated with vegetation cover and soil organic matter content, with the wettest hydrology in areas of high organic matter and low vegetation cover and the driest hydrology in areas with mineral soil flats. Year 5 results are similar to Years 3 and 4 in that there was no significant difference between the average hydrology of former farmland and pocosin vegetation, or between that of mineral soil flats and organic soil 7 flats. This is likely because as more vegetation becomes established within the bank, causing evapotranspiration, hydrological differences between these areas are diminished None of the automated monitoring wells located within groundwater flats habitat at the Bank (wells A, B, and E; Figure 2) documented wetland hydrology (Appendix B). All of these wells did not read during the early part of the growing season, and may have confirmed wetland hydrology had data been collected throughout this time period. According to data from the manual wells, the early part of the growing season in 2002 was the most likely time for wetland hydrology to be demonstrated due to below normal rainfall during the summer months (Please see section 2.3 for more information on automated well problems.) Riverine Floodplains (RF) Two manual wells are located in reference riverine floodplain habitat. The data from these wells indicated that the average wetland hydrology for small stream swamps was approximately 18.0% of the growing season. The two reference hydrology wells had the same number of consecutive saturation days and therefore no difference in hydrology due to proximity of well to stream channel was noted. The automated well located in the reference riverine floodplain habitat documented wetland hydrology for 11 % of the growing season (26 continuous days; see Appendix B). Data from the two manual wells located in the restoration riverine floodplain habitat showed that wetland hydrology averaged 13.6% of the growing season. Headwater Slopes (HS) Reference wetland hydrology for the headwater slope habitat was simulated by averaging wetland hydrology exhibited by adjacent riverine floodplain and groundwater flats. The average amount of time the reference headwater slope habitat met wetland hydrology was 16.3% of the growing season and ranged from 15.1% (groundwater flats) to 18.0% 8 (riverine floodplain). Headwater slope in the restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging 13.3 % of the growing season, and ranged from 12.1 % to 15.1 %. Hydrology did not appear to be influenced by landscape position within the headwater storage area or vegetation cover. The automated monitoring wells located within the headwater slope habitat are wells C and D (Figure 2). Well C was only functioning for approximately one month (mid-June to mid-July) during 2002 and did not document wetland hydrology during this period. (Please see section 2.3 for more information on automated well problems.) Well D documented wetland hydrology for 71 continuous days, between mid-March until the end of May. 2.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria Success in the restoration of wetland hydrology in the Bank required saturation (free water) within one foot of the soil surface for at least 50% of the time the reference habitat achieved wetland hydrology. This criterion was applied separately to each of the restored habitats. The reference groundwater flats, riverine floodplain, and headwater slope habitats exhibited wetland hydrology for a period averaging 15.1%, 16.3%, and 18.0%, respectively. In the Bank, restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging 14.3% (94.7% of reference), 13.6% (75.6% of reference), and 13.3% (81.6% of reference), respectively. Therefore, all three habitat types fulfilled the wetland hydrology criterion in 2002. Automated wells are dependable and accurate ways of recording hydrology. It should be noted, however, that in 2001 and 2002 it became increasingly difficult to keep the automated wells at the Bank functioning continuously because of black bears in the area. They use these wells as scratching posts and often chew the caps off of the tops of the wells. A subcontractor reads both the manual and automated wells frequently and repairs any problems promptly. However, gaps in the data have occurred. Most of the gaps that have occurred in data at the Bank are due to natural circumstances that actually demonstrate that the mitigation site is providing habitat for wildlife. 10 Tnh1P 1 4rnmmnrv of ?.00?. hydrology monitoring data at the Bank. Well Number Maximum Consecutive Saturation Days Percent of Growing Season (Saturat'n Days/239) Comments Groundwater Flats Restored Wetland WI 36 15.1 former farmland (FF) W2 36 15.1 FF W4 36 15.1 FF W5 36 15.1 FF, mineral soil flat W6 36 15.1 FF, mineral soil flat W7 36 15.1 FF W10 36 15.1 FF W11 36 15.1 FF W12 36 15.1 FF, mineral soil flat W14 29 12.1 FF, mineral soil flat W17 36 15.1 FF, located on fill material in backfilled ditch W20 29 12.1 FF W21 36 15.1 Existing pocosin vegetation (PV), end organic soil flat (targeted swamp forest community) W22 36 15.1 PV W23 22 9.2 PV Average 34.1 14.3 Range: 9.2-15.1% Reference Wetland JB1 36 15.1 Existing forest vegetation (FV), mineral soils JB2 36 15.1 FV, organic soils JB3 36 15.1 FV, organic soils Average 36 15.1 Range: none 11 Table 1 continued. Summary of 2002 hydrology monitoring data at the Bank. Well Number Maximum Consecutive Saturation Days Percent of Growing Season (Saturat'n Days/239) Comments Riverine Floodplain Restored Wetland W15 29 12.1 existing forest vegetation (FV), upstream reach, outer floodplain W18 36 15.1 FV, downstream terminus, inner floodplain Average 32.5 13.6 Range: 12.1-15.1% Reference Wetland SS1 43 18.0 FV, outer floodplain SS2 43 18.0 FV, inner floodplain Average 43 18.0 Range: none Headwater Slope Restored Wetland. W3 36 15.1 Former farmland (FF), upper reaches W8 29 12.1 FV, interior slope W9 36 15.1 FF, interior slope W16 29 12.1 FV, interior slope W19 29 12.1 existing pocosin vegetation (PV), upper reaches Average 31.8 13.3 Range: 12.1-15.1% Reference hydroperiod* 38.8 16.3 Average of riverine and groundwater flats The reference hydroperiod for the headwater slope physiographic area is calculated as the average hydroperiod exhibited by both the groundwater and riverine floodplain reference wells. 12 3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING 3.1 Monitoring Program Quantitative sampling of vegetation was conducted in October of 2002 and was similar to the sampling performed in previous years. Thirty-four plots that were each 0.1-acre in size were sampled resulting in 3.4 total acres of former cropland being surveyed (Figure 2). The center of each plot has been permanently established with a labeled, white polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe marked with orange flagging. The coordinates of each of these plot centers has been identified with a global positioning system (GPS) unit. Plot centers are located within two community types at the Bank: groundwater flats habitat, which represents 324 acres, and headwater slope habitat, which comprises approximately 38 acres. No plots are located within the riverine habitat since none of this habitat type was formerly cropland. Twenty-nine plots are located within the groundwater flats and 5 plots are located within the headwater slope. At each plot center, woody species within a 37.2-foot radius of the plot center were flagged, identified, and measured for height. Diameter at breast height (DBH) measurements equal to or greater than one inch were also recorded. In most cases, clumps of multiple black willow (Salix nigra) stems originating from a common root source were counted as a single stem. Although differences between the two Nyssa species that were planted (Nyssa biflora and Nyssa aquatica) are beginning to appear, such as leaf size and serrations, we continued to group them into one category because these differences were still difficult to distinguish in many trees. Herbaceous vegetation at each plot was recorded and assigned to one of seven cover classes: 1 = 0-0.5%, 2 = 0.5-1%, 3 = 1-3%, 4 = 3-15%, 5 = 15-33%, 6 = 33-66%, 7 = 66- 99%. Cover classes for all species were determined by visually estimating the area of ground surface covered by its vertical projection. 13 3.2 Monitoring Results Herbaceous Vegetation During Year 5 monitoring, a total of 25 herbaceous species were identified within the 34 sample plots (Appendix Q. As in previous years, the most common were woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus). The headwater slope and wetter groundwater flats plots, located within the center of the site, contained dense stands of woolgrass. The drier plots, located at the western and eastern ends of the site, supported more aster, goldenrod, and panic grass. Broomsedge was found throughout the Bank in areas not exceptionally wet or dry. Groundwater Flats Within the groundwater flats habitat, 28 woody species were surveyed among the 29 plots. Of the 28 species, 21 were tree species and 7 were shrub species. Of the tree species, 14 were planted and 7 were volunteer. All shrubs were volunteer. As in previous years, the most common tree species included red maple (Acer rubrum), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), swamp tupelo and/or water tupelo (Nyssa biflora, N. aquatica), and black willow (Salix nigra). The vegetation observed within groundwater flats averaged 972.8 trees/acre with approximately 233.4 trees/acre from planted species. When using the number of trees/acre by species that can be applied to the trees/acre criterion (<_ 20% of 320 trees/acre for hardwoods and < 10% of 320 trees/acre for softwoods), the total number of trees that can be counted per acre was 372.9 (see Table 3, column 5). Headwater Slope A total of 14 woody species was identified within this habitat, of which 8 were planted and 6 were volunteer. The most common tree species included red maple (Acer rubrum), black 14 willow (Salix nigra), and swamp tupelo and/or water tupelo (Nyssa biflora, N. aquatica). Density averaged 1848.0 trees/acre, with 286.0 trees/acre resulting from planted species. When success criteria percentages were used (s 20% of 320 trees/acre for hardwoods and _< 10% of 320 trees/acre for softwoods), the total number of trees that can be counted per acre was 384.0 (see Table 4, column 5). 3.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria Success criteria for the Barra Farms Mitigation Plan included a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic trees/acre. At least five character tree species must be present, and no hardwood species can comprise more than 20 percent of the 320 stems/acre (64 stems). Softwood species cannot comprise more than 10 percent of the 320 stems/acre (32 stems). As in Year 4, several plots within both the groundwater flats habitat (P7, P14, P32, and P35) and the headwater slope habitat (P8) contained an abundance of red maple stems, which elevated the average number of maple stems well above 20% of the total number of stems. These plots are located near the forest edge, where the seedlings are growing opportunistically in areas of open sunlight. The effect that these seedlings may have on planted species was evaluated by comparing vegetation data in 2000, 2001, and 2002, specifically the number of trees observed in each plot and the average height of each species in all three years (Appendix D). As was shown from a similar analysis in the Year 4 Monitoring Report that compared 2000 and 2001 data, it was determined that although a few plots continue to support large amounts of maple, this species is not inhibiting the number or height of planted species. In fact, the average height of most planted species within these plots continues to increase. Observations made in plots that support many maple seedlings demonstrate that they are growing in place of herbaceous vegetation and are having no greater effect on planted trees than any other herbaceous species. Furthermore, research has shown that red maple is a typical component of early successional forest regeneration of a bay forest community type (Shantz and Gibbons, 1982). 15 When evaluating the success criteria, only 20% of the 320 trees/acre criterion (64 stems) was used for maple or any other hardwood that exceeded this value. Only 10% of the 320 trees/acre criterion was used for softwood species. Tables 2 and 3 show the number of trees/acre by species that can be applied to the trees/acre criterion. For groundwater flats, a mean density of 972.8 trees/acre was found across 21 character wetland tree species, with an average of 8.6 tree species/plot. An average of 372.9 trees/acre can be applied to the vegetation success criterion. In the headwater slope habitat, a mean density of 1848.0 trees/acre was found across 14 wetland tree species, with an average of 8.4 tree species/plot. An average of 384.0 trees/acre in this habitat can be applied to the vegetation success criterion. Therefore, both of these wetland community types meet the vegetation success criteria. 16 Table 2. Woody species found in groundwater flats habitat, average number of trees/acre, and the number of trees allowed in success criteria. Common name Scientific Name Avg # of trees/ acre % of total # of trees/ac # trees/ac allowed in criteria Comments Red Maple Acer nibn+m 519.7 53.4 64 Volunteer hardwood; three plots had many seedlings (see Appendix D) Winged Sumac Rhus copallina 117.6 12.1 32 Volunteer softwood; mostly from 2 plots Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 88.3 9.1 64 Planted hardwood Black Willow Salix nigra 66.6 6.8 32 Volunteer softwood Swamp/ Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 65.9 6.8 65.9 Planted hardwood Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 24.5 2.5 24.5 Planted hardwood Willow Oak Quercus phellos 17.8 1.8 17.8 Planted hardwood Sweetgum Liquidambar styracii lua 15.2 1.6 15.2 Volunteer hardwood Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 14.1 1.4 14.1 Planted Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda 10.3 1.1 10.3 Volunteer softwood Red Bay Persea borbonia 9.3 1.0 9.3 Volunteer softwood Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 5.2 0.5 5.2 Planted hardwood Green Ash Fraxineus pennsylvanica 3.8 0.4 3.8 Planted hardwood Longleaf Pine Pinus palustris 3.8 0.4 3.8 Planted softwood Pond Cypress Taxodium ascendens 3.8 0.4 3.8 Planted hardwood Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 3.1 0.3 3.1 Planted hardwood Pond Pine Pinus serotina 1.4 0.1 1.4 Planted softwood Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 1.0 0.1 1.0 Volunteer hardwood Water Oak Quercus nigra LO 0.1 1.0 Planted hardwood Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 0.7 0.1 0.7 Planted hardwood TOTAL 972.8 100 372.9 17 Table 3. Woody species found in headwater slope habitat, average number of trees/acre, and the number of trees allowed in success criteria. Common name Scientific Name Average # of trees/ acre % of total # of trees/ac % of total / ac allowed in criteria Comments Red Maple Acer rubrum 1316.0 71.2 64 Volunteer hardwood; one plot had many seedlings (see Appendix D) Black Willow Salix nigra 218.0 11.8 32 Volunteer softwood Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 154.0 8.3 128 Planted hardwood Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 52.0 2.8 52 Planted hardwood Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 28.0 1.5 28 Planted hardwood Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda 22.0 1.2 22 Volunteer softwood Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 18.0 1.0 18 Planted hardwood Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 12.0 0.6 12 Planted hardwood Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 8.0 0.4 8 Volunteer hardwood Willow Oak Quercus phellos 8.0 0.4 8 Planted hardwood Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 4.0 0.2 4 Planted hardwood Sweetgum Liquidambar sryracii lua 4.0 0.2 4 Volunteer hardwood Pond Cypress Taxodium ascendens 2.0 0.1 2 Planted softwood Winged Sumac Rhus copallina 2.0 0.1 2 Volunteer softwood TOTAL 1848 100 384 18 4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND MITIGATION CREDIT (Information taken from previous monitoring reports written by EcoScience and Land Management Group, Inc.) 4.1 Pre-Restoration Conditions (January 1997 to November 1997) The 623-acre Bank is located on lower portions of a broad coastal plain interstream divide, which includes the historic origin of Harrison Creek. Adjacent flats and ridges comprise a watershed encompassing approximately 9.8 square miles of land with groundwater and surface water discharging from these flats and terraces towards the Bank. A majority of the Bank was cleared, ditched and drained in the last 30 years with wetlands and streams effectively eliminated. The drainage network included approximately 100,000 linear feet of ditches and canals. The drainage area that historically flowed through the Bank was diverted into constructed canals, which bypassed Harrison Creek and the riverine wetland corridor. Drainage networks effectively eliminated stream and wetland functional attributes in the Bank. 4.2 Wetland Construction Activities (November 1997 to January 1998) Restoration activities included placement of impervious plugs and backfilling of all ditches and canals in the Bank. Former canal flows from the upper watershed were diverted into the headwater slope physiographic area of the Bank through construction of ephemeral or intermittent drainage ways. The headwater slope and former floodplain were reconnected through berm removal and cleaning of the relict stream channel. Soil surfaces on former cropland were scarified to increase microtopography and surface water storage. Subsequently, the site was planted with 192,000 diagnostic tree seedlings as detailed in the mitigation plan. 4.3 Post-Restoration Conditions (January 1998 to November 1998) In February 1998, surface water from the upper watershed inundated the entire Bank. Depth of water generally ranged from saturation to elevations approximately 4 feet above the soil surface. Due to the extent of inundation and flow velocities, two canal 19 plugs in northern reaches of the Bank were blown out during this period and subsequently reconstructed to prevent overtopping by surface water. Significant stream flows of greater than 20 cubic feet per second were initiated in the headwater slope and riverine floodplain physiographic areas of the Bank during the early spring of 1998. Inundation and influent surface waters generally continued from February through June 1998. Blooms of algae and large populations of amphibians and fish developed within the Bank. Characteristic species associated with aquatic wetland habitats included sunfish (Lepomis sp.), lesser siren (Siren intermedia), southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), grey treefrog (Hyla chrysoseelis), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), pine woods treefrog (Hyla femoralis), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), and water snake (Nerodia sp.). Fish populations became stranded in isolated pools during the summer and attracted a large population of wetland dependent avifauna to the Bank. On 9 July 1998, over 1000 coastal birds were observed feeding in desiccating pools, including great egret (Casmerodius albus), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), green heron (Butorides striatus), wood duck (Aix sponsa), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), and merlin (Falco columbarius). Black bear (Ursus americanus) also frequent protected portions of the Bank. In late June 1998, rapid groundwater draw-down occurred during a period of negligible rainfall. During this period, wetland hydrological patterns were similar in the Bank and in the reference wetland sites. Drought conditions caused stream flows to cease at the Bank and within the reference stream reach. However, isolated pools and intermittent storm flows persisted through the stream reaches during the late summer months. Water tables generally remained over two feet below the soil surface in the Bank and reference until 9 September 1998. Surface flows from the upper watershed have subsequently re-inundated portions of the Banks in September. 20 Wetland vegetation began to colonize the site after inundation ceased in late June. Characteristic hydrophytic species include panicum grasses, sedges, cat tail, seedbox, knotweed, Ludwigia, and wool grass. In wetland restoration areas, planted trees exhibited, on average, an 83% survival rate. Survival rates were highest among seedlings that supported well developed above-ground stems extending more than 3 feet above the soil surface (primarily bald cypress, swamp tupelo, water tupelo, and oak species). Atlantic white cedar seedlings supported little or no above ground stems; therefore, the extent of inundation appears to have induced mortality of greater than 70% for this planted species. In summary, the Bank developed wetland habitat that exhibited hydrological characteristics similar to the reference wetlands. Functional attributes exhibited include long-term surface water storage, energy dissipation, retention of nutrients and particulates, and establishment of characteristic wetland species populations. Although isolated pockets of emergent wetlands may develop, a majority of the Bank appears to support hydroperiods and successional patterns conducive to establishment of forested habitat. Although the Year 1 monitoring report concluded that the Bank had fulfilled success criteria for wetland hydrology and wetland vegetation in 1998, the MBRT disagreed and credits were not released. 4.4 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 1998 to October 1999) Heavy rainfall in the winter/spring of 1998 and in the fall of 1999 has created ponding over much of the site and contributed greatly to seedling mortality. Steps have since been taken to alleviate this ponding but these actions were not taken in time to affect Year 2 monitoring results and vegetation success criteria were not achieved in 1999. Year 2 monitoring was, therefore, used to pinpoint areas at Barra Farms that need more planting and to ascertain what species should be planted. 21 4.5 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 1999 to October 2000) Three hurricanes affected the coast of North Carolina in September and October of 1999, producing large amounts of rainfall that inundated most of Barra Farms. This rainfall was heavy enough to produce standing water on both the former crop land on-site and forested sections within the reference site. In October of 1999, six drainage pipes (18" diameter) were placed through the northern farm road/berm to drain the standing water from the restoration areas. Despite these efforts, water levels were still aboveground in some places during November and December. These pipes significantly reduced standing water at Barra. Because of the ponding, seedling survival did not meet success criteria in 1999. To compensate for this, over 40,000 seedlings of twelve different woody species were planted at Barra in February of 2000. These seedlings have been able to survive in strong numbers and vegetation success criteria have been met. Some ponding still exists in the middle of the tract, which provides a freshwater marsh habitat for certain bird species like the great blue heron and the American bittern. However, these areas are not as extensive or as deep as they were in 1998 and 1999, and tree species like bald cypress, water tupelo, and swamp tupelo have been able to survive. The remainder of the tract is no longer ponded and supports a variety of planted and volunteer trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Many of the trees are greater than 7 feet tall. Species noted this past year: great blue heron (Ardea herodias), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), coyote (Canis latrans), quail, black bear (Ursus americanus) tracks (Picture 6), otter feces, crayfish remains, mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon). In addition, there are a 22 great deal of insects throughout the tract including grasshoppers, dragonflies, and butterflies. 4.6 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 2000 to October 2001) Species noted this past year: great blue heron (Ardea herodias), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), quail, black bear (Ursus americanus) tracks, mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon). In addition, many insects were observed throughout the tract including grasshoppers, dragonflies, and butterflies. Compared to Years 1 through 3, Year 4 at the Bank has been uneventful. Rainfall has been at normal levels for a majority of the year and the tract is no longer ponded. This change was also noted in the duration of wetland hydrology across the tract, which was shorter than in previous years. Many trees throughout the tract are continuing to flourish. The average heights of most species are considerably higher than last year. The preponderance of black willow, which was noted in Years 1 and 2, has lessened considerably and other species, including red maple, winged sumac, groundsel bush, and sweet pepperbush are volunteering into the tract. 4.7 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 2001 to October 2002) Species noted this past year: American kestrel (Falco sparverius), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), quail, raccoon tracks and black bear (Ursus americanus) tracks. As in past years, many insects were observed throughout the tract including grasshoppers, dragonflies, and butterflies. The Bank experienced below average rainfall between 2001 and 2002. According to the National Climatic Data Center, North Carolina had its driest recorded year 23 between September of 2001 and August of 2002 (NCDC). This is reflected in the rainfall analysis for 2002 (Appendix B). The 30-day running total shows below normal rainfall for approximately four months; March, May, June, and July. The lack of rainfall has affected the hydrology at the Barra Farms tract, including the reference areas, and explains the large difference in hydrology results between 2002 and previous years at this site. Fortunately, the planted trees at Barra Farms were at least 3 years old and able to withstand the stress of short-term drought. Year 5 vegetation monitoring found a majority of the trees throughout the tract continuing to flourish. The average heights of most species are considerably higher than last year. Although the preponderance of black willow and winged sumac, which was noted in previous years, has lessened, the number of red maple continues to be high. However, it still appears that the red maple trees are not negatively affecting the survivability of the planted species. 24 5.0 SUMMARY Success in the restoration of wetland hydrology in the Bank required saturation (free water) within one foot of the soil surface for at least 50% of the time that the reference wetland exhibited wetland hydrology. The reference groundwater flats, riverine floodplain, and headwater slope habitats exhibited wetland hydrology for a period averaging 15.1%, 16.3%, and 18.0%, respectively. In the Bank, restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging 14.3% (94.7% of reference), 13.6% (75.6% of reference), and 13.3% (81.6% of reference), respectively, when comparing data from manual wells. Therefore, all three habitat types achieved the wetland hydrology success criterion in 2002. The wetland vegetation success criterion was met during Year 5 monitoring. According to the mitigation plan, at least 320 trees/acre and at least five character wetland species must survive in order to meet success criteria. After factoring in acceptable percentages of hardwoods and softwoods, the groundwater flats habitat contained 372.9 stems/acre across 21 wetland tree species. Headwater slope habitat supported 384 stems/acre and 14 character wetland species. Although the number of red maples in several plots within the Bank is above the 20% hardwood threshold, these maples are not inhibiting the growth or survival of planted species. Year 5 monitoring found both hydrology and vegetation at the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank to meet the success criteria stated in the mitigation plan. Therefore, the conclusion of this monitoring report is that this mitigation site is successful and Year 5 credits should be released. Based on this conclusion, this is the final monitoring report for the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank. 25 6.0 References Sharitz, R.R. & J.W. Gibbons. 1982. The Ecology of Southeastern Shrub Bogs (Pocosins) and Carolina Bays: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, November, 1982. 26 Table C1. Woody species found in groundwater flats habitat, average height, and DBH. Species # Found Average height (in) # with DBH > 1 Acer rubrum 1507 52.8 78 Rhus copallina 341 45.6 Taxodium distichum 256 80.4 57 Salix nigra 193 111.6 68 Nyssa spp. 191 62.4 28 Clethra alnifolia 96 44.4 Baccharis halimifolia 81 60.0 4 Quercus lyrata 71 68.4 22 Quercus hellos 51 52.8 7 Liquidambar styraciflua 44 79.2 8 Chamaecy aris thyoides 41 84.0 11 Pinus taeda 30 55.2 2 Persea borboma 27 48.0 2 TVaccinium corymbosum 19 55.2 Gordonia lasianthus 15 79.2 4 Quercus michauxii 15 56.4 Myrica cerifera 13 62.4 Cyrilla racemiflora 11 57.6 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 11 44.4 Pinus palustris 11 78.0 2 Taxodium ascendens 11 82.8 7 Liriodendron tulipifera 9 45.6 2 Lyonia lucida 8 30.0 Pinus serotina 4 27.6 Populus heterophylla 3 108.0 3 Quercus ni ra 3 22.9 Platanus occidentalis 2 204.0 2 Table C2. Woody species found in headwater slope habitat, average height, and DBH. Species # Found Average height (in) # with DBH > 1" Acer rubrum 655 94.8 9 Salix nigra 111 126.0 12 Nyssa spp. 78 102.0 23 Taxodium distichum 26 136.8 16 Quercus lyrata 14 104.4 10 Pinus taeda 11 76.8 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 9 74.4 1 Chamaecyparis thyoides 6 63.6 Baccharis halimifolia 4 84.0 1 Populus heterophylla 4 150.0 3 Quercus phellos 4 69.6 Liquidambar styraciflua 2 126.0 1 Platanus occidentalis 2 186.0 2 Rhus copallina 1 12.0 Table C3. Herbaceous species found in all 34 plots and average cover class. Species Average Cover Class Andropogon virginicus 3.6 Scirpus cyperinus 3.5 Solidago sp. 2.4 Polygonum sp. 1 1.6 Juncus effusus 1.3 Eupatorium capillifolium 1.0 Aster pilosa 0.9 Panicum verricosum 0.9 Rubus sp. 0.9 Rhexia mariana 0.8 Leersia 0.6 Hypericum hypericoides 0.5 Smilax laurifolia 0.5 Erichtites 0.3 Phragmites australis 0.3 Polyganum spp. 2 0.3 Eupatorium hyssopifolium 0.2 Ludwigia sp. 0.2 Pluchea camphorata 0.2 Xanthium strumarium 0.2 Helenium amarum 0.1 Juncus canadensis 0.1 Osmunda cinnamomea 0.1 Pteridium aquilinum 0.1 Typha latifolia 0.1 3 ? -2 E 3 ? 3 E o O o o -- a 3 44 ? U L O O ? R O cd i. ° ? cd O ? cd > L1, 0. V] ; U ° 0 0? a R •0 s C7 o i > ? `? a ? ° 3 0 0 0 ? ? ? x CIS U cd ? ? o ° 3 ¢ ¢ I i p L cd GL r_ N er., N S1. U O N U 2' a. N ? ? ryM ° ° L u °' ?° o 3 o v`o E ° o 73 3 LO) u >1 3 r_ E a t 0 3 _ -14 U > ° z C 3 s O o a ¢ E 3 0 ¢ 3 C3 U >a n O cd co a u ° °? a o ai U U o > 2 >1 U 0 0. 0A 3 m m o cn ° v cd -0 -0 3 U m U x a v' O c a a o cn o O .° a? L ° a -n o ?? -- a ccl i a, a L cn b a A > o a°'i 3 a o' 3 M cn co ' o ? o 3 3 = 2 -2 a saw a? 0 ° a c o a b n u c x CZ a h? ?a x ¢c? a? 3 a C7 xh ?- w Cd o N x d 00 ° r- a 00 ° 00 0 V'l r- rn w 0 O ' 00 00 00 M v i N mot' \?c CN O ? L1. GL Ll. fl.. ? O O O O F. N y N N ? N N N N ? ? ? ? N N ?+ R c d 3 s 3 as 3 '- 3 3 id 3 3 3 s. s. s. m 3 3 .a c c ? cz 3 c ? o ? c ? 3 3 3 c ? R O v7 O O ti O 7 v n O v7 O y O O O O n 7 C7 w U" w 0" w Z 0 w w 0 C7 w C7 w C7 w x x ? C7 w C7 4t ?+ ?i N M cY kr) 00 D\ s 7:$ C a cz s a? U N O N Vi U N w O z v U a? s U) U O a cq ? N 3 0 E CL. x c cn ?- F o o 00 00 N -? ?- (U u u Cd 3 m 3 m 3 o o -C? o w C7w C7w C7w -' o N O ? 3 O ? U O a o a o a w ) 3 c, ca O. r_ CA ?c & -? a ¢ vU W E C7 U t cz ¢. o o Q 3 ¢ c L v ¢ a ? b o ca a? ? a -o j ? ? ? a ? . E m Q Cd o 3 o W E 3 O E ca cn ?, o V 3 H ? ? 0 ? as H o ?, o Cd u _ ca o o U v r U Q :3 =3 U 4. O E. kn O? N O 00 00 00 ? M ?O ? N M M M ? O ? a N as 3 cd 3 C 3 ? cu 3 ca 3 fs 3 03 3 cc 3 ca 3 0 0 3 0 o? o? CZS o? o? o? o? o? o C7 w C7 w V w x C7 w V w C7 w C7 w C7 w C7 ? w c v N Q kn N N N 00 N a? N o M ?• M A"' N s -C U N Q ?1--I O N vi U L w O s. U ..O z 0 U U h a. w co ° a ? ?; C7 a. ? a o oa _ 3 a ? O u, o o N o .n o ? 3 01 >; o O a ? o ? 0, o cz 0 c c C4 cd ° ) -?4 O = -v v U o - U cd U o f cu ¢ 3 3 - 7t ct cc 3 ?= a m C° M 0 a 3 0 c° U -o -- -o -o a. c b -o V z3 a) a) Ha ¢ a) C) as k 00 00 00 C? M M k M 00 N M M n N 6J N N N N N D 3 3 3 3 3 3 ? ? c c c ? c CIS C13 z w C7w C7w C7w C7w C7w C7w C7w N M ?t kn `p 00 p? M M M M M M M M