19890189 Ver 1_Complete File_19911231

,MEMO
TO:
DATE: VI/ /
SUBJECT: 2?<

6,1v',qr- C'C 1--4r3cc cf - /tea P,S ?-4,31 -- -
/?3 w A+7

? « SAS 770 ? r ?GbI °"-
L -,I
L L-( ?
c,?t= me rTIQ c7 ,.? ? cc.?r77,v j .?fiViw ?aa r _
From:
`A Mir n. ram.
.: , North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
3 ?? Printed on Recycled Paper
NELLO TEER
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY, P.O. BOX 1131, DURHAM, NC 27702 USA
TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]
January 2, 1992
Mr. J. Dourney
NC Dept. of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Water Quality Section
P. 0. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dourney:
Please find enclosed a copy of Monitoring Report No. 2
for the Denfield Quarry Wetland Mitigation Site. This report
was prepared on August 5, 1991 by Robert J. Goldstein &
Associates. If you should have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY
Steven S. Edgerton, P.G.
SSE/dg
Enclosure
CC: File

j

?
j

' 11i
I

?

,

? ,
,I

`
i
?;
ii
ij
i
?I

I -.
?I.

_
j _
-
II ?
1
1

- J
(?
?

_ I
- ; i
ij
,i
`'
s
j
I
' i

ii
'

I

i

II ...
_ (
?

I

f
?

- ii
??

??
'
'

,
I
'f
,i
?
li.
?
^f ?
J _
_

I

ff

'
it
I

'i, ?
p
IIL I _
{? _ -
??, Ij
i

_

?

-

;?
?

?
111
? i i
,?
I _
I- - ?
..
?_..
II

-
?? -
u
,.
'i
'C ??
!,

??, '? ?_ i
-

?
-

-

?

? f !?
`i l

.,'.
?{
?`
i
?
?.,
{ ?'

?,
??
r1
?
i
If, -
', i _

'? -
Ik I

I, I
..

-.
1
_
a
I
? i??
I
?
??
i'
? 1
,l
ii .
;'
'?
Denfield Quarry Wetland Mitigation Site
Monitoring Report No. 2
1
Report to the Nello L. Teer Company
Durham, North Carolina
August 5, 1991
1
1 Robert J. Goldstein & Associates
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
[phone]
FAX [phone]
1.0. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 3
1
C
0

2.0. SPRING 1991: OBSERVATIONS 1.5 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ........ 5
3.0. REFERENCES ............................................... 16
Figure 1. Location of the Denfield Road Quarry and wetland mitigation site .....
Figure 2. Map of wetland mitigation site, showing existing wetlands, constructed
channels and vernal pools, and numbered river birch seedlings .......
Figure 3a. Average diameter and 90% confidence limits of river birch seedlings . .
Figure 3b. Average height and 90% confidence limits of river birch seedlings ....
Table 1. Survival and growth of planted river birch seedlings ..............
Table 2. Soil hue, value, and chroma at reference sites ...................
8
9
14
15
10
13
4
4
4
4
1.0. INTRODUCTION.
The Nello L. Teer Company of Durham, N.C., was issued a Section 404 permit by the
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to fill wetlands at their new North Durham Quarry, in Durham
1 and Orange counties. As compensatory mitigation for the wetlands to be unavoidably filled,
1
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates (RJG&A) developed a wetland creation and enhancement
plan for a site adjacent to Teer's existing Denfield Quarry, also in Durham County (Figure 1).
The mitigation plan was negotiated with COE, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the N.C. G& q/
Wildlife Resources Commission, and both implementation and twice yearly monitoring made
conditions of the 404 permit.
The mitigation site, on the floodplain of the Eno River five miles northeast of
downtown Durham, consists of bottomlands and low slopes supporting predominantly
hydrophytic vegetation. An existing forested wetland in the center of the property is bordered
on the east and west by non-wetland bottomland forest. Soils in the non-wetland have high
1 chroma and the area has insufficient hydrologic characteristics to meet the criteria of
jurisdictional wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee on Wetland Delineation, 1989).
The mitigation implementation plan included the construction of a system of narrow

channels cut through the non-wetland bottomland during 1990. Some channels connect to
existing ditches and pools, while others are isolated (Figure 2). Channels were positioned to
hold rainfall on the site and provide pathways for water to seep into the adjacent soil. No
channels were connected to ditches or streams draining away from the site.
3
Three habitat areas were defined: 1) existing wetland (W), 2) non-wetland
mitigation/transition area (M), and 3) unaltered non-wetland (U). Isolated vernal pools were
constructed to provide additional water holding capacity and habitat diversity. One hundred river birch seedlings were planted, one-third in each of the three habitat areas.
1
Twice a year during three consecutive years, beginning one year after planting, growth
and survival of the planted trees are measured. Soil cores are taken from the existing
wetland, mitigation (transition), and unaltered non-wetland areas, and soil colors determined
(hue, value, and chroma) using Munsell soil color charts. The complete mitigation plan and
monitoring program (January 20, 1989) is available from the Nello L. Teer Company.
M
Observations and data collected during the fall, 1990, were presented in Monitoring
Report No. 1, January 11, 1991. The present report includes a statistical analysis of seedling
growth in the three habitat areas.
I
I!
4
2.0. SPRING 1991: OBSERVATIONS 1.5 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTION.
During May, 1991, RJG&A measured size and determined survival of the river birch
seedlings in each of the three areas. The tree number, habitat area (upland, mitigation/
1
transition, wetland), diameter of main stem above the root collar, change in diameter since
December, 1990, height of main stem, change in height since December, 1990, and survival
status of each river birch seedling is presented in Table 1. Mean surviving seedling diameter
and height, with confidence limits, are grouped by habitat type and plotted in Figures 3a and
3b for both sampling dates.
Soil characteristics at selected reference sites from the December, 1990 sampling
period are presented in Table 2. New soil samples will be collected during the fall sampling
period.
/ All channels were clear and in operable condition 1.5 years after construction.
Channels 1 and 3 were the driest channels and channel 5 was flooded due to expanded
beaver activity. Some vernal pools were completely dry.
Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and sunfish (Lepomis spp.) were found in several
1
channels and vernal pools indicating direct connection of created channels to permanent water
or overland flow to vernal pools during flood events. Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousii fowien)
and green frog (Rana ciamitans) were found in association with most channels and vernal
pools.
5
Planted river birch survival decreased from 63% to 53% overall between December
1990 and May 1991. Survival decreased from 43% to 41 % in upland areas, from 75% to
67% in mitigation/transition areas, and from 71 % to 63% in wetland areas. The reason for
the large difference in survival between the upland area and the other two habitat types has
1 not been established, although river birch are better adapted to moist conditions than to
dryness.
The average diameter of main stems above the root collar of surviving river birches
1
increased from 11.7 mm to 12.6 mm overall between December 1990 and May 1991.
Average diameter increased from 11.6 mm to 12.1 mm in upland areas, from 11.3 mm to
12.2 mm in mitigation areas and 12.3 to 14.6 in wetland areas. Average diameter was not
significantly different among habitat areas in the December 1990 or May 1991 measurements
(based on pairwise comparison t-tests with 90% confidence levels).
The average height of the main stems of surviving river birches increased from 130 cm
1 to 142 cm overall between December, 1990 and May 1991. Average height increased from
127 cm to 130 cm in upland areas, from 130 cm to 144 cm in mitigation areas, and from 132
to 137 cm in wetland areas. Average height was not significantly different among habitat
areas in the December, 1990 or the May, 1991 measurements (based on pairwise comparison
t-tests with 90% confidence levels).

The May, 1991 diameter and height averages did not include new stems sprouted after
main stem mortality but did include main stems which had negative changes in height due to
leader dieback or other dam'age.
6
4
1
ii . /

There were no significant differences (Student's t-test) in average diameter or height
among habitat types in either the December, 1990 or May, 1991 data sets. Variances among
individuals within habitats were significantly different among habitats (F-test), making
detection of growth differences among habitats difficult. Variation in tree size at planting may
in part account for these differences because initial size affects growth potential (Noggle and
Fritz, 1983).
1

J
7
I
0
1
0
a 'nrtton t _ . ?.,? • `I ` f I lJ 3a2 .?1
%
Water Tan
? Sewa e 0
17
8M 40b r \"__ it 1639, 337 ?'
5 rJ ' J
MIR,
_ •' ?. _ i' ? 335 i?Z?? -- _-- - 9 ?/
wage
? ?• I =- ` 246
Vii,. 1?' .\ I `? . •? Y
DRIS
1cp
JL. J
?J yU ?? j ) '•?? I/,• •?y` 11 J
Project Area
UE RIDGE PIEDMONT PLAT
I NNER
COASTAL TIDEWATER
ENn..L.
14rfr / . tpr•tl 1 it n j •?? Z
rl?i It.4 ?? o <
DOW
LA-
h.w .'
1 ? ? wowu,
ATLANTIC OCEAN
i
k "0(
a
-Y _L__-.-4
Figure 1. Location of the Denfield Road Quarry / ??. /
and wetland ¦itigation site, Durham, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Durant Office Park
North Carolina. Telepncne (9t9)g72a n4 8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604075
4
4
L
feet
?' •.? 0 200 400 600
a;' 89 as .-
/ 82 81 --` N
79 '
•, , / 80 78
a>vr ' ponded 74'•;i;• 77 X86 87 Sew• ` --, Stred
..w. \ ..?
er J fn ` m
• Ir ' channel 5 - -

0
11
l/,. 71 / 7 2 73 74 51 50
• r, I O 46
• 1, O 53 52 45 r 43 88 99
1 70 68 G3 0 54 By is 'CIO
62 55 s
6,lcha!, nnel 4 1 °
f
&17 67 GI 93 ,...,a94 Of,,
p 0 (cha
,, S9 IS7 wetl and 97 ` nnel 6' \!,, ,,; f,. ,•1l,.. '?
?1U;, ? all.. ?-•' ..1 r. .. v, ..v. .,I/,
.t.
Ob.
• ? ,u.. wetland
01,
,\1i•. ,,/.. Jl,.. i? X28--`'I 'i?r, ,t ( ?\r? /? : ?•
,,1f. C
,, u,, ..\b, ? 2? ?? ov_
\r.,. •,,.• -, .- - -- 21 0 25O
024 0 Iwetland
13 1 wetland
10 Is 14 20 • p ?6 O Yo r : ` 1
?- s channel 1 A%
38 39 4Z
8
4 6 , 0 , 41 %
3 .,,..
waste pile 1
18
channel 3 1 ,3y channel 2.
17
• Q? 35
,,,•;;
36 ?
1 ti.-' 31 33
• 32
.? ,.,Ir• ..1,, y 30
\ 1 \!.. • i
N
0
ponded; L1
Figure 2. Map of vetland mitigation site,
shoving existing vetlands, P Durant Office CONSULTANTS 84M Garvey rvey Park
constructed channels and vernal pools ENVIRONMENTAL
, 6460 ,?,, prove
and numbered river birch seedlings. Telephone [phone] Raleigh, North Carolina 276003175
4
4
4
4

Table 1. Survival and growth of planted river birch seedlings, Nello Teer Quarry
mitigation site.
May, 1991
Tree Habitat Survival Diameter Change since Height Change since
No. Area Status (mm) Nov.'90 (mm) (cm) Nov.'90 (cm)
1
1 M L 14 0 134 4
2 M L 15 1 158 7
3 U D - - - -
4 U L 14 1 168 3
5 M L 12 0 140 3
6 M L 12 0 154 7
7 U L 13 1 154 12
8 M L 10 0 136 1
9 W L 13 1 110 3
10 W L 14 0 139 9
1 11 M L 13 2 142 10
12 W L 13 1 117 0
13 W L 15 0 168 -5
14 W L 11 1 141 9
15 U L 11 0 175 15
16 U D* - - - -
17 W D - - - -
18 M L 14 0 130 3
19 U L 9 1 130 11
20 U L 13 1 76s -13
21 W L 27 5 196 21
1 22 M L 17 1 162 12
23 M D - - - -
24 U L 16 4 105 6
25 U L 16 3 68 -26
26 U L 18 2 143 -2
27 U L 13 3 110 6
28 U L 14 0 114 10
29 M D* - - - -
30 U D - - - -
31 M D - - - -
32 U D - - - -
1 33 U D - - - -
34 W L 26 2 184 14
35 M L 16 3 131 29
36 U D - - - -
37 M L 9 1 135 8
38 W L 10 2 52s -6
39 M L 12 1 114 17
10

I

1

Table 1, continued.
May, 1991
Tree
No. Habitat
Area Survival
Status Diameter
(mm) Change since
Nov.'90 (mm) Height
(cm) Change since
Nov.'90 (cm)
40 M D*
-
-
-
-
41 M D - - - -
42 M L 16 3 143 13
43 W L 9 0 91 -39
44 W D - - - -
45 M L 10 0 140 8
46 U D - - - -
47 M L 11 1 140 14
48 M L 11 0 137 16
49 M D - - - -
50 U D - - - -
51 U D - - - -
52 U D - - - -
53 U D - - - -
54 U D - - - -
55 U D - - - -
56 M L 9 0 134 12
57 W L 11 1 155 13
58 M D - - - -
59 M L 11 3 110 -4
60 M D - - - -
61 M L** 12 0 15S -137
62 M L 11 0 155 9
63 U L 10 0 155 8
64 U D - - - -
65 M L 13 0 180 14
66 M L 11 0 162 15
67 U L 11 0 143 5
68 U D - - - -
69 U L 12 1 145 6
70 U L .10 0 137 -1
71 W D* - - - -
72 M L 11 1 171 11
73 M D - - - -
74 M L 10 0 148 6
75 W L 10 1 15S -109
76 W L 12 0 137 -13
77 M D - - - -
78 M L 12 1 146 6
79 M D* - - - -
80 W L 23 2 209 25
81 M D* - - - -
11
4

4

1
M
0

Table 1, continued.
Tree Habitat
No. Area
May, 1991
Survival Diameter Change since Height Change since
Status (mm) Nov.'90 (mm) (cm) Nov.'90 (cm)
82 W D - - - -
83 W D - - - -
84 W D - - - -
85 U D - - - -
86 U D - - - -
87 U D - - - -
88 W L 12 1 100 -4
89 W D* - 1 140 15
90 W D* - - - -
91 W L 11 1 20s -119
92 W L 12 0 200 44
93 W L 12 1 117 -14
94 W D - - - -
95 W D - - - -
96 W D - - - -
97 W D - - - -
98 W L 9 0 45s -70
99 W D - - - -
100 W D - - - -
* = Dead since December, 1990 survey.
s = Main stem dead with new sprout.
* * = This tree was originally thought to be dead as of the December, 1990 survey, but has
since sprouted.
Habitat Area:
U = unaltered non-wetland
M = mitigation area
W = existing wetland area
Survival Status:
D = dead
L = living
12

4
4
4

Table 2. Soil hue, value, and chroma at reference sites at the Nello L. Teer Quarry wetland
mitigation site, fall, 1990 observations.
Soil Nearest Nearest Nearest Soil Habitat
Sample Channel Channel Flag Tree Color Area
1 2 121 39 10 YR 5/6 M
2 2 114-115 37 10 YR 5/6 M
1 6 1 81-82 18 7.5 YR 3/4 M
7 1 82-83 17 10 YR 3/4 M
10 3 93 4 10 YR 5/3 M
14 3 102 13 10 YR 5/3 M
15 2 124 42 10 YR 5/4 M
17 4 1 43 10 YR 4/3 M
18 4 5 49 2.5 YR 6/3 M
22 6 18 60 10 YR 6/4 M
26 5 37 74 10 YR 5/3 M
3 2 114 37 10 YR 5/6 U
1 4 2 114 37 10 YR 4/6 U
5 2 114 37 10 YR 5/6 U
8 1 84 19 7.5 YR 4/4 U
9 1-3 84 19 7.5 YR 4/4 U
16 4 2 46 10 YR 4/3 U
19 4-6 10 50 10 YR 5/5 U
20 4-6 12 52 10 YR 7/4 U
23 5-6 29 68 7.5 YR 4/6 U
27 5 42 74 10 YR 5/6 U
11 3 93 4 2.5 Y 5/1 w
1 12 3 100 10 2.5 Y 7/1 w
13 3 100 13 2.5 Y 5/2 w
21 6 16 57 10 YR 5/2 w
24 5 34 71 10 YR 5/2 w
25 5 36 72 10 YR 5/2 w
28 4 1 95 2.5 YR 4/1 w
29 4 1 97 10 YR 6.2 w
30 2 124 41 10 YR 4/2 w
1
13
0
0
1
J
J
ai
O
C
O
(0
E
t6
O
d
i
O
N
O
Z
O
L
td
O
rn
C
O
N
O
L
U
L
L
N
4.-
O
r
M
•? M
N >'
c0
C
O
a a
:F C
C M
00
U M
o 0
O
O 1.'
c n
cv E
L ?
O U
++ O
a? p
(d U
a
O
M
L ?
>
QL
M
O
Q?
O rn 00 r- c0 Ln d M N O
N T
saaOu IlIlLu ul aa}auaolp
O
07
?J
-0 In
0
c
c a
M
0- N
01 0
o c
S
c
a
CL
-o
C
O
m
cn
II
c
N
N
II
c
m
c c.
N
o c
II
a.
? c
O rn 00 r- CO Ln -It M N - O
N - - ,-
saa4aual11lua ul J84aLUDI(I
r

ai
C
O
•;I-
ca
E
a
i
(C
d
L
N
O
O
a)
Z
a)
L
co
N
M
c
N
N
to
L
U
L
L
O
L
O
to L
^? co
W
U
C C
O C
co
C O
O O
U m
o `-
O
rn
?E
co c 0)
U
N
t
rn
? N
t Cl
N *'
C) 4.
co CO
> -Z
Q CO
M
m
L
3
C)
LL
CT)
0
3
N
a
0-
O
? O
S
r
C
O
d
LO
II
C
N
II
C
M
II
C
O to O U') O Ln O U-) O U') O 0
t? cp CO Ln tf) M M N N
?saG4GLul4uao ul NOIaH
O
07
07
0 N
N
0

? c

CL
o~
_ N

? o II
_

c
-0 II
a
C
O U) O Ln O io O U) O Ln O un
r-_ (o co ul U) It "It M M N N
-saa4aual{uGO ul NbIGH
3.0. REFERENCES.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal manual for identifying
and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service, Cooperative technical publication. Washington, D.C. 107 p.
and appendices.
Noggle, G. Ray and George J. Fritz. 1983. Introductory Plant Physiology. Chapter 17 -
Vegetative Plant Growth. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
M
P
0
16
NELLO TEER
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY, P.O. BOX 1131, DURHAM, NC 27702
TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]
January 7, 1992
Mr. John Dourney
NC Dept. of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Water Quality Section
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dourney:
TI-
JAN 19R71
CP,
WAT1,PtlL1T
prannin9 ? r 0n
Please find enclosed a copy of Monitoring Report No. 3
for the Denfield Quarry Wetland Mitigation Site. This report
was prepared on December 31, 1991 by Robert J. Goldstein &
Associates. If you should have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY
Steven S. Edgerton, P.G.
SSE/dg
Enclosures
CC: File
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Denfield Quarry Wetland Mitigation Site
Monitoring Report No. 3
Report to the Nello L. Teer Company
Durham, North Carolina
December 31, 1991
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
[phone]
FAX [phone]
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.0. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 3
2.0. FALL 1991: OBSERVATIONS 2 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ........... 4
3.0. REFERENCES ............................................... 15
Figure 1. Location of the Denfield Road Quarry and wetland mitigation site ..... 6
Figure 2. Map of wetland mitigation site, showing existing wetlands, constructed
channels and vernal pools, and numbered river birch seedlings ....... 7
Figure 3. Average diameter above root collar, by habitat type and year ....... 12
Figure 4. Average height by habitat type and year ...................... 13
Figure 5. Average volume index by habitat type and year ................. 14
Table 1. Survival and growth of planted river birch seedlings ............... 8
Table 2. Soil hue, value, and chroma at reference sites .................. 11

1.0. INTRODUCTION.
' The Nello L. Teer Company of Durham, N.C., was issued a Section 404 permit by the
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to fill wetlands at their new North Durham Quarry, in Durham
and Orange counties. As compensatory mitigation for the wetlands to be unavoidably filled,
' Robert J. Goldstein and Associates (RJG&A) developed a wetland creation and enhancement
plan for a site adjacent to Teer's existing Denfield Quarry, also in Durham County (Figure 1).-
The mitigation plan was negotiated with COE, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the N.C.
' Wildlife Resources Commission, and both implementation and twice yearly monitoring made
conditions of the 404 permit.
' The mitigation site, on the floodplain of the Eno River five miles northeast of
downtown Durham, consists of bottomlands and low slopes supporting predominantly
hydrophytic vegetation. An existing forested wetland in the center of the property is bordered
' on the east and west by non-wetland bottomland forest. Soils in the non-wetland have high
chroma and the area has insufficient hydrologic characteristics to meet the criteria of
jurisdictional wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee on Wetland Delineation, 1989).
The mitigation implementation plan included the construction of a system of narrow
channels cut through the non-wetland bottomland during 1990. Some channels connect to
existing ditches and pools, while others are isolated (Figure 2). Channels were positioned to
' hold rainfall on the site and provide pathways for water to seep into the adjacent soil. No
channels were connected to ditches or streams draining away from the site.
' Three habitat areas were defined: 1) existing wetland (W), 2) non-wetland
mitigation/transition area (M), and 3) unaltered non-wetland (U). Isolated vernal pools were
constructed to provide additional water holding capacity and habitat diversity. One hundred
' river birch seedlings were planted, one-third in each of the three habitat areas.
Twice a year during three consecutive years, beginning one year after planting, growth
' and survival of the planted trees are measured. Soil cores are taken from the existing
wetland, mitigation (transition), and unaltered non-wetland areas, and soil colors determined
(hue, value, and chroma) using Munsell soil color charts. The complete mitigation plan and
' monitoring program (January 20, 1989) is available from the Nello L. Teer Company.
Observations and data collected during the fall of 1990 and the spring of 1991 were
' presented in Monitoring Report No. 1, January 11, 1991 and No. 2, August 5, 1991,
respectively. The present report includes a statistical analysis of seedling diameter and height,
and volume index values (which combine diameter and height measurements) in the three
' habitat areas.

u
7
3
1

2.0. FALL 1991: OBSERVATIONS 2 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTION.
During November, 1991, RJG&A measured size and determined survival of the river
birch seedlings in each of the three areas. The tree number, habitat type (upland, mitigation/
transition, wetland), diameter of main stem above the root collar, change in diameter since
May, 1991, height of main stem, change in height since May, 1991, and survival status of
each river birch seedling is presented in Table 1. Mean surviving seedling diameter (mm),
height (cm), and a unitless volume index [(diameter (cm))z x height (m), each with 90%
confidence limits, are grouped by habitat type and plotted in Figures 3, 4, and 5 for all three
sampling dates.
Soil colors were determined at 30 established soil monitoring sites during November,
1991, and are presented in Table 2. Soils in mitigation areas have not changed appreciably
since November, 1990. Slight changes in chroma and value were noticed at several sampling
sites (Table 2), but may be due to the patchy spatial distribution of these strongly mottled
soils. Soil samples will be collected again in November, 1992.
' All channels were clear and in operable condition 2.0 years after construction. The
entire property was drier in November, 1991 than it was during the Fall 1990 and Spring
1991 surveys. Channels 2 and 4 were dry, channels 1, 3, and 6 were partially inundated, and
' channel 5 was flooded due to beaver activity. Most vernal pools were completely dry. A soil
borrow pit was expanded and now encroaches upon channel 3 near tree #2, but no damage
to the channel has occurred.

Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) were found in
several channels and vernal pools indicating direct connection of created channels to
permanent water or overland flow to vernal pools during flood events. Northern cricket frog
(Acris cre,oitans) and upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata) were found in association with
some channels and vernal pools. Frog larvae were found in several vernal pools. Marbled
salamander (Ambystoma opacum) adults were found near channel 2.
Planted river birch survival decreased from 56% to 50% overall between May, 1991
and November, 1991. Survival remained at 44%' in upland areas, decreased from 67% to
61 % in mitigation/transition areas, and from 53% to 44% in wetland areas. Mortality was
greatest in the wetland area during the 1991 growing season. Most of the mortality occurred
in plants that had suffered leader stem mortality and subsequently re-sprouted.
The November, 1991 diameter, height, and volume index averages did not include new
stems sprouted after main stem mortality but did include main stems which had negative
changes in height due to leader dieback or other damage.
' - Survival percentages in the May, 1991 report were in error.
4

1

The average diameter of main stems above the root collar of surviving river birches
increased from 12.6 mm to 14.6 mm overall between May, 1991 and November, 1991.
Average diameter increased from 12.1 mm to 14.6 mm in upland areas, from 12.2 mm to
13.2 mm in mitigation areas and 14.6 to 17.3 in wetland areas. Average diameter was not
significantly different among habitat areas in the November, 1991 measurements (based on
pairwise comparison t-tests with 90% confidence levels).
The average height of the main stems of surviving river birches increased from 142 cm
to 154 cm overall between May, 1991 and November, 1991. Average height increased from
130 cm to 139 cm in upland areas, from 144 cm to 159 cm in mitigation areas, and from 137
to 178 cm in wetland areas. Average height was not significantly different between upland
and mitigation areas, or between wetland and mitigation areas in the November, 1991
measurements (based on pairwise comparison t-tests with 90% confidence levels). Average
height in wetland areas was significantly greater than in upland areas (based on a pairwise
comparison t test, with a 90% confidence level).
A unitless volume index (adapted from Neary et al., 1990) was calculated for all plants
and averaged by habitat, using diameter and height measurements in the formula [(diameter
(cm))' x height (m)]. Average volume index increased from 2.805 to 4.506 overall between
May, 1991 and November, 1991. Average volume index increased from 2.228 to 2.809 in
upland areas, from 2.211 to 2.968 in mitigation areas, and from 4.216 to 8.583 in wetland
areas. Average volume index was not significantly different among habitat areas in the
November, 1991 measurements based on pairwise comparison t-tests with a=0.05.
However, average volume index was significantly greater in wetland areas than in upland or
mitigation areas based on t-tests with a=0.10.
Among the parameters measured (average diameter, average height, and average
volume index), the only significant difference between habitat types was the average height
difference between wetland and upland areas in the November, 1991 data. Diameter, height,
and volume index variances among individuals within habitats were significantly higher in
wetland habitats than in upland or mitigation areas (F-test), making detection of size
differences among habitats difficult. While a significant difference was detected in average
plant height between upland and wetland areas despite significant differences in variance
between habitat areas, the data were not evaluated for outliers. Several large specimens in
the wetland area may be statistical outliers and contribute inordinate amounts to both the high
average height and the high variance in the wetland area. Variation in tree size at planting
may in part account for these differences because initial size affects growth potential (Noggle
and Fritz, 1983).
5

/ L?. / ?' V u•v
%
1l -? (/ inn x .' + .( (.•• •• ,? ( .•r / O f.
hiV1i Tjl Q, 45 J• Q •.?` / ?L.•_. JI 1: \?:' `?` •? :\
iter Tan/\1'.)? -? \<oo /~ • ?. .
a ' • • `•
?Sewagen" - i '`
• ° .. BM 410 • (/ ' ?r? ( ?? 337//l, i'
Jr-
/• ..... ?'? L.. , i( Sewage
., • •= / / ?e t w ... ; . Disposal
?: • •>' _? r? • r ; ' ? ^j// J/ t / ? r Rip y? ??, t ? ,- _? ???,?' --?.' ; '+ ,.,tiR
?? J? J1 :. ti t?o N II 246
S• \` f'1? r. .1 ? O m 1'11 ? i? •h ,J it L".. ?J? '?1 ??1'. ?"'Sp ???1'1?? a???+, •:) SF-LF? ? II. ;?• 1(?.t i? ? ? -.
Ua-
•• 1 I •i•r•• ;C ? `ro 3? ??`.?aQ
• f
Project Area
INNER
COASTAL
BLUE RIDGE PLAIN TIDEWATER
PIEDMONT PLATEAU _
Aft. I GtIS • . e `,..
Srrt Strkrs fnrA tarsar a tlcm Wnlrti I: '.." ,°K• 4 i? __? .
Aml irlkn Trdki? Frn,ti ?? ttaekir ? IattY L. ::•''a•ay,.ao?.o ??
I
Gil.rll • ' ,r,
Y•Ysw ?R. t? a^• LIpu.1• : .c
Yufr t . T ?•
lar4 Gk.M ill Lmra OrrYta LA•tiw tab ' ?ha .. .In•11 ati. < {}-
.t prey lift
• . 40 •o I V
S.O. 14r.•rA "10
_ Brairtfrr t.llalrt/ Li•trla GFwtn L•::? ..Mn 1rMar ?? • . p? : o o m
Jrckw t C4.id •a ? T t::.i: .:::^ Iwi T•' •:: c ??t
LIr tlair Aur ...' . ••?.: •' Srrtt>.a ? }. ??0.
irMtra rya i.• .'' '. ? •`?.?
ATLANTIC OCEAN c ,' 't +
cwra
ra.a I
Figure 1. Location of the Denfield Road Quarry Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
and vetland mitigation site, Durham, ENVIFIONMENTALCONSULTANTS
North Carolina. 8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
LI

H

J
I

C

0 = 4 C'n"D
feet
0 200 400 600
? 8
4 -A 74S
1 ,.
'ponded
u
n

®Sewer - ?' Stream
?/ t,;:,171 7z 74 channel 5 si - --- . .
/ f, / 0 46
45 43
1 70 68 43 5 - - - All (n) too
1
® channel 4
67 0 62 © 6 u,
?
C) Sq f57
1 ??.?\ ?'• 1/„ i
1 ` wetland, 46 0
:` channel 6' ••..,Ip, ,,,,;
%
"N". .,Ir..
,,.r,. ..l r.. . a?• "N". • ,,r.
•\c Al,. % wetland
\ ,.J 1, ., •,,\I,. - . 1 - - ?- / / ,, r. ? . i ?. ? ? '
.111!•. .,v. .,1 f,, i' ^ ,.,I ? ur•. t lu •.
26 VC)
..,1,. . _ 21 0 25 /11.. ,1l. 1C 1 e
• u,,,v. ,,Ir.. ??? 13OZy ; 1
wetland i? X1.1 1
t ?1
10 14 20 22 , .111 f/. \ 1
• ? S Il 16
?- channel 1
38 39 92
9 6 8 0 ,•.
?7
waste pile ;
18 .
channel 3 ; R, /3y `Ehannel 2
7 Q? i 35 - `
la'. i. 3 O
% 1 33
LA_
41
30
C
I..,,r, .,Ih O
iponded;
Figure 2. Map of vetland mitigation site,
shoving existing vetlands, Roben J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
constructed channels and vernal pools, 8480 Garvey Drive
and numbered river birch seedlings. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
79 ' \ ' --?

Table 1. Survival and growth of planted river birch seedlings, Nello Teer Quarry
mitigation site.
November, 1991
Tree
No. Habitat
Area Survival
Status Diameter
(mm) Change since
May'91 (mm) Height
(cm) Change since
May'91 (cm)
1 M L 14 0 137 3
2 M L 16 1 164 6
3 U D - - - -
4 U L 14 0 177 9
5 M L 12 0 143 3
6 M L 12 0 152 -2
7 U L 14 1 162 8
8 M L 10 0 152 1.6
9 W L 15 2 110 0
10 W L 15 1 155 16
11 M L 13 0 162 20
12 W L 13 0 128 11
13 W L 16 1 232 64
14 W L 14 3 143 2
15 U L 12 1 174 -1
16 U D - - - -
17 W D - - - -
18 M L 15 1 149 19
19 U L 14 5 146 16
20 U L 13 0 49s -20
21 W L 36 9 311 115
22 M L 20 3 204 42
23 M D - - - -
24 U L 17 1 107 2
25 U L 19 3 94 26
26 U L 19 1 143 0
27 U L 13 0 104 -6
28 U L 16 2 116 2
29 M D - - - -
30 U D - - - -
31 M D - - - -
32 U D - - - -
33 U D - - - -
34 W L 28 2 219 35
35 M L 18 2 207 76
36 U D - - - -
37 M L 11 2 175 40
38 W L 10 0 46s -6
39 M L 14 2 131 17
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 1, continued.
November, 1991
Tree
No. Habitat
Area Survival
Status Diameter
(mm) Change since
May'91 (mm) Height
(cm) Change since
May'91 (cm)
40 M D - - - -
41 M D - - - -
42 M L 17 1 149 6
43 W L 10 1 125 34
44 W D - - - -
45 M L 10 0 137 -3
46 U D - - - -
47 M L 11 0 140 0
48 M L 11 0 134 -3
49 M D - - - -
50 U D - - - -
51 U D - - - -
52 U D - - - -
53 U D - - - -
54 U D - - - -
55 U D - - - -
56 M D* - - - -
57 W L 12 1 168 13
58 M D - - - -
59 M L 12 1 122 12
60 M D - - - -
61 M D* - - - -
62 M L 11 0 155 0
63 U L 12 2 158 3
64 U D - - - -
65 M L 15 2 198 18
66 M L 13 2 183 21
67 U L 12 1 143 0
68 U D - - - -
69 U L 12 0 146 1
70 U L 11 1 140 3
71 W D - - - -
72 M L 11 0 207 36
73 M D - - - -
74 M L 11 1 165 17
75 W D* - - - -
76 W L 12 0 143 6
77 M D - - - -
78 M L 13 1 137 -9
79 M D - - - -
80 W L 31 8 283 74
81 M D - - - -
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
Table 1, continued.
O vCu,#ft(- K6' Se-VW A -Z__

Tree
No.

Habitat
Area

Survival
Status
s?y y i
Diameter
(mm) November, 1991

Change since
May'91 (mm)

Height
(cm)

Change since
May'91 (cm)
82 W D - - - -
83 W D - - - -
84 W D - - - -
85 U D - - - -
86 U D - - - -
87 U D - - - -
88 W L 12 0 122 22
89 W D - 1 140 15
90 W D - - - -
--9 f ' W D* - - - -
92 W L 12 0 177 -2-3
93 W D* - - - -
94 W D - - - -
95 W D - - - -
96 W D - - - -
97 W D - - - -
98 W D* - - - -
99 W D - - - -
100 W D - - - -
* = Dead since May, 1991 survey.
s = Main stem dead with new sprout.
Habitat Area:
Survival Status:
U = unaltered non-wetland
M = mitigation area
W = existing wetland area
D = dead
L = living
10

Table 2. Soil hue, value, and chroma at reference sites at the Nello L. Teer Quarry wetland
mitigation site, fall, 1991 observations.
Soil Nearest Nearest Soil Soil Habitat
Sample Channel Tree Color (1991) Color (1990) Area
1 2 39 10 YR 5/6 10 YR 5/6 M
2 2 37 10 YR 6/6 10 YR 5/6 M
6 1 18 7.5 YR 4/4 7.5 YR 3/4 M
7 1 17 10 YR 4/3 10 YR 3/4 M
10 3 4 10 YR 4/3 10 YR 5/3 M
14 3 13 10 YR 5/3 10 YR 5/3 M
15 2 42 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 5/4 M
17 4 43 10 YR 5/3 10 YR 4/3 M
18 4 49 10 YR 6/4 2.5 YR 6/3 M
22 6 60 10 YR 6/5 10 YR 6/4 M
26 5 74 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 5/3 - M
3 2 37 10 YR 5/6 10 YR 5/6 U
4 2 37 10 YR 4/6 10 YR 6/6 U
5 2 37 10 YR 5/6 10 YR 5/6 U
8 1 19 7.5 YR 4/4 7.5 YR 4/6 U
9 1-3 19 7.5 YR 4/4 7.5 YR 4/4 U
16 4 46 10 YR 4/3 10 YR 4/3 U
19 4-6 50 10 YR 5/5 10 YR 6/4 U
20 4-6 52 10 YR 7/4 2.5 YR 6/3 U
23 5-6 68 7.5 YR 4/6 7.5 YR 4/6 U
27 5 74 10 YR 4/3 10 YR 5/6 U
11 3 4 2.5 YR 5/1 2.5 YR 5/2 w
12 3 10 2.5 YR 7/1 2.5 YR 7/1 w
13 3 13 10 YR 6/1 2.5 YR 5/2 w
21 6 57 10 YR 4/3 10 YR 5/2 w
24 5 71 10 YR 6/2 10 YR 5/2 w
25 5 72 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 5/2 w
28 4 95 10 YR 6/2 2.5 YR 4/1 w
29 4 97 10 YR 6/2 10 YR 6/2 w
30 2 41 10 YR 4/3 10 YR 4/2 w
11
it
25
? ,o
V) 15
?E
?o
Figure 3. Average diameter above root collar, by habitat type and year.
Average Diameter Above Root Collar
by habitat type and year
Nov., 1990 May, 1991 Nov., 1991
.......................................••........................................................•..................................................................................................................._..................................
+ ¦
+
.....................................................+....................................................................................... ......................................... ......................................................
+ +
¦ + + ¦ +
+ + ¦ ¦ + +
¦ ¦ + +
+ + +
. . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .... . . ... .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .
J n=14 M n=27 W n=22 U n=13 M n=23 W n=14 U n=13 M n=22 W n=1
I + Confidence Umit ¦ Mean + Confidence Umit
12
' 230
220
210
200
190
180
' 170
160
150
' to 140
130
N 120
110
100
U 90
' 80
70
' 50
50
40
' 30
2C
1C
' C
Figure 4. Average height by habitat type and year.
Average Height
by habitat type and year
Nov., 1991
...................................................................................................................................................................................................•--•--....---.......................... t
......................•--.........------.........----------.......................................................................................---...............................................------..........4,;,.......................
.................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................. .. w......................
...................................................................................................4 .................. -f ................... m......................................... t.................... -............
......--F-
........? .................. . ..............................................
-t" ............................................
¦ ................. a............... •--m......................................... ............................................. ..I.......................................... + .............................................
.............................'?'............-...... .......................................... +...............................--.............................................................---...----•-..............................
-F-
U n=14 M n=27 W n=22 U n=13 Al n=23 W n=14 U n=13 M n=22 W n=13
I + Confidence Limit ¦ dean + Confidence Umit
13
1
3.0. REFERENCES.
' Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal manual for identifying
and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
' Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service, Cooperative technical publication. Washington, D.C. 107 p.
and appendices.
' Noggle, G. Ray and George J. Fritz. 1983. Introductory Plant Physiology. Chapter 17 -
Vegetative Plant Growth. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
' Neary, D.G., E.J. Jokela, N.B. Comerford, S.R. Colbert, and T.E. Cooksey. 1990.
Understanding Competition for Soil Nutrients. In: Gessel, S.P., D.S. Lacate, G.F.
Wheetman, and R.F. Powers (eds.), 1990. Proceedings of the 7th North American
' Forest Soils Conference. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
l

1
r

15

WA - 0 - NELLLO L. TEER COMPANY
QWWOW7 0011, A
A Member of THE BEAZER GROUP
•?????:j•? P.O. BOX 1131 DURHAM, N.C. U.S.A. 27702
OFFICE TEL: [phone] • TELEX: 6711650 • FAX: [phone]
June 10, 1992
Mr. John Dorney OF, ?N JU z
NC Dept. of Environment, Health
W. ..
and Natural Resources ETL,VN05 G?u?
P. 0. Box 29535 lNr?7rR tiADS,U, era
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 av,
Re: Permit #CESAW-CO89-N-032-0204
Wetland Mitigation Site
Monitoring Report #4
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Please find enclosed a copy of the report on the wetlands
mitigation area for the above referenced permit. This report was
prepared by Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc. of Raleigh,
NC, and is the fourth such report to be prepared. This report is
part of the conditions required by the State of North Carolina
for the 401 certification to disturb the wetlands at North Durham
Quarry.
Overall, the site is performing as I expected, and I feel
satisfied that the wildlife habitat enhancement and stormwater
retention characteristics of this wetland area will continue.
Should you or your staff have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call me at 1-800-999-6356.
Sincerely,
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY
Steven S. Edgerton, P.G.
SSE/dg
Enclosure
CC: File
FOUNDED 1909
I
1
Denfield Quarry Wetland Mitigation Site
Monitoring Report No. 4
Report to the Nello L. Teer Company
Durham, North Carolina
June 5, 1992
1
1 Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
[phone]
FAX [phone]

0
I

1.0. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 3
2.0. SPRING 1992: OBSERVATIONS 2.5 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ........ 4
3.0. REFERENCES ............................................... 15
Figure 1. Location of the Denfield Road Quarry and wetland mitigation site ..... 6
Figure 2. Map of wetland mitigation site, showing existing wetlands, constructed
channels and vernal pools, and numbered river birch seedlings ....... 7
Figure 3. Average diameter above root collar, by habitat type and year ....... 12
Figure 4. Average height by habitat type and year ...................... 13
Figure 5. Average volume index by habitat type and year ................. 14
Table 1. Survival and growth of planted river birch seedlings ............... 8
Table 2. Soil hue, value, and chroma at reference sites ................... 11

1.0. INTRODUCTION.
D

The Nello L. Teer Company of Durham, N.C., was issued a Section 404 permit by the
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to fill wetlands at their new North Durham Quarry, in Durham
and Orange counties. As compensatory mitigation for the wetlands to be unavoidably filled,
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates (RJG&A) developed a wetland creation and enhancement
plan for a site adjacent to Teer's existing Denfield Quarry, also in Durham County (Figure 1).
The mitigation plan was negotiated with COE, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission. Both implementation and twice yearly monitoring were made
conditions of the 404 permit. Monitoring information is important to determine the
effectiveness of compensation for permitted activities destructive to wetlands, especially if
.,no net loss" policies are to be followed (Sifneos et al., 1992).
The mitigation site, on the floodplain of the Eno River five miles northeast of
downtown Durham, consists of bottomlands and low slopes supporting predominantly
hydrophytic vegetation. An existing forested wetland in the center of the property is bordered
on the east and west by non-wetland bottomland forest. Soils in the non-wetland have high
chroma and the area has insufficient hydrologic characteristics to meet the criteria of
jurisdictional wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee on Wetland Delineation, 1989).
The mitigation implementation plan included the construction of a system of narrow
channels cut through the non-wetland bottomland during 1990. Some channels connect to
existing ditches and pools, while others are isolated (Figure 2). Channels were positioned to
hold rainfall on the site and provide pathways for water to seep into the adjacent soil. No
channels were connected to ditches or streams draining away from the site.
Three habitat areas were defined: 1) existing wetland (W), 2) non-wetland
mitigation/transition area (M), and 3) unaltered non-wetland (U). Isolated vernal pools were
constructed to provide additional water holding capacity and habitat diversity. One hundred
river birch seedlings were planted, one-third in each of the three habitat areas.
Twice a year during three consecutive years, beginning one year after planting, growth
and survival of the planted trees are measured. Soil cores are taken from the existing
wetland, mitigation (transition), and unaltered non-wetland areas, and soil colors determined
(hue, value, and chroma) using Munsell soil color charts. The complete mitigation plan and
monitoring program (January 20, 1989) is available from the Nello L. Teer Company.
Observations and data collected during the fall of 1990, the spring of 1991, and the
fall of 1991 were presented in Monitoring Reports No. 1 (January 11, 1991), No. 2 (August
5, 1991), and No. 3 (December 31, 1991) respectively. The present report includes a
statistical analysis of seedling diameter and height, and volume index values (which combine
diameter and height measurements) in the three habitat areas.
3
2.0. SPRING 1992: OBSERVATIONS 2.5 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTION.
During May, 1992, RJG&A measured size and determined survival of the river birch
seedlings in each of the three areas. The tree number, habitat type (upland, mitigation/
transition, wetland), diameter of main stem above the root collar, change in diameter since
November, 1991, height of main stem, change in height since November, 1991, and survival
status of each river birch seedling is presented in Table 1. Mean surviving seedling diameter
(mm), height (cm), and a unitless volume index ((diameter (cm))2 x height (m)), each with 90%
confidence limits, are grouped by habitat type and plotted in Figures 3, 4, and 5 for all four
sampling dates.
Soil colors were determined at 30 established soil monitoring sites during November,
1991, and are presented in Table 2. Soils in mitigation areas had not changed appreciably.
Soil samples will be collected again in November, 1992.
All channels were clear and in operable condition 2.5 years after construction. The
entire property was wetter in May, 1992 than it was during the Fall 1991 survey. Channel
1 was dry except for a section dammed and flooded by beavers. Channel 4 was saturated
but not inundated. Channel 3 was partially inundated. Channels 2 and 6 were fully
inundated, and channel 5 was flooded due to beaver activity.
Most vernal pools were inundated or saturated with water, but approximately 30%
were completely dry and had been invaded by terrestrial vegetation. One vernal pool had been
invaded by wetland vegetation, including soft rush (Juncus effusus) and smartweed
(Polygonum sp.).
Expansion of a soil borrow pit near channel 3 continues. Nello Teer has used channel
3 to drain the borrow pit, resulting in heavy siltation of channel 3. A small pile of ditch spoil
covers tree #7.
? N? voa v? (,-o d?> mac,..?Ena aMs laAS3 ?X?-
Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) a nfish (Lepomis cyanellus) were found in
channels 1, 3, 5, and 6, and sever vernal pool indicating direct connection of created
channels to permanent water or overland ow to vernal pools during flood events. Northern
cricket frog (Acris crepitans) and upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata) were found in
association with some channels and vernal pools. Green frog (Rana clamitans) or bull frog
(Rana catesbeiana) larvae and northern cricket frog or chorus frog larvae were found in most
channels and several vernal pools. Toad (Bufo sp.) larvae were.found in channel 2. Spotted
salamander (Ambystona maculatum) and marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum) larvae
were found in several vernal pools and in channel 3. Marbled salamander adults were found
near channel 2. Aquatic insects were found in all wet channels and vernal pools.
Planted river birch survival decreased from 50% to 43% overall between November,
1991 and May, 1992. Survival remained at 44% in upland areas, decreased from 61 % to
53% in mitigation/transition areas, and from 44% to 31 % in wetland areas. Mortality was
similar in wetland and transition areas during the 1991-92 dormant season. Most of the
mortality occurred in plants that were vigorous and undamaged at the end of the 1991
growing season.
4
The May, 1992 diameter, height, and volume index averages do not include new stems
sprouted after main stem mortality but do include main stems which had negative changes
in height due to leader dieback or other damage.
The average diameter of main stems above the root collar of surviving river birches
increased from 13.6 mm to 15.0 mm overall between November, 1991 and May, 1992.
Average diameter increased from 14.6 mm to 14.7 mm in upland areas, from 13.2 mm to
15.0 mm in mitigation areas and 13.1 * to 17.3 in wetland areas. The asterisk (*) indicates
that the means were recalculated after removing large outliers from wetland data set.
Average diameter was not significantly different among habitat areas in the May, 1992
measurements (based on pairwise comparison t-tests with 90% confidence levels).
The average height of the main stems of surviving river birches increased from 149 *
cm to 151 cm overall between November, 1991 and May, 1992. Average height decreased
from 139 cm to 137 cm in upland areas, from 159 cm to 156 cm in mitigation areas, and
increased from 150* to 160 cm in wetland areas. Average height was not significantly
different among habitat areas in the May, 1992 measurements (based on pairwise comparison
t-tests with 90% confidence levels). Decreases in average height were due primarily to leader
dieback or death of taller stems.
1
A unitless volume index (adapted from Neary et al., 1990) was calculated for all plants
and averaged by habitat, using diameter and height measurements in the formula [(diameter
(cm))2 x height (m)]. Average volume index increased from 2.822* to 3.600 overall between
November, 1991 and May, 1992. Average volume index increased from 2.809 to 2.970 in
upland areas, from 2.968 to 3.890 in mitigation areas, and from 2.690* to 3.900 in wetland
areas. Average volume index was not significantly different among habitat areas in the May,
1992 measurements based on pairwise comparison t-tests with a=0.05.
Among the parameters measured (average diameter, average height, and average
volume index), no significant differences between habitat types were found in the May, 1992
data. This is in contrast to previous reports where significant differences in size and variances
were found between the wetland area and the other two areas. It became apparent in the
May, 1992 data analysis that two very large saplings in the wetland area were outliers from
the population being sampled. This was evidenced by standard deviations for wetland area
diameter, height, and volume index values that were larger than the means. The wetland area
averages and standard deviations were recalculated for all monitoring periods after removing
two live large saplings (trees #21 and #34), and a recently dead outlier (tree #80), from the
data sets. The recalculated diameter, height, and volume index means and variances exhibited
no significant differences between habitat types for any monitoring period.
Variation in tree size at planting may in part account for these differences because
initial size affects growth potential (Noggle and Fritz, 1983). Removing the statistical outliers
from the data set will facilitate growth rate analysis after the Fall, 1992 measurements.
Essentially, the growth rate analysis will be less complicated without outliers than with the
outliers because initial plant size will be fairly uniform as a covariable with growth rate among
habitat types. Assumptions concerning variance will be valid for a relatively simple analysis
of variance and covariance.
5
uli
Lgh.Sch
?l /i,l\J/ L_-? • / ) ?3$2•/
G??. ??' I? ,Water Tan - ... ?? :\ coo?`_ 1 ti ?,i`- ? \ ^ /? ? •
Sewa f
ge-U ) \ 3 ,??. .ems - V
Ispos?f 4V*1 _ v. \ so I
BM 40 I \ l\ \?/ 6 337; ` f
ia'

,fj
?e - oil
?Q• ?// ewag
? ? . ?....',:? / \P ' 1. ? g? Disposal ,.
? ? ?;?? l? ?J Jr??' \ , • Y i \da .p \`_ _ o I (#i Tim \\?\ ? O
'r/?l u??° '? O ` --Q? c- 318 ••: :' ) I ?Q-urrY ;, 3cp
-0 -V
• ?v? 1
6.1
u slol i... /. t)/L•' .%/L I?(t/ 5Q S ry`y ' ';
Project Area
INNER
BLUE RIDGE
PIEDMONT PLATEAU COPLp NL TIDEWATER
Ali, I
Srn Srekx edi Cxvdl rerun ,r a Wmrx •lifx
Mid Awr / T•An hrrrti 6.M.r1 fmkti / intie 1 S .• 'aear,?,eoorv . ?? .
6u.ell oa° lane ? ?? L/leude? .. . o?D '^
Isrk< kakll DaeiLsx / CbarM Wcb ? Kkx ?. ? Dert "' ? E
Gh.M Ixx rl1 •? ' ' ? 111`\l
Seaia ?? Ierkerlyd lixo6 ?? L? .? lekesax 6reex ,fie I+e; . .?O li
6rak fxhrsx Ssa Yemj ".'-.:..Ysr Wore rv ,v ?
r.rksx r (knkd nrx. waal•a,.r ?-: ;;':. i..ri 1 ?M:i,aua @P
Ckerrkx k4ek? ? ''. .i laces
Cla , , Aaysx . S.. rafre • Al
"?Srillmd e? ??'?t.nere. _syp ?
?i O
.'.'..•'.' c•re
LCOXCU, it
ATLANTIC OCEAN
O ?E T
c•n
Figure 1. Location of the Denfield Road Quarry Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
and vetland Litigation site, Durham, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
North Carolina. 8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
1\ feet
?; • `- \ 0 200 400 600
0
1
'
/ 8// 89 as
JI 82
/i 7?
77 -T
a? so 87 s w• ` '"'? Str
-lam P dm% OQ
• ' charnel 5
71 72 73 51 So
r, t 46 •
52 49 ys, 43 •
/ 88 - 99
- 89 98 I 1
1 0 68 G3 55 54 O . -
r ? 1
f
u/: ?
62 56 , channel 4X94 910 f
G9 , ? r, 9s 42 1/:
Y'l
?, .U r,. 1 Q 59 157 95-
\ wetland. 46 97
• . channel 6'
,.w. .ar•, ? Q,. .NIL.. ,;a. • ,u,, ,?, ,li. ?? \ ..1 r..
?`c \;,. % wetland ., .
•28--_,I r .Ir. \? ` P1,+/? --•
2627 /?.o" .\r. .?u./ f .I•.' \??,?
0 25 it
?' 13 23 024 O 'wetland 10 12 19 20 22 t? .,Ilr , t ?\ 1
? l5 O
ilk %
channel 1
1 ' S II I6 q0
t 1
8 38 39 42 1
4 6 0 41
If .1,,. ?
33
1 :•,Ir:';
waste pile
19 la ? ?a ? 37
' a -flannel 2
channel 3 ! 034
?? 2 17 x
! Q ' 35 `%
36
i.•' 31 33
27 32 -
30
a?
..11r. .,Its s?.
v,. 0O
?\ iponded:
Figure 2. Map of wetland mitigation site,
shoving existing wetlands, Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
constructed channels and vernal pools, 8480 Garvey Drive
and,,numbered river birch seedlings. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Table 1. Survival and growth of planted river birch seedlings, Nello Teer Quarry
mitigation site.
May, 1992
Tree Habitat Survival Diameter Change since Height Change since
No. Area Status (mm) Dec.'91 (mm) (cm) Dec.'91 (cm)
r
1 M L 14 0 101 -36
2 M L 16 0 158 -6
3 U D - - - -
4 U L 14 0 162 -15
5 M L 12 0 131 -12
6 M L - - 1225 -
7 U D* - - - -
8 M L 10 0 158 6
9 W L 15 0 113 3
10 W L 17 2 168 13
M 11 M L 14 1 160 -2
12 W L 15 2 137 9
13 W L 17 1 241 9
14 W L 15 1 149 6
15 U L 12 0 183 9
16 U D - - - -
17 W D - - - -
18 M L 17 2 149 0
19 U L 14 0 125 -20
20 U L - 0 555 6
21 W L 36 0 329 18
r 22 M L 20 0 183 -21
23 M D - - - -
24 U L 17 0 104 -3
25 U L - - 915 -
26 U L 19 0 146 3
27 U L 13 0 91 -13
28 U L 18 2 119 3
29 M D - - - -
30 U D - - - -
31 M D - - - -
32 U D - - - -
33 U D - - - -
R 34 W L 33 5 219 0
35 M L 22 4 219 12
36 U D - - - -
37 M L 13 2 192 17
38 W L - - 385 -
39 M L 16 2 134 3
8
Table 1, continued.

Tree Habitat
No. Area

Survival
Status

Diameter
(mm)
May, 1992
Change since
Dec.'91 (mm)

Height
(cm)

Change since
Dec.'91 (cm)
40 M D - - - -
41 M D - - - -
/ 42 M L 15 -2 143 -6
43 W D* - - - -
44 W D - - - -
45 M D* - - - -
46 U D - - - -
47 M L 13 2 117 -23
48 M L 12 1 130 -4
49 M D - - - -
50 U D - - - -
51 U D - - - -
52 U D - - - -
/ 53 U D - - - -
54 U D - - - -
55 U D - - - -
56 M D - - - -
57 W D* - - - -
58 M D - - - -
59 M L 13 1 119 -3
60 M D - - - -
61 M D - - - -
62 M D* - - - -
63 U L 12 0 165 7
1 64 U D - - - -
65 M L 18 3 209 11
66 M L 14 1 192 9
67 U L 13 1 143 0
68 U D - - - -
69 U L - - 15S -
70 U L - - 8s -
71 W D - - - -
72 M D* - - - -
73 M D - - - -
74 M L - - 53S -
1 75 W D - - - -
76 W L 13 1 155 12
77 M D - - - -
78 M L - - 69S -
79 M D - - - -
80 W D* - - - -
81 M D - - - -
9
I
1
1
1
Table 1, continued.
May, 1992
Tree
No. Habitat
Area Survival Diameter Change since Height Change since
Status (mm) Dec.'91 (mm) (cm) Dec.'91 (cm)
82 W D - - - -
83 W D - - - -
84 W D - - - -
85 U D - - - -
86 U D - - - -
87 U D - - - -
88 W L - - 365 -
89 W D - - - -
90 W D - - - -
91 W D - - - -
92 W D* - - - -
93 W D - - - -
94 W D - - - -
95 W D - - - -
96 W D - - - -
97 W D - - - -
98 W D - - - -
99 W D - - - -
100 W D - - - -
* = Dead since December, 1991 survey.
5 = Main stem dead with new sprout.
Habitat Area:
Survival Status:
U = unaltered non-wetland
M = mitigation area
W = existing wetland area
D = dead
L = living
10

Table 2. Soil hue, value, and chroma at reference sites at the Nello L. Teer Quarry wetland
mitigation site, fall, 1991 observations.
Soil Nearest Nearest Soil Soil Habitat
Sample Channel Tree Color 0 991) Color 0 990) Area
1 2 39 10 YR 5/6 10 YR 5/6 M
2 2 37 10 YR 6/6 10 YR 5/6 M
1 6 1 18 7.5 YR 4/4 7.5 YR 3/4 M
7 1 17 10 YR 4/3 10 YR 3/4 M
10 3 4 10 YR 4/3 10 YR 5/3 M
14 3 13 10 YR 5/3 10 YR 5/3 M
15 2 42 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 5/4 M
17 4 43 10 YR 5/3 10 YR 4/3 M
18 4 49 10 YR 6/4 2.5 YR 6/3 M
22 6 60 10 YR 6/5 10 YR 6/4 M
26 5 74 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 5/3 M
3 2 37 10 YR 5/6 10 YR 5/6 U
4 2 37 10 YR 4/6 10 YR 6/6 U
5 2 37 10 YR 5/6 10 YR 5/6 U
8 1 19 7.5 YR 4/4 7.5 YR 4/6 U
9 1-3 19 7.5 YR 4/4 7.5 YR 4/4 U
16 4 46 10 YR 4/3 10 YR 4/3 U
19 4-6 50 10 YR 5/5 10 YR 6/4 U
20 4-6 52 10 YR 7/4 2.5 YR 6/3 U
23 5-6 68 7.5 YR 4/6 7.5 YR 4/6 U
27 5 74 10 YR 4/3 10 YR 5/6 U
11 3 4 2.5 YR 5/1 2.5 YR 5/2 w
12 3 10 2.5 YR 7/1 2.5 YR 7/1 w
13 3 13 10 YR 6/1 2.5 YR 5/2 w
21 6 57 10 YR 4/3 10 YR 5/2 w
24 5 71 10 YR 6/2 10 YR 5/2 w
25 5 72 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 5/2 w
28 4 95 10 YR 6/2 2.5 YR 4/1 w
29 4 97 10 YR 6/2 10 YR 6/2 w
30 2 41 10 YR 4/3 10 YR 4/2 w
0
11
P
1
1
17
16
15
14
L.
13
•? 12
11
10
Average Diameter Above Root Collar
by habitat type and period
Nov., 1990 May, 1991 Nov., 1991 May, 1992
.}. +
.--•------------•-• ...............................................................................................•--------.................------••------...................--------------...-•--•-------------....------------------•---•-•--.------------
+
E
¦
-----•-•---...-----•----------------•-----------.................----............-----...................-•---•---................--------------......................--•-••----------•--•--....---•• .......................................................
¦
....-•-•-•--------------------•-•-----................................... .............t..............................--................. ............................. a............................. ..........................................
+ +
.....................+--------....................................................... ?............ ?........-•---...........................--- -- +.............-f-.....-..
0 +
+ + +
...--• ...............................................•----............................................-•-•-----...................----.........................-•-----------•-----•--------•-........----.......................-•..--.--.----.........•.....
+ +
---•----------------------------•-- + ....................................-..-...........................-.............................................................................................-•-------------...-----............-------------
1 n=14 M n=27 W n=19 u n=13 M Z5 w n=1 1 u n=1 J M n=z z w n=1 u u n= i s m n= i o w r
+ Confidence Interval ¦ Mean + Confidence Interval
0
I
Average Height
by habitat type and period
200
Nov., 1990 May, 1991 Nov., 1991 May, 1992 -}
190 ----------------------------------------•---._.._...-.-...._-.....-.---.---..-•--•--------.......-...-_-_----•---._..__-.-----.....-----•------..-......-------------.-......----------------------------•--•-------------------------••--•--•-----
18D -----...---••--•---•-------------------------------------------•--------.-------...-.__.-......_-_.--.--.----------....---•-----------........--------•----.......-.-_._--.-•----------------•------•----••---------------------+..-....-------
170 -..--------••----------------------••----------------------..---.--.-_---...------.......-..-.......-•-------•--•-••---.--......-...----------....-........_.;F------•----.-t-....------------------------.......... ..........................
cf]
? 160 -------------------•-•--••---...-•---------------......................------....................-•--•--•--------....__..................----...............liff ._......__...............-•--•----
.............................•-•---------•...
(D ¦
+ +
150 ----------------•---.--_.-.....-•------------------.--------.-...........+.........._ ......_.__._-F.....__..................._._................,#,............ 0 ....._.........
140 ...---------•-------------------
' + ¦ ¦
130 ---------------------- M ..................................................................................................................................................#..----•---•----------------..-......----.-.-..-----•-.----------.
¦ ¦ +
120 -••----•-••----•----------------------••-----------.-..-.--...--------.-. E.......................................................................................................................................................................
110-
U n=14 M n=27 W n=19 U n=13 M n=23 W n=1 1 U r?= 13 M n=22 W n=10 U n=19 M n=16 W i
+ Confidence Interval ¦ Mean + Confidence Interval
0
u
Average Volume Index
by habitat type and period
Nov., 1990 May, 1991 Nov., 1991 May, 1992 +
---••---------
.....-• ....... -------------------
.................. -•---...--------•---................----..........-----••-------------...................--•---•--------•--..............-
.........................................••--................----------.....----.................------------.............. •-----•----.........................-•-
---•--------------.................... ------------..................?---------------------
........-----------------------•-•---.....--•-••---------
--• ........... ........•--------. .......-----------..............-•-------........------------•-••----.................... -------------------•--........-•- --••---------•------....---......-•--• -.........----••-----------•------•-----..........-----•.

-•--••-------- • ................• --------.................................---------.....---............-------•-------------.....--...........-------------- •- .......... ...... +-------------- ------------------- •-•------------ ...--....-•---•--------

.............. ................... ........................................................................................................................... . w................. .------------- -------------- ¦ ...................... .....-----•-
¦ +
? ¦
............. ................... ...........................................•-----...............-----#--.....................---•-•-----..--...... ..........-.......-------------------- •---•--.............-.-.......----••-------------F-
? ?

?
....
...........................................................................................................................
................... .
............. ...........

¦ ¦

..... ... ...... ...+------------- ..............................................--•--••---..............................------•-----.............. ........:.......:::....--•-•-•-------- •--------......................--....-----------..........

?

i=14 M n=27 W n=19 U n=13 M n=23 W 11 U n=13 M n=22 W n=10 U n=19 M n=15 W r
1 -11- Confidence Interval ¦ Mean '+' Confidence Interval
3.0. REFERENCES.
1
1

r
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal manual for identifying
and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service, Cooperative technical publication. Washington, D.C. 107 p.
and appendices.
Noggle, G. Ray and George J. Fritz. 1983. Introductory Plant Physiology. Chapter 17 -
Vegetative Plant Growth. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Neary, D.G., E.J. Jokela, N.B. Comerford, S.R. Colbert, and T.E. Cooksey. 1990.
Understanding Competition for Soil Nutrients. In: Gessel, S.P., D.S. Lacate, G.F.
Wheetman, and R.F. Powers (eds.), 1990. Proceedings of the 7th North American
Forest Soils Conference. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Sifneos, Jean C., E.W. Cake, Jr., and M.E. Kentula. 1992. Effects of Section 404 permitting
on freshwater wetlands in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. Wetlands, 12(1):1-7.
15