20040325 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 4_20011101

0
ANNUAL WETLAND MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 4)
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
[phone]
Prepared by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
1 P.O. Box 2522
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
[phone]
November, 2001
1
I
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 ................................................................................13,
3.1 Monitoring Program ..............................................................................................13
3.2 Monitoring Results ............................................................ ...............................14
Herbaceous Vegetation .....................................................................................14
Groundwater Flats ............................................................................................14
Headwater Slope ...............................................................................................14
3.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria ..............................................................................15
4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND MITIGATION CREDIT ........... 19
4.1 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 2000 to October 2001) ............................19
5.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 20
6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................... 22
1 7.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Mitigation Credit Release Schedule
Appendix B: Wetland Hydrology Data and Hydrographs
Appendix C: Wetland Vegetation Data
Appendix D: Comparison of 2000 and 2001 Vegetation Data
Appendix E: Summary of Monitoring Plan
Appendix F: Photographs of Barra Farms
1
I
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity map ................................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2. Location of vegetation plots and wells ......................................................................... 5
1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of hydrology monitoring data ......................................................................11
Table 2. Woody species found in groundwater flats habitat .......................................................17
Table 3. Woody species found in headwater slope habitat .........................................................18
1
ii
0
C,
ANNUAL WETLAND MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 4)
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 4 of the
monitoring plan. Monitoring was performed during the 2001 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 4 monitoring.
0
I
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 and 3 credits were released and the Bank is on
1
schedule for release of Year 4 credits.
Year 4 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 2001 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.
I
2
I
I

1
1
- sus ? M -_ . ? ? •¦ __ ] 0. 'C b•?
O . .? • 't, !<v+? .eon ? - + . a.,na.e ?a . ? _ 'Ryy r _' i
\L 11-NC OA
1 95%,
Wer
?? .. Fier yn. ".t s" a ` _+'. .? n.. •_
NC 87 BARRA FARMS/CAPE FEAR
+_ - REGIONAL MITIGAT1Qt?, N?
*.me. tr, ? 1 / ,i•?YJI'' _ ` `?'` ?= Cyr ' • ? M pry
C?k
' !.. ? ?• ,iT:?^__ ' .,'{"ice--i?__ _+- _+?
6? + •,/ .`\ :?``, -~ r ?`-' ARRAY UetE? ? ?• \'• ^ ?.. St O ' _ ???+ ," ?`_?•`_ ? A .
to- S"
o - - ?? ' ?= ?T.rwmr air: _ M _ - •. -
Study Area
O 1 2 3 Miles !t' ?} rw ' ?'
0 1 2 3 4lGlometers
Raprodybad wah parrtriasian iam tna Naem CneYr ?. ?+ ? _ ? T - - - ? ? • .``r`:
Atlaa and Gaxaeaar. Oalnrena Wppinp. 1900 -_-. •; -- - _ ? - .
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
ECOBANK
Figure 1. Vicinity Map Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
3
0
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 Cody 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 NMI.
Hydrological data continue to be collected at weekly intervals on-site and within the
reference sites. The data extending from March 21, 2001 (V reading within the growing
season) to September 26, 2001 (last reading prior to submission of this report) have been
utilized in this Year 4 monitoring report.
4
0
1
1
1
1

GPI
0
c?
%
s

SOU cd

b
ro)

w U

as

.c.''.`.'.''. .
0

•

M E 4°
ems.'. 0 N O
y P-4 U
U on ?^ o
N_
o
?.'
as y 3
? 00
? a)
o c o W. o

0,2
0 •a o Cl) $-4

w U Cd -1

C-i
o c ? a ? 3
• .

00e mono
a
5
0
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
0 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 2001 hydroperiod on groundwater flats supporting steady state forest structure
and organic soils. Data indicated that the reference groundwater flats habitat maintained
wetland hydrology during 17.3% of the growing season. The automated reference well
located within this same reference area recorded wetland hydrology for 19.7% of the
growing season.
1 The groundwater flats data from the restoration wetland area had an average wetland
hydrology of 17.7% of the growing season and ranged from 16.3 to 37.2% (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 4 results are similar to Year 3 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 flats. This is likely
6
0
b
because as more vegetation becomes established within the bank, causing
evapotranspiration, hydrological differences between these areas are diminished.
The automated monitoring wells located within groundwater flats habitat at the Bank
(wells A, B, and E; Figure 2) documented wetland hydrology within this habitat for
19.2%, 10.9%, and 7.5% of the growing season, respectively (Appendix B). Well B
stopped reading during the growing season, when its water table was high, and most likely
would have documented a longer duration of wetland hydrology had data been collected
throughout this time period. (Well B stopped reading for a total of 36 days because of
bear damage and has since been repaired. Please see section 2.3 for more information on
automated well problems.) Data from well E were unusual and showed a somewhat flashy
pattern that did not appear to correlate with rainfall. Data from this well documented a
shorter wetland hydrology duration than the other wells largely because two days in April
dropped slightly below 12" from the soil surface, breaking up the continuous number of
days of wetland hydrology.
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 43.1% 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 32.6% of the
growing season.
Data from the two manual wells located in the restoration riverine floodplain habitat
showed that wetland hydrology averaged 16.3% of the growing season. Both wells
exhibited the same duration of wetland hydrology, therefore, differences in hydrology
could not be correlated to proximity to the stream channel.
7
0
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
27.6% of the growing season and ranged from 17.3% (groundwater flats) to 43.1%
(riverine floodplain).
1
Headwater slope in the restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging
16.3% of the growing season, with all wells achieving this percentage. Unlike previous
years, because all wells achieved the same hydrology percentage, hydrology did not appear
to be influenced by landscape position within the headwater storage area or vegetation
cover.
The automated monitoring well (well C; Figure 2) located within the headwater slope
habitat recorded a wetland hydrology for 11.7% of the growing season (28 consecutive
days). Well C stopped reading during the growing season (mid-April), when the water
table at this location was well above the soil surface, and would likely have documented a
longer duration of wetland hydrology had data been collected throughout this time period
(Appendix B). (Well C. stopped reading for a total of 35 days because of bear damage and
has since been repaired. Please see section 2.3 for more information on automated well
1 problems.)
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.
0
The reference groundwater flats, riverine floodplain, and headwater slope habitats
exhibited wetland hydrology for a period averaging 17.3%, 43.1%, and 27.6%,
respectively. In the Bank, restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging
17.7% (102% of reference), 16.3% (37.9% of reference), and 16.3% (59.1% of
reference), respectively. When comparing manual wells located in the restored habitats to
manual wells located in the reference areas, the groundwater flats and headwater slope
habitats fulfilled the wetland hydrology criterion, however, the riverine floodplain habitat
did not. This appears to be due to an exceptionally long wetland hydrology duration
exhibited by the reference riverine manual wells. In fact, this duration is longer than that
exhibited in Years 2 and 3, when rainfall was above normal for the area (see Appendix B
for a comparison of rainfall during Years 3 and 4). However, the restored riverine area still
surpasses ACOE wetland hydrology standards of being within 12" of the soil surface for at
least 12% of the growing season (restored riverine wells documented wetland hydrology
for 16.3% of the growing season). In addition, data from the manual wells located within
the restored riverine habitat achieved wetland hydrology for 50% of the automated
reference well (36 continuous days and 72 continuous days, respectively), which is within
the success criterion. Therefore, the restored riverine habitat does achieve the hydrology
success criterion. The unusually long wetland hydrology exhibited by the manual wells
located in the reference riverine habitat may be a result of riverine bleed out and artesian
effect as seasonal surface flow changes. Also, evapotranspiration may be reduced in this
b forested area due to cooler temperatures exhibited this year.
Automated wells are dependable and accurate ways of recording hydrology. It should be
noted, however, that it has become 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. In fact, the well
located near plot 10 (well D) has been replaced three times this year because a bear has
broken it; the last time completely snapping it in two (Appendix F). A subcontractor reads
both the manual and automated wells frequently and repairs any problems promptly.
However, gaps in the data do occasionally occur. 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.
0
I
10
TnhlP 1 Rnmmarv of 7001 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
Wl 39 16.3 former farmland (FF)
W2 46 19.2 FF
W4 89 37.2 FF
W5 39 16.3 FF, mineral soil flat
W6 39 16.3 FF, mineral soil flat
W7 39 16.3 FF
W10 39 16.3 FF
Wll 39 16.3 FF
W12 39 16.3 FF, mineral soil flat
W14 39 16.3 FF, mineral soil flat
W17 54 22.6 FF, located on fill material in backfilled ditch
W20 54 22.6 FF
W21 39 16.3 Existing pocosin vegetation (PV), end organic
soil flat (targeted swamp forest community)
W22 39 16.3 PV
W23 39 16.3 PV
Average 42.2 17.7 Range: 16.3-37.2%
Reference
Wetland
JB1 39 16.3 Existing forest vegetation (FV), mineral soils
JB2 39 16.3 FV, organic soils
JB3 46 19.2 FV, organic soils
Average 41.3 17.3 Range: 16.3-19.2%
11
Tah1P 1 c-nntirnieri _ Rrnmmarv of 2001 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 39 16.3 existing forest vegetation (FV), upstream
reach, outer floodplain
W18 39 16.3 FV, downstream terminus, inner floodplain
Average 39 16.3 Range: none
Reference
Wetland
ssl 103 43.1 FV, outer floodplain
SS2 103 43.1 FV, inner floodplain
Average 103 43.1 Range: none
Headwater Slope
Restored
Wetland
W3 39 16.3 Former farmland (FF), upper reaches
W8 39 16.3 FV, interior slope
W9 39 16.3 FF, interior slope
W16 39 16.3 FV, interior slope
W19 39 16.3 existing pocosin vegetation (PV), upper
reaches
Average 39 163 Range: none
Reference
hydroperiod* 66 27.6 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 2001 and was similar to
the sampling performed in 1999 and 2000. 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 bflora 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 most seedlings.
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
13
ground surface covered by its vertical projection.
3.2 Monitoring Results
Herbaceous Vegetation
During Year 4 monitoring, a total of 21 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, 20 were tree species and 8 were shrub species. Of the tree species, 12
were planted and 8 were volunteer. All shrubs were volunteer. Most common tree species
included red maple (Ater 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 940.0 stems/acre with
approximately 260.4 stems/acre from planted species. When using the number of trees/acre
by species that can be applied to the stems/acre criterion (_< 20% of 320 sterns/acre.-
for--hardwoods and <_ 10% of 320 stems/acre for softwoods), the total number of trees that can
be counted per acre was 393.4 (see Table 3, column 5).
Headwater Slope
A total of 13 woody species was identified within this habitat, of which 8 were planted and
5 were volunteer. The most common tree species included red maple (Ater rubrum), black
14
willow (Salix nigra), and swamp tupelo and /or water tupelo (Nyssa biflora, N. aquatica):
Density averaged 1746.0 stems/acre, with 282.0 stems/acre resulting from planted species.
When success criteria percentages were used (<_ 20% of 320 stems/acre for hardwoods and
s 10% of 320 stems/acre for softwoods), the total number of trees that can be counted per
acre was 378.0 (see Table 4, column 5).
3.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria
0
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).
Several plots within both the groundwater flats habitat (P7, 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. Because maple numbers are continuing to increase in certain areas,
the effect that these seedlings have on planted species was evaluated by comparing
vegetation data in 2000 and 2001, specifically the number of trees observed in each plot
and the average height of each species in both years (Appendix D). As is shown from these
data, 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 (Sharitz and Gibbons,
1982).
15
When evaluating the success criteria, only 20% of the 320 stems/acre criterion (64 stems)
was used for maple or any other hardwood that exceeded this value. Only 10% of the 320
stems/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
stems/acre criterion. For groundwater flats, a mean density of 940.0 stems/acre was found
across 26 character wetland species, with an average of 6.4 tree species/plot. An average of
393.4 stems/acre can be applied to the vegetation success criterion. In the headwater slope
habitat, a mean density of 1746.0 stems/acre was found across 13 wetland species, with an
average of 7.0 tree species/plot. An average of 378.0 stems/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
.,il A ,, ?,,....o- ter4-;.
Common name Scientific Name Avg # of trees/
acre % of total # of
trees/ac # trees/ac allowed
in criteria Comments

Red Maple
Acer rubrum
427.2
45.4
64 Volunteer hardwood;
three plots had many
seedlings (see
Appendix D
Winged Sumac Rhus copallina 157.9 16.8 32 Volunteer softwood;
mostly from 2 lots
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 89.0 9.5 64 Planted hardwood
Swamp/ Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 76.9 8.2 76.9 Planted hardwood
Black Willow Salix nigra 64.5 6.9 32 Volunteer softwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 24.8 2.6 24.8 Planted hardwood
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 24.1 2.6 24.1 Planted hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 14.5 1.5 14.5 Planted
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 13.8 1.5 13.8 Volunteer hardwood
Red Bay Persea borbonia 12.1 1.3 12.1 Volunteer softwood
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 6.9 0.7 6.9 Planted softwood
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 6.2 0.6 6.2 Planted hardwood
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4.5 0.5 4.5 Planted hardwood
Water Oak Quercus nigra 4.5 0.5 4.5 Planted hardwood
Longleaf Pine Pinus palustris 3.5 0.3 3.5 softwood
Pond Cypress Taxodium ascendens 2.4 0.3 2.4 Planted hardwood -
Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda 2.1 0.2 2.1 Volunteer softwood
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 1.7 0.2 1.7 Planted hardwood
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 1.4 0.1 1.4 Planted hardwood
Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 1.0 0.1 1.0 Volunteer hardwood
Unknown (no leaves) 1.0 0.1 1.0 No leaves, but stem
alive
TOTAL 940.0 100 393A
17
Table 3. Woody species found in headwater slope habitat, average number of trees/acre, and the number of
LIVUS auvwvu 111 Juv a
Common name s vi Lava au..
Scientific Name
Average #
of trees/
acre
% of total
# of
trees/ac
% of total / ac
allowed in
criteria
Comments
Red Maple Acer rubrum 1300.0 74.4 64 Volunteer hardwood;
one plot had many
seedlings (see
Appendix D)
Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 158.0 9.0 128 Planted hardwood
Black Willow Salix nigra 134.0 7.7 32 Volunteer softwood
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 64.0 3.7 64 Planted hardwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 28.0 1.6 28 Planted hardwood
Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda 18.0 1.0 18 Volunteer softwood
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 14.0 0.8 14 Planted hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 8.0 0.4 8 hardwood
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 6.0 0.3 6 hardwood
Sweetgum Liquidambarstyraciua 6.0 0.3 6 hardwood
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 4.0 0.2 4 Planted hardwood
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 4.0 0.2 4 Planted hardwood
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 2.0 0.1 2 Planted softwood
TOTAL 1746 100 378
18
4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND MITIGATION CREDIT
Post-Restoration Conditions (October 2000 to October 2001)
The following is a brief summary of the conditions observed at Barra Farms Cape Fear
Regional Mitigation Bank during the past year.
1 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.
1
19
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 17.3%, 43.1%, and 27.6%, respectively. In the
Bank, restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging 17.7% (102% of reference),
16.3% (37.9% of reference), and 16.3% (59.1% of reference), respectively, when comparing data
from manual wells. The wetland hydrology success criterion was met for groundwater flats and
headwater slope.
However, the restoration riverine floodplain habitat achieved wetland hydrology for only 37.9% of
that of the reference habitat. This is due to an unusually long wetland hydrology (102 days) exhibited
by the two reference wells, which was actually longer than that exhibited in Years 2 and 3, when
rainfall was above normal for the area. Despite this, the manual wells located within the restored
riverine habitat meet ACOE wetland hydrology success criteria (saturation within 12" of the soil
surface for 12% of the growing season) and the wetland hydrology duration of the manual wells is
within 50% of the automated well located within reference riverine habitat. Furthermore, hydrology
within the restored riverine habitat met the hydrology success criterion in all previous years of
monitoring at the Bank. Finally, the unusually long wetland hydrology exhibited by the manual wells
located in the reference riverine habitat may be a result of riverine bleed out and artesian effect as the
seasonal surface flow changes. Because of these reasons, it is concluded that the restored riverine
floodplain habitat meets the hydrology success criterion.
The wetland vegetation success criterion was met during Year 4 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 448.5 stems/acre across 24 wetland species.
Headwater slope habitat supported 3 80 stems/acre and 14 character wetland species. Although the
20
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.
The installation of drainage pipes to alleviate ponding, along with normal weather conditions and
cooler steady temperatures in 2000 and 2001, have created better growing conditions for planted
vegetation. In addition, supplemental planting in the winter of 2000 increased the number of
stems/acre to acceptable levels.
Year 4 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 thus far successful and Year 4 credits should be
released.

21
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.
1

22
I
W
J
D
W
2
CO
W
Cf)
W
J
W
W
cc
U
z
O
V
F-
2
11-1
z
Q
z
FC-'
G
J
Q
z
O
v
W
LL++
I..iW
LL
W
EL
Q
U
C/O
2
L¢L
Q
rr
Q
co
00
CY)
T
W
W
c
C
W
W
0
a)
> a
?
E
O
c :
R
C O
CO q

C
0 N

O) O

CN
7 m !0 O
E N- i O) .
r T N
?cnUa
U

cc co
U
N U
Q
C)
C
d
=
=
co
7 m
q
N
co N

co co

q N

O O

d
E U O
7? a M ? W ? e- r N
U

C ._ C1
C) w'
i
(O
LO
N
M
M
N
tt
+
O
C1 M M
U
? a

d
o s
LO
O
O
LO
O
O
O
_ Q m M Lo r co
V
U .• LO LO O - LO LO O O

CL 0
U
C
d O-+
co
rn
co
co rn
m
O .-
O N
O
V d D
Z O) M
a) M O) O

N O

N O

N
C) CL Lo
.

O O
CL
v
C,4
C

M

r

r

r

?-

T

y
y
y
y
y to
y
C)
N m
U d
U C)
U d
U U
U
: O 3 7 7
U C cA cA cA co
cn
(D CL
*
y- C C
•? O)
C 7
LL 7
LL 7
U. 7
LL 7
Ll
Q? O O r N M

c E y
O O C
O m
d m m
O O m
O m co
C) m co
O O
of ``
co
Q?
C)
C)
,7 .1
co :t Ln
co c*j U C7 U CO U M U M U
co
C
CD
m
U i/7
C y
C C)
U
co
y U
+L' y
y
p C
O
C) co
to "
c4 O
? -Y
- .y
U Q)
? L
O
C) co
N >
t m
1- o
Y
D
? o
U
S O
Q O
- U
Lm _
C) a,
>- -0
C) y
m
Y L
O Co
m -a
L Y
Q) C
Y
.U U
cn
y ?
N y
U
U C
y O
L
w a)
O U
a
O m
Y ?
U y
C m
O O)
U C_
O O
C) E
C
O
coo E
m C
L N
Co
m ?
U O
•U ?
w C)
C C

Appendix B: Wetland Hydrology Data and Hydrographs
f7 N N .N- .N-? .Nr O

~ M ?D N

N N It
N V
N 7
N V
N 't
N
N 7
N '
N 7
N V'
N tt
N
O O O O O O • A A A A A A A A A A A

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
^7 O O A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
i.
W
ry? (? m ON - OD tV cV (V N N (V fV (V (V N cV N cV [V N tV
?,^ n n n n n n n A n n n n n n n n
M N N -N N N d' 7 'cY d' d' ?
N V
N ?
N C'
N C
N
N
O O O O O O A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
N
N .N.i N
... N
.-. N
,-.
et N
.-y It
N
N
N
N V
N 7
cV d'
cV Nt
N
(V 7
N
(V It
N 'T
CV d'
N 't
N
A 7
tV
?i?? O O O O O A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
rl
00
00
?o d'
N ei'
N a
N a
N 7
N 7
N ?
(V 7
CV d'
CV ?
N '?
N 7
N
A d'
N
A eh
N
A a'
N d'
fV
3 A A A A A A A A A A A A A
„Ny ,N_, .N. .Ny ,N. .N.. .Ni
N O
N O
N N N N N N N N N N
3 O O O O O O O A n A A A A A A n
r'
rl N
,... N
.-. N
.-. N
.-. .Nr N
.-+
?O
.N,•i ?'
CV a
tV
N 'e
N el'
N C
N ' e
N -,t
N 't
N ,t
cV d'
CV 't
cV
3 0 0 0 0 0 o A A A A A A A A A A A
? N N N N N N d' ?
N 7
N V
N ?
N V
N d'
N et
N d'
N ?'
N R
N ?
N V
N eF
N V
N d'
N
3 0 0 0 0 0 o A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
N ? N N N ? N ? d' V V' ? V' et
N ?
N 7
N et
N 7
N ?
N '7
N ?
N C'
N d'
N
3 6 6 6 6 6 o A A A A A A A n A A A A A A A A

s,
ice..
C?
ri
rl
N
..r
N
.-.

N

er
N
rl
d'
(V

N
d
N
V
N

N

N
of
N
d
N
d
N
V
N
d
lV
d'
N
'
CV
V
N
A
1
fV

fV
3 3 0 0 0 o n A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
y
M
V 0
1.0 N
,..., eq N. N
.-. N
.-?
N -e
N
N
N d'
N 7
N d'
N 't
N V'
N 't
(V Ve
N -It
N 7
N ?h
(V
O O O O O O , J n A A A A A A A A A A A A A
N N N N .N.. N
H C
N V
N
N d'
N d'
N d'
N 7
N 7
N
N V'
N -
N
N 7
N -e
N -e
N '7
N
3 6 .o O O O O n A A A A n A A A A A A A A A A
Nr .N N. N N N

.-i 7

N v

N a

N

N v

N

N a

N

N

N

N

N It

N
eF
N

N
d
N
d
N
3 0 0 0 0 o e A A A A A A A A A / A A A A A A
Cq N. N. N
rl V
N v
N -4*
(V 14,
N
N It
N
N v
tV v
(V It
N et
N v
N
N d
N -11
N v
N
3 0 .
6 6 6 o A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

..
N N
..? Nr Nr .N.. .N. N
.... .Nr
a\ .1 -It
N a,
N -e
N 7
N -e
N -
N eF
N V
N -e
N V
N
,
,
O ,
O .
O O O O O O O „y A A A A A A A A A A

3

?,y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N -It

Cl

N v

N --t

N Itr

N "It

N -It

N
A
I O O O o "' o A A A A A A A A A A A A A
N N-

0

o
'.
O

0
.-?
O It
N
A -e
(V
A -e
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A '
N
A
N
A It
N
A -?t
N
A
N
A 7
N
A -
N
A
N
A
N
A d'
N
A
I 0

p

T pp
co
?n
N
M
M
\.o
.4,
h

?

ID
00

000

a
fn
ON 00
aT
? Q t y

I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
? O O O O
k
kn N C>
O ?
\O cn t? ? •--? oo ? ,? oo kn .? oo ?n
.--? N
N
O M M d- N v'? .A - In lG [? [? 00 00 00 OO
0
0
N
bf
m
IR
w
C
Z
S
Z
R

N N N
A A AN 'A
N N N N
A A A A
N N N N
A A A A
N N N
AN A A A
N N N
A AN A A
N N N N
A A A A
N N N N

A A A A

O
O
N et -e It et
N N Cl N
A A A A
Ch
N N N N
A A A A
w
«i
W N N N N
t4l A A ' A ' A
N N
N N
A A A A
?
I
N N N
N
A A A A
? et et 7
tV tV N N
N A A A A
w

1
.j N N N N
A A A A
N

U

? N N N N
A A A A
N
3

?"' N N N N
?p A A A A
C?

'G
d 7 7 et
N N N N
A A A A

c? N
A N
A N
A N
A
N
3
N
a
%0
M
w
O
O
U
O O O
O

'a
a a
C4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
i?? ' ' % A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

N N N N N N et 7 7 V 7 d' 7 ?' t1' 7 't 'ct
. . - N N N N N N N N fV N N N N N N
3 0 0 0 0 0 a A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
eq N N N N N <f 7 et V d' et d' d'

3
0
0
0
0
0
c
A N
A N
A N
A N
A N
A N
A N
A N
A N
A N
A N
A N
A N
A N
A

a

CD Q\ N N N N N N et '7 C d' ?I' 7 7 C eF
I .
- r .
. .
. „A (V N N N tV N N N CV N (V 1V N CV N
'? 0 0 0 0 o e n n A A A A A A A A A A A A A
3
b
0

N N N v et V v d e7
3 + N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O O o O A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
M N N N N d' 7 e1' 7 d' 7 7 'ct 7 7 7 ?'
.
.w .
- " N (V (V N N N N N N N N N (V N (V
3 O O O O O O A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
V eq C14 N cq N N N N m N N N N N N N N N N
y V2 O O O O O O O O O O O O A A A A A A A
F+
W

a

d

L
1"I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0 C O h .
.? O O N N N N
py O O C C O O O O O A A A A A A A
N N N N N d' d 7 V d' 7 d' ?' V eh
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
s,, 3 0 0 0 0 0 o A A A A A A A A A A A A A A n

0
0
w

d
a
.
d C4 N N cla h e4 Nt -e a <f 7 ?1' d' It C' --t
y e''1 .. .. .? N CV N N N N (V N N N N N N N CV
a 3 0 a 0 0 o A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
w ?
o
O
V
o0
h
N
O\
C ..

GC
EC N
M m It It
h
?
?
00
co
(71
A?ris
O o O o o O O
, O O o
? 0 o O O
? o 0 o
00 O
t O o
00 0
4n
kn
kn N O ? M 00 ? .-. 00 V7 ?-+ DO h
?--? N O ?--? ? N O .-a ?-+ N O •-+ N N O ?-+ ?--+ N O O ?
M rn V7 417 tn W) \O ?o \o r- t t- 00 00 00
0
N
L?
ai
c
0
N
3
Cd
U
N
w
N
4r
N
f.J
N
3
w
Gd
'T1
a
0
b
3
N N N N
N
A A A A A
N N
N N N
A A A A A
N N N N
N
A A A A A
N N N
N N
A A A A A
N N N N N

A A A A A
N N
N N N
A A A A A
N N N N N

A A A A A
N
N N N N
A A A A A
N
N N N N
A A A A A

N fV N N CV
A A A A A

0 0 0 0 0
N V7 N Q ?O
N O
.y
0000 O\1 C% rn m
ti
O
O
N
O
O
b
y
.b
Q
G
b

N
U
F.
a?
s,
W
N
7..
N
F.'
N
L:
G1
b
O
N
C
N
N
Y
3
b
U
O
R
Y
b
O
O
b
'O
C
N
3
Hydrographs for Manual Wells at Barra Farms: 2001
Groundwater Flats
1
6
0
xa
-6
G
-12
-18
-24
--= --------------------------------- I ----------------------------------------------
1

1
------------------------------------ -?--- ------------------------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
oo?\oti o?~?o, o?\??oti o????oti o??\01 0^\?? ti o?lh?oti
W1 +W2 -W4 -&W5 -12" below surface
Groundwater Flats
6
6
0
.S
e -6
3
-12
-18
-24
e
o&P

----------------------------------------'-------------------------------------------
¦
------------------------------------+ # # + # # # 4 t ! # # # # # # # #
rW6 +W7 fW1o +W11 -12^belowsurface
I-P
Hydrographs for Manual Wells at Barra Farms: 2001, contd.
Groundwater Flats
6
0
* **-*-* *- -----------------------------------------------I
--------------------------------------s- ------ ------------------------------------
r
------------------------------------------ - - --- ----------------------------------
-------------------------------------+ 1 * +Iw ## iR IF #-aR # # ak
otio?'\o, 0?1?01 0?\??0? oa`??\o, o?dd`\o? o^\,?oti o?`h?oti o?\ry?oti
.- W i2 + W 14 -W17 -- W20 -12" below surface
.9
-6
g -12
c7
-18
-24
Groundwater Flats
I
6
0
.z

-------------------------------------------
------------------ - --- - - ------
g -6
v
-12
a a 4 ?:
-------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ---------------
?
------------------------- -------------? . }- it ! k A 4 k- it ? ?- 41-4-
o??o?\o~ 0?1?0, o?\??oti o?ry??oti o??\o~ 0^\1 oti o?,h?oti o?\ry?o?
W21 + W22 ? W23 -12" bebw surface
v
-18
-24
Hydrographs for Manual Wells at Barra Farms: 2001, contd.
Headwater Slope Habitat

6
0
.9
v -6
?o
-12
-18
-24
* . .-*-*-*- *-* *- *-----------------------------------------------
---- - -----?-- -------------------------------------------------------------------
-------- ?k -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------#*-+Y l *!##-###***#
010??01 0?1?01 0?\1?01 o?ry??o1 0??\01 0^\111 0?1??01
W3 +W8 + W9 -& W16 * W19 -12" below surface
River ne Floodplain

6
0
.5
o -6
v
12
0
C?J
-18
-24
X01
oq?ry

-----------* A--l-A---
-------- i -------------------------
------------ --------------------------------------I
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------- + + + + + + + + * * * * + + + + -* *
010??01 O'?1?01 0?\1?01 0?'??\01 0??\01 0^\11? 0?1??01
>W15 +W18 ¦SSl -kSS2 -12"below surface
X01
Hydrograghs for Manual Wells at Barra Farms: 2001, contd.
Uplands
0
6 ---------------------- ------------ ----------
0
.5
?a
o -12
-18 ------------------ ----------- ---- -----------------------
-24 ------- ----------------------------- - - - - - - - -
0 0 0 o°Z' o'? o
-'' w13 -12" below s

1
1
u
z
O
O
N
O§
?"
A?
O
O o
C)
N
rcd
l
V
Rainfall (in)
00 I'O It N O
(u!) qjdaQ laj'8nnpuno D
lp•
?.
l
p? jcn
?
l
l
?

r0. N
;1? con
lp?(Y lp

-.0j,
SrQ,. ? A

l? Lid

lp?a ?O M ?
p 3
Qy
Ol
lp ? a
N
?
l
?
lp

1.
l
lp
2
?
1
.
l

l0
?T
i7
u
M
z
z
U
N
3
a
O r
? v
U
? m
m
M
U
C14 00 M
O ?p N OM M
1
1
U
z
O' .
u
,.O
r--4
C
C
O?
O U
CIC
Q
,--? C3
C?CyS ?
O?
O ,o
tC3 .?
p ,o
rcd'
v
Rainfall (in)
00 1?O Nr N O
O ?10 N 00 ? O 110 N
N M M ?
(ui) lqjdoQ Jaj13nnpunoj-D
fO?J
10061
O,
10`?J ?l
10.E s'
O
10d'?2
10• a`? l
2
?a
10? ?l
1 <f'.
D.? <0
l0` ? l
10
le
10%
°g1 1
I l?r` O
Ofd ?2
1 %
O f? c?
l
101% 91
O
10?6
IO?1'c'
lO%rf`
l
AOr?P
10
N
Ilzr
M
co?
.-1
W
i
M
M
A
N
G4
a?
o
M
M
o
f
a
0
z
z
'S
w
U
3
a
.o
b
O y
w
U
m
U
I
U
z
n
O
O
N ?
O?
4-a
c?i U
t?
A?
b?A Q
O
O ?
ct3 ,?
Oro
N
w
a?
Cd
U
Rainfall (in)
00 110 I N O
(u!) qldoQ JOIU npunoiD
j0 fQ
l
O ? c?
O j?
1.
jpQ Ol.
lp?r0
jO?fO
z
TA I
Y.
l 0'?A lj
lp?? lp
lp?? lZ
l0''t?Yr rl
r0''tA l0
jp'' jA 2c'
l0'?A ?l
lp?.
l 90
l g,y0
O.QA OI
rO,Q 'z
l f•
p`Q l?
l 1.
O,Q lj.
O

m
0
N
M
M
A
0
N
M
U
a
a
Y
z
z
w
U
3
a
o?
U
m
0
U

?O O ?C N 00 N O M
u
z
u
0
C>
N ?
O
tad
Q ?
tDm
O?
C) .o
?.O
a?
U
R
CL
C.
4
CL
a
00
Rainfall (in)
? ? N
(ut) tpdoa JOIEMpunolo
0
l°
,
l ? O
l TA ?c'
l ??1Z
10????0
l ??,60
jol
lO
IOQ
1?a92
°Qa: %
ly?j 0% r ?r o
,
,
I°?rcP
?1•l
O
a?
Cc
0
i
i
I-N
N
00
00
0

M
O
N
w
c?
a
a
m
z
z
W
0
U
3
w
ow
so
? U
w m
?m
U
O ?O N 00 ct O 110 N
.-? .?
? ? N M M ?
I
1
U
z
U
O
O
N ?
?OU
Q ?
cd (U
0 c a?
p .o
Cd.
U
00
Rainfall (in)
1%O ? N
(ui) qldaQ lajEenpunOJD
0
10.,
O,
10,?J ?2
Oj
10?J 2
O,
10?J 1s1.
O,
10? ?0
O
e
jp? 91.
l0`q60
aJ,?
Ip,? 0
lp ?9
10% 6f
l0%r 1
r
lO j? '?O
r.
l0 f? 6?
r.
101 ??
r.
lp j? .t1.
r.
10j?`?O
O
a?
Cd
0
.c
N
00
00
0
t?
M
0
N
C/O
Cw7
t
M
0
z
z
w
0
m
U
3
a
a
v1
U

C) 1.0 N 00 N o M C14
I
1
o, r?
0 00 116 d- N o ?fjl
l0
(U!) PJUTJ
u
z

O
U

J
i
e
00, b
a
OoJP?z
O
o, p
0016 ?0
o
?
p00?,
2 M
°1o?r
O00 U Jo
°p?_Q, r rv
00?Pat'p?O a.
00?o?jl"a,;
%
00°911 ape
00???r o
0 ?r, l
?
0
??60 v
O0V116r o
0,
00?ZO? o
°O? a,.Or ?
O `?,?rr
o ?? j2V
0 91IO
o Yo e,
O
o0%r. r
oo jF
•?
O
O
N
O
tb
cd
o
a?
c?
U
I q
.o
m
4
Ea

r
J
u
u
V
• ri
O
`V o
Rio
Cd
O
• W.y
N
c?
;f
1
1
r
s
3
s
O o® ?O N
(U!) Imiumw
10,E
`'O,
rp X60
Ip ig
Ip? 0
lpl O
fo
jol ?,
l
lp? p
Ip? ?p
A
l
A
rp???p
jol
br0,? ?O
l ?2
9Y,
1090
jol ?l
VII
Ip? 62
O
l'r
O
o
e
O
M
on
c?
0
M1
T
z
wA
x
v
CO.
.a
.o
N
Table Cl. Wood species found in oundwater flats habitat, average height, and DBH.
Species #
Found Average
height # with DBH >
1"
Acer rubrum 1239 55.8 14
Rhus copallina 458 43.9
Taxodium distichum 258 63.8 32
Nyssa spp. 223 53.2 12
Salix nigra 187 97.2 22
Baccharis halimifolia 87 51.6
Quercus lyrata 72 49.5 3
Quercus phellos 70 39.9
Persea borbonia 64 60.1 1
Clethra alnifolia 54 42.0
Chamaecyparis thyoides 42 53.1 2
Liquidambar styracii lua 40 57.9 3
Pinus serotina 20 39.5
Quercus michauxii 18 36.2
Vaccinium corymbosum '16 57.8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 13 22.3
Quercus nigra 13 20.5
Lyonia lucida 12 26.0
Pinus palustris 10 45.8
Myrica cerifera 9 48.5
Cyrilla racemii fora 7 47.7
Taxodium ascendens 7 84.8 2
Pinus taeda 6 48.0
Platanus occidentalis 5 107.5 4
Liriodendron tulipifera 4 58.7
Myrica heterophylla 4 46.5
Populus heterophylla 3 81.0 1
Table C2. Woody species found in headwater slope habitat, average height, and DBH.
Species #
Found. Average
height # with DBH >
1"
Acer rubrum 650 71.4 12
Nyssa spp. 79 77.3 11
Salix nigra 67 124.9 15
Taxodium distichum 32 103.2 8
Quercus lyrata 14 67.4
Pinus taeda 9 52.4 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 7 44.2
Chamaecyparis thyoides 4 54.7
Liquidambar styracua 3 116.0 1
Populus heterophylla 3 176.0 2
Platanus occidentalis 2 114.0
Quercus phellos 2 45.0
Baccharis halimifolia 1 84.0
Pinus serotina 1 36.0
Table C3. Herbaceous species found in all 34 plots and average cover class.

Species Average Cover
Class
Scirpus cyperinus 3.1
Andropogon virginicus 2.8
Solidago sp. 2.3
Panicum verricosum 1.0
Aster pilosa 0.9
Erichtites 0.9
Juncus effusus 0.9
Eupatorium capillifolium 0.7
Polygonum sp. 1 0.7
Helenium amarum 0.5
Juncus canadensis 0.5
Eupatorium hyssopifolium 0.4
Ludwigia sp. 0.4
Rubus sp. 0.4
Hypericum hypericoides 0.3
Juncus effusus 0.3
Cyperus polystachos 0.1
Leersia 0.1
Pteridium aquilinum 0.1
Smilax laurifolia 0.1
Xanthium strumarium 0.1

a
GG o
o 3
° O
? ?
o O ?
a ° ? O
o O ? pa ?,

o ? ai ? vs v o

C Cl) O y c o
a ce a 0 3
ca 3 d
~ C7 3 C7 O
y 3 v
p

.
Q
in.

U
v ° ° U 3 -a vii o

3 as

a o as
ci H 0) 0
Q
3
L7
r?
p?'
on

?

ry
a
U > U E" abo 3 o ° 3 ?? o
,
,
rn F" un a H
O si a??i ' o° O •° O a A;
o a
.

w ° c y pi C

H Ha w d?7 H ai 3c? ac7 H ?; ? ? ? a0 ? H u;

a
3 oo t? d n O? 00 00 to ?O d ?O

c
it

M
j E y O
01 ?O
M d
4\ ?O
N 00
d 00
en N
?O
N O
W) 00 t?
l? O
01 N
01 O?
01 t?
M t-
t?
w
O
S ?
Vl V1 fA Vl V1
? w w w o w w w w w o 0 o w w w w w
? ? s.
41 .
c,
?
?
as"i
l
N
N
v
t

t?

?

?

Y

N

w

V

w

y o o Q o o Cd 0
C7 C7 C7 x O C7 C7 C7 C7 x x x O C7 C7 C7 L7
r

N
?
?
N
d
l?
O

d
}
4
S

p '? s? F a a o
.a

a, p o

°" U ~ w c , ai p ?
a? w ? ? ? ? a ? H

o. w R1 o w O

-o
?
O >,
rn O
o a
? ?r
? U O p.
a
3 p 2P
a? ?, a?
a,

a; F a? U > cC -o b

? aD
a ? p P,
3 ' 46. ; as 3 _
a '
Q 4) ° c o 0 U 00 O w
o o F T
0 ti is
.
at o as a a as H °

? O .. >, o Us o o a; >, ? o to ? o Ay 3 ..,

> as H H ?' as ?" vs 3 w a Q a
o c a o o l ' w 0
o Cd

ai a H H x ai o c? as m x x 3 x x as H x as as
? m
'
v
?p
tl-
00
%0
h
.m-?
v
in
oo
Q?
oo
?p
„M?
v?
i wo
t

+ O
M
D\ V7
? v7
tt m
V1 N
?. o0
N
N
N M
,? O
ON N
d. N
M M

M

N
to
V7
W
? O

?
3 fA
Y
L U1
Y
C A
Y
?

N U1
Y
CC fA
Y
CC$ V2
Y
C? V1
Y
C? L]
Y
? VI
Y
lK TA
Y
? !/J
Y
C? V1
Y
? iA
Y VI
Y V]
Y V]
Y
L?
?
a C
w ?
w C
w o w w w w w w w w w w w w w

["?

1 w? F
N
?.+ F
N
Y
I F
v
Y
CJ
?

F F
N
?+'
CK F
N
Y
RS F
N
Y
RS F
v
Y
RS F
N
i+
fC F
N
Y
fC F
d
w+
C? F
N
Y
C@ F
as
Y
? F
N
Y
f? F
N

C? F
N
Y
? F
N

?
w RS
3
-o ft
3
zs C
3
-o ? 3
-o 3
-o 3
-o 3
-o 3
zs 3
o 3
-v 3
-o 3
-o 3
-r7 3
•o 3
^o 3
-o
° 0 ° ° 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
F
0
F
°
C7 °
C7 °
C7 Q)
x F
C7 F
C7 F
C7 F
L7 F
L7 F
C7 F
C7 F
C7 F
C7 F
C7 C7 C7 C7

w

3
0 C'

N ' to

N \0

N tl-

N 00

N 0%

N CD

M .-y

M N

M m

m

m tn

m

m

M
oo

m
Q1

M
,
a _
N
ar
R
R
a
v
C
U
a
4
C
a

Appendix D: Comparison of 2000 and 2001 Vegetation Data
Appendix D. Comparison of species numbers and average height between years 2000 and 2001
YY 14aJ1al LL
2000
2000
2001
2001
Plot Species Avg height number Avg hei ht number

Pi Quercus hellos 82.20 2
Taxodium ascendens 72.00 7 85.50 5
- Taxodium distichum 72.60 36 82.27 41
Acer rubrum 5.00 15 25.36 25
Puw serohna 12.40 5 26.71 7
Quercus l ata 30.00 2 44.50 2
Baccharis halimi olio 54.00 1
N ssa 59.14 7 78.57 7
Myrica cerifera 24.00 1

Pl-B Baccharis halimi olia 24.60 5 42.00 15
Chama aril t oides 31.50 4 50.67 3
ercus hellos 39.00 2 98.00 3
N ssa 50.85 27 56.57 28
Salix ni a 50.00 2 54.00 3
Querna ata 74.00 2 74.00 3
Taxodium distichum 36.25 4 49.33 3
Acer rubrum 8.00 2 36.00 5
Pinus serotina 20.00 2 34.00 2
Pinus taeda 66.00 1
Fraxinus en lvanica 32.00 2

P2 Baccharis halimi olia 48.00 1 65.33 6
ercus lyrata 42.10 11 69.90 10
Taxodium distichum 54.00 8 79.11 9
ssa 55.00 5 70.50 6
Chamae aris t oides 32.00 2 54.00 2
L)uercus hellos 35.30 3 72.00 2
Acer rubrwn 17.50 4 108.00 1
Salix ni a 10.00 1

P4 Taxodium distichum 78.00 8 85.50 8
N ssa 41.17 12 66.80 10
Salix ni a 144.00 1 37.20 5
Acer rubrum 8.50 4 12.00 3

P5 Taxodium distichum 74.00 13 96.00 7
Acer rubrwn 7.66 3 37.20 15
Po ulus 16.00 1
Salix ni a 73.58 38 131.37 20
ercus hellos 42.00 3
N ssa 32.00 1 48.00 1
Rhus co allina 84.00 1

P6 ercus hellos 26.00 2 16.50 4
Taxodium distichum 34.67 3 30.00 2
Fraxinus en lvanica 21.22 9 19.83 12
ercus 47-ata 18.00 1 18.00 2
Salix ni a 34.00 4 37.80 10
Chamae aris t oides 24.67 3 21.00 2
ercus ni a 21.00 3 22.50 4
ercus michauxii 24.00 1
Rhus co allina 24.00 1
Appendix D contd. Comparison of species numbers and average height between years 2000 and 2001
within the groundwater flats habitat.
2000 2000
Plot Species Avg height number 2001 2001
Avg height number

6-B L9uff cus lyrata 17.67 3 21.67 18
Quercus ni a 17.74 19 18.57 7
Driodendron tuli i era 24.00 1 21.33 3
Pinus serotina 30.00 1 49.00 2
Quercus michauxii 15.83 6 22.43 7
Li uidambar s aci ua 21.39 13 25.15 13
N ssa 10.00 1
Taxodium distichum 35.80 5 36.00 4
Baccharis halimi olia 26.00 1 22.00 1
Fraxinus enn lvanica 12.00 1
Querms hellos 12.00 2
Salix ni a 144.00 1 156.00 1
Rhus co allina 15.00 2 16.00 2

P7 N ssa 61.13 31 86.93 _ 30
Acer rubrum 7.88 153 47.87 228
Salix ni a 60.00 1 54.00 2
Quercus hellos 30.00 2 24.00 1
Cham aris t oides 33.00 2 66.00 1
Taxodium distichum 39.00 2 60.00 2
Baccharis halimi olia 30.00 1
L' uidambar s aci ua 18.00 1 54.00 1
Quercus lyrata 18.00 1

Pl l Rhus co allina 38.90 11 61.53 59
Clethra alni olia 33.79 33 42.32 19
Baccharis halim" olia 54.00 1
L' uidambar s ac' ua 32.00 1 54.00 1
Quercus 1 ata 36.00 1 .
N ssa 23.00 6 33.00 2
Taxodium distichum 34.00 3 64.50 4
Acer rubrum 9.00 9 156.00 1
C ilia racem' ra 44.82 17 45.00 2

P12 N ssa 34.33 12 37.33 12
Taxodwm distichum 50.72 11 63.43 14
My-rica c era 42.00 2
Baccharis halimi olio 59.33 6 62.40 15
unknown 36.00 3
Quercus lyrata 60.33 6 86.00 7
Quercus michauxii 25.00 4 46.80 5
Quercus hellos 37.14 7 46.90 10
Rhus co allina 34.50 2 24.00 1
Platanus occidentalis 120.00 2 164.00 3
Acer rubrum 30.36 20 51.83 18
L' uidambar s aci ua 33.00 2 60.00 2
Fraxinus en lvanica 12.00 1
Liriodmad-on tuli i era 60.00 1

P14 Acer rubrum 5.49 42 31.30 73
Salix ni a 57.72 50 102.27 54
Li uidambar s aci ua 22.00 2 42.00 1
N ssa 45.60 5 52.29 7
Appendix D contd. Comparison of species numbers and average height between years 2000 and 2001
within the groundwater flats habitat.
2000 2000 2001 2001
Plot Species Avg height number Avg height number

P17 Clethra alni olia 31.00 20 30.50 12
N ssa 90.00 2 96.00 2
Acer rubrum 54.88 17 77.21 14
ills racemi ora 50.40 5
Persea borbonia 114.00 2 112.00 3
Vaccinium 60.00 1

P20 ssa 44.73 40 61.23 45
Taxodium dimchum 43.47 19 55.62 20
Acer rubrum 91.60 5 140.57 7
Li uidambar s ac' ua 65.00 1 69.00 2
Clethra alni olia 33.00 2 60.00 1
Persea borbonia 51.00 2 75.00 2
Taxodium ascenders 48.00 1

24-A Taxodium distichum 42.50 6 48.57 7
Persea borbonia 36.00 3 49.20 5
Myrica hetero lla 46.50 4
Acer rubrum 10.00 4 30.86 17
Clethra alni olio 27.27 11 38.00 4
N ssa 28.00 1 27.00 2
Chamae aris t oides 71.00 6 78.00 6
ica ceri era 24.00 1
Rhus co allina 30.00 1 36.00 3
ercus lyrata 16.00 2 45.00 2
Qvr* racem' ora 42.00 1
Quffcus hellos 12.00 1

24-B Clethra alni olia 26.53 15 33.00 14
C axis t oides 53.33 6 66.13 8
N ssa 38.00 9 57.00 8
Acer rubrum 24.00 5 68.00 3
Persea borbonia 42.00 1 66.00 1
L onia 34.00 5 40.00 6
Taxodium distichum 46.00 5 72.00 4

P24 Chamae axis t oides 21.33 3 45.50 4
ssa 29.50 4 33.60 5
Acer rubrum 6.00 2 50.00 3
Taxodium distichum 54.54 13 81.08 12
Baccharis halimi olia 28.00 1 62.40 5
Salix ni a 63.00 1 108.00 1

P25 Taxodium dbuchum 60.13 15 82.44 18
Acer rubrum 7.71 7 32.50 36
N ssa 67.83 12 70.50 12
Pinus serotina 12.00 1 40.00 2
Quercus hellos 18.00 1 22.00 1
ercus 1 ata 16.00 3 30.00 2
Baccharis halimi olio 60.00 4
Taxodium ascenders 76.00 1
Appendix D contd. Comparison of species numbers and average height between years 2000 and 2001
within the groundwater flats habitat.
2000 2000 2001 2001
Plot Species A height number Avg height number

P27 Rhus co allina 24.00 1
Salix ni a 144.00 2 204.00 3

a
Li uidambar s aci u
fl_

33.00

2

120.00

2
Acer rubrwn 12.00 1
N ssa 12.00 1 66.00 1
ercus hellos 36.00 1

P28 Quercus hellos 28.29 7 46.00 11
Li uidambar s aci ua 36.50 2 48.00 2
ercus lyrata 36.00 1 54.00 3
Taxodium distichum 49.74 19 57.92 24
Salix ni a 34.82 11 41.00 13

P29 Rhus co allina 44.61 97 53.01 349
ercus michauxii 27.33 3 51.60 5
ercus lyrata 38.00 2 59.56 8
Quercus hellos 43.00 4 61.50 4
Afp*a cer' era 48.00 1
Pinus serotina 16.00 1
Liriodendron tuli i era 40.00 1 96.00 1
Acer rubrum 24.00 6
Baccharis halimi olia 36.00 21 5097 34
N ssa 47.00 5 52.50 8
Plataru s occidentalis 51.00 2
Taxodium distichum 42.00 2
Chamae aris t oides 48.00 1
Sahr ni a 40.00 1

P30 rcus ata 87.00 4
Taxodium distichum 66.00 6 109.10 10
Nyssa 98.00 3
Sal& ni a 60.25 9 154.36 11
Chamae aril t oides 30.00 1
Li uidambar s aci ua 48.00 1
ercus hellos 33.00 2

P31 Taxodium ascendens 84.00 1
Taxodium distichum 49.44 9 60.11 9
Persea borbonia 16.80 5 36.44 9
L' uidambar s aci ua 33.00 1 60.00 1
Acer rubrwn -4400 3
Myrica ceri era 48.00 1
N ssa 29.00 2

P32 Acer rubrum 11.13 71 33.83 267
ssa 43.50 6 58.36 11
Li uidambar s aci ua 72.00 1 144.00 1
Persea borbonia 23.00 3 27.00 2
Taxodium distichum 42.00 1 36.00 2
ercus hellos 18.67 3
Appendix D contd. Comparison of species numbers and average height between years 2000 and 2001
within the groundwater flats habitat.
2000 2000 2001 2001
Plot Species Avg height number Avg height number

P33 Acer rubrum 41.87 89 68.31 68
N ssa 29.78 9 38.44 9
Persea borbonia 40.80 10 55.33 12
Li uidambar s aci ua 61.33 9 78.60 10
Clethra alni olia 39.78 9 48.00 1
Vaccinium 46.00 4 55.60 15
Taxodium distichum 39.60 5 48.00 10
L onia 12.00 6
Pinus serotina 108.00 1 120.00 1
ercus hellos 24.00 2
Rhus co allina 72.00 1
Myrica ceri era 54.00 2

P34 Acer rubrum 35.94 17 79.00 17
Salix ni a 58.00 43 117.82 61
ssa 28.00 3 23.33 3
Taxodium distwhum 30.00 2 50.00 3
Quffcus hellos 23.00 4 30.40 6
AtTica ceri era 57.00 2 75.00 2
Po ulus 81.00 2 120.00 2
Rhus co allina 46.00 3

P35 Acer rubrum 6.05 175 69.63 409
Pinus taeda 30.00 1
Pinus serotma 12.00 1
Taxodium distwhum 60.33 6 79.00 6
Quercus hellos 18.00 3
L' idambar s aci ua 12.00 1
Chamae aril t ides 30.00 2 54.00 3
Salix ni a 66.00 1
N ssa 30.00 1 30.00 1
Quffcus l ata 16.00 1

P36 Pinus alustris 29.17 12 45.80 10
Quer=phellos 18.30 13 22.57 14
N ssa 24.00 2 24.00 3
Baccharis halimi olia 64.00 1
Li uidambar s aci ua 18.00 1 18.00 1
Quercus 1 ata 16.67 3 38.00 1
Pinus serotina 20.00 1 18.00 1
Pinus taeda 48.00 1
L onia 8.00 1

P37 Quercus 1 ata 29.00 6
Acer rubrum 27.00 2 48.00 1
Rhus co allina 42.17 23
Quercus hellos 24.00 1
Li uidambar s aci ua 19.67 3 26.00 1
Chamae aril t oides 30.00 1 48.00 1
ercus ni a 22.00 2
Appendix D contd. Comparison of species numbers and average height between years 2000 and 2001
within the groundwater flats habitat.
2000 2000 2001 2001
Plot Species Avg height number Avg height number

P38 Otqmm lirata 19.33 3
Pinus serotina 16.00 3 19.80 6
Rhus co allina 29.14 7 46.21 14
ssa 19.20 5 35.60 5
Acer rubrum 43.00 8 56.11 9
Taxodium distichum - 48.00 1
L' uidambar s ac' ua 22.00 1 40.00 1
Persea borbonia 20.22 9 45.00 1
Chamae aril t oides 36.00 5 66.00 4
ercus ni a 18.00 8 24.00 2
Clethra alni olia 18.00 8 38.00 3
Baccharis halimi olia 63.00 1 57.67 3
Salix ni a 36.00 3 68.50 2
L onia 24.00 1

P39 Acer rubrum 33.44 9 58.67 9
Tawdium distichum 52.19 36 64.00 36
Taxodium ascendens 34.00 1 72.00 1
Chama aril t oides 47.00 6 71.43 7
N ssa 24.00 1
Appendix D contd. Comparison of species numbers and average height between years 2000 and 2001
within the headwater slope habitat.
2000 2000 2001 2001
Plot Species Avg height number Avg height number

P8 Taxodium distichum 70.94 17 99.93 15
Pinus taeda 52.44 9
Acer rubrum 8.66 169 54.00 552
!Quercus lyrata 49.80 5 95.00 5
Fraxinus en lvanica 54.00 1
Salix ni a 72.00 4 96.00 5
Quercus hellos 54.00 1
Li uidambar s aci ua 36.00 1
Baccharis halimi olia 33.00 2
ssa 60.00 1

P9 ssa ' 54.71 14 69.55 22
Fraxinus en lvanica 30.00 1 51.00 4
Acer rubrum 8.44 9 40.24 41
Platanus occidentalis 42.00 1 120.00 1
Li uidambar s aci ua 12.00 1
Gordonia lasianthus 35.00 2
P10 Salixni a 97.97 60 141.09 45
Acer rubrum 72.60 10 96.74 19
N ssa 66.00 2 65.25 8
Li uidambar s aci ua 144.00 1 300.00 1
Fraxinus en lvanica 48.00 1
Po l-us 108.00 3 17600 3
Quercus l ata 24.00 1
P3 N ssa 59.25 16 67.27 22
Acer rubrum 6.47 49 46..03 37
Quercus lyrata 63.57 7 83.25 8
C aril t oides 33.00 2 55.33 3
Quercus hellos 18.00 1 36.00 1
Sal& ni a 43.50 4 64.36 11
Taxodium distichum 71.00 8 78.60 10
Baccharis halimi olia 48.00 1 84.00 1
Pinus serotina 36.00 1
Taxodium ascendens 54.00 1

P26 N ssa 72.96 24 106.96 27
Salix ni a 145.71 7 198.00 6
Platanus occidentalis 54.00 1 108.00 1
Taxodium distichum 83.00 4 131.14 7
Fraxinus en lvanica 35.00 2 24.00 1
Chama aril t oides 54.00 1
Acer rubrum 93.00 2 120.00 1
Quercus l ata 24.00 1
Taxodium ascendens 90.00 2
1.0 MONITORING PLAN
The Nlonitorina Plan will consist of a comparison between hydrology model predictions, reference
streams and wetlands, and restoration areas on the Site. Stream restoration monitoring will be
performed through analysis of in-stream flows, stream. geometry, and biological stream attributes.
Wetland monitoring will entail analysis of two primary parameters: vegetation and hydrology.
Monitoring of restoration and enhancement efforts will be performed until success criteria are
fulfilled.
1.1 HYDROLOGY MONITORING
After hvdrological modifications.are being performed on the site,. surficial_monitoring wells will be
designed and placed in accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of .Engineers', Installing
1 Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993).
Monitoring wells will be set to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the soil surface.
Twenty three surficial monitoring wells (manual recording) will be installed at the Site to provide
representative coverage and flow gradients extending through each of the three physiographic
landscape areas (Figure 2). Four monitoring wells will also be.placed within the reference wetland
site in similar landscape positions, where available. Three continuous recording (RDS24) wells will
also be installed on-site to provide continuous data that can. be extrapolated. to manual recording
devices.
Hydrological sampling will be performed on-site and within reference during the growing season (17
March to 12 November) at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria within the
designated physiographic area (EPA 1990). In general, the wells will be sampled weekly through
the Spring and early Summer and intermittently through the remainder of the growing season. if
needed to verify success.
1.2 HYDROLOGY SUCCESS CRITERIA
Taraet hvdrological characteristics have been evaluated using a potential combination of three
different methods: 1) regulatory wetland hydrology criteria; 2) reference groundwater modeling; and
3) reference wetland sites.
Reaulatorv Wetland Hvdroloav Criteria
The regulatory wetland hydrology criterion requires saturation (free water) within one foot of the soil
surface for 12.E percent of the growing season under normal climatic conditions. In some instances,
the regulatory wetland hydroperiod may extend for between and 12.5% of the growing season.
Reference Groundwater Model
The reference groundwater model forecasts that the wetland hydroperiod in interior areas of the Site
will ayeraae 21% of the growing season in early successional phases. As steady state forest
conditions develop, the average wetland hydroperiod is forecast to encompass 409c of the growing
season. Over the 31 year modeling period, the annual hydroperiod fluctuated from less than 12.51-7o
to over -'''''.1'o dependent upon rainfall patterns and successional phase. In addition. the on-site
page I of
landscape includes diverse wetland geomorphology, especially near uplands and the stream channel.
which are not characterized by the model.
Due to wide fluctuations in modeled annual hydroperiod (<12-44+90), the groundwater model cannot
provide a specific hydrology success criteria above the regulatory criterion (12.5%) on an annual
basis. A specific success criteria such as a 22% target hydroperiod will fail in 50% of the years
sampled. A success criteria of 12.590 (the regulatory criteria) will also fail in 10% of the years
sampled in reference wetlands.
Reference Wetland Sites
Four monitoring wells will be placed in the groundwater flats.reference wetland located in the
northwestern periphery of Barra Farms. Wells will be also be placed in a riverine reference wetland
1 in the Bushy Lake/Horse shoe Lake natural area dependent upon contact with the North.Carolina
Park and Recreation Service. These wells will provide annual hydroperiods on the organic soil flat,
and riverine floodplain physiographic areas of the Site. The headwater slope physiographic area may
be interpolated between the two systems. Transition zones from uplands towards the wetland interior
will not be represented. Therefore, these wells will provide comparative information on interior
wetlands only.
The hydrology success criteria for this Site will require saturation (free water) within one foot of the
soil surface for at least 509c of the hydroperiod exhibited by the reference wetland.
Based on groundwater models, average wetland hydroperiods in groundwater flats will exhibit a
steady, non-linear increase from 229o to 409o of the growing. season during .forest (post-farmland)
development. This trend includes a hypothetical reduction in hydraulic conductivities and a 509c
increase in surface water storage through the first 15 years of wetland development. Therefore, a
goal of 50 +/-% hydroperiods relative to reference wetlands is warranted for the five year monitoring
period. This 50% goal may not apply in non-organic soils as evapotranspiration may play a greater
role in early successional hydroperiods than surface water storage.
1.3 VEGETATION
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA guidelines
1 presented in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (EPA 1990) and COE Compensatory
Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). The following presents a general discussion of the
monitoring program.
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed
to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental
planting and additional site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis. to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by weeds. Subsequently, quantitative
sampling of vegetation will be performed between September 1 and October 31 after each growing
season until the vegetation success criteria is achieved.
Page 2 o 5
After planting plan implementation, 0.1 acre plots will be within each restored ecosystem type.
Twenty three plots will be correlated with hydrological monitoring locations to provide point-related
data on hydrological and vegetation parameters.
1.4 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component supports a
species composition sufficient for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success criteria are
dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species. Specifically, a minimum
mean density of 320 characteristic trees/ac must be present for the five year monitoring period.
Characteristic tree species are those within the reference ecosystems, elements enumerated in the
planting plan, along with natural recruitment of sweet gum, red maple, loblolly bay, loblolly pine,
and pond pine. Loblolly or pond pine (softwood species) cannot comprise -more .than 1.0 percent of
the 320 stem/acre requirement. In addition, at least five character. tree species must be present, and
no species can comprise more than 20 percent of the 320 stem/acre total. Supplemental plantings
will be performed as needed to achieve the vegetation success criteria.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb and shrub assemblages as part of the
vegetation success criteria. Development of a forest canopy over several decades and restoration of
wetland hydrology will dictate the success in migration and :.establishment of..desired wetland
understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates of the percent cover/composition of shrub
and. herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be reported fore information purposes.
1.5 STREAM
1.5.1 Initial Monitoring Plan
N-lonitoring and success criteria will be established through periodic measurement of stream stage
and rainfall in the Bank. One staff gauge will be placed on central sections of the mitigation stream
reach and the second staff Gauge will be located approximately 300 feet below outfall from the Bank.
Rain gauges will be placed at open locations within centrai portions of the Bank. Stream stage and
rainfall will be measured weekly throughout the monitoring period.
1.5.2 Updated Monitoring Plan
Stream monitoring and success criteria will be established through measurement of in-stream flows,
measurement of stream geometry, and measurement of biological stream attributes.
In-stream flows will be measured through placement of two continuos monitoring stream flow
gauges. The gauges will be capable of recording velocity (ft/second) and discharge (cubic feet per
second. CFS). Discharge is typically calculated by measuring height (or depth) of the water column
and inputting the resulting cross-section. One gauge will be placed within the central reach of the
restored stream channel on the mitigation site. The gauge will be located approximately 100 feet
downstream of a former dirt road crossing in central portions of the site (Drainage Area: 2.5 mi').
The second gauge will be placed within the riverine wetland reference site in Bladen Lakes State
Forest. The reference gauge will be located a minimum of 100 feet upstream of the State road
Page 3 of 5
crossing (Drainage Area: 6.7 mi-). The data will be reported as mean daily flows for velocity
(ft/second) and discharge (CFS) in tabular and graphic format.
Stream geometry will be measured along a fixed stream reach located immediately upstream and/or
downstream of the stream gauge located on the mitigation site. The stream reach will extend for a
minimum of 200 feet along the restored channel. Annual fall monitoring will include development
of a channel plan view, three channel cross-sections, pebble counts, and a water surface profile of
the channel. The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format as summarized in the attached
_ table. Data to be presented will include: 1) cross-sectional area; 2) bankfull width; 3) average depth;
4) average width; 5) width/depth ratio; 6) meander wavelength; 7) beltwidth; 8) water surface slope;
9) sinuosity; and 10) stream substrate composition. The stream will.subsequently be classified
according to stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Signifrcant.changes in channel
morphology will be tracked and reported by comparing data between the reference stream and
mitigation stream and by comparing data in each successive monitoring year.
Biological stream attributes will be measured annually at the mitigation site and in the reference
wetland site between April 15 and May 15 of each year. yAquatic surveys will record
presence/absence of macro-invertebrate, reptile, amphibian, and fish ..species ..populations.
Presence/absence of species populations identified will be reported. along with observations of
changes to in-stream aquatic habitat or species presence/absence over time.
1.6 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA
1.6.1 Initial Monitoring Plan
Success criteria will include establishment of near-permanent stream flows within the Bank.
Specifically, stream stage and obsen-able flow must be present for a minimum of 80% of the
calendar year. Intermittent flow may occur during periods of groundwater draw-down. generally
confined to summer months.
1.6.2 Updated Nfonitorin!z Plan
Success criteria for stream restoration will include: 1) stream classification; 2) target mean daily
stream flows; and 3) increased stream faunal recruitment and diversity.
Stream geometry measurements will be incorporated into the Rosgen stream classification system.
The channel and flood prone area must support characteristics supporting an E. C, or DA stream type
to fulfill the success criteria.
In-stream flow measurements must. indicate that the mitigation stream reach supports mean daily
flows per unit of drainage area equal to. or exceeding the mean daily flows per unit of drainage area
within the riverine reference reach. The reference stream reach supports an approximate 6.7 mil
drainage area while the mitigation stream reach supports an approximate 2.5 ffll' drainage area (37%
of reference). Therefore, mean daily flows in the mitigation reach must equal to, or exceed 30% of
the mean daily flows in reference. If the mitigation reach and/or reference reach support no
Pace =' of 5
measurable flow during a drought period, fulfillment of success criteria will be based upon mean
daily flows prior to, and following the no flow condition.
Biological monitoring will indicate similar species diversity as compared to reference conditions or
an increase in species diversity towards reference conditions over time. Specifically, the type and
number of species populations identified in the mitigation reach must be equal to, or increasing
towards, the type and number of species identified in the reference reach in each successive
monitoring year.

1.7 REPORT SUBMITTAL
Documentation will be submitted to the MBRT certifying completion of implementation.activities.
Any changes to this mitigation plan will be described in this documentation. The document will be
provided within 60 days of completion of all work at the Site.
Subsequently, reports will be submitted yearly to the MBRT following each assessment. Reports
will document the sample transect locations, along with photographs which illustrate site conditions.
Surficial well data will be presented in tabular/graphic format.. The duration of wetland hydrology
during the growing season will be calculated at each well. within each on-site.physiographic area,
and within the reference wetland site.
The survival and density of planted tree stock will be reported. .In .addition,. characteristic tree
species mean density and average height as formatted in the Vegetation.Success Criteria will be
calculated. Estimates and photographic evidence of the relative percent cover of understory and
groundcover species will be generated.
1.8 CONTINGENCY
In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for
contingency will be implemented. For vegetation contingency, replanting and extended monitoring
periods will be implemented if community restoration does not fulfill minimum species density and
distribution requirements.
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies if
wetland hydrology restoration is not achieved during the monitoring period. Recommendations for
contingency to establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and monitored until the Hydrology
Success Criteria are achieved. Performance bonds have been established to guarantee fiscal
resources for remediation.
Page of 5
I
kk.,,..
f,
Barra Farms Mitigation Site
Cumberland. County, NC
1 Bald cypress trees within plot.
Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
November 2001
Pictures of site.
1 Trees within atypical plot at Barra. Many trees are greater than 7' tall.
Bald cypress trees.
Barra Farms Mitigation Site
Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
November 2001
Pictures of site.
1 Water oak tree at Barra.
+ A majority of the herbaceous vegetation consisted of broomsedge.
IIIJIM -17
Barra Farms Mitigation Site
Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Ina
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
November 2001
Pictures of site.
i Goldenrod was found in drier sections.
1 Red maple dominated several plots, however planted species continued to grow
1
0
Barra Farms Mitigation Site
Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
Envim m?entd Congaitarts
Wilmington, N.C.
November 2001
Pictures of site.
1 Red maple appeared to have no more effect on planted species than herbaceous vegetation.
Automated well broken at Barra Farms by a bear.
Barra Farms Mitigation Site
Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Conn pants
Wilmington, N.C.
November 2001
Pictures of site.