19970972 Ver 1_Mitigation Report_20060115

T> Lo Q # ? q Q1 0°112
(-eCd N I'Ir?',DCO
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 4)
ANSON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Chambers Development of North Carolina, Inc
Anson County, North Carolina
Prepared by:

EcoScience
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
[phone]

January 2006
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... i
' LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Chronology .................................................................................................. 4
2.0 STREAM MONITORING .................................................................................................. . 5
2.1 Monitoring Program ....................
2. 1.1 Physical Stream Attributes ......................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Biological Stream Attributes ....................................................................... 5
2.1.3 In-Stream Flow .......................................................................................... 5
2.2 MONITORING RESULTS .............................. ...............................:.......................... 6
2.2.1 Physical Stream Attributes ......................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Biological Stream Attributes ....................................................
2.2.3 In-Stream Flow .......................................................................................... 17
2.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................. 17
3.0 WETLAND HYDROLOGY MONITORING ......................................................................... 20
3.1 MONITORING PROGRAM ..................................................... ......... 20
........................
3.2 MONITORING RESULTS ........................................................................................ 20
3.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................. 23
4.0 WETLAND VEGETATION MONITORING ........................................................................ 24
4.1 MONITORING PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 24
4.2 MONITORING RESULTS ........................................................................................ 24
4.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................. 26
5.0 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................31
6.0 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 33

1

t LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location ..........................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Plan View: Stream and Wetland Creation Area ......................................................3
Figure 3A. Plan View and Cross-sections (Middle Reach) ....................................... 10
............
Figure 3B. Plan View and Cross-sections (Middle Reach) ................................................... 11
Figure 3C. Plan View and Cross-sections (Lower Reach) ................................................... 12
Figure 3D. Plan View and Cross-sections (Lower Reach) ...................................................
Figure 3E. Cross-sections (Upper Reach) ........................................................................... 13
14
Figure 3F. Cross-sections (Upper Reach) ........................................................................... 15
t Figure 4. Bio-monitoring Sites .............................................................................................
Figure 5
Stream Hydrograph (Water Level and Velocit
) 16
.
y
.................................................... 18
Figure 6. Groundwater Gauge Locations and Wetland Boundary Determination ................. 21
Figure 7. Planting Plan and Vegetation Plots .......................................................................25

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Morphological Stream Characteristics .....................................................................8
' Table 2. Summary of Hydrology Monitoring Data ...............................................................22
Table 3. Characteristic Tree Species (Piedmont Alluvial Forest) .........................................28
Table 4. Characteristic Tree Species (Piedmont Swamp Forest, Planted Area) ..................29
Table 5. Characteristic Tree Species (Piedmont Swamp Forest, Non-planted Area) ...........30
1

1
1
1
1
r ii
•
Anson (;)?y W"
6VA? _ .? 930,r- S?7 U Gt1u& ° / 33 c:,G j vr1t,/ zJ ---9 OIL WL t /Oaj ff
U
0
1
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 3)
ANSON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Description
Chambers Development of North Carolina, Inc. (Chambers) has developed and begun
operations at the Anson Waste Management Facility located off US Route 74 between
Polkton and Wadesboro, Anson County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The property selected for
the waste management facility (hereafter referred to as "the Facility") consists of
1 approximately 793 acres bounded by Pinch Gut Creek to the east, Brown Creek to the north
and west, and CSX Railroad to the south. The location of the waste disposal area (hereafter
referred to as "the Disposal Area") encompasses approximately 133 acres within the Facility
' and is designed to accommodate future waste disposal needs for the county and surrounding
region. Construction of the Disposal Area results in unavoidable impacts to 0.49 acre of
jurisdictional wetlands and 1085 linear feet of perennial stream.
A detailed mitigation plan was developed to off-set unavoidable impacts caused by
construction of the Disposal Area. A forested stream and wetland complex (hereafter
' referred to as "the Site"), situated below Sediment Basin #1, was proposed to maximize
treatment of surface water and groundwater runoff prior to the confluence with Pinch Gut
Creek (Figure 2). Mitigation efforts were designed to re-construct a shallower, meandering
stream channel on the abandoned floodplain and re-establish groundwater wetland
hydroperiods across the adjacent floodplain surface. Plans were reviewed and accepted by-
the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ). The North Carolina Section 401 Water Quality Certification (No. 3247)
was granted on September 27, 1999. The Section 404 Individual Permit (No. 199800592)
' was granted on April 3, 2000.
Construction plans were developed from the detailed mitigation plan and used as a template
to guide construction work. Restoration construction activities were initiated in early
February 2001 and completed during April 2001. Water flow was diverted into the
constructed channel on April 16, 2001. During construction several important changes were
' made with respect to the original design in order to facilitate the construction process and
ultimately increase the Site's chances for success. Included with these changes was an
increase in the Site's size from approximately 9.0 acres to approximately 23.6 acres, a
' significant increase in the length of constructed stream (from approximately 2040 linear feet
to approximately 2800 linear feet), and a significant increase in potential acreage for wetland
mitigation opportunities. A supplemental planting for logged wetland areas was completed in
' the Spring of 2002. Modifications to the mitigation plan were reviewed and approved by the
USACE (Angie Pennock, January 2002).
1
' f it
?
?,, ,-
Hairi
i
t? • ewisvi
4
ll l 9
1 ? Ifa
Colleg,
p
r
N n
e -_
7 neyyyins o -Sal .
e dte?i?I
?'1"' Farrmn
l emmons '??
I -- Ada _
-7,
a11Atlrt
IS.
3
10 ml. 0 10 mi. 9
Ni
oink
600 adia /
7:633, 9 dway
S
* -
Source: 1999 NC Department of Transportation Map I 1
T

J A tt ttt't

*
?
? ?n atco

o rn
Cpl

' .F l
6 ?4v ..?
®
f
`
MocMSVille ? 6 few t 3 S* WS t
t
9 i
.41

5 I ) 3
%
1
t
i yO
t 1o eed 3 `
1 1• . La
? n
Coale j 1C MondTx 1 y
1 .-*?
I
1 1 So
?
tatiqyfliO woodleal 0 A + R A N
' b CI
Elmwood 1 d / S Ita S
to '
Minty
t
I
• 16
Hi
?b
•
?v
wall ear Pow
Sails
?

11

III
,
G
i t f alnler

/
1 t 111 I
?®
llpndge ! 1¢Lamte
Q11
ar I

'?

R
I
R N
O HI aw ea ten Sorrnts
t na'Gr faith : crescent ' 6 •
Roca well 1 Hill
6
ne
t
andi
l :AI ru c S
k 1 \
', ?
.?
r v
Al Gold Hill Lo
$4
E
10
avid to
neliVs 19 A - - Misenhe 1 e
Know
\
\
aldwoil $ l3 3
iN 3 E ad*
L
' 11 1 11
* ord How London
untersvillt „ X13
4 `
S 7 I Moon Pleasant
e?'^
ie F
i 3 i5, v 1`
' „ _ , 1

/ ?
?
, * -
1t

s•
•

• AR.R S , MO'
t
Ha/ flwilp ambert
`
g
S
i .. `
\ ( q b S A
i ^•
1 S
NI Locust I Porter
M _
S
1 h4! •
?tt M Goss
???? land r2 O"bor 711
=' °ke
trrl ;
5 Alle n . ! t•nfiel Acwn a a \
1 / Rohl y I I 1 r ?

KLE
' (
alreiew

.. ?

11
? ew Sol
fn

ce at Hill

; -
b---

t
Stallings
S
%
I Itlniorwdle ;
Annoy It" I
3r
1 "= 10 n 14
Indian
Trail `•
-
N I O N I

ingfon
BaRNS
? ??? I It
v ?r
i

?

- 4-Wingate '611102111141114 1 Pe•cfd

and
i 1
• 6
%
I desllo
? ro
-; : 1
nera
w•ah•.' swings A
i 10
I
...
S f
- 11 white Store
17
I
l
f , ?
?:? i t r Mor
N IO UNA s

1 , S AO tIIA , 4 4

S 9
?L a g Paso ane GotMn
AshWr 1
A. / ( C
A Moult Vernon
I ' Coleridge
i.
•, ,. Lwio. ?
1
r
(8enneti
seatrove
1• Zhynot -
- 1 t u

0-
Carl
Hill
rn 1g 7 ?
?M,u 1 ackse r4
springs ineh
MITIGATION
---- SITE Pin.
Ville
Egeree -
F° R I CIN M 0 N
Lake
- 9 ?RoOetdN v hurston
esviue
' < < vnac
N
Cer
Own. by:
EcoScience SITE LOCATION Ckd by: MAF FIGURE
'
Corporation ANSON WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY JG
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT Date:
Raleigh, North Carolina ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA JAN 2006
Project: 05-239
V --W Q O N
U 0 c NW=Z (Az OCZ ?Z zacc
z o
U O Q z' W_ Q
u i?
m ca CL o 0Z WJ C UU C?z °U w aJZ-? ZaV s~ Z= qZ WWO C) Z
All LU LL 0 Z
U o W C Q U. 0 O z p, ? .. 2
WU o a Q? _ `n u p .1 m
W

PINCH GU T

n77
loe
O
z J
? CL
cr
0
- _ I

i
r
?F
}
d'
/ ? 1 Q
1 O?
O
C13
J ?? w
\I
is -Asp
-

' -
f Wz
O \
x

I 0 -j
oa-

. 1
ZO ~
\ \ / wU

of
7
J gZ
-z
0 (A

slq Li r

00 00 So

\ ! \ I \ \ _
V)Q
m
\ , _
_
es
Ow \ \
/ \J \\
O _ -
0 V)

a
o

r j - \
`? -
? EJ
;-.p
?
I
=
g

Q5 i
Q?r

?.

• ?. _?

r
0
0 LO N O
H
O z >- > 3 U
O
m W J J N
w
w W d w J W
H
Q V, N Q? Z O W J Z
Z °' zda a? a a Z In
LU 0 0 ?a Ow O w U
W c? tO• F- -J Z ? o a o z
N O w In
1 1
1 1 ' ?
I '
r = = r m m = = m m m m r i

The mitigation plan outlined monitoring procedures designed to track wetland and stream
development after restoration activities were completed. The monitoring plan requires
annual monitoring for a minimum 5-year period and analysis of the data to evaluate
quantitative success criteria. The monitoring plan is attached for reference in Appendix A.
This document represents the fourth Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) designed to track
wetland and stream development as outlined in the monitoring plan. Hydrology, vegetation,
and stream parameters have been monitored throughout the year 2005 growing season.
Per the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) request, groundwater hydrology has been
continuously monitored throughout the calendar year. Site data will be compared with
hydrology model predictions, regulatory wetland criteria, and reference (relatively
undisturbed) stream characteristics and vegetative communities in the region.
1.2 Project Chronology

Review of On-Site Jurisdictional Areas February 17, 1998
(USACE)
Perennial Stream Limit Determination February 4, 1999
Site Identification June 1998
Detailed Mitigation Plan June 1999
Sec. 401 Water Quality Certification
Issued (DWQ) September 27, 1999
Monitoring Plan August 2000
Sec. 404 Wetland Permit Issued (USACE) April, 2000
Site Construction and Planting February - April 2001
Flow Diversion
As-built Stream and Wetland Report April 16, 2001
September 2001
Post Project Review of Site January 2002
(USACE, Angie Pennock)
Monitoring Wells and Stream Gauge Installed February 2002
Supplemental Planting in Cut-Over Areas March 2002
First Year Field Monitoring September and October 2002
Second Year Field Monitoring September and October 2003
Site Maintenance (Channel Plug Improvements) June -July 2004
Third Year Field Monitoring September and October 2004
Fourth Year Field Monitoring November and December 2005

1
1

1 2.0 STREAM MONITORING
' 2.1 Monitoring Program
2.1.1 Physical Stream Attributes
The monitoring plan calls for measurement of stream geometry attributes along a minimum
300-foot reach. Annual fall monitoring protocol includes development of a channel plan view,
channel cross-sections on riffles and pools, pebble counts, and a water surface profile.
Specific stream data to be presented includes 1) riffle cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width,
3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width/depth ratio, 6) meander wavelength, 7) belt
width, 8) water surface slope, 9) sinuosity, and 10) stream substrate composition. The
' stream will subsequently be classified based on fluvial geomorphologic principles outlined in
Applied River Morphology (D. Rosgen, Applied River Morphology, Wildland Hydrology,
1996). Significant changes in channel morphology will be tracked and reported by
comparing data in each successive monitoring year.
2.1.2 Biological Stream Attributes
The monitoring plan was devised to provide for biological sampling of the stream channel
prior to diversion of flow and again after years 3 and 5. However, the DWQ has asked that
biological sampling be performed annually. Therefore, an evaluation of bio-monitoring
success criteria will appear in all succeeding AMRs. The procedures and methodologies for
biological monitoring have been modified to follow the standards put forth by the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) January 1997 biological monitoring protocols
and the DWQ draft guide for benthic sampling. The Qual-4 sampling method has been
adapted from the May 2000 final draft of the Interim, Internal Technical Guide for Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects from
DWQ.
The biological samples will provide a means to track taxonomic diversity over time.
Specifically, the numbers of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) taxa will be
monitored and evaluated. The EPT taxa are not generally considered primary stream
colonizers and, therefore, are not typically found in newly established streams. All taxa will
be identified to the lowest practical level. The number of EPT genera/species is expected to
increase through the 5-year monitoring period. An evaluation of in-stream and riparian
habitat will also be conducted at each monitoring location, following the DWQ habitat
classification system. If biological success criteria are not being fulfilled, the most likely
cause will be lack of perennial base flow and extensive sedimentation, which covers coarse
substrates in the channel. If aquatic species diversity is not increasing, additional
modifications to channel substrates may be performed and upstream sources of
sedimentation shall be identified.
2.1.3 In-Stream Flow
In-stream flows will be measured through placement of a continuous monitoring, stream flow
gauge within the constructed channel cross-section or bankfull channel culvert. The gauge
will be capable of recording stream stage (feet), velocity (feet/second), and discharge (cubic
5

feet per second, CFS). The data will be reported as peak daily flows for channel
(feet/second), discharge (CFS), and stage in tabular and graphic format.
' 2.2 MONITORING RESULTS
' 2.2.1 Physical Stream Attributes
After the fourth year of monitoring, the stream restoration effort includes approximately 2,800
linear feet of constructedstream on new location and approximately 1,240 linear feet of
' reactivated backwater c nel through the floodplain of Pinch Gut Creek. Six permanent
cross-sections were established along the constructed stream channel in 2001, two in the
upper reach, two in the middle reach, and two in the lower reach. Current cross-sectional
data has been superimposed on the current year data to track aggradation or degradation in
the channel. Stream channel morphological characteristics are provided in Table 1.
Channel Dimension Attributes
Channel dimension attributes were obtained from the surveyed cross-sections depicted in
Figures 3A-3F. The constructed channel currently exhibits a bankfull mean width of 2.9 feet,
a bankfull mean depth of 0.5 feet, and a mean bankfull width/depth ratio of 5.9. The mean
bankfull cross-sectional area is 1.6 square feet and ranges from 1.1 to 1.9 square feet.
Channel dimension attributes remain consistent with parameters established under as-built
' conditions.
Channel Pattern, Slope, and Substrate
' The entire length of the constructed channel was walked and visually assessed for changes
during the fourth year of development. Based on the qualitative analysis, the channel has
' supported stable pattern, slope, and substrate attributes since the first year of monitoring;
therefore, quantitative measurements remain similar to those performed in year 2.
2.2.2 Biological Stream Attributes
Current year benthic surveys were performed on October 20, 2005. On-site monitoring sites
are shown in Figure 4. The reference stream (UT to Little Brown Creek) location is shown in
Appendix B. Results of the current year monitoring data are depicted in Appendix B.
Year 4 (2005) benthic data indicate substantial decreases in both the total number of taxa
and total number of_o(gggisms collected re a ive to year 3 (2004). Only 54 total organisms
representing 13 t, axa„were collected at Station 1 (upstream stafion), while 19 organisms from
-gAaxa were collected at Station 2 (downstream station). In 2004, 120 organisms from 24
taxa were coil Station 1, while 134 organisms representing ?7- xq were collected at
S_.Iation 2. No EPT (i.e., Ep emeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) organisms were
collected from ei er Station 1 or Station 2 in 2005. The considerable contrast between year
4 and year 3 benthic data is likely attributable to widespread drought conditions experienced
in the current monitoring year, which limited the stream base flow require to support the
populations of many benthic macroinvertebrate populations, including EPT taxa.
A benthic sample was also collected from
the project's r ence stream in year 4 A total of
89 organisms were collected from 29 taxa, including E?xa
' pp
? ??? ,?y'? ' 1? ?rff Lvet? Yp-i 'J' Y`t P i r K
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
d
.F+
N
O
V-+
6P?
N >+ C
w
C ?
H O d
d U
w o
? C
?Q E
r c y d
.Q w L CO)
? L U >'
F- "
cn *? -
LL
O d
° n- E
" o a)
0)
O F- sa
GC
C
G
c
O
N
C
Q
0
N M co co N co
(O r- r N M N
O ob v ' O m c0
M d N O
(n
0 01 (o V co

O
O LO ' N N
O
co CO m ?
(n r N N
O oD r ' co N m
L6 ui
m
O N co V O o

CO ' N _ N
V
O
O O o0 cp N
IT T N T .-
O N Un N V v
cp - (V
,It
O O H c0 P- o
V n N
O co
Cl) O Cl) O
co
O
N N N N
O H O ' pr C>
M O O O
O M 1? M
M O
m
OV e
L rn
N
N
C;)
O co (o M r
r
N
O
O O
N , ? i
O N
6
O a0 (D M 1?
r ? O
N
O
n M 0
N O '
O N
O?
O OR (D M f?
O
N
n ? rn
V M 1()
N N
m
O W (O M I?
N
10 r r O .-
to N (7 M OV
p ?7 O' O
O `- N V
0 0 0 0
N O
N N r
N O N
V
O O O O '
(O N of of
0 0 0 o O
O I? N ?
N
N
d
d
N
(0 e
> J ?
C _J N
d d L ?
(n ?' ? 2 c
0 _ (n
0 J t CJ
a ?5 :5 o >
0
0
U m _ co 7
° m ? U)
O m N O ? NN
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
V
W O O
? O O
G
o 0
D: 0
O o
0 0
v
} ? V n In N
y O O O O
O O O O
? O O O O
d O
? O
C
M
A _
)- ? V r tf) N
y 0 0 0 0
? O O O O
O O O O

w+ C
cn d O
O
a C
c G N O C
O
?
O O

? N

-It
O O O
G d O
O O O
O
-a O O O O

V rt+

? 0 0
N R
? O O
^ (a Q L N O O
L N R 00

Q
U
Y d
B } 4 0 0 0 0

E 41
0 0
0 0
O c
p (D C/) 0 0 0 0
L

Cl)
?w
m
a ° °
C) 0
V V- 0 in

O O C ° o

n. E a
Q' w N O
m (D (
D O
Q'..? (Sf O O O O
c O O O O
C
C
C
G

N 00 00
p c o 0

p a o
0 0

O t
o
0 0
O v
N a
o
a
? a
0 ?
Q o I

a oo
o 0 oo
0 0
N (/j
d
? N
16 O
-` O
A U)
> N
d ?
w
4
IL rn
`m N ? 8
3 Cl a a
-° o
0
> u o
Q > a
¦? //? `` N (O z 0)
r V r /19 Q z O N
O yW=Z NZ z z ?? O= N = V) In
U ??+ WQW a z00 W_ F- Q Q v o
Iftellm a
U Z ?aQ?Q ??J W0 oQ 1CW i
Z C) U z
cn ° z 5 a?ZJ ZQ? t o? zay o o u M
u O <UOpV v z? LL. 40 Qz a m
V a ? ? Q - v o ? w
? a
c0 M d M N
0) 0) 0) 0) ol
LO -
N
- - L -
:2 j 2
O m
N

4) -

C
o - -
N

O _ Z-
0 a
0
I O

¦

O ¦

¦
¦

¦

¦

¦

¦
¦

M
01 _ _
d

(O >
_N
M 4)

O
cD d M N
0) 0) O 0) 0)
UOi}Onal3
- J
E_
W 0 z
O
W W
IL W
?z0
ama
W
0 cr.
CCO?
LL
m
M
z
O N
~ o
U o
w a
U
(n 2
O
cr
u
O
N
O
U ur)
c
0
O
C
O
N
O O
2
O
C

-
M

N r
CL 0
N W
---- - _ -N-
.
6) 0
a
_ o. a)

O
('11) UOi}Onal3
Q
N
w; M
p
q ,o
O Q
L •.
75
a w
cc
m a o
O 47 Z-
00 ? U
M E 4) N
Q i
C O N
N
X
4) O
3 m Q U
> > > >
Y -11C Y -Y
c c c c
0 0 0 0
m m m m
Z
O_
F
_Z zU
W Q a W 0'
FY
21 Q
F w0
D LLJ F ?0
0
FO'm NQ
F W
Z F-
W F-
2 N

w ? W0
O w
Z
?Z
ooa VlOdls 3adnos Q ?
O W J U
U m m OQ?
z
a
W
CC
W
J
G
N
M
J c
v o
O
W N
Y N
Q O
m?
c
O
O
U7
12
c
(1)

C c- p
O'.>
ON
C
0?
O
rn w O
O a?w 0.o !so
'
4) O O 7 'C a
U
o.? 03 ?oYa o0 cC
w? N 0)C
c 0 E -
2V 0.2
-
N
c E C
Q)- O-0 O

N-
O 0 o

>
4)
47
00 U)oL w
C W
._. 41
U? 47 ?, oL-
N C O t/l O
N 047
L
N C 4) O _
U O N?

cn ?0-
- an) E
• K Cp
cc
(n 0
CO
.:3 (Cj c N
fA O
CL
Y- 3"
'
c N
L
U
>

ii)
U c
0 o a
? a c
O 4)
w Q t
m v, o a U 0 wa

O N M d
Z
O
? LN d M N ''
O O O O O
N ZO N N N N
Z F z z z z
o< o o o o
Q a a Q
> w > > > >
W w w w w
J J J J J J
W J W W W W
w U_ w w w w
Q Z Q Q Q Q
Q D: w w
c? m c? 0
¦
¦
¦
¦
F
.. U --
- x- --
F
J
cs
O
O
O
00
O
O c
(O O
N
LU
0
c
3
0 0
d in
c
J I
c
0
N
0
O O O O
00 (o d N
(11) aOUO}si4 (AallDA ssOJOV) Joaw3

y co z M
?Yy V I-- V, ¢ Z o o ?•,
W + C V?z =Z VnZ F}-Z O N T-
' WTI- QW Q Z zo W 1- U ¢ a O
V) Li
o
U U C O Q UA O q C W o ' o¢
C)
0 z U Z
C) GO CD - } JZJ Z c.? Zm za`? J 0 z L M
all 0 1., _C: 0 Z LL V) of 5
Z ix
v U a p; U W
tD In
0) 0) d M
0) 0) N
0)
LO
N

O
N ,
Ifs

>_ _ )
I
I
i_
1

U
c

N '
? L -
0

0
N
.
O I

Z

w
0
? 1 ~
i

I ?

I
I
'
L
I i
In
I.
I
M
m
d
O)

c0 >

m a?
I
I
0 -
(0 Ln
(n O) 't M
0) 0) N
0)
(•11) U01jDAal 3
0)
O O aoi
0'
L .. -
o
a? a o
O D U
MEma,
t E O N
_ N
x N p
i?QU
> > > >
Y?CYY
c c c c
0000
mmmm
z
o_
W ?
Z U
Zu.? w QIL L`'LJ
Y
C
L W
mZ
¢ -
m0 FO
W IL og
Q O!H
W m cn ¢
ZV)
gz? W ?--
-
-
d -
wz
ma ??

0 1= J 00
cr LLJ
o
. O Z ?
z
(108 dlaels 3adnos L
¢
m o
J
I-JQ
m
U O
¢w
Z

V
Q
W
cc
W
0
G
2
O
W ?
J c
O
U
? U
o_ N
Y N
Q o
m?
U
0)
c
O
O
N
N
c
U
O 47 O O :
C •- T.
?
C C- O
O+±
> a
a)c
` O
?O

' wNai "
Q
U -
N N
O C O
* O^
V O _
0
7 C U
p
O
CC
LL. .N. pi C
C O E -
-o o.2
-

C E
O Q 10 O
0 Z ap
O>
O
0 0
... aJ N Ot
(U c w
2 N
U"
N C 3 N
0 0 N
U
Y
C y
a?0 O
(U
E
N c
o
N; - •
- O
00 w O c (n N O Ot
c - ; C N
L > U

(n
U
CD

?•O O

a
U c

-2
N
Li Q m N•o a 0 wa
I-
O N 1
z
Ln

O O
to N O ? M N
O N 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
N Z N N N N
O ¢
?z w
o a o 0 o o
>
F- LLI
¢
J
Z
¢
¢
¢
¢
> W > > > >
W O W W W W
J J ? J J J J
W -J W W W W

w U- o w w w W
Y O
in
°
°
°
° z o ¢ ¢ ¢ a

c? m 4 0 0 o c?

? i

i I

?
I

d
F
U - - --
w R 9,
---------------------
i
--- x ----
• F
--- - tK, w
N
k?
h•
Q ?
_- ------
O O O O
00 (D d' N
UW aOUO}siQ (AallOA ssOJod) JDaw-I
0
O
O
00
O
U
O c
w O
N
m
0
c
0 0
d- o
0
J
0
N
O
to
y
U
c
O
N
o In
O
c
O
N
O
m
O
<f
Z
O N
?O
U w
W :t
V) 0-'
N 'o
O?
(If
U
o-
m
w
rn

U'I

r`i z
O
rn a•
o)
> w
02
O F- N
0
('11) UOi}Onal3

W vs2wi o 3 HH a O O
G? c NZ=Z OZ z N = o CC Z ?i•O WLLI ? ? ?o ¢ ?N w
U o ?0?.? LLI O °L N a
O C) > QJZJ ZQV = Z= ZQ? w z M
p CF w 2Lu?-0 0Z? 4p °? y 0
WU rUOOV S Q? az a v m m
U d ° U W
(D U)
O m r7
O) 0) N

O1
U-)
N
00
O)
O1
00 >
m
a?
O
N
j
it

N
C
0

o ¦
c
o r Z
a
.Q
2 ¦
¦ w
S?

¦

o
¦
¦

¦
¦ 61

¦

Ln
00 - -
,It

rn >

m N

0
(D
0)
(n It r)
0) 0) (n
N
C)
('1j) UOi}Dnal3
W
-1
WLL
O Z
LU
Wa?
3ZO
amQ
in LU
1= O
LL
P
Ln
0
U
c
0
N O
O
C
O
N
O
Ln
O
m M
Z 0
O a-
E
W O
N y
N N
(n c
O 3
O. O
U 0
O

0'--
O

- Z
}
0-0
02

N

ai
O T) -- ----- ---

N
Q'
a
Li
r
N
O
L>
U W
Z f)?
as
zz
Za
w=
Z
?z
wOf
F- w
?w
w
C7 0
Z
cr}
J
-Ja
?F-
N F- a
U?
w a?
Om
_ ?V)
w V) w
NLq N ?Q
?0
t..a Ln (A
r O zZ
a,r c 00
v a? C1.0 -
NOS v UZ
ww
rnEoN V) r
7 Qi i
rE°m Ln
x 0 O C) -t
? M Q U U O
N
_7
YYYY W(n
C C C C ?" ?
O 000 O2
mmmm zF-
z
O_
F-
Z_ Z U
w Qa w?
O
T
U a w0 ?
Q
O ~ D F-
F-2'm F- W
zIt
Z It

?N

af3.

J Q
L'i w
z ? ?z
aoa dlodls 3adnos ~
a
O WJU
U m OQ(?
Z
0
(•}}) UOi}Ona13
2
L)
W
W
O
J
N

J c
w.0
o t
N
Y N
a O
mU
0
c
O
O
N
C
U
OUO 47 ?
T
?
C C- O
.2:t >
= O •
Z C O
O
O
o* O O
O
0,?
O
»
'Vy a
OG)7 'C O O u
0... ?
O.Y O_ U
00 C C
W D N -C
?ECE -
°v 0.2
o
c E O 2-0O N
' O>
U
.20 (n OL C in _

? N ?,

?
7 N O
U
z O U
U
N c
Q Q)-, _
U O _
N
?D_
Eo °'E c0
.
on O C N N Q
N O_C
> U
N U0 0OO•a oa y(D
w Q? m NU a U o wa
O N r7 d
z

O
C
)
N M N
O O 0 0 0
O O O O O
N Z N N N N

Z F- Z Z Z Z
O O O O O
F- F-
a J Q Q a a
> W > > > >
W W W W W
J J J J J J
W j W w W W

w w w w w w
Q Q Q
Q z Q
Q! a Of w af of

¦
-- --u - - R`- -
W
x
+.a - - ------
LO
?t U
w
----- - - V)
?ti•S ? x
,6
O O O O
m (D d N
(•13) aOUO}si4 (A9110A SSOJOV) J03ul3
O
0
O
00
U
O C
o?
0
3
0 0
?- o
0
O
c_
J
O
N
O
r - _ - m - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m m m m m

C

U O

= Z W

W

c Z Z

Z
_
O T- 0

O

N 3

Q

N M

N
o
(1)
. c?
z
ma02 Q?
?WJ z o
W 0 oa W I- LO
LO
>CW a
o o
?a Q
w
0 C) C) Z
U > ?0ZJ ZCD V
Z
a F- Z= ZQQQy w O
? Z E M

O
? V>0CCC ?
L
L 40 C z0
z a
m T
m .a
c
rT1 ' \ o Z G
r? /?1 N
V a < F
V
V
U')
N
O
N
In
0
U
C
O
0
c
O
N
O
2
C
lC
r
?D M N
0) O) O) O) O
O)

V

? m
m0
1
I
I

¦
¦
1 ¦ J'

¦
I ¦
¦
I
1 ¦
I
I
I I
?
II
F
1
Q-
w
0

1 H
¦
¦
¦

¦
I

¦
¦
¦ ?

C

M
? I
O_ ? I
m N
I
0-
(D
O)
W
E- J_
W W
O Z
wa W
d
?Z?
CL CO)
OOCO?
LL
Ln ? M N
0) 0) O O)
(';}) UOI}ona13
O'
tD
? O
o In a?
0'
L .. -
rCL?O
w W 0
o ¦' t
O 0 U
MEOVI
M rn:
t E O N
x N O
<
0 > D >
YYY ?'
C C C C
0000
mmmm
O
M
W
Z=
O
f-
cn O
V)
N N
0 c:
D! 3
U00
O"
N
O
O? N
O Q
..
woC-0
0 w :-
CD 0 U
N E N N
7 p+ :
LE°N
p x N O
?imQU
7 z 7 z
Y Y Y Y
c c c c
O O O o
mmmm
O
z
o_
H
_z z U

w
O
QO_
w LLJ
wOf
Qo
=Z _
Q m
w0
ooQ o
J I- w
z Of

?U)

??
Do
J Q Q

O z
ao?J dlodls 3adnos
z
Q 0 wJU
U m 0
z
m
a?
c O
O
N
0
0
c
0
N
O Ln
2 O
c

wp
H N

N
O)
a' -
- -
o -- -
I- N
O
('}}) UOIJOna13
x
u
W
cc
cc
W
3
O
J

Lr)
c
0
N
to
C
0
C
00 N
O
0 T?
c - p
2 CL .
a) N
?O
C c
0
C)
c t > N ° C O
' pO
V 0 (U 7 F-
U
?o 0-
a) Op
0 cc
w0 tnpC
cE
0 O.O
In
C E c
0 o -
0
a,
N o°
0>
0
O O
++ N In OL
0 w, OL- c`
° N
O N

Nc y 0 `O ` U O w-
i ?. O_E O E
o c°
rn3 - n
•- OE
00 .2CLn NO OL
Y«+ 3 C N ) U
UN ?oo._ oa y?
Li Q« minim a U O w?
O N M
z

O 7
r
o O
In N O d M cV
O " N 0 0 0 0
O O O O O
o
a
..
w
Q 0 0 0 0
O >
LLI
Q J
Z
Q
Q
Q
Q
> w > > > >
w O w w w w
J J ? J J J J
w a w w w w

w 0 w w w w
Y O
°
°
°
°
Q z O ¢ a ¢ a
Of Q J
0 m
¦

¦ I
¦

¦

¦
O O O O
00 co N
('})) aOUDISIG (A9110A SSOJOV) Joaw3
)
O
00
0
U
O C
cD O
0
T
N
O
c
3
O o
? o
0
c
J
O
N
0
w CO
J c
E.2
O?
Cl.
to
Y rn
Q o
M6
r _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
W N cO0 3 M
iy yZ=Z yZ 0 }z O z oN ° n
z°? 0. CC c a? az zo w P Q Q vN D
Z mCapa W J W 0 oQ >CW LLJ
U ? o a
Z 44
. o OZJ
Z? V ?~ z= ZQN Of c9 z°
cn °n.z c aW o as =z Or o ?, M
O c/1 o a
" u z
° m D W
W a v a ¢
wU z °
(O M N
0) O) 47 0) 0)
Ln
N
O
N
a> ?
U
c
O
rn
0
t
O
`0
7-
R
Ln
i
¦

I

N > '
I

- M (D
¦
L

I

I

L
¦
¦
I .
¦
I
¦
¦
¦
I
¦
L
I W
O
¦
: F-
I ,

¦

1 -

J
¦ Ln W
M W

(U z
0
-
M
i
V
w Ln d r4) N
0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
('}}) UOi;On913
z a)
o_
H
U
LLJ
U
7 E
fn ?
O rn
0? a
U D
a-
m'
o
o a?
oQ
w
y Q .?-. O
0 ao
o m"
O ? U
Emai
?E
:?0>O
M¢U
> > > >
Y Y Y Y
C c c c
0000
m m m m
U
c
0
N
O
c
O
0
2

Z °?
M
D

01

° _
W °

O
I- N
>
O
_

O
r- O
(•}1) U01JDAa13
W
H J_
LU0 Z
O
Wa W
g
L) LU
?zD
ama
0 cc
cc0?
LL
In
W?
J C
E.0
OU
cr
a N
Y N
Z vi
¢o
M U

c
O
O
N

O M
O 0 ..
N 0 M N
p N p 0 0 0
C) - p 0 0 0
N N N N N
O ¢

Z H 0_ Z Z Z Z
O > ¢ O o 0 0

¢ J w ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢
W z 1 1 > >
W O w w W W
J J J J J J
W a W W W w
j
LLJ L,
0 Y O D O D O
¢ Z O ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

O ?] w C? O C7 C?
¦

¦ I
¦

¦
I
¦
Z
O
H
Z z U

W ?a
¢ wL
y .

=Z
Ou¢
F LLJ
w0
of
i-O
?O m cn¢
?w
zOf
w ?-

J ? QO

` O ?Z
Oob VIO
dts 38vnos Z ?
¢ 0 wJU
oar
Fj m
z
y
c
0
N c
o N
?.0
a a
`
c- o o
O

OL'
- •? a? ai

0 N :C c

OL?

O
160
.
C U
' > N_ O

N47?? C .-
C
.? O

0 u
a . 00 CC
W O O ?C
c0E -
?? 0.2
V) E N-O-0 0 6
O p
O N OL
N N O
O
U C?N
y
0 00 E
Y
N C 0
r U O V, •

; _O
a
- °'E
N co
N
O
:3 C •-
X O
E
N c N N
. c >

u N C
0 0 O.O O a
p• c
W N
W Q? min-0 a U 0 wa

O N ?
Z
2
W
T
O
L.
z
O
N
3
W
1
Q
J
a
O
wZ
H
O
Z

c0 Z
1- (j 1- a Z °o o N
CJ r c V+Z=Z V/Z > O S =
W?? Q? fxZ zoo F F- a a .. cn o
L) LLJ
Q
w LL
c?3 Z ma Q Z ?WJ W? oa CN
o ?Q a L) Z ?z aWZO Zaa tZ 00? ZQy d Q O u ?'?
W O S VW0Q ZQ az a oC m m
at
U
o w
a a? 11
LO
0)
Ln
N F-T
O
N
LQ
47
U
C
O
N
0
c
0
N
O
M
O
Li
Ln M N
0) 0) 0) 0)
4)
0
Q
O
Z
L
a
47
4)
O
4)
0
z
N
z O
00
H
U
W
N o
N N
Oo
u O
0-
m
-N
O
O 47
Q
L ..
a c
•.- a? a o
o m ;?
u O U
N E N N
7 0'.
.EE O U1
N
x470
Q U
0 7 0 7
T
4)
U
C
O
N C
o r
0
C
O
N
O
LC
C
C
Y Y Y Y
C C C C
00 00
mmmm
O
(';}) UO1}Onal3
W
E- J
W W
O Z
Wa W
g
W
JZO
amQ
Q W
0 cc
cc0?
LL
N
C
0
O C N
O C.a >.:
w

0 C _ O
> O- `
O
O
0
): '?:: 47 di
o
N z c
2
M '50
o
«.
cu
' -
>N-O
47 4) 7 -
qt
'C O ?.O
O
U O 2
C o c c
L, 0 f/) p c 00
U)
CE coE
°10 °?
'^g7 o0
v>
00 47
o5-c
C ? m47
+. 4)
U? 47 .-. 0'-* .
N
L
"0

N C O f?
0
U O ..
Y
C 0
O O N w
0
E C
0
m 0 c N x - E

OD C q1
O
, N
2 o
Y,
3 _
c
" .
a U
>

cn
UN
w c
15 0
0.0
0-o o
`0. c
(D (U
W a m
a U o w0
~ I
O N M
z
U
Q
W
Q'
N
2
H
0!'
O
W
Z
O
m
V)
3
W
Q
J
a
L Z
F-
0
z
I I
i
M
W N
J C
E O
U
? 4)
Y N
Zm
Q O
m?
U
(N
C
O
O
2
O
_
Ul) N M N
O O O O O
O O O O O
N Z
4
N
N
N
0 . .. ,.
z 1- z z z z
O ; O O O O
LLJ
C J
Q
Q
Q
Q
1 W 1 > 1 >
W W W W W
J J J J J J
W J W W W W
D
W L. W W W W
<
Q z Q Q Q Q
of Q Q D Of
C7 m C? C7 C? C7
? i

0
(0 Ln t M N
0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
(•11) UO1jDAa13
W C7 0 °O rn
V H~ Q Z O N N
U O FLU
?w OCz FZ rc z - o
F- 0
a
3-a
CA z w a_z.J Z<u _?= Z Oy w ? z L,
m =>po0C ?zua. 4O Za
ULU /v za 2 0,
aZ m
w u U V a ?? m U w
J
W
z >-

z cr
Q
0
U Z
Q Z
O m O
m
N O
D w ? Q
O
m
cr Z
O
(/1
U
O
Q
w N Q
N
O
z O w N Z

W N w
? W `-
uo
O w
Z
z C-) °
^ Z
W Of Z =
< N o
O
_
H 0 W 1
U 3 m O

\ 1

? A
7"
2Z
ZOO
LLit
00
MM -

`S

?
i
f

-'-? - I N
_

w
- W
\

O
N
lJ

c?

? O
H
_ \ QJ
W
C3%
ZO
I- Z
0:3
R O
W 0?

1

1
r

1

1

ri
As a part of the biological stream attribute assessment, a habitat field data sheet has been
completed to describe the potential habitat and physical conditions of the stream. The
habitat assessment measures characteristics associated with mature streams including bend
angles, in-stream habitat features, substrate, bank stability measures, and vegetation
parameters. The current year stream received a habitat assessment score of 91 out of a
possible 100, an improvement over last year's score of 86. The assessment gave high
scores for instream habitat, bank stability, light penetration (i.e. good shading), and riparian
vegetation width. Medium scores were attributed to substrate type and pool variety. The
pre-construction stream received a habitat assessment score of 61 out of a possible 100.
The reference stream received a habitat assessment score of 97 out of a possible 100.
Completed stream habitat assessment forms describing the physical habitat characteristics
present in the channel prior to construction and reference site sampling will be used for
comparison with subsequent sampling dates.
2.2.3 In-Stream Flow
An ISCO brand, continually monitoring stream gauge is located at the lower end of the
stream culvert located in the roadway in the western portion of the Site. Data recorded for
this monitoring year include water levels and velocity from February 28, 2005 to
December, 2005.
The yearly hydrograph is shown in Figure 5. The graph is punctuated by numerous small
and large rain events which occurred regularly through the monitoring period. Average daily
discharge at the stream gauge location was calculated at 0,.93 cubic feet per second (cfs)
and average hourly base flow (discarding peak flow periods) was estimated to be
approximately 0.25 cfs. At or slightly above bankfull stage, stream velocities approach 1.5 to
2.5 feet/second, and often exceed 3-5 feet/second. Data also show that stream stage
exceeded the riffle maximum bankfull depth of 0.8 feet on several occasions during the fourth
monitoring year, indicating several bankfull events.
2.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria for stream restoration has been subdivided into three primary components:
1) successful classification of the reach as a functioning stream system; 2) channel stability
indicative of a stable stream system; 3) sufficient hydrology to support a perennial stream,
and 4) development of biological communities over time.
1. For classification purposes, the stream supports an entrenchment ratio greater
than 2.2 and a width/depth ratio less than 12. The channel exhibits high sinuosity
(>1.5) and an average riffle slope between 0.004 and 0.006 (rise/run). The riffle
substrate was observed to be dominated by gravel; however, due to constant land
disturbance at the adjacent landfill site and the subsequent influx of finer sediment
into the restored stream channel, present year monitoring data indicate a reach-
wide median particle size (d50) of coarse sand. Stream geometry and substrate
measurements under current conditions suggest a stable E4/5 stream type, as
proposed in the mitigation plan.
17
i Cdr
(puOOGS / IGGJ) 40019n
Cfl U') co N IT- O
_O
W
06
7@
W
J
L
CL
O
E
L
cn
ui
i
LL
? U
O
J >
LO N LO Tl- LO
N r- O
Jana
SQ •?
SQ/Q Q?
SO/9 O?
SQ i
/O
'go SO
:;?/
S ?
Q/O
SQ /,9
sQi
S OC/S
O
sQi
SO ?B
S,O ?/cn
SQ c
O /O?/?

2. The as-built meander geometry and channel dimension relationships compare
favorably with the emulated, stable E4 stream type set forth in the mitigation plan
(Table 1). Based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate measurements
' depicted in Table 1 and Figure 3, current monitoring has demonstrated the stream
geometry of the constructed stream has been relatively stable the past several
years.
3. The stream flow data demonstrates both the perennial nature ?stream and
that numerous bankfull events occurred without perceptible changes to the
channel geometry. Perennial streams are generally recognized as those that flow
throughout a majority of the year (i.e. greater than 90% of the time) and flow in a
well-defined channel. However, perennial streams can still 'dry up', particularly
during extended _ periods of drouhtL_as._.o err d in 2002. The hydrograph
(Figure 5) illustrates the generally uninterrupted flow that occurred throughout the
current year. The data also indicates multiple overbank events, a criterion
necessary for determining the stability of a channel. Stream channels should
remain stable through these periods over banking events. This has been the
case through the current monitoring period.
4. Insight into the trend toward biological diversification is not yet possible due to the

' ;
relatively short study period and highly variable climatic conditions that have
occurred in the past few years. Drought conditions during the current monitoring
year likely explain the relatively low diversity and number of organisms collected
' relative to 2004 data. _
I
D

r

1
19

3.0 WETLAND HYDROLOGY MONITORING
3.1 MONITORING PROGRAM
Seven continuous recording (RDS brand), groundwater gauges were located in the eastern
portion of the Site to provide representative coverage and flow gradients extending through
the riverine floodplain. The monitoring gauges were installed in February 2002, a year
following the completion of stream and wetland construction. Figure 6 depicts the
approximate location of the monitoring gauges. Monitoring gauges were installed and
downloaded in accordance with specifications in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers', Installing
Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993).
The monitoring gauges are set to a depth of approximately 48 inches below the soil surface.
M The data extending from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005 have been used in this Year
4 AMR to cover the 2005 growing season. The growing season in Anson County is defined
as the period between March 15 and November 19, or 249 days. Hydrological samples
continue to be collected at twenty-four hour intervals.
3.2 MONITORING RESULTS
The raw gauge data are depicted as hydrographs in Appendix C. A 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. Wetland hydrology criteria including maximum consecutive saturation days and
percent of the growing season are summarized in Table 2. Five groundwater gauges were
located within the wetland creation (W1, W2, W3, W4, and W5) and two gauges (W6, W7)
were placed within an existing wetland area on the Pinch Gut floodplain adjacent to the
slough to monitor hydrology in and around the restored slough. Success for wetland creation
' is based on the five gauges located within the creation area.
In monitoring year 4, surface water depths within the wetland creation areas were at or
above ground level through most of the growing season except for the typical late summer
and autumn draw down period. Gauges located in the Pinch Gut Creek floodplain displayed
the typical pattern of flooding during the early spring, followed by a late summer and autumn
draw down period, punctuated by peaks associated with precipitation events. The maximum
consecutive days of saturation ranged from 121 to 191 days (49 to 77 percent of the growing
season) within the wetland creation area (groundwater gauges W1-W5), exhibiting a
narrower range than in the previous monitoring year's data (98 to 249 consecutive days/39 to
100 percent of the growing season).
71

20
W (' N Z 0 ° N
U O Q ?LLJ aW? ?Z Z? IW-?Z?O z o 0
21 m Z w a W 2J Z a Q L z or ?W?'= a u
0 VWOM Cl) Ll. 40 Z0 oOC?ZmW r r? a
?' 1 a Z
F O?Q Q U N
---------------
`/ Z G
U U v -2 a
J
W
Z
} Z
O
Q Q Q
r T

U
Z U
p
Z
Q p
m O
w Q
N
Z

O w
Z U
D O
F-

Q m

W F
N O

Q u) Q

U U U

0?
W N ? v U Of ??

z
C) o a ?.
W
Q
~ °zr
Q o
z ?zz

U
UJ
Z
J
F- ...
O
O r J

U1 f-
0 U W ?i
co
w
C1
v1
W
N
I
N ? V
b WN
W
O
O
Fn
r? N
Ln
in

m m m r r r = m m = m m m r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
N
_
(4 -
a
L a
O am
?
L
c O
O E
N A O i
Q1 O"aCl)
'Q - _ A
O` ^^?,,
W •?
2 LL
O ftf r
E
E
m CD
cn C
N
cn
O
cn
_
Q
C
0 C
0 C
o C
O C
O

m m
i a)
(o a) '-
c6 a?
io E
cvcu cvcu cim -r- cu -- cu

O E -o'c E -0 70 E
N
c a'0 E
c -0'0 E
c
? v5 y m in
c6 c-
4
n
( y c-
u
U
d c
6 in
- C6
0 (6
U O c6
V O N 6
V O N 67
V O N (6
V O
0 3 0 0 3?a 0 0 3(?0 0 3 cu0 0 3 ro o
of 1!1
y O
4- o
0 c N
O
r-
o
I-
f-
ti
f`
?t
O
''
nn
L V

a1
w O
w CY) O
O C N
c
O O o°
r co
co to o
c0 M ' v

CL
d
y ON
O t
3 C
,r- o o -
co .-
co Ln (o co
L V
CD
m
-c o
N
0 r
o
?. 3
y 0 0 rn
M rn
M rn
M rn
Cl) rn

M
L V m
CL
> C In
_Oo
(D N

X y 7 N LO
co

r (0
co

r 0
co

N

0(n0

> C cY
E
:,_, o 0
O
V R N

X y 7 0) v

N ?n coo co
M

f6 c - R
?o r

> C M
?T. 00

E y i N

X y 7 O CN

N
O
N
co CD
0) 0)
co
c R t6
? o

> C N
0 0
3 O
E N
X y O H co
rn CO
rn co
m (O
m (o
rn
m c >
(n ?
U

:3
M j
> Cl)
>
j
Z
a? c6
c
O
zO U
a) ?
z co
LO
C
_(n 0)
a? m
0) N
vOj O
L O
E U
0 O
c6 (n
7
? L
L
?C
G
E
O
L.L
Q) c6
a) C
v O
Y U
(D c
? w
U cu
cu
cu -:5 cu
'0 3
N
N U E
O ^
0 llco
0-0 O
E (6 w
a) :6 -t co
O c6 0 co
z CU O
M c 3
-o o
C
U _m
O ?
N ?
O) c6
n3 C L O
y
C N 3
O C ?O (° -a 0 c6
U C
c C: o
O
Q c6 U) v=-
o a or-
c `
-a . 3 E
0 Z
c P- 0 (n Q
O ._
m 'O O
w (C6 E (C9 O
O a) '0 a N
0) ?c o?
m Z3 E
r c6° Co O
N ?

3.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA
Hydrological success criteria require saturation or inundation between 5 and 12.5 percent of
the growing season during average climatic conditions. These areas are also expected to
support hydrophytic vegetation. The groundwater data indicate that all gauge locations and
corresponding physiographic areas achieved hydrological success criteria for 2005. Wetland
creation areas exhibit wetland hydrology for at least 49 percent of the growing season.
Figure 6 depicts wetland boundaries mapped using gauge data and corresponding
hydrophytic vegetation signatures. Based on the mapping, approximately 1.7 acres of
created wetlands reside within the 22.6-acre site.
1
1

1
1

1
r
G
23

4.0 WETLAND VEGETATION MONITORING
4.1 MONITORING PROGRAM
Quantitative vegetation sampling for the fourth year monitoring was carried out in October
and November 2005. Four permanent sampling plots were established in October 2002,
during the first year of monitoring, including three 600-foot transects within planted areas
(plots 1, 2, and 3) and one 300-foot transect within the non-planted area (plot 4). The
vegetation plots were established in a manner which best represented the entire site. The
plot width along each transect extends 4 feet on each side of the tape, providing a 0.11 acre
plot sample for the 600-foot transects (600 feet x 8 feet/43560 feet/acre) and a 0.055 acre
plot sample for the 300-foot transect (300 feet x 8 feet/43560 feet/acre). The intermediate
and end points of each plot were permanently established with a labeled, green metal fence
post that was spray painted bright orange.
All woody species rooted within the plot boundaries were recorded. The four plots were
separated into three categories based on community classifications presented by Schafale
and Weakley (1990) and the planting status. The three categories include 1) Piedmont
Alluvial Forest (plots 1 and 2: planted); 2) Piedmont Swamp Forest (plot 3: planted); and
3) Piedmont Swamp Forest (plot 4: not planted). The data was then used to obtain the total
number and the relative percentage of each woody species per acre. The percentage of
1 each species per acre in addition to the corresponding wetland status will be used to
evaluate the success criteria (see Section 5.3). Vegetation sampling from plots 1 and 2 will
be used to determine planting success of riparian areas associated with stream restoration.
' Wetland creation success criteria will be based on vegetation sampled in plots 3 and 4.
Figure 7 depicts the approximate location of each vegetation sample plot and the planting
plan. Complete species inventories can be found in Appendix D. A photographic record of
vegetation plots are provided in Appendix E.
4.2 MONITORING RESULTS
M The vegetative communities within the mitigation area include Piedmont Alluvial Forest,
Piedmont Swamp Forest (forested and logged), and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest. The
majority of the acreage within the mitigation area with the exception of the logged area has a
well developed canopy and a shrub/tree layer (>1 inch DBH) composed of volunteer species
that vary in abundance according to the landscape position and micro-topographical
differences. A diversity of planted species (15 species) has survived within the planted
portions of the mitigation area.
The Piedmont Alluvial Forest is dominated by mature loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple
(Acer rubrum), sweet-gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), winged elm (Ulmus alata), and Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense). Other prominent understory and sapling species include silky
dogwood (Corpus amomum), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Herbacous vegetation within this area is currently
dominated by microstegium (Microstegium vimineum) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans).
1
1 24
v O
o
U

J z
o
'^

WU
+I
ll?
rn
N
}

a
Ul'
o ~
z O
?
} m a

0 0 z cn
Z z a } x
O

W o J Q V 0 z o
p
0 m w
3 O
z z F- r,
Lu
LLJ

0

D

o

°a

m

wcD
m t- p Cr
z } Z z O U}
O p h O
U U p OOf

a
c s
a
0
a
Q
w
-1
z
? w O o
?
d
C7 F- ::)
3m
d a > >
r
r j
I
O ¦
I r,

L
W

M

C
C

O

Z aNi +I +I +I +I +I +I
r- cq U? ° 00 00
UQ M O O cn O
Z
O Z
Q O

>
~
W Q
W >
N x
c- 0: N
cn W a Li
LJ 0 >- Of
0
? Q w a z 0-
L m ° O Q z
J
-j 2 L) Q = N >
N Z Q
>
a < Q N o

O

a

H
W

W
>
J 0 W F-
O
Q D d
Fn U W
F
?, z W Q E 0
o a z a 0
w w z a J
x Of } w w O
a s N o a V)
o >
LL, ?7 F- w
w '.1
J of

OZ = Z
CC LU
~ W
Cl) ?Z
QW
CD
QZ
< r Z
F- :i
z
ZzO
°cV

Z
O
:-
N
0

°
W2
m0.0Q 3 W W O

} 0
00z Q w V)
r
Q
z
?
o
o
o
N ?
W
?OZ J z?C3 E- z zW w Z
=>LL?
O oz? o o =
? gguj o
U W
V a Z

? Q z
?;
,
c
m
Q
m a
V
U d _ U
w

I

-44, ?I 4 -44 -14 . -4 4 -?

4 -14.._44 -$f 14 -44 -j f 44 -44
c,Q
X114 -44 JI4 -}•f >yf X14 1444
:. _ l!71 ?1 X71 w ?1 M 'II - ?., -

0
0
N
O
H
W
W
W
Z
w
p U
O
N
4 4? 4 4#
914 -44 -4
r
LU
? ? ? W
r ? r
? r Z D
??' © ?t?` ? • Nom:
?
? : Wm
? ¦r m m m? m m m m m! m m m m m m r
1
The area of mature Piedmont Swamp Forest, which was not planted, is dominated by red
maple, green ash, and Chinese privet. In addition, this area is composed of species
including willow oak, ironwood, winged elm, water oak, black willow (Salix nigra), and
possum-haw (Viburnum nudum). Herbaceous vegetation is sparse within this area. A
portion of the Piedmont Swamp Forest has been clear-cut and is vegetated by a combination
of planted and volunteer species. The dominant species within this logged area include red
maple, sweet-gum, Chinese privet, loblolly pine, green ash, cherrybark oak (Quercus
pagoda), and blackberry. Additional species include willow oak, water oak, and ironwood.
This area also contains numerous herbaceous species including cattail (Typha latifolia), false
nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), flatsedges
(Cyperus spp.), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus), broad-leaf arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia),
and water-plantain (Alisma subcordatum).
The planting plan was modified slightly to accommodate changes in as-built stream and
wetland creation areas. A logged portion of the Site was included in a supplemental planting
in March 2002. Of the 24-acre mitigation site, a total of 5.2 acres within the Piedmont Alluvial
Forest and the Piedmont Swamp Forest was planted at 435 stems/acre. An additional
0.8 acres of stream-side assemblage area was planted at a density of 680 stems/acre. A
total of 32 woody species, both planted and volunteer were surveyed. The top 8 species for
the fourth year of monitoring include Chinese privet, red maple, winged elm, sweet-gum,
loblolly pine, water oak, willow oak, and silky dogwood. The total stocking level averaged
across the Site is 5421 stems/acre. Chinese privet, red maple, and green ash account for
approximately 55 percent of the total number of stems surveyed.
During the fourth year of monitoring, establishment of planted seedlings on moist sites
appeared to be good. Many species within the entire mitigation area have increased their
' total number of stems per acre after an initial decline. The average total number of stems
per acre has increased since the third year of project monitoring. Additionally, native species
richness has increased in each of the four vegetative monitoring plots, including the
appearance of black walnut (Juglans nigra), pawpaw (Asimina triloba), and yaupon holly (Ilex
vomitoria). The total number of Chinese privet stems decreased in plots 1, 2, and 3, though
it slightly increased in plot 4.
4.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS
CRITERIA
Success in the restoration of wetland vegetation includes the establishment and
maintenance of a species composition sufficient for a jurisdictional wetland determination.
Additional success criteria include a minimum mean density of 290 characteristic tree
species/acre surviving at least four years after the initial planting. At least five characteristic
tree species must be present, and no species can comprise more than 20 percent (58 stems)
of the 290 stem/acre total. Softwood species (ex: loblolly pine, black willow) cannot comprise
more than 10 percent (29 stems) of the 290 stem/acre requirement. Tables 3-5 depict the
number of trees/acre by species that can be applied to the 290 trees/acre criterion for each
of the three categories, 1) Piedmont Alluvial Forest, planted; 2) Piedmont Swamp Forest,
1 planted; and 3) Piedmont Swamp Forest, not planted. The number of characteristic wetland
species identified totals 7, 8, and 7, respectively for the three categories, exceeding the five
species diversity minimum stated in the monitoring plan. At 452 trees/acre and
26
t
348 trees/acre, respectively, plots 3 (Piedmont Swamp Forest, planted) and 4 (Piedmont
Swamp Forest, not planted) both exceed the required 290 trees/acre vegetation monitoring
criterion after the fourth year of project monitoring. At 278 trees/acre, plots 1 and 2
(Piedmont Alluvial Forest) are 12 trees short of the required 290 trees/acre for the fourth
monitoring year. However, EcoScience believes that drought conditions during the present
monitoring year likely caused early leaf litterfall, which made identifying smaller saplings
more difficult than in past years of project monitoring. Thus, many individuals counted in
previous years may not have been included in the past monitoring year. Furthermore, as
they were not considered characteristic species for the Piedmont Alluvial Forest community
when the Site restoration plan was developed, willow oak and water oak, which are
favorable, mast-producing wetland species, have not been grouped into the success criteria,
although their inclusion would cause plots 1 and 2 to well-exceed the 290 trees/acre criterion.
EcoScience believes that, during ordinary site conditions, plots 1 and 2 will exceed the
260 trees/acre required after the fifth year of project monitoring. Thus, no remedial action is
recommended.
1

L
t

1
1

27
r
L?
L

1

I
1

1
1
1

2
Q O ?
? U (n -
? ? = Q A
++'' Eu-
>a.
U L
C?
G
N
Y
O
N
c
Q

4) 0 ??
4'3mwf° moo (1) c
4) C?
4
1

00
O
O- Z

O CLO LO LO

IT
LO

0)
O

N

'
N
0
) U L N
W to U
L O
_ E w
F- (
j O
' C U (1)
Qom O 0 a)
N O
L
rn U
U "p
y O O N a)
w to
O y U O O Q
O C) O 't O il-
O r O t'- 'T U') w
(A O w O O a) U
Q R
F- 4) Q N Z r r M r
F-L O C[) O O
` o
C
(
D
O

L 0 N (? O .?
a03 L a) O
4Ni Q > v '' Oo ` n ccoo c`ro w co c`c co (D `r 0)
r ° m coo ? w
y a)
O W 7 V N Z 't .
t U E O
H V O (C3 - C
Q. CO NE

L U ? ? L
a
N 't

C)

ti m O M
O'j

O ?rn_0 aa)i

(n L
c
U') LO N N Z
O y U
Q N O r r
F- o m It
C) r-- O O O
r- Cl) LO

N
E co
II
a) (
4) L
a)
? U U
4- cu Co

CD
O -C: C
a)

41 o
N o n.
'
t 0
4) 3 R N m p O
a) N
= 0 L M
0 00 Q
Tr a)
t
A
?
?
? r U C,
4)
L = r N l(') (
D Z C
D (
D (
0 V) O (
D l(( O w O
I
U
?. a) (p
O
`
F- O
U rn
=
(n
r z3 E L
E C:
a)
-
?
Z •N E E
d
CL Cm:3 a)

CD 00
p O C1 O

')
Z t17 O ti (f)

O
O
(0 w

rn

E
.c 7

F-
41 Q N N

IT V
?
(
0
a)
a)
ti r U
O C
I"' (n u) -X co
m cQ Cv Q
U E O
U
w
L 0 In
o O
Q n O O

Q 0 N
7 in -c

U U
41 Q> U w O N (0
T 't
CO ((D (DD ((
O
C Q O co a) w vi . C
3 N
0 D 0 C
(
D CD
Z
? 'U
O
Q"
C .
U
N 0-a)
L (n n.
0 U 3 O U
t0 Q 41 N

L
C) fl-
O N U O

M OJ
Lo 00
r
O M _

M
N
~

O W

00 m O O
N

(U co
N
F 401 Q N m
(D r
O
M
Z
r O
N
U Cn O

L
~ 4- E U
O a) ?-
(D N
CU _? y
Vz Eo^U
(n

Z

T E2

` L
a) a)
E m
2) v, a
o a) '?
w
C-- -0
m m
m
'Cr. O c i U

a) ca u
a o Cr.

m m i C U Q

N
cu
E Lo U) n
a) :3
i m C '? a w i L Q)
U U N m m N m
O i a k
j i U
Q Q aq U U U _
U ?L --j 0
d Cq O Co
fn X>
a) CO N N
U N E E O
0 U w U
O ova)
AB
Z Y O
o co
0 3 U i CLj O
a)o?O)?
c L a) 3 L O i o
C (n C
Q) ()
O N U
m L °o a) L
O ca cr, o
E (Q
-3
-0 L
a) 3 a)
o?..w
X
O

14
a? c a1 Y a1 m

V a
= U o a)
U O
-Q N > O C
O - 3
'C L 'U) (n 0 L (Q
0 _0
Q

1
1

_
R
d (a
R Q d
d ?
L
wo m
fO y a^ ^^E,,
i V R 'L
Cl) W ? N W
d O O cn
V L
Q
HNO=
E
R R R R
v?3u-
R ? fn w
v o E
R R
a R
Q?
cn
m
_
O
cn
a

L d w
m 3 to y R
O O 7
C
LO
al
y ja V d
I Q > C)
Cl
N
co
LO

°
(C)
d

O
o0
0
00
cf)
?
It
00
0
N
M
ti
N
(D
M

O N

d - W U
N LO
F-Q O

_ d
M a)

p a) C
LO

) C
M

ti

0

U)

0
00

.-
LD
't
O

Lf)
-I t

LO
U)
O

O

-

0

O
N

0

H' 47 Q
N
00
U)
s- N M 0
0
N

?
L d +
j
CL CL o mU)
O 7 y •"
y- V 0
?t
O

q-

00

V

-'T

V

P-

Q

V

-

0
> V
d Q r• O CD (D
O (D 0 N z 0 (D
O
N
(D

V
d d W 7
0 N
F-Q 0
r
L
0)
Q
a)
O
V

't

O

i

0

~

O

M

W

i

O

i
y
H d Q
N M
O N Z M N O
N

'II d
L Q)
d3my?u

o
Q
Q "T co °°
"t
1
-
'IT
CD
tea
; (D
Z
z
(o °
d d W D V N
0
~
a
L
0-0
0
O
U
cn
(D
O
U')

LO
U')

N

n
co
co

O

V

O

i

N
y
H O Q N Z Z c
l)
00

`-

N

N
F-
(D
L ?
d3cayco
M O :3 d 'C
0
U) (14
O
V
Z
tt
??
V
?t
O
Q j V
y W 7 V O
N 0 z
z 0 U7 Z Z 0 0 ° 0
Q O N

a)
CL a)
a?+ y V
O
C-4
O

O
°

Q

O

Q

0
r-

Q

Q
z

M

U

O

O
M
Co
"
1-
d Q
L N Z Z v z M
(
Cl)
1-
(o
U m
?
a)
E co
c
6 q
U h
i

z ) o
z
z Q)

m
o Co
a
o
w-
'
:.

E

m °

co

U `°

.?
=
m
i
cc)
0
v

m

) -rz

o u
U
C
C1 i
Q
C
U)
N Q -Q O Q.

Q
O
Q co
U (Lo N 10 .Q 3 Z3 Z M E O
Q m U U U Q_ 0 O' U C,) F-

=

Y Y
(o
O
E
O

E

O

U

'D

N

7

i)

O

co
Y

O

E Z
co
p

CU
c

cr

o
c

O

O (0

U
V co a) c
o
U

i >
C O
.L- 7
N 3
rn
0 >
O t
U
a
? ao a) .E
C U U
_O N co a)
C U E
C
°a
(n 0 -
°
j ••O ? v7
a) 0 CN
a)
0 3 ? a)
Q_-0 Q
O O Q)
a) o L
O?
O (?
6°
a)
w ?
L U E ?
4) (? = C
U
(III E '
din a)?
coo O u
N (a _
a) w Q) (cc
to 0.2
v- N M
0) O C
N o Ow
-0 (n
a) 64
o E c
a) p (n O
a) ?- co
-0(n
L ++
E - O Q)
w •? E E
C (a ? _O
E a
U ?
a)
u7 v) 'X N
o?n
co
?0Ea?
?L oa
4) = C
.N W
U U .
U Q a)
c a U) C
N a) -0 cn
U 3 o U
caoo'Z-
3 .L
Co CU
U (n 0 U
O a)
L
0 co
(D ?LL L
E °
L (n
7 O O cn
C - U a)
ja'(V
c (n a
E
a) Z N
E
U 'X a)
CO CU .E
E x? >
U(n O O U O
a) a) N M U
-C > v C
? E N
(D o a) c6
a = U o T
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
M
/\ G
L
a?
? y d
mC?a ?
,,^^ cn m o
(D Z
Y / W V
.Q () (n 0 o
?'++ C O
H N O LL
L? ?V
v?ELi
> C/)
U L w E
O r- CD
v- O
E
a ?
d
r
C
C
a
L ?
d
r
, N
?ns m
3
?0
V1 - f4 V d
d Q > V LO
O
N
W
U)
w
U')
w
U')
00
LO
00
LO
O
co
LD
°
M
CD mW ?U
HQ0

d
f0 M `)
C y V
in
C)
CO
M
Cl)
M
ti
O
O

O

1

O
~
M
I- d Q N O O - M
1-

CL O 7
%
N
d
a1 Q j V L
O
O

CO
to
LO
d•
(D
"t
co
V'
M
O
M

O
00
- U)

M
i N W V N
0
~
a
L
Q. 0
O y V
]4
'Ct
M

Lo Lo

o

O

)

(o
Cl)

O

M

T

CN
F- N Q C14 r O (V N N

c
°iU
a)°
co
O N E
w °
.C ,U O C
O a v a)
(n0?
U •° rn O
O O N a)
o3?a0i
O_? Q
O (6 O O
O L o
O
? -- a)
(a O -?
?o_?
Q)
w
LUE.
°E•- E
U > L
0) >°
E N _
co
a) a) U
w
rn O °
N o aL
N
E
O O cn O
o co
•? N
` Q ?
-W •? E E
C Co 7 a)
a) 'L C
E
7 a)
v E
(n 0) X (0
?cQ
(U0-
UUEa)
O- N ?
U (n -r- U
a) = C
a) (n
U
i O
n O a)
•i -o (n a
-° O
U 3 O U
O 0-
= CU CU
'C
U (°n U
O a) L
a) -V) U-_C
E°^U
Z L U)
a) i?
C n U a)
-
a) E a) 'a)
aa)
c Q
7E
O vi
)
U 'X O E E
cu CID
N E (o in (n
0 ° E E °
7 a) Q)
(n L L U
Y > CN
L
E (D
O a)
LL = ? O N

5.0 SUMMARY
The Year 4 AMR (2005) data indicate that the Anson Waste Management Facility Stream
and Wetland Mitigation Site achieved regulatory success criteria for stream geometry,
wetland hydrology, and vegetation for the fourth year of monitoring. Functional attributes
exhibited include long term surface water storage, energy dissipation, retention of nutrients
and particulates, and establishment of characteristic stream and wetland plant and wildlife
populations. The created wetland areas appear to support hydroperiods and successional
I patterns conducive to establishment of wetland forested habitat.
The results also indicate that current Site conditions meet or exceed the mitigation
' requirements for both stream length and wetland acreage, as projected by the mitigation
plan. The mitigation project initially required compensatory mitigation for impacts to
1,085 linear feet of stream channel (stream area of 0.07 acre) and 0.49 acre of wetlands.
The detailed mitigation plan outlined strategies designed to compensate for these stream
and wetland impacts included stream reconstruction and restoration along approximately
2,040 linear feet and 0.98 acre of net wetland creation.
Th
t
t
t
d
e curren
cons
ruc
e
channel geometry and substrate compare favorably with the
emulated, stable E stream type established on reference (i.e., relatively undisturbed) stream
' reaches and as set forth in the mitigation plan. Current monitoring year pebble count data
indicate that the median particle size (d50) of channel substrate falls within the coarse sand
size class, which contrasts with the medium gravel demonstrated by previous year's data.
This is likely attributable to the continuing land disturbance activities at the adjacent landfill
site and the resulting influx of finer sediments into the restored stream channel, which in this
monitoring year have overlain the characteristic gravely channel bottom in some reaches

' .
The current monitoring has demonstrated that the pattern, dimension, and profile of
approximately 2,800 linear feet of Priority 1, E4 stream restoration have remained stable over
the course of the fourth year.

The groundwater gauge data for the created wetland area indicate that hydrology success

1 criteria have been achieved. Currently, approximately 1.7 acres of succeeding forested
wetland habitat occur on the Site
This re
resents
th
0
7
.
p
more
an
.
acre of net vegetated
wetland restoration gain over the original amount of compensation set forth in the mitigation
plan. Additionally, approximately 0.8 acre of open water backwater slough has been
restored to historic hydrologic conditions and approximately 5.8 acres of wetlands have been
enhanced/preserved within remaining portions of the Site.
i The current vegetation surveys reflect conditions typical of mid-successional forest
development on disturbed floodplain and side slopes in the Piedmont. Early- to mid-
successional forest tree species adapted to these conditions include black willow, sweet-
gum, red maple, and green ash. Improving soil properties, increased shading, and more
mesic conditions will favor mast producing elements such as oak and hickory to become
' established in sufficient quantity to develop into a characteristic floodplain bottomland
hardwood assemblage. The variable hydrologic regime found across the Site will promote
diverse wetland community patterns across the site and will consequently enhance
31

1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
opportunities for wetland dependent wildlife. Vegetative data also indicate that the wetland
creation areas support species typical of bottomland hardwood communities at densities
generally sufficient to meet jurisdictional standards.
32
1
r 6.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Monitoring Plan
Appendix B: Biological Monitoring Data
Appendix C: Groundwater Gauge Hydrographs
Appendix D: Vegetation Plot Data
Appendix E: Photographic Record of Vegetation Plots
r
t
1

11
1

33
APPENDIX A
Monitoring Plan
(Excerpt from the Monitoring Plan, August 2000)

' 2.0 MONITORING PLAN
The Monitoring Plan consists of a comparison between reference and restoration areas
along with evaluation of jurisdictional wetland criteria (DOA 1987). Wetland monitoring will
entail analysis of hydrology and vegetation development. Stream monitoring will include
assessment of channel stability and biological attributes. Monitoring of restoration efforts will
' be performed for 5 years or until success criteria are fulfilled.
2.1 Wetland Hydrology
After hydrological modifications are performed, continuous monitored, surficial monitoring
wells will be installed in accordance with specifications in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
(USACE), Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-
' 3.1, August 1993). Monitoring wells will be set to a depth of approximately 48 inches below
the soil surface. All screened portions of the well will be buried in a sand screen, filter fabric,
and a bentonite cap to prevent siltation. The recording device will be placed above the
projected depth of inundation from overbank flooding (based upon elevations that do not
exhibit evidence of recent wrack or silt lines). The wells will be stabilized by reinforcing steel
bar (re-bar).
Seven monitoring wells will be installed in restoration areas to provide representative
' coverage within each of the physiographic landscape units depicted in Figure 3.
Hydrological sampling will be performed by the automatic sampling device on a daily basis
throughout the year. Well data will be downloaded from the device on an average, 2 month
interval.
2.2 Hydrology Success Criteria
' Hydrology success criteria comprises saturation (free water) within 1 foot of the soil surface
for a minimum of 5% to 12.5% of the growing season, under normal climatic conditions. This
hydroperiod translates to saturation for a minimum, 13-day to 28-day consecutive period
during the growing season, extending from March 28 through November 3 (USDA,
unpublished).
' 2.3 Wetland Vegetation
Monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA guidelines
presented in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (EPA 1990). The following presents
a general discussion of the monitoring program.
Vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation during periodic download of monitoring
' wells to ascertain the general conditions and degree of overtopping of planted elements by
weeds. Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed once annually
during the fall for 5 years or until vegetation success criteria are achieved.
' Permanent, randomly placed plots will be established at representative locations in the
wetland restoration areas. Each plot will consist of circular or transect plots, dependent upon
site conditions encountered within each wetland restoration area. Circular plots will typically
extend for a 37.2-foot radius, encompassing a 0.1 acre land area. For transect plots, two

G

1
300-foot transects will extend from a central origin. The plot width along the transect will
extend 4-feet on each side of the tape, providing a 0.11 acre plot sample at the location.
Four plots will be established to provide a 25 percent sample and a depiction of tree species
available for expansion within wetland restoration areas of the Site. In each plot, tree
species and number of stems will be recorded and seedling/sapling/tree height measured.
Tree data from all plots will be combined into one database to calculate an average density,
by species, represented in restoration areas of the Site.
In each plot, presence/absence of shrub and herbaceous species will be recorded. A
' wetland data form (DOA 1987) will be completed to document the classification and
description of vegetation, soil, and hydrology.
2.4 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria include the verification, per the wetland data form, that each plot supports a
species composition sufficient for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success criteria
are dependent upon density and growth of "Character Tree Species". Character Tree
Species are identified through visual inventory of an approved reference (relatively
undisturbed) wetland community used to orient the restoration project design. All canopy
tree species identified in the reference wetland will be utilized to define "Character Tree
Species" as termed in the success criteria.
An average density of 320 stems per acre of Character Tree Species must be surviving in
the first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 character tree species per acre must be
surviving in year 4 and 260 character tree species per acre in year 5. Planted character tree
species (oaks, cypress, and tupelo gum, etc.) must represent a minimum of 30 percent of the
required stem per acre total (96 stems/acre). Each naturally recruited character species may
represent up to 10 percent of the required stem per acre total. In essence, 7 naturally
recruited character species may represent a maximum of 70 percent of the required
stem/acre total. Additional stems of naturally recruited species above the 10 to 70 percent
thresholds are discarded from the statistical analysis. The remaining 30 percent is reserved
for planted character species (oaks, cypress, tupelo gum, etc.) as a seed source for species
maintenance during mid-successional phases of forest development.
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from
combined plots over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting will be performed with
tree species approved by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be performed as
needed until achievement of vegetation success criteria.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb and shrub assemblages.
Development of a forest canopy over several decades and restoration of wetland hydrology
will dictate success in migration and establishment of desired wetland understory and
groundcover populations.
2.5 Stream Stabilitv
A selected stream reach, extending for a minimum of 300 feet along the constructed channel,
will be monitored for physical geometry and in-stream flow.
Physical Geometry
Annual fall monitoring will include development of a channel plan view, channel cross-
sections on riffles and pools, and pebble counts. Data to be generated will include: 1) cross-
sectional area; 2) bankfull width; 3) average depth; 4) maximum depth; 5) width/depth ratio;
6) meander wavelength; 7) belt width; 8) sinuosity; and 9) stream substrate composition.
The stream will subsequently be classified according to stream geometry and substrate
(Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in channel morphology will be tracked and reported by
comparing data in each successive monitoring year.
In-Stream Flow
In-stream flows will be measured through placement of a continuous monitoring, stream flow
gauge within the constructed channel cross-section or bankfull channel culvert. The gauge
will be capable of recording stream stage (ft), velocity (ft/second), and discharge (cubic feet
per second, CFS). The data will be reported as peak daily flows for channel velocity
(ft/second), discharge (CFS), and stage in tabular and graphic format. As designed, the
gauge will not record flow data associated with overbank flows that are distributed across the
restored floodplain surface.
2.6 Stream Stability Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include: 1) successful classification of the reach as
a stable stream type (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel geometry changes indicative of a stable
stream system.
The channel configuration will be compared on an annual basis to track changes in channel
geometry, profile, and substrate. These measurements will be utilized to assist in
determining the success in restoring stream channel stability. Specifically, the channel will
be successfully classified as an E stream type including a bank/height ratio less than 1.1, an
entrenchment ratio greater than 5, and a bankfull width/depth ratio less than 12. The field
indicator of bankfull will be described in each monitoring year and indicated on representative
channel cross-sections. The bankfull channel may also be predicted from stream gauge data
and compared to bankfull indicators starting in the third year of monitoring.
Modifications to the channel will be performed to increase or decrease the sediment
transport capacity, reduce sediment loading from the upper watershed, or adjust other
attributes as needed. If the stream channel is widening due to bank erosion, additional bank
or slope stabilization methods will be employed.
1
2.7 Stream Biology
The in-stream, biological monitoring program will follow procedures established in DWQ's,
Interim Internal Technical Guide: Benthic Macro-invertebrate Monitoring Protocols for
?J

' Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects (DWQ 2000). Benthic macro-invertebrate
samples will be collected using the Qual-4 collection method. This procedure is preferred for
1S` and 2nd order streams with catchments of less than 1 square mile in the Sand Hill region.
' All biological samples will be collected during the summer months (June-September).
Monitoring locations will be permanently marked and will extend for approximately 300 linear
feet along the designated reach. Collection and taxonomic analysis of benthic macro-
invertebrates will be performed by a certified DWQ company/laboratory. Collected animals
will be identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
' During each sample event described below Stream Habitat Assessment Forms
will be
prepared that describe physical habitat characteristics that were present in the channel
(DWQ 2000). Collection procedures and processed biological samples will be available for
review by DWQ biologists, including annual reports summarizing the data in the fall of each
year.
The monitoring program includes: 1) a statement of biological objectives for stream
' restoration; 2) reference reach (target) sampling; 3) impacted stream reach (base-line)
sampling; and 4) restoration reach sampling.
Biological Obiectives of Restoration
The goals and objectives of stream restoration are to convert a linear dredged channel into a
moderate to highly sinuous stream. The existing, dredged channel is entrenched with
floodplain benches consisting of eroded banks along the incised channel. As a result,
stream restoration is expected to provide the following biological benefits:
' 1) Increase-the -abundance of pool habitat; including deep water and bank
overhang shelters.
2) Increase tha abundan_ ce of riffle habitat (higher velocity flow over coarser
' substrate). -
3) Provide connectivity to aquatic organisms between the restored floodplain
habitat and in-stream habitat during more frequent overbank floods.
4) Increase the diversity of stream substrates by transitioning flows from riffles to
pools within each meander wavelength.
5) Reducing bank erosion and substrate homogenization (fining of the stream
substrate) relative to existing conditions. The stream bed is expected to
chan e from a silt dominated substrate to a coarse sanddominated_substrate

6) over time.
Increase the abundance of coarse wow debris in the channel.
7) Increase potential for colonization and expansion of benthic macro-
invertebrate feeding guilds for intolerant grders (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
Trichoptera [EPT]) such as mayfly (Aentrella sp., Baetis sp.), stonefly
(Allocapnia sp., Isoperla sp.), and caddisfly (Cheumatopsycke sp.,
' Hydropsyche sp.). Diagnostic species utilized to assess benefits to biological
habitat will be discerned from reference reach sampling.

1

' Reference Reach (Target) Sampling
A reference reach will be sampled to provide a characterization of taxa present within
' relatively undisturbed streams in the region that supports a similar drainage area (< 0.3
square mile). The r e sample will be collected within headwater reaches of_Flat
ed on Fort,gragg,-in - Cumberland-County. This reference reach and associated
' drainage area is unlikely to be impacted by development within the military base over the
next several decades. In addition, this reference reach has been utilized to establish stream
geometry for reconstruction. The monitoring location will be positioned along a transitional
' zone from intermittent to perennial stream, including a drainage area of less than 0.30.3
mile. ong with Stream Habitat Assessment Forms, the results of the reference sample will
be used to generate a taxa list of relative abundance, to assess diagnostic (target) taxa, and
for future metric calculations and subsequent evaluation of findings.
Impacted Stream Reach (Base-Line) Sampling
' Base-line (pre-project) sampling within the impacted stream reach will be performed prior to
disturbance. A taxa list of relative abundance and Stream Habitat Assessment Form will be
compared to reference reach data and restoration reach data to assess existing conditions
and compile a list of taxa currently available for expansion into the reconstructed stream.
Restoration Reach Sampling
' Restoration reach sampling will be performed annually for a minimum of 3 years, starting one
full year after the impacted stream is disturbed and the restoration reach established. As
described above, a taxa list of relative abundance and Stream Habitat Assessment Form
generated for the restored reach will be compared to reference reach and impacted reach
data in tabular format. The comparison will depict the taxa that are colonizing the
' reconstructed channel relative to target and pre-project conditions.
2.8 Stream Bioloay Success Criteria
Success criteria associated with biological monitoring will follow procedures established in
DWQ's monitoring protocols (DWQ 2000). Success criteria may be modified based on
future, quantitative protocols established by DWQ. In general, Stream Habitat Assessment
' Forms will be utilized to verify functional replacement of in-stream, aquatic habitat. Summary
statistics will be used to verify the process of colonization by diagnostic taxa, including a
potential trajectory from base-line conditions towards target conditions over time.
The baseline sample, collected within the stream reach to be impacted by landfill
development, will establish the functional capacity of the existing stream and will denote
' base-line conditions for restoration efforts. The target sample, collected within the reference
(relatively undisturbed) stream reach, will establish the best-case conditions and ultimate,
long term goal for the restoration project.
' Success criteria will include evi
at th restored stream reach meets or _exceeds._the
base-line biological condition. Summary statistics within the restored reach will be used to
' verify that species diversity meets or exceeds diversity within the impacted stream. In
u
1

' addition, colonization patterns and development of aquatic habitat over time will exhibit a
trajectory towards reference reach conditions in each successive monitoring year.
2.9 Report Submittal
An Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR) will be submitted to USACE and DWQ at the
end of each monitoring year. The AWMR will depict the sample plot locations and include
' photographs which illustrate site conditions. Data compilations and analyses will be
presented as described in Sections 2.1 through 2.8 including graphic and tabular format,
where practicable. Success criteria will be interpreted based on quantitative data described
above. In the event that success criteria are not achieved, methods for contingency or
remediation will be recommended.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX B
Biological Monitoring Data
Benthic Sampling Results (EPT taxa)
for Baseline Data and Monitoring Years 2001-2004.
Baseline Baseline Pre-
Reference Reference Project
2001 2005 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Ephemeroptera
Ameletidae
Ameletus lineatus 4
Baetidae 10 2
Caenidae
Caenis sp. 1 1
Ephemerellidae
Eurylophella sp. 3
Heptageniidae
Stenacron interpunctatum 1 1
Stenonema sp. 1
Leptophlegiidae
Paraleptophlebia sp. 31 19
Plecoptera
Perlidae
Eccoptura xanthenes 2 2
Periodidae
Isoperla sp. 4
Trichoptera
Hydropsydhidae 2
Cheumatopsyche sp. 3
Diplectrona modesta 4
Limnephilidae
Ironoquia sp. 1
Pycnopsyche sp. 8
Philopotamidae
Chimarra aterrima 10 11
Uenoidae
Neophylax sp. 1

Total 78 41 0 0 0 3 0
mfT, ?Z v c cv 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM ANSON MITIGATION SITE, OCTOBER 20, 2005.
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Sta. 1 US Sta. 2 DS Refrence
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta CG
Tubificida
Tubificidae w.h.c. 7.1 CG 1
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.1 CG 1 1
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Isopoda
Asellidae SH
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 CG 2
Amphipoda CG
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp. 7.9 CG 7 3
Decapoda
Cambaridae 7.5 5 2 2
Insecta
Collembola 1
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae CG 2
Caenidae CG
Caenis sp. 7.4 CG 1
Heptageniidae SC
Maccaffertium (Stenonema) sp. *4 SC 1
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 SC 1
Leptophlebiidae CG
Paraleptophlebia sp. 0.9 CG 19
Odonata
Aeshnidae P 1
Epiaeschna heros 2 2
Calopterygidae P
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 P 10
Cordulegastridae p
Cordulegaster sp. 5.7 P 2
Gomphidae p
Lanthus parvulus 1.8 2
Plecoptera
Perlidae P
Eccoptura xanthenes 3.7 p 2
Hemiptera
Corixidae 9 PI 13 1
Gerridae P
Aquarius sp. P 1
Notonectidae
Notonecta sp. 8.7 p 1
Megaloptera
Sialidae P
Sialis sp. 7.2 P 3
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae FC
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 2 ecoscientcANSONCOcl1 1/10/2006
t BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM ANSON MITIGATION SITE, OCTOBER 20, 2005.

Diplectrona modesta
Philopotamidae
Chimarra aterrima
Coleoptera
Curculionidae
Dryopidae

1 Helichus basalis
Helichus fastigiatus
Hydroporus sp.
Dytiscidae
Copelatus sp.
Laccophilus sp.
Elmidae
Stenelmis sp.
Ptilodactylidae
Anchytarsus bicolor
Diptera
' Chaboridae
Chaoborus punctipennis
Chironomidae
' Chironomus sp.
Conchapelopia sp.
Microtendipes pedellus gp.
Paralauterborniella nigrohalteralis
' Polypedilum illinoense
Rheotanytarsus sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Culicidae
Anopheles sp.
Tipulidae
Hexatoma sp.
Tipula sp.
' TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
EPT Index
Biotic Index
% Dominant taxon

Pennington and Associates, Inc.

SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Sta. 1 US Sta. 2 DS Refrence
2.2 FC
FC
2.8 FC
*4 Sc
8.6 PI
P
10
10 P
CG
5.1 Sc
SH
3.6 SH
8.5 P
9.6 CG
8.4 P
5.5 CG
4.8 CG
9 SH
5.9 FC
6.8 FC
FC
8.6 FC
SH
4.3 P
7.3 SH
1
1
7 1
1
3
9 2
2 1
4
11
1
1
2
1
4
1
1
3
1
2
1 4

1

54 19 89
13 13
/ 29
0 r
0 8 ?? .
8.54 8.22 4.57 [ f kr
24.07% 15.79% 21.35%
Page 2 of 2
ecoscientcANSONCOcl1 1/10/2006
APPENDIX 2. HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORMS: MOUNTAIN/PIEDMONT AND COASTAL PLAIN.
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
' Directions for use of this Assessment: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in
an upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The stream segment which is
assessed should represent average stream conditions. In order to perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer
needs to get into the stream. All meter readings need to be performed prior to walking the stream. When working
the habitat index, select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the
observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. There are eight different metrics in
this index and a final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream Location/Road
County A
Date CC# Basin
Subbasin
Observer(s)`-r= Office Location
Agency
Type of Study: Fish ' Bentho Basinwide Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion (circle one) MT P Distance Surveyed - meters
1
1

t
1
Physical Characterization: Land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location -
include what you see driving thru the watershed in the remarks section. Also use the remarks section I-or
such descriptions as "deeply incised" or "exposed bedrock" or other unusual conditions.
Land use: Forest ? D % Active Pasture -% Active Crops % Fallow ields "/° Commercial
Industrial % Residential % Other % -Describe C:_ 17 ?vt { ie'
Width: (meters) Stream k Channel 1 Average Stream Depth: (m) ?. _ Velocity - 2 m/sec
Flow conditions (circle one): High -'Non I Low
Manmade Stabilization: Y[ ) 141A Describe
Water Quality: Temperature °C Dissolved Oxygen mg/l Conductivity llmhos/cm
pH
Turbidity: (circle) Clear Slightly Turbid Turbid . Tannic
Weather Conditions: L r' j; ( Photo #
Remarks:`
r
Ilauk
Page 34
Typical Stream Cross-section
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1. Channel Modification (Use Topo map as an additional aid for this parameter) Scor
A. channel natural, frequent bends (good diversity of bends or falls) ...................................................
B. channel natural, infrequent bends ..................................................................................................... 4
C. some channelization present ............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ................................................... 0
Remarks
Subtotal
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the .percentage of the reach that is favorable for bentlios colonization or fish cover.
Circle the habitats which occur (Rocks; -(Macr e- (ficks and leaf pact. j :(snags andRlo;) (updercuC;.'.
banks or root mays) Definition: --teaTp-ac-kr consrst of older leaves that are packed together and have begun to
decay."Files of leaves in pool areas are not considered leaf packs. EXAMPLE: If >70% of the reach is rocks, I type
is present, circle the score of 17.
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Sc 'e Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8
3 types present ......................... 19 15 11

2 types present .........................
18
14
10 7
6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ......................... ..
ubtotal 'j
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, ravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring,
but only look at riffle for embeddedness.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ....................... 15
2. embeddedness 20-40% ..............................................................••.......................................... 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% ......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness >80% ..............................................................................................
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% ......................................................................
2. embeddedness 20-40% .............................................................. 11
...........................................
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................ 6
4. embeddedness >80% .................................................... 2
.....................................
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ......................................
2. embeddedness >50% .............................................
...............................................
D. substrate homgeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ...............................................................................
2. substrate nearly all sand ........... ........................................................................................... 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .......................................................
substrate nearly all silt/ clay .....................................................:.
...........................:.
..............
:l
Subtotal
N -c 35
A
1
IV
Pool Variet
Pools are areas of dee
e
th
.
y
p
r
an average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence
.
Water velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools
behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient streams.
A. Pools present
Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ................................................
.
.........
............................................... 10
b. pools same size .................................................................................................
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the I00m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ......................................................................................................... 6
b.pools same size ....................................................
.............................................
4
B. Pools absent '
1. Runs present .....................................................................
............................................................... 3
2. Runs absent .................................
..................................................................................................... 0
Remarks Page Total 6
V. Riffle Habitats
Frequent Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream..... "'I 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ..................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X strearn width ................................ 10 3
D
iffl
b
. r
es a
sent ........................................................................................................................0

Subtotal
VI
B
k S
.
an
tability and Vegetation
Left Bank Right Bank

Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure, little potential for erosion ................................... !7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ................................ 6 6
few t
2
ll t
d
b
.
rees or sma
rees an
shru
s; vegetation appears generally healthy ...............
5
.......
5
3. sparse vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding
3
.......................
3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high ersosion and failure potential at high flow 2
2
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident .................... 0 0
Total
I
_
R P1TartlC
VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy
would block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration ................................. 1
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent .............................
g
C. Stream with partial shading -.sunlight and shading are essentially equa ....................................
7
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas .............................
E. No shading
' Remarks
1
Page 36

VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream. Br eaks refer to the
near-stream portion of the riparian zone (banks); places where pollutants can directl
enter the
t
y
s
rea m.
' Right Bank Left Banl
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
Score
Score
1. zone width > 18 meters .....................................................................................
2. zone width 12-18 meters 6)
.............................................................
3. zone width 6-12 meters ......................................... 4
............................................
4. zone width < 6 meters ........
.
. 3 ,
.
.
..........................................................................
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks) Z 2
1. breaks rare
a. zone width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 4

'
b. zone width 12-18 meters .......................................................................
c
zone width 6-12 meters
3 4
.
..........................................................
d. zone width < 6 meters ......................................... 2
................................
2. breaks common 1 I
a. zone width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b
zone width 12
18
t 3
.
-
me
ers .........................................................
.............
c. zone width 6-12 meters .........................................
. 2 2

.............................
d. zone width < 6 meters 1 1
............................................
.............................
Remarks 0 0
Total )
1
TOTAL SCORE

ADD COMMENTS, DRAWINGS:

1

i
t
t
i
Page 37

1
APPENDIX 2. HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORMS: MOUNTAIN/PIEDMONT AND COASTAL PLAIN.
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Directions for use of this Assessment: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in
an upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The stream segment which is
assessed should represent average stream conditions. In order to perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer
needs to get into the stream. All meter readings need to be performed prior to walking the stream. When working
the habitat index, select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the
observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. There are eight different metrics in
this index and a final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
k , Stream_ % LocAtion/Road County
Date ;J_ fc' CC# Basin
Subbasin
' Observer(s) Office Location ! Agency
Type of Study: Fish , Bentho Basinwide Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion (circle one) MT P Distance Surveyed meters
Physical Characterization: Land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location -
include what you see driving thru the watershed in the remarks section. Also use the remarks section I-or
such descriptions as "deeply incised" or "exposed bedrock" or other unusual conditions.
Land use: Forest/?'lj % Active Pasture % Active Crops % Fallow Fields % Commercial
Industrial -% Residential % Other -% - Describe
Width: (meters) Stream Channel Avera e Stream De the _ g p (mV,
Velocity ,? m/sec
Flow conditions (circle one): High Normal Low
Manmade Stabilization: Y[ J N) Describe
Water Quality: Temperature °C Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 Conductivity ilmhos/cm pI{
Turbidity: (circle Clear Slightly Turbid Turbid Tannic
Weather Conditions: Photo #
Remarks:
1
1

1
r
6:?xk
Page 34
Typical Stream Gotc-cectiml
1
\
1. Channel Modification (Use Topo map as an additional aid for this parameter) Scor
A. channel natural, frequent bends (good diversity of bends or falls) .......................
B. channel natural, infrequent bends ......................................................... 4'
..................................
C. some channelization present ........................................................................................ ;
......................
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted .............................. 2
........................
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ................................................... 0
Remarks 'z? Subtotal
a L.)
up iF"
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover.
Circle the habitats which occur- (Rocks) (Macrophytes) (sticks and leaf packs) (snags and lobs) (undercut
banks or root mats) Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have begun to
decay. Piles of leaves in pool areas are not considered leaf packs. EXAMPLE: If >70% of the reach is rocks, 1 type
is present, circle the score of 17.
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70%0 20-40% <20%

4 or 5 types present ............ Score
(0 Score
16 Score Score
.....
3 types present .........................
19
15 12
11 8
7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10
6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ......................... ..
e„1,r„r.,i 2
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scorin

but only look at riffle for embeddedness. g,
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders

1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) Score
.......................
2. embeddedness 20-40% ................. 15
.........................................................................................
3. embeddedness 40-80% ............ 12
......................................
..................................
.....................
4. embeddedness >80% ..................................................
....
substrate gravel and cobble ,
1. embeddedness <20% .................................
........
...............................
.
}
.
................................
2. embeddedness 20-40% ....................................................
.......................... .
3. embeddedness 40-80% ..................
......................................................................................
4. embeddedness >80% ........................ 6
....................................................................................
C. substrate mostly gravel 2
1. embeddedness <50% .....................
...............................................
2, embeddedness >50% .......................
.
.
...................................................................................
D. substrate homgeneous 2
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ........................................................
.
.
.....................
2. substrate nearly all sand... .................................. 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................
...................................................................
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ....................................................:
............................:................ 2
I
Remarks
1L)
P i`>e 35

i
IV
Pool Variet
Pools are areas of dee
er tha
av
i
d
.
y
p
n
erage max
mum
epths with little or no surface turbulence
.
Water velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools
behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient streams.
A. Pools present
Scor
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes .......................................................... _l
b. pools same size ............................................................................................................... g
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ......................................................................................................... 6
b.pools same size ..........................................................................................................
4
.......
B. Pools absent
1. Runs present .................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Runs absent ..............
.
.
.......
......
....................................................................
1 Remarks Pa
l 67
e Tot
g
a
V. Riffle Habitats
Frequent Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream..... 16 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ..................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ................................ 10 3
D. riffles absent ........................................................................................................................0
Subtotal'
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation

A. Banks stable
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure, little potential for erosion ...................................
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ................................
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ......................
3. sparse vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding .......................
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high ersosion and failure potential at high flow
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ............................................
Left Bank Right Bank
Score Score
7 7
5 5
3 3
2 2
0 0
Total
VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy
would block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration ....................... :.....................
II?
8.
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ............................................
C. Stream with partial shading =sunlight and shading are essentially equa .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No shading ..............................................................................
Remarks
(1

Page 36

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream. Breaks refer to the
near-stream portion of the riparian zone (banks); places where pollutants can directly enter the stream.
Rijht Banl< Left Ban
Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. zone width > 18 meters .....................................................................................
2. zone width 12-18 meters ................................................................................... 4 q
3. zone width 6-12 meters ..................................................................................... 3 3
4. zone width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. zone width > 18 meters ....................................................................... 4 4
b. zone width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3 3
c. zone width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 2 2
d. zone width < 6 meters .................................................. ...................... I
2. breaks common
a. zone width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 3 3
b. zone width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 2 2
c. zone width 6-12 meters ................................................................•-..... I 1
d. zone width < 6 meters ....................................................................... 0 0
rks Total -I 0
TOTAL SCORE
G, ??-
ADD COMMENTS, DRAWINGS:
r>,? 37

N
W E
5
4! f ,? t
c-f

REFERENCE
STREAM --?- ''-
?? Wadesboro
i. 3.5 miles j
!tad
41

1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
N
number of particles

CO
CL M N LO to
N 0
to 00

O
4k 0

O
O
0
5 O
C 0 p 0 O CO to O O
5
E °

CU C
> '0
(n (6 ?
?
0o O 0
U
a) _

d O
- ------'- --- --_...
(
I
E
_.1__. _.. ........_.. _ E
oMM?
m I I o ? ao 0

° 0
CU
E ,
N
3
I 1 to Y
t
7 I ?

p O 1
U U I I

.a
a? N (D v M
d N to ?
q) CU
1
E
M °
t O I I '
(D
N (D M

°
I
I U
)
00 rn
o O o U o 0

CI)

(D
o

0
0 0

0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0 0

0

0

0 o O
0 0 0
V CO O O O O O O O O O O O
O O W r O 0 V M N
L
uey; jaug fuawad

c

U
rn
N
11
!-
N
N
CO
r-
aN--
(O
N
N
N

E N LO C C
`-'
O CD
O tt)
N LO
CO
0
N ?t a0 O
N O CT O
N 7
U 7

?
O
O O O ?N O N N LO IT
V (D GOB.--N M?(O 0
O
0
D)? .-N (
p
M tf) N O U

a)
O N U') (O Lq
(D C-4 N N st (0 00 .-- (D N N to
'-NM'V V O W O
O t0) NO (O N N st M
0 (D - N -t ' '

?
? J Q
N_ O .- N CO ill 0 0 (a
O
(A O O e- N - , I

> 0 '0
0-0
C C C C C
a) N N N N N N N N
N N 22
N a) N a) 0
C

N 0 N 0 0 > > > > > > > > > _0 Z .0 -

o o- 0
V
° O a 00 _V
(n u) 0 u) w
at 0) m
0 =3
-0 20
m C) E a) 4) M m o 0 o O o 0 0 a
i CO U)
S;?12
O N E E 0 0 0 0
12
j
m .0 (u
0 'w t.= .7 7
CU (U CU cu Ql
E N 0 E
2) E
U 0
E Z °° 0
°?
°
0 m 22 N m
a
E °
c
(
?
> E E
L,
E i (
n
CD v a)
j z

> > a)

>
E
>
o
Z
O
t?
1

1
1
11
J

1
1

APPENDIX C
Groundwater Gauge Hydrographs

1

0

1
1

1
I?o

?o
J CV
O ?
V ?
O
Q
m
LO
LO
I
NZt-
U)
a?
c?
C?
0
N
O
N
N
N
.0
_N
tII

0 (D 0 M N N N N (c0 N 00 't O N' 00 N (O O It 00 N m O
? ?-- N N N M M d'
(u!) ujdaQ aalaM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
O
J ?
>+ N
V ?
Q
CR
0
C?
N
N
cm
(Cf
0
0
N
O
N
(14
N
cD
U)
>N
O (D N OJ d' O CD N o0 ?t O tt 00 N CO O ? 00 N tD O
(u!) uldaa aajeM
i
i

A CV o

O CO
V a)
ca ?

O ?

a
0
2t
N
O
N
N
N
..0
N
CO
N
?t m (NN N ON (r0 N 00 It O 00 N c0 O d' 00 N m O
r' r- N N N c'7 c'7 '?t
(u!) ujdaa aajaM
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
? O
? O
?+ N
O ?
V ?
O CD
Q
_N
d'
?t-
O
LO
CO
d'
a?
c?

0
N
O
N
N
N
70
N
(u
U)
c
>N
(D w (D m N N N N(D cN- m d' O It m N CO O V m N m O
t- ?- N N N C7 ('7 ?
(u!) ujdaa aajaM
i
i
i

ti
' o
?
N 0
j
},
C
N (
j

O a1 LO

? Q

0
N
O
N
N
N
_N
co
O t0 N w Iq O (D N 00 ? O V 00 N m O' t w N O O
M M N N N .- ' ' r N N N M M ct
(u!) uldaa aajaM
- --- , - 90/Z/Z
I
90/t UZ
{
90/9Z/0 I
90/5/6
c?
Q 90/L [IL
a)
ca
90/8Z/9
6
U
0 90/8/t
Q
90/L UZ
1p0/6Z/Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o Sri 6 L6 co psi o
to N N V- V
puooas/loal oigno
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
APPENDIX D
Vegetation Plot Data
Piedmont Alluvial Forest (Plots 1 and 2: Planted

ommon name

cientific name

tems

Total
Trees/
Acre
Percent of
Total
Trees/
Acre
Trees/
Acre for
Success
Criteria Percent of
Total Trees/
Acre for
Success
Criteria

omments'

etland
Status

haracteristic
Species'
box-elder Acernegundo 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P. R FACW Yes
red maple Acer rubrum 222 1009 17.1 58 20.9 V. R FAG Yes
river birch Betula nigra 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P, R FACW Yes
ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 4 18 0.3 18 6.5 P, R FAG Yes
pignut hickory Carya glabra 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P FACU No
mockernut hickory Carya tomentosa 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P N/A No
hackberry Celtis occidentalis 4 18 0.3 0 0.0 V FACU No
sugarberry Celtis laevigata 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V. R FACW Yes
buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V OBL No
silky dogwood Corpus amomum 25 114 1.9 58 20.9 P, R FACW+ Yes
flowering dogwood Comus flodda 8 36 0.6 0 0.0 P FACU No
persimmon Diospyros virginiana 5 23 0.4 0 0.0 V FAC No
green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 22 100 1.7 58 20.9 P, R FACW Yes
deciduous holly flex decidua 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACW- No
American holly Ilex opaca 16 73 1.2 0 0.0 V, R FAC- No
eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana 2 9 0.2 0 0.0 V FACU- No
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense 499 2268 38.4 0 0.0 V FAC No
sweet-gum Liquidambar styraciflua 83 377 6.4 58 20.9 V, R FAC+ Yes
black gum Nyssa sylvatica 2 9 0.2 0 0.0 P OBL No
loblolly pine Pinus taeda 98 445 7.5 0 0.0 V, S FAC No
sycamore Platanus occidentalis 3 14 0.2 14 5.0 P, R FACW- Yes
black cherry Prunus serotina 11 50 0.8 0 0.0 V FACU No
laurel oak Quercus laurifolia 1 5 0.1 0 0.0 V FACW No
overcup oak Quercus lyrata 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V OBL No
water oak Quercus nigra 40 182 3.1 0 0.0 V FAG No
willow oak Quercus phellos 30 136 2.3 0 0.0 V FACW- No
northern red oak Quercus rubra 6 27 0.5 0 0.0 P, V FACU No
cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda 1 5 0.1 5 1.8 P. R FAC+ Yes
black oak Quercus velutina 1 5 0.1 0 0.0 V NI No
winged sumac Rhus copallinum 1 5 0.1 0 0.0 V NI No
willow sp. ' Salix sp. 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P, S N/A No
elderberry ` Sambucus canadensis 2 9 0.2 0 0.0 P FACW- No
winged elm Ulmus alata 166 755 12.8 0 0.0 V FACU+ No
American elm Ulmus americana 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P, R FACW Yes
possum-haw Viburnum nudum 18 82 1.4 0 0.0 V FACW+ No
honey locust Gletditsia triacanthos 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FAC- No
black willow Sa/ix nigra 2 9 0.2 9 3.2 V, R OBL Yes
groundsel-tree Baccharis halimifolia 3 14 0.2 0 0.0 V FAC No
pawpaw Asimina triloba 3 14 0.2 0 0.0 V FAG No
American beech Fagus grandifolia 5 23 0.4 0 0.0 V FACU No
arrow-wood Viburnum dentatum 8 36 0.6 0 0.0 V FAC No
black walnut Juglans nigra 9 41 0.7 0 0.0 V FACU No
yaupon holly Ilex vomitoria 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FAC No
TOTAL = 1300 5909 100.0 278 100.0
1 - P = planted; V = volunteer; R = occurs in reference forest according to Schafale and Weakley (1990); S = softwood
2 - Characteristic species are defined as species found within the reference community that are
1) native, planted species with a wetland status of FAG or wetter; or
2) non-planted, volunteer species with a wetland status of FAG or wetter.
- Species planted for streambank stabilization that are not a characteristic species.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Piedmont Swamp Forest (Plot 3: Planted

ommon name

cientific name

tems

Total
Trees/
Acre
Percent of Trees/Acre
Total for
Trees/ Success
Acre Criteria Percent of
Total Trees/
Acre for
Success
Criteria

omments'

etland
Status

haracteristic
Species2
box-elder Acernegundo 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P, R FACW Yes
red maple Acerrubrum 96 873 17.8 58 12.8 V, R FAC Yes
river birch Betula nigra 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P. R FACW Yes
ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 5 45 0.9 45 10.0 P. R FAC Yes
pignut hickory Carya glabra 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P FACU No
mockernut hickory Carya tomentosa 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P N/A No
hackberry Celtislaevigata 1 9 0.2 9 2.0 V.R FACW Yes
buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentals. 1 9 0.2 0 0.0 V OBL No
silky dogwood Comus amomum 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P, R FACW+ Yes
flowering dogwood Comus Florida 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P FACU No
persimmon Diospyros virginiana 9 82 1.7 0 0.0 V FAC No
green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 57 518 10.6 58 12.8 P. R FACW Yes
deciduous holly flex decidua 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACW- No
American holly flex opaca 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V, R FAC- No
eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACU- No
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense 61 555 11.3 0 0.0 V FAC No
sweet-gum Liquidambarstyraciflua 115 1045 21.3 58 12.8 V. R FAC+ Yes
black gum Nyssasylvatica 5 45 0.9 0 0.0 P OBL No
loblolly pine Pinus taeda 47 427 8.7 0 0.0 V, S FAC No
sycamore Platanus occidentalis 5 45 0.9 45 10.0 P. R FACW- Yes
black cherry Prunus serotina 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACU No
laurel oak Quercus laurifolia 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACW No
overcup oak Quercus lyrata 17 155 3.2 58 12.8 V, R OBL Yes
water oak Quercus nigra 19 173 3.5 0 0.0 V FAC No
willow oak Quercus phellos 12 109 2.2 58 12.8 V. R FACW- Yes
northern red oak Quercus rubra 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P, V FACU No
cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda 3 27 0.6 27 6.0 P, R FAC+ Yes
black oak Quercus velutina 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V NI No
winged sumac Rhus copallinum 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V NI No
willow sp. Salix sp. 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P, S N/A No
elderberry Sambucus canadensis 5 45 0.9 0 0.0 P _
FACW- No
winged elm Ulmus alata 67 609 12.4 0 0.0 V FACU+ No
American elm Ulmus americana 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 P. R FACW Yes
possum-haw Viburnum nudum 1 9 0.2 0 0.0 V FACW+ No
honey-locust Gletditsia trlacanthos 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FAC- No
black willow Salix nigra 4 36 0.7 36 8.0 V. R OBL Yes
groundsel-tree Baccharis ha/imifolia 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FAC No
pawpaw Asimina triloba 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FAC No
American beech Fagus grandifolia 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACU No
arrow-wood Viburnum dentatum 2 18 0.4 0 0.0 V FAC No
black walnut Juglans nigra 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACU No
yaupon holly Ilex vornitoria 7 64 1.3 0 0.0 V FAC No
TOTAL= 539 4900 100.0 452 100.0
1 -- P = planted; V = volunteer; R = occurs in reference forest according to Schafale and Weakley (1990); S = softwood
2 - Characteristic species are defined as species found within the reference community that are
1) native, planted species with a wetland status of FAC or wetter; or
2) non-planted, volunteer species with a wetland status of FAC or wetter.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Piedmont Swamp Forest (Plot 4: Not Planted)

ommon name

cientific name

tems

Total
Trees/
Acre

Percent of Trees/Acre for
Total Trees/ Success
Acre Criteria Percent of
Total Trees/
Acre for
Success
Criteria

omments'

etland
Status

haracteristic
Species=
box-elder Acernegundo 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V. R FACW Yes
red maple Acerrubrum 46 836 15.3 58 16.7 V, R FAC Yes
river birch Betula nigra 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V, R FACW Yes
ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 4 73 1.3 58 16.7 V, R FAC Yes
pignut hickory Carya glabra 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACU No
mockernut hickory Carya tomentosa 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V N/A No
hackberry Celtis laevigata 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V, R FACW Yes
buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentals: 2 36 0.7 0 0.0 V OBL No
silky dogwood Comus amomum 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V, R FACW+ Yes
flowering dogwood Comus Norida 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACU No
persimmon Diospyros virginiana 5 91 1.7 0 0.0 V FAC No
green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 92 1673 30.7 58 16.7 V, R FACW Yes
deciduous holly Ilex decidua 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACW- No
American holly flex opaca 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V, R FAC- No
eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACU- No
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense 79 1436 26.3 0 0.0 V FAC No
sweet-gum Liquidambar styraciflua 37 673 12.3 58 16.7 V, R FAC+ Yes
black gum Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V OBL No
loblolly pine Pinus taeda 4 73 1.3 0 0.0 V, S FAC No
sycamore Platanus occidentalis 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V, R FACW- Yes
black cherry Prunus serotina 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACU No
laurel oak Quercus laurifolia 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACW No
overcup oak Quercus lyrata 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V, R OBL Yes
water oak Quercus nigra 4 73 1.3 0 0.0 V FAC No
willow oak Quercus phellos 6 109 2.0 58 16.7 V, R FACW- Yes
northern red oak Quercus rubra 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V, V FACU No
cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V, R FAC+ Yes
black oak Quercus velutina 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V NI No
winged sumac Rhus copallfnum 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V NI No
willow sp. Salix sp. 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V. s N/A No
elderberry Sambucus canadensis 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACW- No
winged elm Ulmus alata 7 127 2.3 0 0.0 V FACU+ No
American elm Ulmus americana 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V, R FACW Yes
possum-haw Viburnum nudum 9 164 3.0 0 0.0 V FACW+ No
honey-locust Gletditsia triacanthos 1 18 0.3 0 0.0 V FAC- No
black willow Salix nigra 4 73 1.3 58 16.7 V. R OBL Yes
groundsel-tree Baccharis halimifolia 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FAC No
pawpaw Asimina triloba 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FAC No
American beech Fagus grandifolia 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACU No
arrow-wood Viburnum dentatum 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FAC No
black walnut Juglans nigra 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FACU No
yaupon holly flex vomitoria 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 V FAC No
TOTAL= 300 5455 100.0 348 100.0
1 -- P = planted; V = volunteer; R = occurs in reference forest according to Schafale and Weakley (1990); S = softwood
2 -- Characteristic species are defined as species found within the reference community that are
1) native, planted species with a wetland status of FAC or wetter; or
2) non-planted, volunteer species with a wetland status of FAC or wetter.
1
1

1

1
I

1

1

C
1

APPENDIX E
Photographic Record of Vegetation Plots
1
C\l
+r 6 r ^O
^+a;a A
34
0261M ld4
?r tc'.r ?` ?"y-.,'r.-??,??..awa•??, ? L.S. ?i ?. ? ?:,?."'?-.,.r'..-,. -„ = U
?-
_O
CL
O
a;
0
U
4 ? Y t !a '
? ? i •:.?` f la R?9
r
+ :'RR

c
M
0
a)
C
td
E-L
M
O
O
a?
U