HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031003 Ver 2_Year 5 Monitoring Report_201102043
Daniels Farm #2
Wetland Restoration Site
Franklin County, North Carolina
Tar -Pam 03020101
Contract # D05025
Monitoring Report
Year 5
, el
Submitted to:
North Carolina
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Submitted by:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
KCI Environmental Technologies & Construction, Inc.
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
December 2010
Fifth Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm #2 Wetland Restoration Site
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Daniels Farm #2 Wetland Restoration Project has restored, enhanced, and preserved a Piedmont Bottomland
Hardwood wetland community along the Tar River in central Franklin County This project hopes to improve water
quality and protect aquatic habitat in a predominantly agricultural area with the restoration and enhancement of
19 7 acres of wetland and the preservation of 10 4 acres of wetland The restoration site had undergone severe
degradation from unrestricted agricultural activities and human- induced disturbances
This monitoring report presents the data and findings from the fifth growing season following construction
Included in this report are analyses of both hydrologic and vegetation monitoring results as well as local climatic
conditions throughout the growing season Monitoring activities included sampling vegetation survivability at
eleven locations, monitoring groundwater elevations at five locations, and documenting general site conditions at
seven permanent photograph points within the wetland restoration area In addition, daily precipitation was
recorded These data were evaluated and verified using the climatic data for Louisburg, North Carolina Field
investigations were conducted in May and November 2010 Supporting data and site photographs are included in
the report appendices
The 14 4 acres of wetland restoration were planted at a density of 680 trees per acre and the 5 2 acres of wetland
enhancement were planted at a density ranging from 100 to 200 trees per acre There were eleven vegetation
monitoring plots established throughout the restoration area and one monitoring plot in the enhancement area. The
2010 vegetation monitoring of the restoration areas revealed an average density of 370 trees per acre, which is
above the minimum requirement of 320 trees per acre needed to meet the success criteria at the end of the five -year
monitoring period
During the 2010 monitoring year, wetland hydrology was achieved at all four wells in the restoration area, the well
in the preservation area, and the well in the reference wetland Groundwater was within 12 inches of the soil surface
in excess of 12 consecutive days (5% of the growing season) at each well
The daily rainfall data depicted on the gauge data graphs were obtained from the on -site precipitation gauge The
precipitation gauge was installed on the site in 2003 prior to project implementation The daily rainfall data
obtained for Louisburg, North Carolina shows that Louisburg had average rainfall during the growing season in
2010 and correlated to the precipitation data recorded on -site
Soils in the restoration portion of the site have been determined to be predominately Roanoke Since this soil is
already considered hydric, no success criteria or monitoring is required.
Site photographs were taken from seven permanent photo documentation points established along the property
boundary Photo documentation facilitates the qualitative evaluation of the conditions or changes in the restored
wetland The photo point locations were selected in order to document representative site conditions
The results of the 2010 monitoring of the Daniels Farm #2 Wetland Restoration Project indicate that the site is on
track to meeting the project success criteria
Fifth Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm #2 Wetland Restoration Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Summary ........................................................................................................... ..............................1
2.0 Data Analysis .................................................................................................... ..............................4
3.0 Maintenance /Management Actions ................................................................ ..............................4
4.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... ..............................4
Tables
Table1. Project Components ...................................................................................... ..............................1
Table2. Project Component Summations ................................................................. ..............................1
Table3. Vegetation Monitoring Results ..................................................................... ..............................2
Table4. Vegetation History ......................................................................................... ..............................2
Table 5. 2010 Hydrologic Monitoring Results ........................................................... ..............................3
Table6. Hydroperiod History ..................................................................................... ..............................3
Figures
Figure1. Site Map ........................................................................................................ ..............................5
Figure2. Monitoring Plan View .................................................................................. ..............................6
Appendices
Appendix A - Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
Appendix B - Hydrologic Monitoring and Hydroperiod
Appendix C - Permanent Photograph Points
Fifth Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm #2 Wetland Restoration Site
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Mitigation Summary
Table 1: Project Components
R = Restoration E = Enhancement P = Preservation
Table 2: Project Component Summations
Restoration
Level
Stream
0f)
Riparian
Wetland (Ac)
Non -R►par
(Ac)
Upland
(Ac)
Buffer
(Ac)
BMP
Rivenne
Non - Riverme
Restoration
13 8 07
45 07
103 0 1
286 1 5
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
Totals
Feet/Acres
0
30.1
0
0
MU Totals
0
19.18
0
0
Segment/
Non- Applicable
IM
V
C1.
Reach ID
W
a
Q
Stationing
Comment
Rrvenne
Filled ditches and planted all new trees in
R
-
13 8 ac
-
1 1
1380
Restoration
fonner a ricultural field
Enhanced hydrology by filling adjacent
Rivenne
ditches, supplementally planted trees,
E
-
4 5 ac
-
2 1
225
_
Enhancement
selectively removed red maple and sweetgum
to promote vegetative diversity
Rivenne
Preserved exisitng wetlands in conservation
_
p
_
10 3 ac
-
5 1
206
_
Preservation
easement
Nonnvenne
Filled ditches and planted all new trees in
R
-
0 7 ac
-
1 1
070
_
Restoration
former agricultural field
Enhanced hydrology by filling adjacent
Nonnvenne
ditches, supplementally planted trees,
E
-
0 7 ac
-
2 1
035
_
Enhancement
selectively removed red maple and sweetgum
to promote vegetative diversity
Nonnvenne
Preserved exisitng wetlands in conservation
P
0 1 ac
-
5 1
002
_
Preservation
easement
R = Restoration E = Enhancement P = Preservation
Table 2: Project Component Summations
Restoration
Level
Stream
0f)
Riparian
Wetland (Ac)
Non -R►par
(Ac)
Upland
(Ac)
Buffer
(Ac)
BMP
Rivenne
Non - Riverme
Restoration
13 8 07
45 07
103 0 1
286 1 5
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
Totals
Feet/Acres
0
30.1
0
0
MU Totals
0
19.18
0
0
Non- Applicable
Fifth Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm 42 Wetland Restoration Site
1.2 Vegetation
The 14 4 acres of wetland restoration were planted at a density of 680 trees per acre and the 5 2 acres of wetland
enhancement were planted at a density ranging from 100 to 200 trees per acre Eleven vegetation plots were
established in order to encompass 2% coverage of the restored wetland acreage The 2010 vegetation monitoring of
the planted areas revealed an average density of 370 trees per acre, which is above the minimum requirement of
320 trees per acre (Appendix A). While there are four plots that have a density less than 320 trees /acre, overall the
site is well vegetated with both herbaceous and woody species Qualitatively the woody species are growing
vigorously and are well distributed throughout the site
Table 3: Vegetation Monitoring Results
Table 4: Vegetation History (Trees /Acre)
Plot #
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
1
680
520
520
520
520
2
680
�a
O
600
600
600
3
400
320
200
200
120
4
600
400
280
280
240
5
360
320
240
240
240
6
640
520
560
560
560
7
600
520
480
480
480
8
680
440
ca
°
400
9
600
600
600
600
u
C
O
U
O
s•
G
>,
a
Q
eLa
a
p
3
yd,
Q
�
E
�
C
y 6r
a
3
O
U
F
O F
rn
00
U
1
3
7
1
2
13
520
2
4
11
15
600
3
2
1
3
120
4
1
1
1
1
2
6
240
5
1
2
3
1
6
240
6
3
1
1
1
1 4
4
1
14
1 560
7
1
7
4
12
480
8
4
3
3
10
400
9
1 1 1
4
2
7
1
15
600
10
4
2 1
2 1
2
10
400
11
3 1
3
1 1
7
280
Total Average
370
Density
Table 4: Vegetation History (Trees /Acre)
Plot #
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
1
680
520
520
520
520
2
680
600
600
600
600
3
400
320
200
200
120
4
600
400
280
280
240
5
360
320
240
240
240
6
640
520
560
560
560
7
600
520
480
480
480
8
680
440
400
400
400
9
600
600
600
600
600
10
720
560
440
400
400
11
520
520
320
320
280
2
Fifth Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm #2 Wetland Restoration Site
1.3 Hydrology
The wetland wells used to monitor site hydrology were installed in early May 2006 The maximum number of
consecutive days that the groundwater was within 12 inches of the surface was determined for each groundwater
gauge This number was converted into a percentage of the 236 -day growing season Table 3 presents the
hydrological monitoring results for 2010 Wetland hydrology was achieved at all of the wells on the site,
groundwater was within 12 inches of the soil surface in excess of 12 consecutive days (5% of the growing season)
at each well (Tables 3 and 4) Based on these data, the site has exceeded the minimum duration of near surface
saturation for the 2010 growing season from March 20`h to November 11`h (Appendix B). Climatic data for the 2010
growing season were analyzed in comparison to historical data to determine whether 2010 was a normal year to
terms of climatic conditions, this is a precursor to validating the results of the wetland monitoring. The historical
data were collected from the NRCS, Water and Climate Center, "Climate Analysis for Wetlands by County"
website. This evaluation concluded that 2010 was an average year for rainfall during the growing season Rainfall
was within the 30`h to 701h percentiles for the months of January, February, March, July, August, and October
Rainfall was less than the 301h percentile threshold in April, June, and November May and September rainfall was
greater than the 701h percentile threshold (Appendix B)
A stream gauge was installed on the unnamed tributary to the Tar River (UTTR) in order to evaluate the influence
of flooding on the site During the 2010 growing season there were six flood events flooding the wetland recorded
in 2010
Table 5: 2010 Hvdroloeic Monitoring Results
Well #
H dro penod
Dates Meeting Success
<5%
5% - 8%
8% - 12.5%
>12.5%
Maximum Number of
Consecutive Days
1
31%
25%
34%
X
45
March 20 — June 25
2
11%
9%
X
13%
19
March 20 — April 8
3
31%
29%
X
22%
19
March 20 — April 8
4
31%
24%
34%
X
46
Sept 27 — Nov 11
Preservation
Wetland
100%
100%
100%
X
236
March 20 — Nov 11
ef. Wetlandi
31%
19%
1 32%
X
97
March 20 —June 25
Table 6. Hydro period Histo ry
Well #
Pre -
Restoration
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
1
<5%
31%
25%
34%
48%
19%
2
<5%
11%
9%
8%
13%
8%
3
<5%
31%
29%
19%
22%
8%
4
<5%
31%
24%
34%
25%
19
Preservation
Wetland
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Ref. Wetland
31%
19%
1 32%
49%
41%
Fifth Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm #2 Wetland Restoration Site
2.0 DATA ANALYSIS
2.1 Vegetation
Vegetation on the site has remained stable during this past year The herbaceous vegetation has not caused
excessive stress on the planted stems, and many trees have grown above the herbaceous layer This year there were
three plots that each lost a single tree This made one more plot than last year with planted stem densities less than
320 trees per acre The baseline data from Plots 3 and 5 indicate that these two plots were planted at lower than
average densities Considering that three of the plots below 320 planted stems per acre are in the same area, it is
likely that across the entire site, this area was the most detrimentally affected by the drought in 2007 Plot 11 is in a
different location and has expenenced the opposite problem, during wet times of the year it has more standing
water than other parts of the site The planted trees on the rest of the site have had less mortality than these two
areas and are surviving at higher densities It should also be noted that all of the plots, including these three, have
increasing numbers of desirable volunteers including oaks, green ash, bald cypress, and elm If all of the volunteers
were counted, almost all of the plots would have a sufficient density of desirable trees
2.2 Hydrology
Wetland restoration on the site focused on the removal of hydrologic alterations, which included filling the primary
ditches, plugging the lateral ditches, removing ditch spoil to restore natural drainage, installing water diversion
features to redistribute the surface hydrology, placing restrictive berms to reduce runoff and enhance infiltration,
and recreating microtopography across the site to enhance surface water retention and storage Based on the
hydrological results, this site has met and exceeded the cntena outlined in the wetland restoration plan Plugging
and filling ditches combined with the other hydrogical restoration methods have resulted in increased short-term
surface and subsurface water storage and subsequent increase in the duration and elevation of the seasonally high
water table
2.3 Soils
Soils in the restoration portion of the site have been determined to be predominantly Roanoke with small inclusions
of Altavista and Wahee Roanoke is listed as a hydric soil on the state and federal hydric soils lists As this soil is
already considered hydric, no success criteria or monitoring are required
3.0 MAINTENANCE /MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
There were no maintenance /management actions taken during 2010
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Findings from this monitoring year indicate that the site is on track to meet the success criteria developed for the
project The success criteria for vegetation states that there must be an average of 320 trees per acre of planted
vegetation at the end of five years of monitonng and that non - target species must not constitute more than 20% of
the woody vegetation based on permanent plots The 2010 vegetation monitoring of the planted areas revealed an
average density of 370 trees per acre, which is above the minimum requirement of 320 trees per acre Non - target
species did not constitute more than 20 percent of the woody vegetation based on the permanent vegetation
monitonng plots
For the 2010 monitoring year, the site's gauges showed that the project is meeting the hydrologic success cntena of
saturation within 12 inches of the surface continuously for at least 5% of the growing season Two of the restoration
gauges exceeded the hydrological success criteria for more than 12 5% of the growing season, while two gauges
met the hydrological success criteria for 8% of the growing season
4
�x
c r
��. 1� -
U Restoration
Rshrsnce Wetland #2
RP
t� fi Enhancement
.r:: �� ..- ,r'{". .tr '`•'- Wetland #3
f ti 1 r R
i
! r
r t.
..0 .a
U
#1
'a
5 `a
, tt
Figure 1. Site Map
- Riverine Restoration (RR) - 13.8 acres - Nonriverine Restoration (NRR) - 0.7 acres
- Riverine Enhancement (RE) - 4.5 acres - Nonriverine Enhancement (NRE) - 0.7 acres K C I
Riverine Preservation (RP) - 10.3 acres Nonriverine Preservation (NRP) - 0.1 acres kSSO LATFS OF NC
K C I r--J Upland Inclusions (U) - 4.0 acres .�.
Project Site Boundary 1:4.800
1 inch = 400 feet
TECHNOLOGIES 400 200 0 400 ENVIRONMENTAL rECNNOLoews
linage Source: Franklin County Orthotmagery. 2007. Feet AND CONSTRUCTION. INC.
01d �N
....,_,..,,_,._.,_ ...................I........... .. ..........
............................... .............. .........
-0 c
0
5; 9
z --q
0
22
Z
0
9 6
DANIELS FARM 11
WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
LOUISBURG, FRANKLIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
........... . ..........
fit;
0
11Y+0Q
a
c004=7
z r
0 m z
z
DATE
-0
r
F z
IO
O
O
-
-
-------------
-------- -------- ----------
... .... ...........
- ----- ------
------------------
---------- ----------
0--
nr-j
Ii i{ ` -- '..o, is .......,..... ___o ------------ -------- -
............ .......................
o
m
z
0
1 0 0
-0 c
0
5; 9
z --q
0
22
Z
0
9 6
DANIELS FARM 11
WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
LOUISBURG, FRANKLIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
K CI
TWHIN011"
ENGINEERS-PLANNERS-EC.10GISTS
SUITE 220 LANDMARK CENTER 11
4601SIX FORKS RD RALEIGH NC
fit;
0
11Y+0Q
a
c004=7
z r
0 m z
z
DATE
-0
r
F z
o
m
z
0
1 0 0
-0 c
0
5; 9
z --q
0
22
Z
0
9 6
DANIELS FARM 11
WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
LOUISBURG, FRANKLIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
K CI
TWHIN011"
ENGINEERS-PLANNERS-EC.10GISTS
SUITE 220 LANDMARK CENTER 11
4601SIX FORKS RD RALEIGH NC
DATE
-0
REVISIONS
Appendix A
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Daniels II Plot-
Ck- Sm
Photo Flag
Point
Date: 5/27/2010
Plot Ma
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
• 16
• 15 •
14
17
x 9
• 10
X 11
• 12
• 13
• 8
• 7
• 6
•
5
• 1
• 2
• 3
X4
Dead
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus mrchauxu)
1 01
3
2
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
090
3
3
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxn)
050
3
4
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus mrchauxu)
Dead
5
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
1 17
4
6
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
032
2
7
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
088
3
8
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus mrchauxu)
042
3
Top has died back
9
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus mrchauxu)
Dead
10
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
012
2
Resprout from base
11
Unknown species
Dead
121
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus mrchauxu)
068
3
13
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus mrchauxu)
160
4
14
Unknown species
Dead
15
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus mrchauxu)
1 50
4
16
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus mrchauxu)
1 32
4
17
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
162
4
Note Willow Oak, Laurel Oak Green Ash Red Maple Vigor 4= excellent 3 =good 2--weak 1= unlikely to survive year
Elm and Loblolly volunteers present
Species
Percent of Total
Overcup oak (Quercus / rata)
7.7%
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
53.8%
Willow oak Quercus hellos
23.1%
Cher bark oak Quercus pagoda)
15.4%
Density:
Total Number of 13
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 13
Trees
0.025 acres = 520
17 trees X 100 = 76
trees / acre
% survivability
4th Year
Monitoring
Sth Year
Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Daniels II Plot: 2 Date 5/27/2010
Plot Mao
Ck— 5m
Photo Flag
014
Species
• 15
Vigor
• 17
1
Bald cypress Taxodium disbchum
1 70
•16
2
Green ash Fraxinus pens /vanica)
250
• 13
8 •
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
10
3
•12
4
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
1 20
• 9
51
Bald cypress (Taxodium disbchum)
7. 4,;L' T
.>
• 11
6
• 7
• 6
4
7
Green ash Fraxinus penns vanica
092
X5
8
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsytyanica
1 20
3
•4
9
• 1
• 2
4
10
Bald cypress (Taxodium disbchum)
- r , ..',
• 3
Dead
Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Bald cypress Taxodium disbchum
1 70
4
2
Green ash Fraxinus pens /vanica)
250
4
3
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
065
3
Resprout from base
4
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
1 20
4
51
Bald cypress (Taxodium disbchum)
7. 4,;L' T
.>
Dead
6
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
300
4
7
Green ash Fraxinus penns vanica
092
3
8
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsytyanica
1 20
3
9
Green ash (Fraxinus pens (vanica )
1 94
4
10
Bald cypress (Taxodium disbchum)
- r , ..',
a �_�
Dead
11
Bald cypress (Taxodium dishchum)
140
4
12
1 Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
087
3
Deer Browse
13
Bald press (Taxodium disbchum )
1 52
3
14
Green ash Fraxinus pens (vanica )
220
4
15
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1 65
3
16
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
1 96
4
17
Bald cypress (Taxodium disbchum)
1 48
3
Note Oak Green Ash Elm and Maple volunteers present Vigor 4= excellent 3=good 2--weak, 1= unlikely to survive year
North
Species Percent of Total
Green ash Fraxinus enns lvanica 73.3%
Bald cypress Taxodium distichum 26.7%
Density:
Total Number of
Trees 15 / 0.025 acres = 600
Survivability:
Total Number of 15 I 17 trees x 100 = 88
Trees
trees / acre
% survivability
4th Year
Monitoring
5th Year
Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site Daniels II Plot
5m
Photo Flag
Point
Date 5/27/2010
Plot Map
A
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
9
Unknown species
Dead
2
Overcup oak (Quercus /yrata)
•8
Missing
• 6
Unknown species
07
Dead
4
Unknownspecies
X5
Dead
5[Cherrybark
oak (Quercus pagoda)
X4
6
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
2
Missing
7
X1
1 30
4
8
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
1 10
3
X3
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Unknown species
Dead
2
Overcup oak (Quercus /yrata)
Missing
3
Unknown species
Dead
4
Unknownspecies
Dead
5[Cherrybark
oak (Quercus pagoda)
Dead
6
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
Missing
7
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxn
1 30
4
8
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
1 10
3
9
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
081
3
Top has died back
10
Unknown species
Dead
Note Red Maple Green Ash and Elm volunteers present Vigor 4= excellent 3 =good, 2--weak 1= unlikely to survive year
Plot is thick with Juncus
Species
Percent of Total
Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica
33.3%
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
66.7%
Density:
Total Number of 3
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 3
Trees
0.025 acres = 120
10 trees x 100 = 30
trees / acre
% survivability
4th Year
Monitoring
5th Year
Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site Daniels II Plot:
Plot May
Date 5/27/2010
0�: Sm I �k
Photo Flag
Point
North
ID
Species
x15
Vigor
Comment
1
Unknownspecies
•14
Dead
X13
Unknown species
Dead
3
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
• 12
Missing
4
• 7
X8
• 11
5
Unknown species
•9
•10
6
Unknown species
Dead
X5
Green ash Fraxmus enns lvamca
175
4
6
Unknownspecies
X4
9
X1
X2
3
0�: Sm I �k
Photo Flag
Point
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Unknownspecies
Dead
2
Unknown species
Dead
3
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
Missing
4
Unknown species
Dead
5
Unknown species
Dead
6
Unknown species
Dead
7
Green ash Fraxmus enns lvamca
175
4
6
Unknownspecies
Dead
9
Tulip poplar (Lmodendron tuli fera)
062
3
10
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
166
4
111
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxn)
149
4
12
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
160
4
13
Bald cypress Taxodium dishchum
Dead
14
Cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda)
096
4
15
Unknownspecies
Dead
Note Elm Baochans, Winterberry Green Ash Vigor 4= excellent 3=good 2 --weak 1= unlikely to survive year
Red Maple and Coralbeny volunteers present
Species
Percent of Total
Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica
16.7%
Tulip poplar Liriodendron tuli fera
16.7%
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
16.7%
Willow oak Quercus hellos
16.7%
Cher bark oak Quercus pagoda)
33.3%
Density:
Total Number of s /
Trees 0.025 acres
Survivability:
Total Number of s 15 trees X 100
Trees
240 trees / acre
40 % survivability
4th Year 5th Year
Monitoring Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site Daniels II Plot 5 Date: 5/27/2010
5m
Photo Flag
Plot Mao
08
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
•9
1
Bald cypress Taxodium dishchum
1 65
4
2
06
•7
Dead
3
X4
1 05
3
• 1
X2
•3
Point
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Bald cypress Taxodium dishchum
1 65
4
2
Unknown species
Dead
3
Green ash (Frawnus pennsylvamca )
1 05
3
4
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvamca )
Dead
5
Unknown species
Dead
6
Bald cypress (Taxodium dishchum )
220
4
7
Green ash Fraxmus pennsylvanica
032
1
Deer Browse
8
Green ash Fraxmus pennsylvanica
1 35
3
9
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauwr)
176
4
Note Elm Red Maple and Green Ash volunteers present Vigor 4--excellent 3=good 2--weak 1= unlikely to survive year
Species
Percent of Total
Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica
50.0%
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
16.7%
Bald cypress Taxodium distichum
33.3%
Density:
Total Number of 6
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 6
Trees
0.025 acres = 240
s trees x 100 = 67
trees / acre
% survivability
4th Year
Monitoring
5th Year
Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site Daniels II Plot 6 Date
5m
Photo Flag
Plot MaD
5/27/2010
Point
P
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
•16
Comment
•15
Bald cypress Taxodium dishchum
1 40
4
X14
•13
• 12
•11
3
Unknownspecies
•8
• 10
4
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata )
192
•9
5
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
•6
3
1 Deer Browse
6
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
090
3
•4
7
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxn
064
•5
8
•7
089
3
9
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
X2
4
10
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
250
4
3
• 1
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
126
1 3
Point
P
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Bald cypress Taxodium dishchum
1 40
4
2
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
Dead
3
Unknownspecies
Dead
4
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata )
192
3
5
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
1 20
3
1 Deer Browse
6
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
090
3
7
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxn
064
3
8
Green ash Fraxinus pens Ivanica
089
3
9
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
167
4
10
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
250
4
11
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
126
1 3
12
1 Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
1 78
4
13
Laurel oak (Quercus launfolia)
1 00
4
14
Swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxn
1 03
3
15
Swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxn
168
3
16
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata)
1 30
2
Note Sweetgum Elm Oak and Green Ash volunteers present Vigor 4= excellent 3=good 2--weak 1= unlikely to survive year
Species
Percent of Total
Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica
28.6%
Overcu oak Quercus l rata
28.6%
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
21.4%
Cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda)
7.1%
Bald cypress Taxodium distichum
7.1%
Laurel oak Quercus laurifolia
7.1%
Density:
Total Number of 14
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 14
Trees
0.025 acres = 55fi0
16 trees x 100 = 88
4th Year
Monitoring
trees / acre
% survivability
5th Year
Monitoring
Site Daniels II
5m
Photo Flag
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Plot- 7 Date 5/27/2010
Plot Mai
014
• 15
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
• 13
x12
• 11
4
2
Unknown species
010
• 7
•8
• g
•6
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
088
3
5
Cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda)
1 19
•5
6
Cherry bark oak (Quercus pagoda
070
3
•4
7
x2
033
2
Top has died back
el
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxir )
1 54
X3
Point
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxn
1 80
4
2
Unknown species
Dead
3
Unknown species
Dead
4
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
088
3
5
Cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda)
1 19
3
6
Cherry bark oak (Quercus pagoda
070
3
7
Cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda)
033
2
Top has died back
8
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxir )
1 54
3
9
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxi)
1 60
4
10
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxn)
161
4
11
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxn)
134
4
12
Unknown species
IDead
13
Willow oak Quercus phellos)
044
2
Resprout from base
14
Cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda)
1 50
4
15
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxn
210
4
Note Oak Bald Cypress Red Maple and Green Ash volunteers present Vigor 4= excellent 3 =good, 2 --weak, 1= unlikely to survive year
Species
Percent of Total
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
58.3%
Cher bark oak Quercus pagoda)
33.3%
Willow oak Quercus hellos
8.3%
Density:
Total Number of 12
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 12
Trees
0.025 acres
15 trees X 100
480
80
trees / acre
% survivability
4th Year
Monitoring
5th Year
Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Daniels Ii Plot 8 Date. 5/27/2010
5m
Photo Flag
Point
Plot Map
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
• 17
X16
015
1 10
014
X13
09
010
J'V1
X12
3
X 7
06
0 5
04
4
• 1
DK2
1
• 3
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxu
1 10
3
2
Unknown species
Dead
3
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
190
3
4
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
1 95
4
5
lSwamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
1 30
4
6
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
1 30
4
7
Unknown species
Dead
8
Unknown species
Dead
9
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
1 34
3
10
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata)
143
4
11
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxu)
Dead
12
Unknown species
Dead
13
Unknown species
Dead
14
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxu
170
4
15
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxu)
120
3
16
Unknown species
Dead
17
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
105
4
Note Overcup Oak Swamp Chestnut Oak Vigor 4= excellent 3 =good 2--weak 1= unlikely to survive year
and Bald Cypress volunteers present
species
Percent of Total
Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica
30.0%
Overcu oak Quercus I rata
30.0%
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
40.0%
Density:
Total Number of 10
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 10
Trees
0.025 acres = 400
17 trees x 100 = 59
trees / acre
% survivability
4th Year
Monitoring
5th Year
Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site Daniels II Plot 9 Date 5/27/2010
Plot Mai)
d: 5m 4
Photo Flag
Point
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
15 •
• 11
•12
• 13
3
2
Unknownspecies
070
• 14
3
•10
1 17
3
09
•5
Bald cypress (Taxodium dishchum)
1 38
3
5
•6
•7
•8
6
4
• 2
03
• 1
Green ash Fraxmus nns Ivamca
1 17
3
8
Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivamca
030
1
Top has died back
d: 5m 4
Photo Flag
Point
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Green ash Fraxmus pennsylvanica
1 05
3
2
Unknownspecies
070
3
3
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxo)
1 17
3
4
Bald cypress (Taxodium dishchum)
1 38
3
5
1 Green ash (Fraxrnus pennsylvamca)
1 56
4
6
Bald cypress (Taxodium dishchum)
1 62
4
7
Green ash Fraxmus nns Ivamca
1 17
3
8
Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivamca
030
1
Top has died back
9
Bald cypress (Taxodium dishchum)
215
4
10
Green ash (Fraxmus pennsylvanrca)
1 59
4
11
Green ash (Fraxmus pennsylvamca)
1 95
4
12
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
230
4
13
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
240
4
14
Bald cypress Taxodium dishchum
215
4
15
Green ash Fraxmus pennsylvanica
270
4
Note Oak and Bald Cypress volunteers present Vigor 4= excellent 3=good 2--weak 1= unlikely to survive year
Species
Percent of Total
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
46.7%
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
6.7%
Overcu oak Quercus I rata
13.3%
Bald cypress Taxodium distichum
26.7%
Unknown
6.7%
Density:
Total Number of 15
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 15
Trees
0.025 acres - 600
15 trees x 100 = 100
trees / acre
% survivability
4th Year
Monitoring
5th Year
Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site Daniels II Plot: 10 Date 5/27/2010
Sm
Photo Flag
Plot Mat)
Point
North
ID
• 18
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda)
015
014
17
Laurel oak (Quercus laumbha)
•16
Dead
610
X1
012
x13
Dead
69
j8
X7
06
x5
5
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
2
X4
6
x1
1 25
X 3
Point
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda)
Dead
2
Laurel oak (Quercus laumbha)
Dead
3
Unknown species
Dead
4
Unknown species
Dead
5
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
Dead
6
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
1 25
4
7
Unknown species
Dead
8
Cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda
098
3
9
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxa)
1 28
3
10
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxu)
1 59
4
11
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
Dead
12
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauwt)
096
3
species
Dead
Overcu oak (Quercus 1 rata
095
3
Green ash Fraxinus peons lvanica
1 17
4
KUnknown
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
1 50
4
Green ash (Fraxmus pennsylvamca )
1 70
4
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxa)
093
1 3
Note Red Maple and Green Ash volunteers present Vigor 4= excellent 3 =good, t=weak 1= unlikely to survive year
Species
Percent of Total
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
20.0%
Overcu oak Quercus 1 rata
20.0%
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
40.0%
Cher bark oak Quercus pagoda)
20.0%
Density:
Total Number of 10
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 10
Trees
0.025 acres = 400
18 trees X 100 = 56
4th Year
Monitoring
trees / acre
% survivability
5th Year
Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site Daniels II Plot 11 Date 5/27/2010
Ck- Sm
Photo Flag
Plot Map
Point
North
ID
t4
0 3
X2
•1
• 5
Overcup oak Quercus 1 rata
X 6
3
X7
2
0 10
•9
•8
3
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
107
3
LX
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrdta )
X12
x13
Point
North
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Overcup oak Quercus 1 rata
1 07
3
2
Unknown species
Dead
3
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
107
3
4
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrdta )
1 38
4
5
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
137
4
6
Unknown species
Dead
7
Overcup oak Quercus 1 rata
Missing
8
Green ash Fraxinus pennsytyanica
1 66
4
9
Unknown species
1 28
2
10
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrdta)
085
3
11
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
Missing
12
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsytvanica)
I
Missing
13
Bald cypress (Taxodjum dishchum)
Missing
Vigor 4= excellent 3=good 2--weak 1= unlikely to survive year
Species
Percent of Total
Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica
42.9%
Overcu oak Quercus l rata
42.9%
Unknown
14.3%
Density:
Total Number of 7
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 7
Trees
0.025 acres = 280
13 trees x 100 = 54
4th Year
Monitoring
trees / acre
% survivability
5th Year
Monitoring
Appendix B
Hydrologic Monitoring and Hydroperiod
Daniels II Reference Gauge Hydrograph
1/1/10 to 11/17/10
188
187
186
185
w
0 184
w
d
W
183
182
Begin Growing Season End Growing Season'
3120/2010 11/11/2010
Flood Eleva on
t5-Year
Ground Surface
97 Days
21 Da s
y
46 Days
0
y
-
12" Below Surface
W
--
4.
c.n
-- - --
- - -_
v
0o
Goo
�C
ISensor
Elevation
I
I
I
lull
O
\
1, 1
O
N
�O
00
3
2.5
2
1.5
0
m
0.5
181
0
y
-
N
W
W
4.
c.n
U
v
0o
Goo
�C
-�-
O
O
\
O
N
�O
00
000
N
--
O
N
N
N
O
O
Date
� Rainfall -WS-Elevation 1
0
189
188
187
186
w
185
c
0
R
184
Gil
183
182
181
Daniels II Gauge l Hydrograph
1 /l /10 to 11/17/10
3
2.5
2
x
1.5 2.
0
ev
0.5
0
Begin Growing Season End Growing Season
3/20/2010 11/11/2010
N
W
W
?
to
I
5 -Year Flood Elev
ion
-4
00
00
�O
Ground Surface
V)11
45 Days lf�
N
N
O
12" Below Surface
N
42 Days
28 Days
h
D
O
00
000
N
�\+
N
N
N
O_
N
N
N
-
141
lit
Sensor Elevation +
I i. 111 I
O
O
�
I
3
2.5
2
x
1.5 2.
0
ev
0.5
0
Date
r -
Rainfall WS- Elevation
r
N
W
W
?
to
CA
ON
ON
-4
00
00
�O
N
N
O
N
N
O
O
00
000
N
�\+
N
N
N
O_
N
N
N
-
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Date
r -
Rainfall WS- Elevation
r
188
187
186
185
w
0 184
y
a
W
183
182
181
O_ N
_O
O
O
Daniels II Gauge 2 Hydrograph
1 /1 /10 to 11/17/10
N w
End, Go Season
to to
T
Begin Growing Season
1 2010 S
o0
00 �D
3/20/2010
5 -Year Flood El
e tion
O_
O
O
Ground Surface
O
19 tys
O
O_ O_
O_
12" Below Surface
O_
-
18 Days
_O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O O
O O
Date
Rainfall
WS-El1 vation
IT
Sensor Elevation
1
(
( F
N w
w .p
to to
T
ON J
o0
00 �D
J
O_
O_
O
O
O
O
O
O_ O_
O_
O_
O_
_O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O O
O O
Date
Rainfall
WS-El1 vation
3
25
P)
15
1
05
0
O O
o\o N
--
00
J
O_
O_
O
O
O
187
185
183
181
e
0
w
M 179
177
175
N
O
Daniels II Gauge 3 Hydrograph
1 /1 /10 to 11/17/10
O
3
25
7
15
91
0
>v
1 ^
0
05
Begin Growing Season End Growing Season
3/20/2010 11/11/2010
5 -Year Flood Elevation
0
0� J
00
00
Ground Sur e
W N
�R
N
00
N
N
\ N \
O
O O
N
12" Be[
w Surfa
N
19
Days
19 D
ys
ri
I
Sensor Elevation
O
I
O_ O_
O_
O_
N N
O O
O
O
O O O
_O
O
O
_O
O
3
25
7
15
91
0
>v
1 ^
0
05
0
0� J
00
00
�O
W N
�R
N
00
N
N
\ N \
O
O O
N
N
00 �
O O
O
O --• O_
O_ O_
O_
O_
N N
O O
O
O
O O O
_O
O
O
_O
O O
Date
Rainfall
- W S- Elevation
187
186
185
184
183
182
w
c
181
ca
d
180
179
178
177
Daniels II Gauge 4 Hydrograph
1 /1 /10 to 11/17/10
-Year Flood Elev ion
Begin Growing Season End Growing Season
3/20/2010 11/11/2010
IJ
W W
00
N
O
O
\
rJ
O
N
N
O N
00
V
3round Surface
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
42 Days
28 Days
Date
27 Days
46 Days
t�Rainfall
12" Bel
ow Surfac
-
—
I
Sensor Elevation
!
i
3
2.5
PI
1.5
y
o�
0.5
IJ
W W
00
N
O
O
\
rJ
O
N
N
O N
00
V
O
O
O
3
2.5
PI
1.5
y
o�
0.5
a,
0
00
N
O
O
r
O000
0000
00
V
O
O_
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
Date
t�Rainfall
WS- Elevation
3
2.5
PI
1.5
y
o�
0.5
V
■
0
00
O
O
r
O000
0000
00
V
O_
O_
O O
O
O
O
V
■
188
187
186
185
y 184
w
C
O
a.
183
La7
182
181
180
N W W A lJ� l/i
.�.. t2 N N
O N
O N N O N N O N
O O_ _O O O_
O O O O O
Rainfall -WS-Elevation
Daniels II Gauge 5 (Preservation) Hydrograph
1/1/10 to I1 /17/10
00 00
W N N O
N N N O N N
O
O O O O O O
Date
3
2.5
2
1.5
a�
0.5
0
N �
N N
O O
O O
iv
7
Daniels II Stream Hydrograph
01 /01 /10 to 11/17/10
188
186
184
182
O
A
W 180
178
y
L
, �
`� _ .• E Ir � � ! � 1 "1iSr' �" - . F - I
i �� '111 -• l
T-tV _
'5
-Year Flood Elevation
rL
CAD o-+
►+
N I\+ N
N \ N \
' 1 xn � "�, "h,3Yi
t': L" r-
� "' yA� "'4� . lr ' �`
CEO
N;
y
�- 1s
�.'�'' i - S re
I'iJ �" N I >✓ i �
O O
N
O
N
O
O
o-+
r1j O
O
Date
O
O
►
O
O
O
— Water Surface
Average Wetland Ground
y
Elevation`
e'e�
�. off
� �
..1'�
6 �
rc rrya n
�
�
I
_ I� 5 i 1
J•.
4.�}.i}
; f }
`;��
�fii•
.,C
� n '� Mr `r ✓
,, I': ' v
' i�V�� ' i, '
I$ � a �{
I!i �,. yn':z wr't .' °y:�tl1 b i,�.i...s `�Ss?Y�
k�1��9�;�rs�
i "M,
P
dt:r ",%j l a- P ', GYau�4g,', ell `M 11��j tii+'o''( n
f �r
r
t
'
Mnco
Gauge`t
Al g„ .:
aa
^ iS, r
ata Losti
,
� ..
I
_lyi 11,E
�I I .. �' .c,
'��
;'1 ' f' S^J "., 3
.
., -
y S .
yy..
6 ,; h• Gar i.aar, w �� �!•t4j.'
t F�
�7 � � �`~
f
�
,�-. b : �'i
5fi
hY�'S 4 �.,
Mr
iA
� & R'c • �
4'
- q ��l Y �(.��
.T
176
0
CAD o-+
►+
N I\+ N
N \ N \
O
W N
O O
CEO
N;
N
lie
O O O
O
O O
N
O
N
O
O
o-+
r1j O
O
Date
O
O
►
O
O
O
3
25
N
15
G
5
05
x
0
CAD o-+
►+
N I\+ N
N \ N \
O
W N
O O
CEO
N;
N
lie
O O O
O
O O
O
O O O
O
O O
o-+
O
O
Date
O
Rainfall
— Water Surface
3
25
N
15
G
5
05
x
0
CAD o-+
►+
r+
00 O\0
N
!\+
o-+
O
O
CD CD
O
O
8
7
6
5
c
w 4
C
�i
3
2
1
0
Daniels 11 30-70 Percentile Graph 2009 -2010
Louisburg, NC Monthly Rainfall
rn C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z _3 >
o - ¢ ¢ o z o
Date
02009 Rainfall 02010 Rainfall 30th Percentile —&— 70th Percentile:
Appendix C
Permanent Photograph Points
Photo Point 1: View looking west with the enhancement wetland on the left. 12/6/10 — MY05
Photo Point 2: View looking south toward enhancement wetland. 12/6/10 — MY05
ad s i 1 � �i� ,y r1 •t a, � J
art a i i•
mm
lit
®r— , J61. 1A P..
f'!.
Photo Point 4A: View looking east with enhancement wetland on the right. 12/6/10 — MY05
Photo Point 413: View looking west with enhancement wetland on the left. 12/6/10 — MY05
Photo Point 5: View looking south. 12/6/10 — MY05
o�
Photo Point 6A: View looking northwest toward Vegetation Plot #6. 12/6/10 — MY05