20031003 Ver 2_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20090212

Daniels Farm #2
Wetland Restoration Site
Franklin County, North Carolina
Tar-Pam 03020101
Contract # D05025
vl?. w
w
.4
-0 WLA
EN1/IRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
AND CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Monitoring Report
Year 3
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 20RECTIVED
) U' A - 2008
ENHAKE'MENT PROGRAM
Third Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm 42 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 third 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 June and November 2008. 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
2008 vegetation monitoring of the restoration areas revealed an average density of 418 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 2008 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, with all but one of the gauges
exceeding the hydrological success criteria for more than 12.5% of the growing season.
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
2008 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 2008 monitoring of the Daniels Farm #2 Wetland Restoration Project indicate that the site is on
track to meeting the project success criteria.
0
Third Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm 42 Welland Restoration Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Summary ..................................................................................................
2.0 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................................3
3.0 Maintenance/Management Actions ..............................................................................................3
4.0 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................3
Tables
Table 1. Vegetation Monitoring Results ................................................................................................... I
Table 2. Vegetation History ....................................................................................................................... I
Table 3. 2008 Hydrologic Monitoring Results .........................................................................................2
Table 4. Hydroperiod History ...................................................................................................................2
Appendices
Appendix A - Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
Appendix B - Hydrologic Monitoring and Hydroperiod
Appendix C - Permanent Photograph Points
•
•
.7
Third Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm #2 Wetland Restoration Site
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 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 2008 vegetation monitoring of
the planted areas revealed an average density of 418 trees per acre, which is above the minimum requirement of
320 trees per acre (Appendix A). Since planting, an attempt has been made to identify all of the trees, but three
trees remain unidentifiable due to a lack of leaves. A total of eight trees per vegetation monitoring plot are needed
to meet the 320 trees per acre minimum requirement.
Table 1: Vegetation Monitoring Results

O
7
C ?
? M

O
o
Z
o a
E
?
o
U
w 3 ? a ? a ' ? v a H c H
s o c
1 3 7 1 2 13 520
2 4 11 15 600
3 2 1 2 5 200
4 2 1 1 1 2 7 280
5 1 2 3 6 240
6 3 1 1 4 4 1 13 560
7 1 6 3 11 440
8 4 3 3 10 400
9 1 4 2 7 1 15 600
10 4 2 2 3 11 440
11 3 3 2 8 320
Total Average

Density 418
Table 2: Vegetation History (Trees/Acre)
Plot # Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 680 520 520
2 680 600 600
3 400 320 200
4 600 400 280
5 360 320 240
6 640 520 560
7 600 520 440
8 680 440 400
9 600 600 600
10 720 560 440
11 520 520 320
Third Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm 92 Wetland Restoration Site
Vegetative monitoring also took place in the enhancement vegetation plot. The plot evaluated the tree layer
(greater than or equal to 3 inches DBH) and sapling/shrub layer. There were no changes in species dominance ie
the enhancement plot as compared to the baseline conditions prior to the restoration project.
1.2 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 2008. 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 2008 growing season, from March 20'h to November 11th (Appendix B). Climatic data for the
2008 growing season were analyzed in comparison to historical data to determine whether 2008 was a normal year
in 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 2008 was an average year for rainfall during the growing season. Rainfall
was within the 30th to 70th percentiles for the months of March, May, June, July, August, and November. Rainfall
was less than the 30th percentile threshold in October. April and September rainfall was greater than the 70'h
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. There was one flood event recorded in 2008 on September 9.
Table 3: 2008 HvdroloLyic Monitorinii Results
H dro eriod

Well #
<5%
5% - 8%
8% - 12.5%
>12.5% Maximum Number o
Consecutive Days
Dates Meeting Success
1 X 80 March 20 - June 7
2 X 19 March 30 - April 18
3 X 44 A ri120 - June 2
4 X 81 March 20 - June 8
Preservation
Wetland
X
236
March 20 - November 11
Ref. Wetland X 75 March 20 - June 2
Table 4. Hydro period History
Well # Pre-Restoration Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 <5% >12.5% >12.5% >12.5%
2 <5% > 12.5% 8% - 12.5% 8% - 12.5%
3 <5% >12.5% >12.5% >12.5%
4 <5% >12.5% >12.5%
5 <5% >12.5% >12.5% >12.5%
6 <5% >12.5% >12.5% >12.5%
7 <5% >12.5% >12.5% >12.5%
8 <5% >12.5% >12.5% >12.5%
E
•
2
Third Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm #2 Wetland Restoration Site
2.0 DATA ANALYSIS
0 2.1 Vegetation
Vegetation on the site has recovered well from the extreme drought conditions in 2007. The herbaceous vegetation
has not caused excessive stress on the planted stems, and many trees have grown above the herbaceous layer. In
2008 three plots revealed densities less than 320 trees per acre. The baseline data from plots 3 and 5 indicates that
these two plots were planted at lower than average densities. This means that the mortality of just a few trees can
bring the density below the success criteria. Considering that all three plots below 320 trees 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.
Future monitoring will reveal if any of these trees resprout under normal precipitation conditions. The planted trees
on the rest of the site have had less mortality and are surviving at higher densities.
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 criteria 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 2008.
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 monitoring and that non-target species must not constitute more than 20% of
the woody vegetation based on permanent plots. The 2008 vegetation monitoring of the planted areas revealed an
average density of 418 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 permanent vegetation monitoring
plots.
For the 2008 monitoring year, the site's gauges showed that the project is meeting the hydrologic success criteria of
saturation within 12 inches of the surface continuously for at least 5% of the growing season. All but one of the
gauges exceeded the hydrological success criteria for more than 12.5% of the growing season.
w
3
•

Appendix A
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
0
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
•
•
4)
Site: Daniels II Plot:
5m
Photo Flag
Point
North
ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment
1 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.84 3 Top has died back
2 Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.91 3
3 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.93 3
4 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) Dead
5 Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 0.29 2 Resprout from base
6 Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.16 2 Resprout from base
7 Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 0.80 3
8 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.96 3 Top has died back
9 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) Dead
10 Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 0.13 2 Resprout from base
11 Unknown species Dead
12 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.86 4
13 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.90 4
14 Unknown species Dead
15 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0 64 4
16 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.80 4
17 Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.90 4

Plot Map

• 16 • 15 • 17 ' `14
X 9 • 10 X 11 • 12 • 13
• 8 • 7 • 6 • 5
• 1
-L? • 2 • 3
I X4
Date: 6/5/2008

vigor: 4=exceiient, 3=gooo, Y=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year
Species Percent of Total
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) 7.7%
Swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxii 53.8%
Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 23.1%
Cher bark oak (Quercus pagoda) 15.4%

Density:
Total Number of 13
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 13
Trees
2nd Year
Monitoring
0.025 acres = 520 trees / acre
17 trees x 100 = 76 % survivability
l: ,;
3rd Year
Monitoring
•

0
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
•
Site: Daniels II
Plot: 2
Plot Map
•
41
C?: Sm
Photo Flag
Point
North
ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment
1 Bald cypress Taxodium distichum) 0.99 3
2 Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica 1.37 4
3 Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.93 3
4 Green ash Fraxinus penns Ivanica) 0.96 4
5 Bald cypress Taxodium distichum) Dead
6 Green ash (Fraxinus penns Ivanica) 1.99 4
7 Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica 1 17 3
8 Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 0.68 3
9 Green ash (Fraxinus enns /vanica) 1.38 4
10 Bald cypress Taxodium distichum) Dead
11 Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum 1.20 4
12 Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 0.98 3 Browsed at top
13 Bald cypress Taxodium distichum) 0.56 4
14 Green ash Fraxinus enns /vanica 1.21 4
15 Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica 1.11 3
16 Green ash (Fraxinus ennsylvanica) 1.62 4
17 Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) 1.10 4

7 -4 (]r eor ??ti .. L F _ __ a
u V11- fnwnl WIL111ll UIIJ plUI Vigor. 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year
Date: 6/5/2008
0 14 0 15 • 17
016
0 13
8 9 X 10 0 12
• 9
0 11
• 7 • 6
X5
04
0 1 0 2
0 3
26.7%
Density:
Total Number of 15
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 15
Trees
/ 0.025 acres = 600 trees / acre
/ 17 trees x 100 = $$ % survivability
I
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring
•
•
to
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
•
r
•
Site: Daniels II Plot:
C?: Sm
Photo Flag
Point
North
ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment
1 Unknown species Dead
2 Overcu oak (Quercus t rata) Missing
3 Unknown species Dead
4 Unknownspecies Dead
5 Cher bark oak (Quercus pagoda 0,60 3
6 Cherr bark oak (Quercus pagoda ) 0,57 4
7 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0,58 3
8 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.73 4
9 Green ash (Fraxinus enns ivanica 0 56 3 To has died back
10 Unknownspecies Dead

vigor 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year
Plot Map
)K10
• 9
• 8
• 6 • 7
• 5
X4
X2
x1
X3
Date: 6/5/2008
Species Percent of Total
Green ash (Fraxinus penns lvanica) 20.0%
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 40.0%
Cher bark oak (Quercus pagoda) 40.0%

Density:
Total Number of
Trees 5 0.025 acres = 200 trees / acre
Survivability:
Total Number of 10 trees
Trees 5 X 1 00 = 50 % survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring

F, Jf I 4 1z
Y c ? E."
'

3rd Year
Monitoring

•
0
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
•
Site: Daniels II Plot: 4 Date:
Plot Map

5m
Photo Flag
C?: •
Point
North
ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment
1 Unknown species Dead
2 Unknownspecies Dead
3 Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 0.25 2 Resprout from base
4 Unknownspecies Dead
5 Unknownspecies Dead
6 Unknownspecies Dead
7 Green ash Fraxinus enns lvanica 1.64 4
8 Unknown species Dead
9 Tulip poplar Liriodendron tuli fera) 0.40 4
10 Willow oak Quercus phellos) 0 51 2 Resprout from base
11 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii 0.30 3 Res rout from base
12 Cherr bark oak (Quercus pagoda 0.58 4
13 Bald cypress Taxodium distichum Dead
14 Cher bark oak (Quercus pagoda ) 0.33 3 Resprout from base
15 Unknownspecies Dead

vigor 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year
6/5/2008
x 15
•14
X13
•12
• 7
X8 • 11
• 9 • 10
X6
X5
x 4
x1 X2 2
• 3
Species Percent of Total
Green ash (Fraxinus penns lvanica 14.3%
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera ) 14.3%
Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 14.3%
Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 28.6%
Cher bark oak (Quercus pagoda) 28.6%

Density:
Total Number of 7
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 7
Trees
2nd Year
Monitoring
/ 0.025 acres
/ 15 trees x 1 00
280 trees / acre
47 % survivability
It
3rd Year
Monitoring
•
r

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
•
Site: Daniels II Plot:
Date: 6/5/2008
Plot Map
•
•
C?: 5m
Photo Flag
Point
North
ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment
1 Bald cypress Taxodium distichum) 1.28 4
2 Unknown species Dead
3 Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.98 4
4 Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Dead
5 Unknownspecies Dead
6 Bald cypress Taxodium distichum 1.72 4
7 Green ash (Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 1.01 3
8 Green ash (Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 1.21 3
9 Swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxii) 0.88 4

vigor 4=excellent, 3=900d, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year
• 8 •9

06 •7
X4
0 1

X2
3
16.
Density:
Total Number of 6
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 6
Trees
2nd Year
Monitoring
?{ 'S j9j
3rd Year
Monitoring
•
0
49
/ 0.025 acres = 240 trees / acre
/ 9 trees x 100 = 67 % survivability
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
M
Site: Daniels II
Plot: 6
Plot Map
•

5m
Photo Flag
Point
North
ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment
1 Bald cypress Taxodium distichum) 1 37 4
2 Cherr bark oak (Quercus pagoda Dead
3 Unknown species Dead
4 Overcu oak Quercus l rata) 0.85 2 Browsed on to
5 Overcu oak Quercus l rata ) 0.40 2 Resprout from base
6 Green ash (Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 0.94 4
7 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.21 2 Res rout from base
8 Green ash (Fraxinus enns Ivanica 1.06 4
9 Overcu oak Quercus l rata) 0.77 3
10 Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 1.95 4
11 Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 1.00 4 Browsed on to
12 Cherr bark oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.40 3 Resprout from base
13 Laurel oak Quercus laurifolia) 0.37 3 Resprout from base
14 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.55 3
15 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.48 3
16 Overcu oak Quercus l rata) 0.55 2 Res rout from base

vigor 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year
Date: 6/5/2008
•16
•15
014 013 • 12 •11
•8 • 10
• g
• 6
•4
•5
•7
X2
X3
• 1
Species Percent of Total
Green ash (Fraxinus ennsylvanica 28.6%
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) 28.6%
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii 21.4/0
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 = 560 trees / acre
16 trees x 100 = $$ % survivability
0
•
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Daniels II Plot: 7 Date
Plot Map
•
•
5m
Photo Flag
Point
North
ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment
1 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii 0.40 3
2 Unknownspecies Dead
3 Unknown species Dead
4 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.55 3
5 Cher bark oak (Quercus pagoda ) 0.67 3
6 Cher bark oak (Quercus pagoda) 0 28 3 Resprout from base
7 Cherr bark oak (Quercus pagoda ) 0.44 3
8 Swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxii) Dead
9 Swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxii) 0.43 3 Resprout from base
10 Swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxii) 0.38 3
11 Swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxii) 0.30 3 Res rout from base
12 Unknown species Dead
13 Willow oak Quercus hellos 0.31 3 Res rout from base
14 Cherr bark oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.68 3 Main stem has died back
15 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.71 4

Vigor: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year
6/5/2008
• 14 • 15
• 13 x12
• 11
•10
• 7
/'l8
• 9
•6
• 5
•4

•1 x 2
x3
Species Percent of Total
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii 54.5%
Cher bark oak (Quercus pagoda) 36.4%
Willow oak (Quercus hellos) 9.1%

Density:
Total Number of 11
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 11
Trees
/
/ 15 trees x 100
0.025 acres
440 trees / acre
•
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring
0
J % survivability
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Daniels II Plot:
Date: 6/5/2008
Plot Map
•
•
5m
Photo Flag
Point
North
ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment
1 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.81 3
2 Unknown species Dead
3 Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.90 3
4 Green ash Fraxinus penns Ivanica 0.90 3
5 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii 0.83 3
6 Green ash (Fraxinus enns Ivanica 1.25 4
7 Unknown species Dead
8 Unknownspecies Dead
9 Overcu oak (Quercus l rata) 0 47 3 Resprout from base
10 Overcu oak (Quercus lyrata 0 67 2 Resprout from base
11 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) Dead
12 Unknownspecies Dead
13 Unknown species Dead
14 Swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxii 0 60 3
15 Swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxii 0.48 3 Resprout from base
16 Unknownspecies Dead
17 Overcu oak (Quercus l rata) 0.29 3 Res rout from base

Vigor: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak. 1=unlikely to survive year
• 17
X16 •15 014 x13
99 910 X11
X12
X8 X7 •6 05 4
• 1 2 • 3
Species Percent of Total
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 30.0%
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) 30.0%
Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii 40.0%

Density:
Total Number of ,? 0
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of ,? 0
Trees
2nd Year
Monitoring
/ 0.025 acres = 400 trees I acre
/ 17 trees x 100 = 59 % survivability

f
f 0
3rd Year
Monitoring
i
u
0
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
•
Site: Daniels II Plot:
9 Date
Plot Map

•
5m
Photo Flag
Point
Nort *
ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment
1 Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica 0.89 3
2 Unknownspecies 0.62 2
3 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.44 2 Resprout from base
4 Bald cypress Taxodium distichum) 0.67 3
5 Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 1.49 4
6 Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum 0.55 3 Resprout from base
7 Green ash (Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 0.76 3
8 Green ash (Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 1.25 4
9 Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) 1.39 4
10 Green ash (Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 0.93 3
11 Green ash (Fraxinus enns Ivanica 1.46 4
12 Overcup oak Quercus l rata 1.38 4
13 Overcu oak Quercus l rata ) 1.31 4
14 Bald cypress Taxodium distichum 1.41 3
15 Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica 1.81 4

vigor: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year
6/5/2008
15 •
• 11 •12
• 13 • 14
• 10 • 9
• 5
• 6 • 7 • 8
• 1 • 4 • 2 • 3

S
Green ash (Fraxinus e
Swamp chestnut oak (G
Overcu oak (Quercus
Bald cypress (Taxodiun
Unknownspecies
Density:
Total Number of
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of
Trees
2nd Year 3rd Year
Monitoring Monitoring
s
0
15 / 15 trees x 100 = 100 % survivability
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
0 Site: Daniels II Plot: 10 Date: 6/5/2008

Plot Map
w
5m
Photo Flag
Point
North
ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment
1 Cherr bark oak (Quercus pagoda) Dead
2 Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) Dead
3 Unknown species Dead
4 Unknown species Dead
5 Cherr bark oak (Quercus pagoda Dead
6 Cher bark oak (Quercus pagoda 0.75 3
7 Unknownspecies Dead
8 Cher bark oak (Quercus pagoda ) 0.68 3
9 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.46 3 Top died back
10 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.71 3 Top died back
11 Cher bark oak Quercus pagoda) 0.51 1 Top died back
12 Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michau)(ii) 0 43 3 Top died back
13 Unknownspecies Dead
14 Overcu oak Quercus l rata 0 29 2 Resprout from base
15 Green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 1.14 3
16 Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata ) 0.46 3
17 Green ash (Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 1.21 4
18 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 0 36 3

Vigor: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year
• 18
• 15 *14
• 17
•16
• 10 o11 012 X13
09 X7 •6 X5
•8
2 X4
X1 X 3
Species Percent of Total
Green ash (Fraxinus enns lvanica) 18.2%
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) 18.2%
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii) 36.4%
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda) 27.3%

Density:
Total Number of
Trees 11 / 0.025 acres = 440 trees / acre
Survivability:
Total Number of
Trees 11 / 18 trees x 100 = 61 % survivability
2nd Year 3rd Year
Monitoring Monitoring
0
0

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Daniels II Plot
11
Plot Map
•
5m
Photo Flag
Point
North
ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment
1 Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.37 3
2 Unknown species 0.23 2
3 Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.69 3
4 Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata ) 0.63 2
5 Green ash (Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 0.94 3
6 Unknown species Dead
7 Overcu oak (Quercus lyrata) Missing
8 Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 1.06 3 Resprout from beaver damage
9 Unknown species 0.51 3
10 Overcup oak (Quercus 1 rata) 2.40 3 Resprout from base
11 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii Missing
12 Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Missing
13 Bald cypress (Taxodium disfichurn) Missing

Date: 6/5/2008

•4
0 3
• 2 91
• 5 X 6 X7
0 10
• 9 •8

X11 X12 X13
Vigor 4=excellent. 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year
Species Percent of Total
Green ash (Fraxinus enns lvanica) 37.5%
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) 37.5%
Unknown 25.0%

Density:
Total Number of
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 8
Trees
2nd Year
Monitoring
320 trees / acre
62 % survivability
low-
• s
c
r•. w fF
3rd Year
Monitoring
•
0
/ 0.025 acres
/ 13 trees x 100

Appendix B
Hydrologic Monitoring and Hydroperiod
11
•
0
0
? 0
r]
t
CL
c?
L
0
L
A
d
ca
(7
m
v
c
L
NCL)
N
d
N
W
r
11/4/2008
10/7/2008
9/9/2008
8/12/2008
7/15/2008
ea
6/17/2008
5/20/2008
4/22/2008
3/25/2008
2/26/2008
1/29/2008
1 /1 /2008
00
r
C
0
m
w
(n
I
rl- C
co OD 00 00 Cl)
(4) u01jeAGIg
t
CL
ca
L
tm
L
2
d
co
C7
N
co
D
LO
cli
(ul) Ilejulea
LO LO
C`7 N N
•
8/12/2008 0
CD

w
7/15/2008 U)
CD
0

6/17/2008
c

5/20/2008
4/22/2008
3/25/2008
2/26/2008
1/29/2008
m
O O
12/30/2008
12/2/2008
11/4/2008
10/7/2008
9/9/2008
1 /1 /2008
00
•
I? co U') V C Y) N
00 co 00 00 00 00
(4) UOIIBA013
? 0
•
t
a
?a
L
O
L
2
N
d
N
O
0
a
o

00 00
(ul) IlejuleN
LO L LO
M co N N O O
12/30/2008
/ 12/2/2008
?I
0
I -o 11/4/2008
c
w o
m
m u)
a m
E
CD 3
> o
Z U'
o
V- o
U)
o m
N c
L 3
? o

10/7/2008
9/9/2008

i 8/12/2008
7/15/2008
D
m

} I

6/17/2008
5/20/2008
0

4/22/2008
N
Q? I

3/25/2008
2/26/2008

m c
O
3 9 j 1/29/2008
o
m W .-
0

1/1/2008
00 0 00 00 00
(4) UOIIBA813
c
O
N
N
w
I
c
cu
w
t
t
Q
m
O
L
2
M
O
7
C7
N
c?
D
O
12/30/2008
12/2/2008
11/4/2008
10/7/2008
9/9/2008
8/12/2008
7/15/2008
ea
6/17/2008
5/20/2008
4/22/2008
3/25/2008
2/26/2008
1/29/2008
1 /1 /2008
co I- (D U') V M N - O O co ti
co CC) 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ti I- r-
0
cc?
uj
cB
c

r

(4) UOIIBA013
(ul) Ilejuleu
LO L LO
M CY) N N O
•
•
•
t
a
L
O
L
d
ca
N
d
O
O
12/30/2008
12/2/2008
11/4/2008
10/7/2008
9/9/2008
8/12/2008
7/15/2008
r
ca
D
6/17/2008
5/20/2008
4/22/2008
3/25/2008
2/26/2008
1/29/2008
I /1 /2008
0 0) co co c0000 0000 00 00 r-
co
(:9) UOIIBA013
C
O
Y
J
_N
w
U)
I
c
cu
(u!) Ilelulem
Lq LO U? U?
M M N N O
t
a
L
O
L
2
C
O
N
d
L
a_
m
c?
C?
N
ca
D
(ul) Ilejulea
Lr) LO LO LO
C7 co N N T T O O
12/30/2008
12/2/2008
11/4/2008
10/7/2008
9/9/2008
C
8/12/2008 0
a?
w
7/15/2008
a?
D
6/17/2008
5/20/2008 t
4/22/2008
3/25/2008
2/26/2008
1/29/2008
1/l/2008
r? co v co N T O
co 00 00 00 co 00 00 co
T T r T T r T
(4) uOIjena13

•

•
•
•
t
CL
m
L.
MOO
0 0
o
= M
Eo
m
L 1?
c o
T
T

3/21/2008
2/29/2008
2/8/2008
R
1/18/2008
0
12/28/2007
12/7/2007
11/16/2007
co 00 (0 Iq N O co O
co 00 co 00 00 r- ti
r
(9) UOIIBA013
I
U
tII
U)
N
I
5/30/2008 0
t
CL
ca
L
tm 00
OL Q
N
E O
m o
CO
4-0 ti
= o
N M
75 O
0
(4) u01;en813
5/9/2008
N
U
7
N (n
4/18/2008 o
3/28/2008
3/7/2008
•
00 (O V N O aD O
ti
00 00 O 00 00
•
1i
•
t
Q.
m
L.
00
O O
U)
2 ?
EO
m
L CO
++ O
CO)
N
N LLo
? O
e?
9/9/2008
8/19/2008
7/29/2008
7/8/2008
6/17/2008
x/27/2008
0
0 CO IT N O 00 O
co 00 00 00 co
r- r-
(;}) uoileABIB
a?
r
ea
0
U
a?
3
t
Q
ca
L
00
0 0
L ?
co
T
T
m i
++ o
T
N rn
?o
c?
0
(}}) UOIIBA013
11/24/2008
11/10/2008
10/27/2008
•
N
U
d (n
i
10/13/2008
9/29/2008
9/15/2008
E
co 00 co co co co ?
•

•
W
O
0
N
ti
O
0
N
t m
CL "-
M
L cu
d A
r t
= r
m =
U O
L C
Q? L
av
o Z
ti
o ?
M ?
A ?
O O
i J
a

c
co
D
80-aaa
80-nON
80-10O
80-das
80-6ny
80-Inr
80-unr
80-Aen
80-ady
80-aeW
80-ga_?
80-upr
r
LO-aad o
LO-noN
LO-10O
LO-das
LO-6ny
LO-In r
LO-unr
LO-AeW
LO-ady
LO-aeW
LO-ga-A
LO-Uer
c
a
r
L
a
a
a
L
L
c
c
R
s
H
V
V.
a
C
?l
T
c
Vc
a
oc
c
c
N
N
c
ti
0
0
0
0) 0 ro LO It M N r C>
(u!) IIejuleu
0
•
•
Appendix C
Permanent Photograph Points
0
0
0
•
0

1.611
"
.
+ +. ? I' X61 g? ? a„ f
.
W Fl fill 'i4e,
Photo Point 1: View lookin" vve,"t \v ith the eniiauicement \\etfand on the lent. 6/5i08 MY"U3
+ + + V+++L V XIC:w ivuKUIg south towarci enhancement wetland. 6/5/08 - MY03
0
•
•
Photo Point 3A: View looking east toward Vegetation Plot # 5. 8/8/08 - MY03
Photo Point 3B: View looking south toward preservation \?etland. 8/8/08 - MY03
•
•
0
Photo Point 4A: View looking east with enhancement wetland on the right. 6/5/08 - MY03
rnow rout +D: v iew iooKmg west with enhancement wetland on the left. 6/5/08 MY03

ldmf*r••_._• Jam"
*;
_ Y 4 }
v ?f`'?' ! .r' ?:9• ?• 1 _ t .. Y7#d.9..?? ??' ?? p' IR';,p?I?y r
if. '? • - .? t tit ??? h? .. ? ? ?;'t`?
'A 4t-
It. I
? ? ft • !f ? a? T
CC??•? °?Y ?y?.l ? t?'t ?L/ ??,.?1 1? ni' ,fi ?'?i+ a1 ?,'
14
Photo Point 5: View looking south. 6/5/08 - MY03
r?
O-W
t
b ?N
•
E
Photo Point 6A: View looking northwest toward Vegetation Plot 96. 8/8/08 - MY03
•
•
•

Photo Point 6B: View looking south. 8/8/08 - MY03
Photo Point 7: View looking north. 8/8/08 - MY03
C?-l
i
0