20090565 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20160316

Bachelors Delight
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
Annual Monitoring Report — Year 2
Onslow County, NC
White Oak River Basin
(Cataloging Unit #03030001)
Prepared on behalf of -
Weyerhaeuser NR Company
(Sponsor)
Prepared by.•
AI�LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP iiac.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
March 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.0. PROJECT OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................2
A. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................2
B. MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES..................................................................................3
C. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................................................3
3.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................7
A. WETLAND RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT SUCCESS CRITERIA........................................7
4.0 MONITORING RESULTS (YEAR 2)......................................................................................9
A. VEGETATION MONITORING.....................................................................................................9
B. HYDROLOGIC MONITORING..................................................................................................12
(1.) Summary of Precipitation............................................................................................13
(2.) Small Stream Swamp...................................................................................................13
(3.) Streamhead Pocosin...................................................................................................15
(4.) Wet Pine Flat................................................................................................................15
C. STREAM MONITORING...........................................................................................................19
(1.) Photo Documentation...................................................................................................19
(2.) Ecological Function......................................................................................................19
(3.) Channel Stability/Survey Procedures........................................................................
19
(a.) Cross-Sections........................................................................................................19
(b.) Longitudinal Profiles..............................................................................................20
(c.) Pebble Counts.........................................................................................................21
(d.) Stream Flow Monitoring (First Order Channel)....................................................21
(e.) Stream Flow Monitoring (Zero Order ChannellHeadwater).................................26
(f.) Stream Enhancement.............................................................................................31
D. CONTINGENCY MEASURES....................................................................................................32
5.0 CONCLUSION
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
.32
Figure1........................................................................................................................................ Vicinity Map
Figure2.................................................................................................................. Mitigation Quantities Map
Figure3................................................................................................................................. Site Impact Map
Figure 4........................................................................................................... Geographic Service Area Map
Figure5.....................................................................................................................Monitoring Location Map
Figure 6.................................................................................... Longitudinal and Cross Section Location Map

Table 1......................................................................................... BDMB Planting List (April 2013/May 2013)
Table 2............................................................................................. Summary of Tasks Completed — BDMB
Table 3................................................................................ Vegetation Plots and Wells by Community Type
Table 4A ........................................................... Annual Monitoring Data Sheets, Year 2 — CVS Plots (100m2)
Table 4B...................................................................Annual Monitoring Data Sheets, Year 2 — 0.10 -ac Plots)
Table 5 ................................... Summary of Year 2 Hydrologic Monitoring (Small Stream Swamp - Riparian)
Table 6 ................Summary of Year 2 Hydrologic Monitoring (Reference - Small Stream Swamp - Riparian)
Table 7A........ Summary of Year 2 Hydrologic Monitoring (Streamhead Pocosin Restoration — Non -Riparian)
Table 7B.............................................Summary of Year 2 Hydrologic Monitoring (Reference - Non -Riparian)
Table 8 ..................... Summary of Year 2 Hydrologic Monitoring (Wet Pine Flat Restoration — Non -Riparian)
Table 9..................................................................... Stream Lengths and Number of Cross -Section Stations
Table 10.............................................................................................. Longitudinal Profiles by Stream Reach
Table 11............................................................Summary of Year 2 Bankfull Events (Hewitts Branch (HE -1))
Table 12 ........................................................ Summary of Year 2 Bankfull Events (Huffmans Branch (HU -1))
Table 13 ........................................................ Summary of Year 2 Bankfull Events (Half Moon Creek (HM -1))
AppendixA......................................................................................................................... Site Photographs
Appendix B................................................................ Individual Plot Data Sheets (Year 2 Monitoring — 2015)
Appendix C........................................................................ Palmer Hydrologic Drought Severity Index Maps
Appendix D......................................................................... NC Division of Water Resources Drought Maps
Appendix E.......................................................................... Hydrographs (January 2015 — December 2015)
Appendix F ............................................... Longitudinal/Cross-Section Surveys, Cross -Section Photographs
Appendix G.......................................................................................... Ordinary High Water Mark Indicators

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On behalf of the Bank Sponsor (Weyerhaeuser NR Company) (WEYCO)), Land Management Group (LMG)
has completed Year 2 annual monitoring of the Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
(BDMB). The BDMB consists of 361 acres and includes 9,503 linear feet of first order stream restoration,
7,283 linear feet of zero order restoration, 5,966 linear feet of stream enhancement (Enhancement II),
11,400 linear feet of stream preservation, 60 acres of Riparian (Riverine) Wetland Restoration (i.e. small
stream swamp); 28 acres of Riparian (Riverine) Wetland Enhancement; 48 acres of Riparian (Riverine)
Wetland Preservation; 85 acres of Non -Riparian Wetland Restoration (i.e. streamhead pocosin and wet
pine flat); and 13 acres of Non -Riparian Wetland Preservation (Figure 1).
Restoration work for the BDMB project included the construction of single thread and zero order channels,
which involved grading activities designed to re-establish proper elevations and hydrology. In addition, the
headwater wetlands of the Bank site were restored via the backfilling and/or plugging of ditches and
removal and/or plugging of collector canals in former agricultural fields. As was documented in the
Mitigation Plan, the streams and wetlands of Bachelors Delight Swamp and its tributaries had been
historically impaired by silvicultural practices since the early 1970s. As a result, extensive channel
modification and removal of characteristic riparian vegetation occurred, leaving little functional habitat. For
the single thread channels, the initial grading work removed existing silvicultural bedding and contoured the
stream valley corridors to original grades. Ditches within the headwater areas were backfilled to existing
grade, and access roads were removed. Culverts associated with the access roads were removed and
permanent rock fords were constructed that raised the invert elevation to reconnect the streams to the
existing floodplains. These areas were planted with hardwood species associated with the target small
stream swamp community. Headwater (zero order) streams were restored by reestablishing the hydrologic
connection between the headwaters and downstream section of the reach through removal of existing
silvicultural bedding, backfilling and/or plugging of ditches, and re -contouring of the upper valleys (for those
occurring within agricultural fields). Combined, these activities re-established diffuse, braided flow patterns
throughout the length of the identified stream valleys. Plantings consistent with small stream swamp and
riparian wetland communities of the outer Coastal Plain were established throughout these areas.
Construction of the BDMB was completed in May 2013. Refer to the As -Built Report submitted November
2013 for more detailed information regarding the implementation of the BDMB.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 1
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

Per the approved restoration plan, monitoring of the site includes the assessment of both hydrologic and
vegetative conditions over the course of a seven year monitoring period. Following the completion of the
earthwork, a total of twenty-four (24) 0.025 acre plots (10m x 10m), and eighteen (18) 0.10 acre plots were
established throughout the planted area. A total of sixty-eight (68) shallow groundwater monitoring wells
were installed throughout the project area. Of these wells, ten (10) are stream gauges, seven (7) are
riparian restoration wells, eighteen (18) are riparian reference wells, eight (8) are non -riparian restoration
wells, one (1) is a non -riparian reference well, and twenty-four (24) are zero order restoration wells
composing eight (8) well arrays within the zero order valleys.
Hydrologic monitoring was conducted throughout the year (through December 31, 2015). The annual
vegetation monitoring was conducted in September 2015. Based upon the data collected, the BDMB site
exhibits a high rate of survivorship of planted species as evidenced by an average observed density of 489
stems per acre. The hydrologic response to restoration efforts is also evident via groundwater and surface
water data collected. Hydrologic residency times have increased relative to the pre -construction condition,
and wetland hydroperiods have been re-established across many areas of the site.
The following Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) presents the findings of the second year of monitoring for
the BDMB.
2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
A. Introduction
WEYCO began implementation of the restoration project in November 2012. The BDMB is located east of
the junction of Gum Branch Road and Quaker Bridge Road in northern Onslow County, NC and
encompasses much of the headwater wetland and streams of Bachelors Delight Swamp (Figure 1). Of the
361 acres, 60 acres consists of Riparian (Riverine) Wetland Restoration (i.e. small stream swamp); 28
acres consists of Riparian (Riverine) Wetland Enhancement; 48 acres consists of Riparian (Riverine)
Wetland Preservation; 85 acres consists of Non -Riparian Wetland Restoration (i.e. streamhead pocosin
and wet pine flat); and 13 acres consists of Non -Riparian Wetland Preservation (Figure 2). In addition, the
project provides 9,503 linear feet of first order stream restoration, 7,283 linear feet of zero order restoration,
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 2
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

5,966 linear feet of stream enhancement (Enhancement 11), and 11,400 linear feet of stream preservation.
Placement of fill material within existing ditches (Figure 3) was authorized under Nationwide Permit 27
issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on January 19, 2011 (Action ID# 2009-00832) and
the corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification issued on February 21, 2011 (DWQ Project #09 0564).
B. Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The larger Bank restoration project is intended to provide suitable, high-quality wetland and stream
restoration to mitigate for authorized impacts within the White Oak River Basin (USGS 8 -digit Hydrologic
Unit 03030001; DWQ Subbasin 03-05-02). The objective of the project is to restore natural vegetative and
hydrologic conditions throughout the nonriparian, riparian, and Coastal Plain stream habitat that have been
compromised by previous land use activities. The primary functions to be restored or enhanced as a result
of the restoration project include: surface water storage (i.e. flood attenuation; sediment/nutrient retention;
organic carbon transport to downstream food -webs; and wildlife/aquatic habitat). The project provides a
unique opportunity to restore an entire watershed within a region currently experiencing acute development
pressures with impaired waterbodies. Note that the Geographic Service Area (GSA) excludes the 14 -Digit
Cataloging Units located to the south and east of HWY 17 in Pender and New Hanover Counties (Figure 4).
C. Project Implementation
Restoration activities were initiated in November 2012 and included the construction of dry Priority I stream
channels directly adjacent to the existing ditches. Construction of the single thread channels involved
grading activities designed to re-establish proper elevations and hydrology. As construction progressed
downstream, existing ditches and canals were filled and silvicultural bedding was removed. Clay plugs
were used at prescribed intervals to reduce potential subsurface drainage within backfilled ditches. Soil
removed for the construction of the Priority 1 channels was used to fill in the existing ditches and restore
natural contours within the floodplain. Natural woody material (i.e. root wads and log vanes) was used to
construct the in -stream structures throughout each section. Existing roadbeds and adjacent spoil piles
were removed, and the material was used to backfill the road -side canals. Permanent rock fords were
installed at the locations of existing culverts to raise the invert elevation and reconnect the stream to the
existing floodplain. Riparian wetlands were restored (60 acres) and enhanced (28 acres) as a result of
stream channel and ditch modifications within the site. Zero order valleys were restored and enhanced via
the backfilling of laterals and/or plugging of canals within the headwaters, removal of silvicultural bedding
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 3
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

and recontouring of the natural valley slope, which restored natural hydrologic inflows (via groundwater
contributions and overland flow). Culverts and roadbeds bisecting the zero order valleys were removed
and rock fords were installed to facilitate natural drainage to the downstream section of the reaches. Non -
riparian wetlands (85 acres) located throughout interstream flats and converted agricultural fields on the
Site were restored via the backfilling and/or plugging of ditches and/or collector canals and associated
grading work along secondary and tertiary ditches. Restored wetlands were planted with characteristic
wetland trees corresponding to the targeted community type (small stream swamp, streamhead pocosin,
and wet pine flat).
Approximately 69,870 hardwood tree seedlings were planted throughout the restored small stream swamp,
streamhead pocosin and wet pine flat communities between April 2013 and May 2013. Planting was
conducted by the NC State Natural Resources Foundation, Inc. Seedlings were planted on approximate 9 -
ft centers, corresponding to an average density of 547 seedlings per acre. Bare -root plant material was
provided by Arborgen Nursery (Blenheim, SC) and from the North Carolina Forest Service Claridge Nursery
(Goldsboro, NC). Per the restoration plan, two non -riparian vegetative communities (streamhead pocosin
and wet pine flat) and one riparian vegetative community (small stream swamp) were established
throughout the 361 -ac project area. Swamp black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) and bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum) comprised a majority of the seedlings planted within the riparian zones (60 -ac), totaling
approximately 26,700. In addition to bare root material, live stakes were installed along the banks of the
restored stream channels on approximate 4 -ft centers to provide for enhanced bank stabilization and
vegetative cover. Live stake species included silky dogwood (Cornus amonum), black willow (Salix nigra),
and elderberry (Sambucus Canadensis). Species such as long leaf pine (Pinus palustris), Atlantic white
cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), cherrybark oak (Quercus
pagoda), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and shumard oak (Quercus
shumardii) were planted within the non -riparian zones (85 -ac) within the former agricultural fields (See
Table 1 for seedling quantities by species). Approximately 88 -acres composed of the former agricultural
fields were divided into six planting areas: (1) long leaf pine (34 -ac); (2) Atlantic white cedar (13 -ac); (3)
Atlantic white cedar -sweet bay mix (11 -ac); (4) bald cypress and gum mix (10 -ac); (5) oak mix (6 -ac); and
(6) pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) (2 -ac).
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 4
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 1. BDMB Planting List (April 2013/May 2013)
Riparian Restoration
Small Stream Swamp
60-aci
Common Name
Scientific Name
# Planted
Bald Cypress
Taxodium distichum
13,000
Swamp Black Gum
Nyssa sylvatica
9,000
Total
22,000
Non -Riparian Restoration
Streamhead Pocosin
54 -ace
Common Name
Scientific Name
Bald Cypress
Taxodium distichum
2,100
Atlantic White Cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
14,028
Swamp Black Gum
Nyssa sylvatica
1,400
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus michauxii
3,700
Cherrybark Oak
Quercus pagoda
1,600
Laurel Oak
Quercus laurifolia
1,400
Sweet Bay
Magnolia virginiana
1,000
Shumard Oak
Quercus shumardii
400
Pond Cypress
Taxodium ascendens
1,200
Total
26,828
Non -Riparian Restoration
Wet Pine Flat
34 -ac,
Common Name
Scientific Name
Longleaf Pine
Pinus palustris
21,042
Total
21,042
Grand Total
69,870
1 Approximately 28 -ac planted in this community
2 Approximately 35 -ac planted in this community
3 Approximately 29 -ac planted in this community
Note that approximately 21 -ac in the former agricultural fields was left undisturbed due to the presence of
natural hardwood stands and relict wind -rows. Long leaf pine and Atlantic white cedar were planted in
slightly higher landscape positions in the stream head pocosin and wet pine flat communities, while the
remaining species were planted in areas that will likely experience longer flooding durations. The transition
between the small stream swamp community and the streamhead pocosin and wet pine flat communities in
the outer Coastal Plain represents subtle shifts in composition rather than distinct breaks between wetland
types. An overlap of planted species occurs along the boundaries between the wetland communities.
Refer to Table 2 for a list of tasks and associated completion dates for the implementation of the BDMB.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 5
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 2. Summary of Tasks Completed on BDMB
Description of Task
Date
Logging within Limits of Clearing
November 2012
On-site Meeting with COE Staff — Construction Review
March 2013
Completion of Earthwork
April 2013
Site Planting
April 2013
On -Site Meeting with COE Staff
April 2014
Year 1 Monitoring Report Submitted
March 2015
Year 2 Monitoring Report Submitted
March 2016
Per the approved restoration plan, monitoring of BDMB includes the assessment of both hydrologic and
vegetative conditions over the course of a seven year monitoring period. Following the completion of the
earthwork, a total of twenty-four (24) permanent 0.025 acre plots and eighteen (18) 0.10 acre plots were
established throughout the planted and restored (i.e. former) small stream swamp, streamhead pocosin,
and wet pine flat communities (Table 3). A total of sixty-eight (68) shallow groundwater monitoring wells
were installed throughout the project area. Of these wells, ten (10) are stream gauges to document bankfull
and flow events, seven (7) are riparian restoration wells, eighteen (18) are riparian reference wells, eight (8)
are non -riparian wells, one (1) is a non -riparian reference well, and twenty-four (24) are zero order
restoration wells composing eight (8) well arrays within the zero order valleys. Wells have collected data
from January 2014 through the present.
Table 3. Vegetation Plots and Wells by Community Type
Community Type
Acreage
Vegetation Plots
Monitoring Wells
Stream Gauges
Small Stream
60
17
31
10
Streamhead Pocosin
54
13
4
0
Wet Pine Flat
34
12
4
0
TOTAL
148
42
39
10
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 6
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

3.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. Wetland Restoration/Enhancement Success Criteria
The wetland restoration effort will be evaluated based upon performance criteria related to vegetative
density and wetland hydrology. Monitoring will be conducted at the site on an annual basis for a period of
seven (7) years. Note that non -planted individuals of characteristic wetland species may volunteer into the
restored site. Suitable volunteers are an important component to the restored wetland as they serve as
indicators for appropriate hydrologic regimes and provide increased diversity. The presence of suitable
volunteers demonstrates trending of the site toward vegetative success.
The primary success criteria for the Bachelors Delight Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank will be:
1. Demonstrated density of planted species to meet or exceed 320 trees per acre at the end of three years
(post -planting), 260 trees per acre at the end of five years, and 210 (seven-year old) character canopy tree
species per acre at the end of seven years. The IRT may allow for the counting of acceptable volunteer
species toward the 210 -tree per acre density upon the review and evaluation of the annual monitoring data.
2. If, within the first three years, any species exhibits greater than 50% mortality, the species will either be re-
planted or an acceptable replacement species will be planted in its place.
3. No single volunteer species (most notably red maple, loblolly pine, and sweet gum) will comprise more than
50% of the total composition at Year 2 or Year 3. If this occurs, remedial action, as approved by the IRT
may be required. During Year 4 and Year 5, no single volunteer species, comprising over 50% of the total
composition, may be more than twice the height of the planted trees. If this occurs, remedial action, as
approved by the IRT, may be required. The need to conduct additional volunteer sampling after Year 5 will
be determined by the IRT.
4. The hydrologic criterion is premised on the specific community type to be restored.
(a) For the non -riparian wetland pine flat, the hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a
static water table at, or within, 12" of the soil surface for 6% of the growing season, equivalent
to 18 days based upon hydrologic monitoring undertaken from 01 Feb through 30Nov of each
monitoring year. On 01Feb, soil temperature at three of the monitoring plots will be measured
at 12 inches below the soil surface and documented within the monitoring report. Should
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 7
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

earlier monitoring be considered, the project sponsor must also document biological activity on
the site pursuant to the applicable Regional Supplement to the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Earlier monitoring must be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to
commencement.
(b) For the non -riparian pocosin, the hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a static
water table at, or within, 12" of the soil surface for 10% of the growing season, equivalent to 30
days based upon hydrologic monitoring undertaken from 01Feb through 30Nov of each
monitoring year. On 01Feb, soil temperature at three of the monitoring plots will be measured
at 12 inches below the soil surface and documented within the monitoring report. Should
earlier monitoring be considered, the project sponsor must also document biological activity on
the site pursuant to the applicable Regional Supplement to the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Earlier monitoring must be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to
commencement.
(c) For the small stream swamp (headwater riparian) community (zero -order geomorphic
position), the hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a static water table at, or within,
12" of the soil surface for 12.5% of the growing season, equivalent to 38 days based upon
hydrologic monitoring undertaken from 01 Feb through 30Nov of each monitoring year. On
01 Feb, soil temperature at three of the monitoring plots will be measured at 12 inches below
the soil surface and documented within the monitoring report. Should earlier monitoring be
considered, the project sponsor must also document biological activity on the site pursuant to
the applicable Regional Supplement to the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Earlier
monitoring must be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to commencement.
The vegetative component for BDMB includes an assessment of the conditions within each of the forty-two
(42) permanent monitoring plots that have been established throughout the project area (Figure 5).
Hydrologic monitoring is being conducted via sixty-eight (68) automated shallow groundwater monitoring
wells recording on daily intervals (refer to Figure 5 for location of the monitoring wells). Data from the wells
are downloaded on approximate three-month intervals and imported into graphing software for analysis.
Monitoring reports are being submitted annually to the USACE and the IRT. These reports include results
of vegetative and hydrologic monitoring and photographic documentation of site conditions. Monitoring
reports also identify any contingency measures that may need to be employed to remedy any site
deficiencies (e.g. major stream design failures).
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 8
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

4.0 MONITORING RESULTS (YEAR 2)
A. Vegetation Monitoring
Year 2 monitoring data were collected in September 2015. A total of 1,256 stems were counted throughout
the eighteen (18) 0.10 -ac plots and 420 stems throughout the twenty-four (24) 0.025 -ac plots (Table 4).
Inclusive within this total were 1,178 stems of planted species (correlating to a mean density of 489 stems
per acre) (refer to Table 4). Longleaf pine and Atlantic white cedar were the most abundant planted woody
species, with a total of 368 and 352 individuals, respectively. Bald cypress and swamp black gum were
also prevalent within certain plots.
In addition to the planted species, numerous volunteers were observed within the plots (Table 4). A
majority of these individuals, such as red bay (Persea palustris), sweet pepper bush (Clethra alnifolia), and
coastal doghobble (Leucothoe axillaris) are considered desirable volunteers since these plants are
representative of the target wetland community types.
The mean stem density observed for both planted and characteristic (desirable) wetland species for the
project area is 699 stems/acre. Note that this observed density excludes individuals of the following
species: (1) red maple (Acer rubrum); (2) sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua); (3) horse sugar (Symplocos
tinctoria); (4) groundseltree (Baccharis halimifolia); (5) loblolly pine (Pinus taeda); (6) winged sumac (Rhus
copallinum); (7) sassafras (Sassafras albidum); (8) persimmon (Diospyros virginiana); (9) black cherry
(Prunus serotina); and (10) black willow (Salix nigra). Individual plot data sheets are provided in Appendix
B.
The most abundant volunteer species identified within the restored small stream swamp, streamhead
pocosin, and wet pine flat communities are (in order of abundance): (1) loblolly pine (910 total stems); (2)
sweet pepper bush (188 total stems); (3) grounseltree (135 total stems); (4) coastal doghobble (101 total
stems); and (5) sweet gum (89 total stems). Refer to Table 4 for volunteer species identified by plot. In
general, the observed volunteer species during Year 2 monitoring are considered characteristic of the
target wetland community types (i.e. small stream swamp, streamhead pocosin, and wet pine flat).
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 9
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

TABLE 4A: Bachelors Delight Stream And Wetland Mitigation Bank - Vegetation Monitoring (Year 2 - CVS plots (100 m2))
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 10
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
N
M
R
N
N
-1
N
M
V
J
J
J
J
m
U
U
U
U
U
D
Y
Y
QJ
O
N
LL
LL
M
LL
LL
c-
N_
Q
Q
Q
Q
}
O
O
>
_
>
_
>
_
7
_
_
_
_
=
Z
2
Z
Z
U
rY
Z
K
Z
N
E
N
E
Species Common Name
Planted/Volunteer
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
fn
z
z
z
z
U)m
m
m
m
m
m
CO
m
z
m
m
m
m
m
m
U)
in
0
t]
m
R
A
M
O
O
O
N
O
N O
N O
N O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N O
N
O
N
O N
O
N O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N ~
~
Q
<Y o
D Q
tr fY
tY
o
K
K
a
a
K
K
tY
Q tY
tY
D
0
D Q
K
a tr
D
tr
tY
tY
Q
o
d
d
rr
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
p
12
12
10
11 13
13 9
12 9
10
6
9
5
5
8
8
7
7
4
5
13
9
9
105
101
Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar
p
13
13
10
11
11
13
9
15
9
9
9
52
70
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
p
9
6
7
7 16
13
Nyssa sylvatica swamp black gum
p
3
2
4
4 4
3 6
5
3
4
2
9
7
5
4
2
2 1
5
3
15
3
47
38
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak
p
6
3
2 6
5
Pinus palustris long leaf pine
p
11
12 9
13
9
10
7 4
15
14 11
9
62
62
Pinus serotina pond pine
p
0
0
Gordonia lasianthus loblolly bay
p
2
0
2
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
p
3
1
3
1
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
p
1
3
1
1
1
5
Cyrilla racemiflora fib
AV
2
1
2
NA
5
Persea palustris red bay
AV
10
5
2
1 NA
18
Vaccinum spp. blueberry
AV
1
NA
1
Itea virginica sweetspire
AV
1
NA
1
Morella cerifera wax myrtle
AV
1
1
2
2
4
1
2
NA
13
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepper bush
AV
1
1
8
33
NA
43
Leucothoe axillaris coastal doghobble
AV
1
29
NA
30
Lyonia lucida fetterbush
AV
11
1
NA
12
Baccharis halimifolia groundsel Vee
NV
1
13
1
1
3
1
5
3
1
1 NA
30
Symplocos tinctoria horse sugar
NV
4
NA
4
Sassafras albidum sassafras
NV
NA
0
Salix nigra black willow
NV
1
NA
1
Diospyros virginiana persimmon
NV
3
NA
3
Rhus copallinum winged sumac
NV
1
5
9
2
10
NA
27
Prunus serotina black cherry
NV
2
11
NA
2
Liquidambar styraciflua sweet gum
NV
1
1
1
1
4
17
NA
25
Acer rubrum red maple
NV
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
NA
8
Pinus taeda loblolly pine
NV
5
1
1
4
12
17
25
5
14
18
3
3
5
28
15
32
10
10
5
12
11
22
25
52 NA
335
Total Stems of Planted Species
15
14
14
15 17
16 15
18 15
13
10
11
14
12
13
12
9
9
12
9
11
12 9
13
9
10
7 9
15
14 11
9
14
14
10
11
11
13
9
15
13
9
23
21
9
9
7
9
297
Notes: Plots in Table 4A are CVS plots (100 m2)
Total Stems of Planted Species
AV: Acceptable Volunteer
+ Acceptable Volunteer Species
15
14
14
19 17
19 15
52 15
13
10
11
14
14
13
12
9
81
12
9
11
12 9
13
9
10
7 9
15
14 11
9
14
14
10
11
11
15
9
16
13
13
23
21
9
9
7
10
420
NV: Non -Acceptable Volunteer
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 10
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

TABLE 4B: Bachelors Delight Stream And Wetland Mitigation Bank - Vegetation Monitoring (Year 2 - 0.10 -acre plots)
Species Common Name
Planted/Volunteer
C>
}
r
o
CL
N
}
N
0
a
O
}
N
Q:
}
O
[Y
}
M
0
a
N
lY
}
0
a
O
}
N
tY
}
r
LL
0
a-
O
}
N
tY
}
N
LL
0
a
O
Q:
}
N
}
M
LL
0
a
O
tY
}
N
tY
}
le
LL
0
a
O
tY
}
N
}
LO
LL
0
0-
O
}
N
}
W
LL
0
a-
O
}
N
tY
}
r`
LL
0
a
O
[Y
}
N
}
rb
LL
0
a
O
tY
}
N
}
O
LL
6
a
O
}
N
}
LL
0
a
O
}
N
}
r
LL
2
0
a
O
}
N
}
r
LL
2
0
a
O
tY
}
N
tY
}
r
LL
2
0
a
O
}
N
}
r
LL
2
0
0-
O
tY
}
N
tY
}
O
}
y
E
N
w
H
N
}
N
E
f0
H
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
P
30
25
29
45
42
40
31
30
56
55
188 195
Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar
P
55
50
59
59
66
64
50
51
58
58
288 282
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
P
30
22
1
1
30 22
Nyssa sylvatica swamp black gum
P
27
16
24
12
14
13
26
19
1
1
91
62
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak
P
27
6
27 6
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
P
8
0
8
Pinus palustris long leaf pine
P
55
48
53
27
58
28
60
46
63
59
54
42
58
56
401 306
Gordonia lasianthus loblolly bay
AV
NA 0
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepper bush
AV
3
1
119
22
NA 145
Leucothoe axillaris coastal doghobble
AV
15
34
22
NA 71
Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar
AV
24
11
NA 35
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
AV
1
1
NA 2
Lyonia lucida fetterbush
AV
20
1 3 1
NA 23
Quercus nigra water oak
AV
2
NA 2
Morella cerifera wax myrtle
AV
19
7
1
1
2
NA 30
Ilex con/aces gailberry
AV
1
NA 1
Vaccinium spp. blueberry
AV
1
1
NA 2
Persea Palustris red bay
AV
37
10
2
9
1
NA 59
Magnolia vir iniana sweet bay
AV
4
1 1
1
1
1 1
NA 5
Pinus taeda loblolly pine
NV
21
59
37
2
52
33
27
88
85
27
35
39
11
4
8
37
6
4
NA 575
Rhus copallinum winged sumac
NV
14
3
NA 17
Salix nigra black willow
NV
1
1
NA 2
Quercus falcata southern red oak
NV
1
NA 1
Symplocos tinctoria horse sugar
NV
4
3
NA 7
Liquidambar styraciflua sweet gum
NV
28
8
28
NA 64
Acer rubrum red maple
NV
6
17
6
12
1
NA 42
Baccharis halimifolia grounsel tree
NV
10
75
3
4
4
1
1
1
3
2
1NA
105
Total Stems of Planted Species
57
41
53
57
56
53
57
49
57
29
55
50
59
59
55
49
56
55
66
64
50
59
58
58
53
27
58
28
60
46
63
59
54
42
58
56
881
Notes: Plots in Table 48 are 0.10 -acre
AV. Acceptable Volunteer
NV.- Non -Acceptable Volunteer
Total Stems of Planted Species
+ Acceptable Volunteer
Species
57
104
53
167
56
215
57
74
57
29
55
53
59
61
55
58
56
55
66
64
50
59
58
58
53
28
58
28
60
46
63
59
54
42
58
56
1256
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 11
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

The most prevalent non -target species observed during Year 2 monitoring was loblolly pine and
groundseltree. While considered non -desirable (due to their potential to out -compete planted species),
both loblolly pine and groundseltree are commonly occurring as early successional species in the Outer
Coastal Plain. Based upon the data, other predominant volunteers (e.g. red bay, sweet pepper bush,
doghobble, etc.) are desirable and consistent with the restoration goals of the project (i.e. characteristic of
the target vegetative community). While certain volunteer species can potentially out -compete planted
species, the overall composition of the species observed is characteristic of small stream swamp,
streamhead pocosin, and wet pine flat wetlands of the outer Coastal Plain and appear to be well -adapted to
the restored wetland hydrology.
Overall, the site exhibited a diverse assemblage of characteristic trees and shrubs (as depicted in Table 4).
Of the twenty-four (24) 0.025 -ac plots, all met and are progressing towards the Year 3 success criterion of
meeting or exceeding 320 stems per acre. Of the eighteen (18) 0.10 -ac plots, three (3) plots (Plots #HF1,
#HF9, and #HF10) did not meet the success criterion of 32 stems per 0.10 -acre at the end of three years
(post -planting). Plot #HF1, #HF9, and #HF10 were just below the target stem density with twenty-nine (29),
twenty-seven (27), and twenty-eight (28) planted stems enumerated in the plots, respectively. It appears
as though mortality in these plots could be a result of dense grasses and sedges over -topping young
seedlings during Year 1 and 2, and from Pinus palustris (long leaf pine) seedlings succumbing to moisture
stress from elevated water tables. Evidence of animal disturbance, moisture stress from adjacent lateral
ditching, shading from volunteer pines, and man-made mowing (as a result of hunting activities) was also
documented in these plots. The remaining thirty-nine (39) plots exhibited relatively high stem densities
(ranging between 360 stems to 720 stems per acre) through Year 2 monitoring.
B. Hydrologic Monitoring (Wetlands)
As indicated above, a total of sixty-eight (68) shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed
throughout BDMB. Of the sixty-eight (68) wells, thirty-nine (39) monitor the restored wetland areas. The
number of wells installed within three of the community types (small stream swamp, streamhead pocosin,
and wet pine flat) was proportional to the acreage of each community type. A higher density of gauges was
utilized within the small stream swamp forest/zero-order stream given the nature of the monitoring
requirements for this wetland type.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 12
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

1. Summary of Precipitation
Regional drought indices, including the Palmer Drought Index and the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (DWR) Drought Status Maps, were examined to interpret precipitation patterns and predicted
subsurface water storage conditions relative to long-term climatic data. In particular, the Palmer
Hydrological Drought Index maps depict hydrological (long-term cumulative) drought and wet conditions,
which more accurately reflect groundwater conditions. Based upon the 2015 index maps, the Onslow
County area of North Carolina exhibited normal groundwater conditions during January and March through
September. The area was considered moderately -moist in February and October and very moist in
November and December. The Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index maps for 2015 are included in Appendix
C.
The NC Drought Status Monitoring Program compares existing data to long-term (1965-2013) climatic
conditions for well data, stream baseflow data, and combined well and baseflow data. Contoured
percentile data (30th170th percentiles) are graphically displayed on monthly drought images. Based upon
these maps, subsurface storage (i.e. groundwater) conditions were considered normal during January
through October. The area was considered to be above normal in November and December. The NC
DWR Drought Status Maps for 2015 are included in Appendix D.
The nearest functional CRONOS Station (KNCA, New River MCAS) recorded 70.70 inches for the year.
According to the WETS long-term climatic data, mean annual rainfall for Hoffman Forest, NC is 56.49
inches, with a 30% chance of having less than 51.86 inches and a 30% chance of having more than 60.51
inches of precipitation. As a result, the observed annual precipitation total is considered above -normal.
Note that appendices C and D are provided digitally on the enclosed CD.
2. Small Stream Swamp
For the IRT -defined growing season (February 1 through November 30), all thirty-nine (39) wells exhibited
hydroperiods of equal to or greater than 12.5% of the growing season (equivalent to 38 consecutive days),
the success criterion for this community type. The observed hydroperiods ranged between 12.5% of the
growing season (Well BDS_RIP1) to 100% of the growing season (Wells BDN_ZOA4b & BDS_SG2). The
observed mean hydroperiod for the thirty-nine (39) wells was 37.2% of the growing season. Refer to Table
5 for a summary of the hydrologic data for the small stream swamp (i.e. riparian) restoration wells.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 13
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 5. Summary of 2015 Hydrologic Monitoring (Small Stream Swamp Restoration - Riparian)
2015 Growing Season February 1 - November 30
Well Number
Total Number of days
within 12"
(Jan 1 thin Dec 31)
Longest Number Of Consecutive Das Meeting Wetland Hydrology
g y g y gy
Criteria (in growing season)
Dates of Longest Number of Consecutive Das MeetingPercentage
g y
Wetland Hydrology Criteria
of Growing
g g
Season
12.5% Success Criteria
(38 Days)
>6 - 12.5 -
12.5% 25%
25 -
75%
>75%
HE RIP1
254
57
Feb 17
- Apr 14
18.8%
Yes
- X
-
-
HE RIP2
337
85
Feb 1 -
Apr 26
28.1%
Yes
- -
X
-
HU_RIP1
330
159
Feb 1
- July 9
52.5%
Yes
- -
X
-
HU_RIP2
320
118
Feb 1 -
May 29
38.9%
Yes
- -
X
-
HU_ZOA1a
272
71
Feb 17
- Apr 28
23.4%
Yes
- X
-
-
HU_ZOA1b
318
119
Feb 1 -
May 30
39.3%
Yes
- -
X
-
HU_ZOA1c
286
87
Feb 1 -
Apr 28
28.7%
Yes
- -
X
-
HU_ZOA2a
316
104
Feb 17 -
May 31
34.3%
Yes
- -
X
-
HU_ZOA2b1
247
158
Feb 1
- July 8
52.1%
Yes
- -
X
-
HU_ZOA2c
318
109
Feb 11 -
May 30
36.0%
Yes
- -
X
-
HU_REF1a
234
71
Feb 1 -
Apr 12
23.4%
Yes
- X
-
-
HU_REF1b
316
97
Feb 1 -
May 8
32.0%
Yes
- -
X
-
HU REF1c2
273
82
Feb 1 -
Apr 23
27.1%
Yes
- -
X
-
BD2 ZOAa
303
95
Feb 1 -
May 6
31.4%
Yes
- -
X
-
BD2 ZOAb
330
158
Feb 1
- July 8
52.1%
Yes
- -
X
-
BD2 ZOAc
325
120
Feb 1 -
May 31
39.6%
Yes
- -
X
-
BDN ZOA1a
279
77
Feb 1 -
Apr 18
25.4%
Yes
- -
X
-
BDN_Z0A1b
292
87
Feb 1 -
Apr 28
28.7%
Yes
- -
X
-
l31DN_ZOA1c3
291
87
Feb 1 -
Apr 28
28.7%
Yes
- -
X
-
BDN ZOA2a4
262
108
Feb 7 -
May 25
35.6%
Yes
- -
X
-
BDN ZOA2b
311
95
Feb 1 -
May 6
31.4%
Yes
- -
X
-
BDN_ZOA2c
256
71
Feb 1 -
Apr 12
23.4%
Yes
- X
-
-
BDN ZOA4a5
307
164
Feb 1 -
July 14
54.1%
Yes
- -
X
-
l31DN ZOA4b
365
303
Feb 1 -
Nov 30
100.0%
Yes
- -
-
X
BDN ZOA4c
347
170
Feb 1 -
July 20
56.1%
Yes
- -
X
-
BDN RIP1
325
121
Mar 20
- July 18
39.9%
Yes
- -
X
-
BD REF1Aa
298
94
Feb 1 -
May 5
31.0%
Yes
- -
X
-
BD REF1Ab
318
116
Feb 1 -
May 30
38.3%
Yes
- -
X
-
BD REF1Ac
284
94
Feb 1 -
May 5
31.0%
Yes
- -
X
-
BDS_SG1
215
66
Sept 26
- Nov 30
21.8%
Yes
- X
-
-
BDS_SG26
365
303
Feb 1-
Nov 30
100%
Yes
- -
-
X
BDS_RIP17
92
38
Aug 5 -
Sept 11
12.5%
Yes
- X
-
-
l31DS_Z0A1a
313
92
Feb 1 -
May 3
30.4%
Yes
- -
X
-
l3DS_ZOA1b
329
119
Feb 1 -
May 30
39.3%
Yes
- -
X
-
BDS ZOA1c
296
104
Aug 19
- Nov 30
34.3%
Yes
- -
X
-
HM ZOA1a
286
92
Feb 1 -
May 3
30.4%
Yes
- -
X
-
HM Z0A1b
336
119
Feb 1 -
May 30
39.3%
Yes
- -
X
X
HM ZOA1c
294
117
Feb 1 -
May 28
38.6%
Yes
- -
X
-
HM RIP1
253
72
Mar 20
- May 30
23.8%
Yes
- X
-
-
1 -Well Malfunction (9/30-12/31) 2- Well Malfunction (1/12-1/18)
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
3 - Well Malfunction (4/29-5/4) 4 - Well Malfunction (1/23-2/6) & (8/27-10/1) 5 - Well Malfunction (7/15-9/10) 6 - Enhancement Well 7 - Well Malfunction (1/1-5/4) & (7/2-7/15) & (9/11-12/31)
14

Hydrographs are provided in Appendix E. A summary of the hydrologic data for the reference small stream
swamp wetland is provided in Table 6.
3. Streamhead Pocosin
Of the four (4) wells in the streamhead pocosin community type, all four (4) exhibited hydroperiods greater
than 10% (the success criterion — equivalent to 30 days) of the IRT -defined growing season. The observed
mean hydroperiod duration for all of the streamhead pocosin wells was 64 consecutive days (equivalent to
20.9% of the growing season). Hydroperiods ranged between 34 consecutive days (equivalent to 11.2% of
the growing season) for Well BD_GW7 and 93 consecutive days (equivalent to 30.7% of the growing
season) for Well MGM.
Refer to Table 7A for a summary of the hydrologic data for the streamhead pocosin restoration wells. A
summary of the hydrologic data for the reference non -riparian wetland is provided in Table 7B.
Hydrographs are provided in Appendix E.
4. Wet Pine Flat
Of the four (4) wells in the wet pine flat community type, all four (4) wells exhibited hydroperiods greater
than 6% (corresponding to 18 consecutive days) of the IRT -defined growing season. The observed mean
hydroperiod duration for all of the wet pine flat wells was 83 days (equivalent to 28% of the growing
season). Hydroperiods ranged between 47 consecutive days (equivalent to 15.5% of the growing season)
for Well BD_GW8 and 121 consecutive days (equivalent to 39.9% of the growing season) for Well
BD_GW1.
Refer to Table 8 for a summary of the hydrologic data for the wet pine flat restoration wells. A summary of
the hydrologic data for the reference non -riparian wetland is provided in Table 7B. Hydrographs are
provided in Appendix E.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 15
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 6. Summary of 2015 Hydrologic Monitoring (Reference — Small Stream Swamp - Riparian)
2015 Growing Season February 1 - November 30
1 - Well Malfunction 1/1-2/22; 4/26-12/31
2 -Well Malfunction 1/1-2/4
3 - Well Malfunction 10/1-12-31
4 - Well Malfunction 11/30-12/31
5 - Well Malfunction 1/1-2/15
6 - Well installed in floodplain but in meander bend affected by drainage from adjacent stream channel.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 16
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
Total Number
Longest Number Of
Dates of Longest Number of
Percentage of
12.5%
Well Number
of days within
Consecutive Days
Consecutive Days Meeting
Growing
Success
>6.
12.5-
25-
°
>75/°
12" (Jan 1 —
Meeting Wetland
Wetland Hydrology Criteria
Season
Criteria (38
12.5%
25%
75%
Dec 31)
Hydrology Criteria
Days)
1
HE_REF1a
62
62
Feb 23 -Apr 25
20.5%
Yes
--
X
HE_REF1b2
330
299
Feb 5 - Nov 30
98.7%
Yes
--
--
--
X
HE_REF1c
365
303
Feb 1- Nov 30
100.0%
Yes
--
--
--
X
HE_REF2a 3
273
242
Feb 1 -Sept 30
79.9%
Yes
--
--
--
X
HE_REF2b4
333
302
Feb 1 - Nov 29
99.7%
Yes
--
--
--
X
HE_REF2c
347
119
Feb 1 - May 30
39.3%
Yes
--
--
X
--
5
HE_REF3a
270
68
Feb 16 -Apr 24
22.4%
Yes
--
X
HE_REF3b
340
87
Feb 1- Apr 28
28.7%
Yes
--
--
X
--
HE_REF3c
216
63
Sept 29 - Nov 30
20.8%
Yes
--
X
--
--
HE_REF4a6
177
34
Oct 28 - Nov 30
11.2%
No
X
--
--
--
HE_REF4b
337
118
Feb 1 - May 29
38.9%
Yes
--
--
X
--
FHIIE�REF4c
360
160
Feb 1- Jul 10
52.8%
Yes
--
--
X
--
1 - Well Malfunction 1/1-2/22; 4/26-12/31
2 -Well Malfunction 1/1-2/4
3 - Well Malfunction 10/1-12-31
4 - Well Malfunction 11/30-12/31
5 - Well Malfunction 1/1-2/15
6 - Well installed in floodplain but in meander bend affected by drainage from adjacent stream channel.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 16
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 7A. Summary of 2015 Hydrologic Monitoring (Streamhead Pocosin Restoration — Non -Riparian)
2015 Growing Season February 1 - November 30
Table 713. Summary of 2015 Hydrologic Monitoring (Reference — Non -Riparian)
2015 Growing Season February 1 - November 30
Total Number of
Longest Number Of
Dates of Longest Number of
Percentage of
10%
10%
Well Number
days within 12"
Consecutive Days
Consecutive Days Meeting
Growing
Success
>6.
12.5-
25-
o
>75/o
25 -
(Jan 1 — Dec 31)
Meeting Wetland
Wetland Hydrology Criteria
Season
Criteria (30
o
12.5%
0
25 /0
0
75 /o
12.5%
25%
75%
Hydrology Criteria
Dec 31)
Days)
Hydrology Criteria
Days)
Days)
BD_GW4
282
93
Feb 1 - May 4
30.7%
Yes
--
--
X
--
BD_GW5
227
63
Feb 1 - Apr 4
20.8%
Yes
--
X
--
--
BD_GW6
224
63
Feb 1- Apr 4
20.8%
Yes
--
X
--
--
BD_GW7
246
34
Oct 28 - Nov 30
11.2%
Yes
X
--
--
--
Table 713. Summary of 2015 Hydrologic Monitoring (Reference — Non -Riparian)
2015 Growing Season February 1 - November 30
1 -Well Malfunction 11124-12131
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 17
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
Total
Number of
Longest Number Of
Dates of Longest
Percentage
6%
10%
Well Number
days within
Consecutive Days
Number of Consecutive
of Growing
Success
Success
>6.
12.5-
25 -
>75%
12" (Jan 1—
Meeting Wetland
Days Meeting Wetland
Season
Criteria (18
Criteria (30
12.5%
25%
75%
Dec 31)
Hydrology Criteria
Hydrology Criteria
Days)
Days)
NON—RIP—REF'
327
296
Feb 1 - Nov 23
97.7%
Yes
Yes
--
--
--
X
1 -Well Malfunction 11124-12131
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 17
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 8. Summary of 2015 Hydrologic Monitoring (Wet Pine Flat Restoration — Non -Riparian)
2015 Growing Season February 1 - November 30
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 18
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
Total
Number of
Longest Number Of
Dates of Longest
Percentage
Well Number
days within
Consecutive Days
Number of Consecutive
of Growing
o
6% Success Criteria (18
>6 -
12.5-
25-
>75%
12" (Jan 1—
Meeting Wetland
Days Meeting Wetland
Season
Days)
12.5%
25%
75%
Dec 31)
Hydrology Criteria
Hydrology Criteria
BD_GW1
343
121
Feb 1 -Jun 1
39.9%
Yes
--
--
X
--
BD_GW2
298
94
Feb 1 - May 5
31.0%
Yes
--
--
X
--
BD_GW3
273
71
Feb 1 - Apr 14
23.4%
Yes
--
X
--
--
BD_GW8
230
47
Feb 17 - Apr 4
15.5%
Yes
--
X
--
--
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 18
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

C. Stream Monitoring
The primary success criteria for the First Order Stream systems will be:
Documentation of 2 bankfull events using techniques discussed below within a normal rainfall year in 3 of
the 5 years of monitoring. Additional monitoring may be necessary in the event of abnormal climatic
conditions.
Level 1 Monitoring will be required for the stream portion of the Bachelors Delight Wetland and Stream
Mitigation Bank as detailed in the Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003. Monitoring will occur every
year for the five year monitoring period.
Level 1 Monitoring includes Sections (1), (2), and (3) listed below.
(1) Photo -Documentation
Extensive photo documentation was implemented during Year 2 for the stream monitoring phase of this
project. Site visits were conducted and photographs were taken within 24 hours of a 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 inch
rain event along each reach during Year 2 monitoring. Photographic and video evidence of Ordinary High
Water Mark indicators and flow evidence were also collected. Photos of riparian area plantings (live
stakes) are provided in Appendix A. Photos were taken at all permanent cross-sections and are provided
in Appendix F. Ordinary High Water Mark indicators are provided in Appendix G. Please refer to the
enclosed CD for video evidence of flow.
(2) Ecological Function
The health of the riparian vegetation was documented as part of the wetland restoration monitoring efforts.
Multiple 0.025 -acre and 0.10 -acre permanent monitoring plots were established throughout the riverine
wetland restoration including areas directly adjacent to the restored channel. Reference the vegetation
monitoring section for monitoring results.
(3) Channel Stability/Survey Procedures
(a.) Cross -Sections (First Order Channel)
The BDMB has restored 9,503 If of Coastal Plain stream. The restoration has mimicked low gradient, low
velocity stream reaches characteristic of the outer Coastal Plain. No hardened materials (i.e. rock
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 19
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

structures) were used. Rather, natural materials (such as root wads and log vanes) have assisted with
channel stabilization and grade control. Given the size, uniform design, and gentle slope (0.005) of the
project, cross-sections were established every 1,000 feet of stream length (totaling 12 permanent stations).
Placement of these stations was designed to assess the performance of potential problem areas (i.e.
severe erosion, structural failure). These stations were also evenly distributed between riffles and pools
throughout the project. Refer to Table 9 for the number of cross-sections and Figure 6 for the locations of
the cross-section monitoring stations. Year 2 cross-section surveys are provided in Appendix F.
Table 9. Stream Lengths and Number of Cross -Section Stations
(b.) Longitudinal Profiles
Guidelines regarding longitudinal profiles for projects totaling over 3,000 If suggest that 30% of the area be
surveyed on an annual basis. Based on this guideline, a total of 2,850 If of profile is required for the BDMB
project. The 2,850 If of survey was divided throughout the individual reaches and includes some of the
permanent cross-sections (Table 10). Reference the longitudinal surveys in Appendix F in comparison to
as -built conditions (see Baseline Monitoring Report).
Table 10. Longitudinal Profiles by Stream Reach
Reach Name
Proposed (If)
Final Design
As -Built
Length
% of Project'
Reach Name
Mitigation
Length
As -Built Length
Cross-sections
52.7
Plan
Huffmans Branch (HU -1)
3,445
3,445
Hewitts Branch (HE -1)
5,103
5,181
5,011
6
Huffmans Branch (HU -1)
3,445
3,445
3,354
4
Half Moon Creek (HM -1)
1,131
1,131
1,138
2
Total Length
9,679
9,757
9,503
12
(b.) Longitudinal Profiles
Guidelines regarding longitudinal profiles for projects totaling over 3,000 If suggest that 30% of the area be
surveyed on an annual basis. Based on this guideline, a total of 2,850 If of profile is required for the BDMB
project. The 2,850 If of survey was divided throughout the individual reaches and includes some of the
permanent cross-sections (Table 10). Reference the longitudinal surveys in Appendix F in comparison to
as -built conditions (see Baseline Monitoring Report).
Table 10. Longitudinal Profiles by Stream Reach
Reach Name
Proposed (If)
Final Design Length
As -Built
Length
% of Project'
Minimum
Profile If
Hewitts Branch (HE -1)
5,103
5,181
5,011
52.7
1,502
Huffmans Branch (HU -1)
3,445
3,445
3,354
35.3
1,006
Half Moon Creek (HM -1)
1,131
1,131
1,138
12
342
Total Length
9,679
9,757
9,503
100
2,850
1 - First Order Streams Only
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 20
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

(c.) Pebble Counts
Streams in the BDMB are composed of sandy substrates typical in the outer Coastal plain. Since all
sediment falls into the sand category, gravelometer readings were not conducted. All sediment in the
constructed stream beds is less than 2mm and would be placed in the <2mm category for Wolman pebble
count analysis.
(d.) Stream Flow Monitoring (First Order Channel)
As indicated above, the 1st -order streams of BDMB occur within three distinct valleys that connect the
headwater wetlands on the northern portion of the tract to the Bachelors Delight Swamp on the south side
(a third order tributary of the New River). The three valleys are identified as Hewitts Branch (HE -1),
Huffmans Branch (HU -1), and Half Moon Creek (HM -1). A total of 8 gauges were installed adjacent to the
stream banks to document bankfull events on a daily basis. These gauges capture the upper, middle, and
lower end of each stream reach (3 gauges in HE -1, 3 gauges in HU -1, and 2 gauges in HM -1). Refer to
Figure 5 for a map depicting the location of 1st -order gauges. Indicators of Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) and video documentation were also used to identify the presence of surface water flow. Ordinary
High Water Mark indicators are provided in Appendix G. Please refer to the enclosed CD for video
evidence of flow.
Hewitts Branch (HE -1):
Surface water and flow was documented in each of the three (3) gauges over several periods during the
monitoring event. The valley exhibits a very gradual slope (0.0012%) from the upper end to the lowest end.
Gauge HE_SG-1 was placed the furthest up -gradient (fourth stream meander from source) in order to
capture bankfull events at the head of the restored stream reach. Gauges HE_SG-2 and HE_SG-3 were
spaced approximately 1200 -ft apart further down the stream. Refer to Figure 5 for the gauge locations.
The amplitude of the surface water varied at each gauge. Gauge HE_SG-1 exhibited a bankfull event
eighteen (18) times during the monitoring period, while gauges HE_SG-2 and HE_SG-3 recorded twenty-
nine (29) and fifteen (15) bankfull events, respectively (Table 11). The gauges exhibited a significant
increase in the duration and amplitude of flow events during 2015 (post- construction Year 2).
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 21
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 11. Summary of 2015 Bankfull Event Monitoring (Hewitts Branch (HE -1))
Gauge Number
Total Number of
Bankfull Events
Longest Number
of Consecutive
Days During
Bankfull Event
Dates of Bankfull Event(s)
3 -Day Antecedent*
Rainfall (Inches)
(KNCA, New River MCAS)
HE-SG1
18
10
Jan 4-5
Aug 20
0.94
3.86
Jan 13
Aug 22-23
0.92
4.83
Jan 24-25
Sept 8
3.48
0.15
Feb 26-27
Sept 29 -Oct 8
2.40 (2/23-2/26)
8.19 (9/24-10/5)
Mar 20
Nov 3-5
0.75
1.74
May 11-13
Nov 10-12
4.31
2.69 (11/7-11/10)
Jun 5-6
Nov 19-23
4.65 (6/2-6/6)
2.50 (11/18-
11122)
Jun 11-12
Dec 8
1.35
0.90
Jun 20-21
Dec 23-31
3.01 (6/17-6/20)
3.61 (12/22-
12/31
HE-SG2
29
10
Jan 13
Jun 20
0.92
3.01 (6/17-6/20)
Jan 24-26
Jul 13
3.48
0.69(7/13)
Feb 2
Aug 12
0.63
1.72
Feb 5
Aug 20
1.01
3.86
Feb 18
Aug 22-23
0.92
4.83
Feb 23
Sept 29 - Oct 8
0.80
8.19 (9/24-10/5)
Feb 25 - Mar 2
Oct 11
2.77 (2/22-3/1)
0.44
Mar
I Oct 13
0.34
1.85
Mar 7-8
Nov 4-5
0.27
1.74(11/1-11/4)
Mar 15-17
Nov 8-13
0.80
2.69 (11/7-11/10)
Mar 20-23
Nov 19-23
0.94 (3/19-3/23)
2.50 (11/18-
11/22)
Mar 28
Dec 3
0.59
0.14
May 11-13
I Dec 8
I 4.31
0.90
Jun 5-6
Dec 23-31
4.65 (6/2-6/6)
3.61 (12/22-
12/31
Jun 11-12
-
1.35
-
HE-SG3'
15
53
Jan 4
Mar 4
0.94
0.34
Jan 13-14
Mar
1.01 (1/12-1/14)
0.43
Jan 18
May 9-23
1.13 (1/18)
4.76 (5/7-5/22)
Jan 24-26
May 27
3.48
0.0002
Feb 17
Jun 3-30
0.89
11.23 (5/31-6/28)
Feb 22-23
Jul 14
0.80 (2/21-2/23)
0.89 (7/11-7/14)
Feb 26-27
Sept 30 -Nov 21
2.40 (2/23-2/26)
15.89 (9/27-
11/19
Mar 2
0.18
1 - Well Malfunction (2/2-2/5); (3/7-5/5); (7/18-9/29); (11/22-12/31)
- Entire rainfall totals are listed if bankfull period spans for extended days (shown in parenthesis)
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 22
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Hewitts Branch (HE -1)
consisted of the following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) presence of litter and debris; (3)
wracking; (4) vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (5) sediment sorting; (6) scour; (7) deposition; (8)
water staining; (9) and multiple observed flow events. Photographs of HE -1 are provided in Appendix A.
Ordinary High Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.
Huffmans Branch (HU -1):
Surface water and flow was documented in each of the three (3) gauges over several periods during the
monitoring event. Gauge HU_SG-1 was placed the furthest up -gradient in order to capture bankfull events
at the head of the restored stream reach. Gauges HU_SG-2 and HU_SG-3 were spaced approximately
1600 -ft and 1000 -ft apart further down the stream, respectively. Refer to Figure 5 for the gauge locations.
The amplitude of the surface water varied at each gauge. Gauge HU_SG-1 exhibited twenty-one (21)
bankfull events during the monitoring period, while gauges HE_SG-2 and HE_SG-3 recorded eighteen (18)
and thirteen (13) bankfull events, respectively (Table 12). The gauges exhibited a significant increase in
the duration and amplitude of flow events during 2015 (post -construction Year 2). Video and/or photo
evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall events during the monitoring year over multiple site visits.
Flow can be readily seen along each stream valley.
Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Huffmans Branch (HU -1)
consisted of the following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) presence of litter and debris;
(3) wracking; (4) vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (5) sediment sorting; (6) scour; (7) deposition;
(8) water staining; (9) and multiple observed flow events. Photographs of HU -1 are provided in Appendix
A. Ordinary High Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.
Half Moon Creek (HM -1):
Surface water and flow was documented in each of the two (2) gauges over several periods during the
monitoring event. Gauge HM—SG-1 was placed the furthest up -gradient in order to capture bankfull events
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 23
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

at the head of the restored stream reach. Gauge HM -SG -2 was placed approximately 800 -ft further down
the stream. Refer to Figure 5 for the gauge locations.
Table 12. Summary of 2015 Bankfull Event Monitoring (Huffmans Branch (HU -1))
Gauge Number
Total Number of
Bankfull Events
Longest Number
of Consecutive
Days During
Bankfull Event
Dates of Bankfull Event(s)
3 -Day Antecedent*
Rainfall (Inches)
(KNCA, New River MCAS)
HU-SG1
21
16
Jan 4 May 11-13
0.94 4.31
Jan 13-15 Jun 11-13
1.03 (1112-1/16) 1.35
Jan 19-20 Jun 20-21
1.15 3.01 (6/17-6/20)
Jan 24-27 Sept 29-30
3.48 1.01 (9/26-9/30)
Feb 2-3 Oct 2-11
0.63 6.73 (9/29-10/10)
Feb 5 Oct 13-14
1.01 1.85
Feb 10-11 Nov 3-15
0.19 4.43 (11/1-11/10)
Feb 17 Nov 19 - Dec 4
0.89 2.64 (11/18-1212)
Feb 22 - Mar 6 Dec 8-18
3.24 (2/21-3/6) 1.32 (12/7-12/18)
Mar 10-12 Dec 23-31
0.06 3.61 (12/22-12/31)
Mar 15-16 -
0.76 -
HU-SG2
18
10
Jan 24 Sept 29
3.48 1.00
Feb 26-27 Oct 2-11
2.63 (2/21-2/26) 6.73 (9/29-10/10)
Mar 20-21 Oct 13-14
0.75 1.85
Mar 28 Nov 3-5
0.57 1.74 (11/1-11/4)
May 10-13 Nov 9-14
4.31 (5/7-5/11) 2.69 (1117-11/10)
Jun 11-13 Nov 19-27
1.35 2.50 (11/18-11/22)
Jun 20-21 Dec 8-10
3.01 (6117-6/20) 0.90
Aug 19 Dec 18
3.84(8/19) 0.26
Sept 27 Dec 23-31
1.50 3.61 (12/22-12/31)
HU-SG3'
13
22
Jan 1-8 Oct 13-14
1.15 (12/29/14- 1.85
Jan 13 - Feb 3 Nov 3-15
6.27 (1/12-2/2) 4.43 (11/1-11/10)
Feb 5 Nov 19-29
1.01 2.50 (11/18-11/22)
May 11-12 Dec 3-4
4.31 (5/7-5111) 0.14 (11/30-12/2)
Aug 22 Dec 8-15
4.83 1.06 (12/7-12/14)
Sept 29-30 Dec 23-31
1.00 3.61 (12/22-12/31)
Oct 2-11
6.73 (9/29-10/10)
1 -Well Malfunction (2/13-5/5) & (5/13-7/15) & (7/24-8/18)
* - Entire rainfall totals are listed if bankfull period spans for extended days (shown in parenthesis)
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 24
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

The amplitude of the surface water varied at each gauge. Gauge HM_SG-1 exhibited twenty-two (22)
bankfull events during the monitoring period, while gauge HM_SG-2 exhibited eighteen (18) bankfull events
(Table 13). The gauges exhibited a significant increase in the duration and amplitude of flow events during
2015 (post -construction Year 2). Video and/or photo evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall events
during the monitoring year over multiple site visits. Flow can be readily seen along each stream valley.
Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Half Moon Creek (HM -1)
consisted of the following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) presence of litter and debris; (3)
wracking; (4) vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (5) sediment sorting; (6) scour; (7) deposition; (8)
water staining; (9) and multiple observed flow events. Photographs of HM -1 are provided in Appendix A.
Ordinary High Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.
Table 13. Summary of 2015 Bankfull Event Monitoring (Half Moon Creek (HM -1))
Gauge Number
Total Number of
Bankfull Events
Longest Number
of Consecutive
Days During
Bankfull Event
3 -Day Antecedent
Dates of Bankfull Event(s) Rainfall (Inches)
(KNCA, New River MCAS)
HM-SG1
22
6
Jan 4 Aug 28 0.94 2.14
Jan 13 Sept 1 0.92 0.33
Jan 24-25 Sept 29-30 3.48 8.18 (9/24-10/5)
Feb 2 Oct 2-7 0.63 6.73 (9/29-10/10)
Feb 17 Oct 13 0.89 1.85
Feb 23 Nov 3-6 0.80 1.74 (1/1-11/4)
Feb 26 Nov 10-13 2.63 (2121-2126) 2.69 (11/7-11/10)
Mar 20 Nov 20-24 0.75 2.50 (11/18-11/22)
Mar 28 Dec 8 0.59 0.90
May 11-13 Dec 23-27 4.31 2.26 (12/22-12/25)
Jun 21 Dec 29-31 3.01 (6/17-6/20) 1.35 (12/28-12/31)
HM-SG2
18
22
Jan 2 May 11-13 0.21 4.31
Jan 4-7 Sept 29 0.94 (112-1/4) 0.81 (9/24-9/29)
Jan 12-28 Oct 2-7 5.64 (1/12-1/27) 6.29 (9/29-10/5)
Jan 30 Oct 13 0.0006 1.85 (10/10-10112)
Feb 2-12 Nov 10-13 1.27 (1/30-2/10) 2.69 (11/7-11/10)
Feb 17 - Mar 10 Nov 20-24 4.18 (2/16-3/10) 2.50 (11/18-11/22)
Mar 15-18 Dec 8-9 0.80 0.90
Mar 20 Dec 23-26 0.75 (3/19-3/20) 2.26 (12/22-12/25)
Mar 28 Dec 29-31 10.59 1 1.35 (12/28-12/31)
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 25
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

Le.) Stream Flow Monitoring (Zero Order Channel/Headwater)
The primary success criteria for the Zero Order/Headwater Stream systems will be
Documentation of 2 flow events using techniques discussed below within a normal rainfall year in 3 of the 5
years of monitoring. Additional monitoring may be necessary in the event of abnormal climatic conditions.
The zero -order streams of BDMB occur within five distinct valleys that are contiguous with riverine swamp
forest of Bachelors Delight Swamp. The five valleys are identified as HU2, BD2, BD4/BD4A, BD5/BD5A,
and HM1. A total of 8 gauge transects (three gauges per transect) were installed in the zero -order streams
to document the presence of surface water. These transects capture the head of each valley and the
downstream end of the longer valleys (2 transects in HU2, 2 transects in BD4, and 1 transect in BD2,
BNA, BD5A and HM1). Refer to Figure 5 for a map depicting the location of zero-order/riparian wetland
gauges. Indicators of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and video documentation were also used to
identify the presence of surface water flow.
Valley HU2:
Surface water and flow was documented in the center of each transect from the upper origin of the valley to
its lower reach over several periods during the monitoring year. The valley exhibits a very gradual slope
(0.004%) from the upper transect (Transect HU_ZOA1) to the lowest transect (Transect HU_ZOA2). Refer
to the As -Built plans for the longitudinal profile of the center of the valley at each transect location.
The duration and amplitude of the surface water varied at each transect. The transect occurring in the
upper portion of the zero -order stream exhibited surface water for briefer periods, although the entire valley
exhibited surface flow following several rainfall events throughout the monitoring season. The transect
located furthest up -gradient (Transect HU_ZOA1) experienced nine (9) different surface flow events (center
gauge), with the longest event totaling 150 consecutive days during the early part of the monitoring year.
The gauges recorded nine (9) separate periods that encompassed all gauges across the entire array during
the early monitoring year with a maximum duration of 71 days. Transect HU_ZOA2 experienced six (6)
different surface flow events (center gauge), with the longest event totaling 189 days during the early part
of the monitoring year. The gauges recorded seven (7) separate periods that encompassed all gauges
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 26
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

across the entire array during the early monitoring year with a maximum duration of 103 days. Based upon
rainfall data obtained from the nearest functional CRONOS station (KNCA, New River MCAS), rainfall
events (3 -Day Antecedent) ranging from 0.89 -inch to 3.92 -inches resulted in the documented flow events.
Photographic and/or video evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall events on/prior to February 27,
May 11, September 28 and November 4. With increasing watershed size (downslope), the duration of
surface flow increased within the valley. During periods of surface inundation, water depths in the center of
the valley ranged from 0.2 inch to 5.1 inches. Refer to Appendix E for graphs of duration and amplitude of
surface water in Valley HU2.
Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Valley HU2 consisted of the
following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) wracking (from straw mulch and plant detritus); (3)
vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (4) water staining; (5) change in plant community; (6) and multiple
observed flow events. Photographs of the zero -order valley are provided in Appendix A. Ordinary High
Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Photographic and video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.
Valley BD2:
Surface water and flow was documented in the transect of Valley BD2 over several periods during the
monitoring year. The slope of the valley over the length of the monitoring section is approximately 0.004%
(refer to Construction Documents and As -Built Plan).
The duration and amplitude of the surface water varied at the transect. The transect occurring in the zero -
order stream is installed near the base of the valley, although the entire valley exhibited surface flow
following several rainfall events throughout the monitoring year (as documented through photographic
evidence). Transect BD2_ZOA experienced five (5) different surface flow events (center gauge), with the
longest event totaling 131 consecutive days during the early part of the monitoring year. The gauges
recorded eight (8) separate periods that encompassed all gauges across the entire array during the early
monitoring year with a maximum duration of 115 days. Based upon rainfall data obtained from the nearest
functional CRONOS station (KNCA, New River MCAS), rainfall events (3 -Day Antecedent) ranging from
1.11 -inch to 3.98 -inches resulted in the documented flow events. Photographic and/or video evidence of
flow was recorded following rainfall events on/prior to February 27, May 11, September 28 and November
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 27
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

4. With increasing watershed size (downslope), the duration of surface flow increased within the valley.
During periods of surface inundation, water depths in the center of the valley ranged from 0.3 inch to 8.9
inches. Refer to Appendix E for graphs of duration and amplitude of surface water in Valley BD2.
Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Valley BD2 consisted of the
following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) wracking (from straw mulch and plant detritus); (3)
vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (4) water staining; (5) change in plant community; (6) and multiple
observed flow events. Photographs of the zero -order valley are provided in Appendix A. Ordinary High
Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Photographic and video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.
Valley BD4:
Surface water and flow was documented in the center of each transect from the upper origin of the valley to
its lower reach over several periods during the monitoring year. The upper transect of the valley was
installed near the base of the constructed zero order in the restored agricultural fields. The lower transect
was installed in the natural valley of the zero order enhancement area further downstream. The valley
exhibits a very gradual slope (0.0008%) from the upper end to the lower end of the constructed valley.
Refer to the Construction Documents and As -Built plans for the longitudinal profile of the center of the
valley at each transect location.
The duration and amplitude of the surface water varied at each transect. The transect occurring in the
upper, constructed portion of the zero -order stream exhibited surface water for briefer periods, although the
entire valley exhibited surface flow following several rainfall events throughout the monitoring year. The
transect located furthest up -gradient (Transect BDN_ZOA2) experienced seven (7) different surface flow
events (center gauge), with the longest event totaling 126 consecutive days during the early part of the
monitoring year. The gauges recorded fifteen (15) periods that encompassed all gauges across the entire
array during the early monitoring year with a maximum duration of 102 days. Transect BDN_ZOA4
experienced one (1) surface flow event (center gauge), with the longest event totaling 365 days
encompassing the entire monitoring year. The gauges recorded three (3) periods that encompassed all
gauges across the entire array during the monitoring year with a maximum duration of 201 days. Based
upon rainfall data obtained from the nearest functional CRONOS station (KNCA, New River MCAS), rainfall
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 28
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

events (3 -Day Antecedent) ranging from 0.36 -inch to 3.98 -inches resulted in the documented flow events.
Photographic and/or video evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall events on/prior to February 27,
May 11, September 28 and November 4. With increasing watershed size (downslope), the duration of
surface flow increased within the valley. During periods of surface inundation, water depths in the center of
the valley ranged from 0.1 inch to 13.8 inches, and 0.1 inch to 18.8 inches for transects BDN_ZOA2, and
BDN_ZOA4, respectively. Refer to Appendix E for graphs of duration and amplitude of surface water in
Valley BD4.
Valley BD4A:
Valley BD4A represents a zero order spur of Valley BD4. Surface water and flow was documented in the
transect of Valley BD4A over several periods during the monitoring year. The slope of the valley over the
length of the monitoring section is approximately 0.0018% (refer to Construction Documents and As -Built
Plan).
The duration and amplitude of the surface water varied at the transect. The transect occurring in the zero -
order stream is installed near the head of the valley, although the entire valley exhibited surface flow
following several rainfall events throughout the monitoring year (as documented through photographic
evidence). Transect BDN_ZOA1 experienced eleven (11) different surface flow events (center gauge), with
the longest event totaling 118 consecutive days during the early part of the monitoring year. The gauges
recorded thirteen (13) periods that encompassed all gauges across the entire array during the early
monitoring year with a maximum duration of 108 days. Based upon rainfall data obtained from the nearest
functional CRONOS station (KNCA, New River MCAS), rainfall events (3 -Day Antecedent) ranging from
0.33 -inch to 4.31 -inches resulted in the documented flow events. Photographic and/or video evidence of
flow was recorded following rainfall events on/prior to, February 27, May 11, September 28 and November
4. With increasing watershed size (downslope), the duration of surface flow increased within the valley.
During periods of surface inundation, water depths in the center of the valley ranged from 0.1 inch to 9
inches. Refer to Appendix E for graphs of duration and amplitude of surface water in Valley BD4A.
Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Valley's BD4 and BD4A
consisted of the following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) wracking (from straw mulch and plant
detritus); (3) vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (4) water staining; (5) change in plant community; (6)
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 29
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

and multiple observed flow events. Photographs of the zero -order valley are provided in Appendix A.
Ordinary High Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Photographic
and video evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.
Valley BDSA:
Surface water and flow was documented in the transect of Valley BDSA over several periods during the
monitoring year. The slope of the valley over the length of the monitoring section is approximately 0.0017%
(refer to Construction Documents and As -Built Plan).
The duration and amplitude of the surface water varied at the transect. The transect occurring in the zero -
order stream is installed near the base of the constructed valley, although the entire valley exhibited
surface flow following several rainfall events throughout the monitoring year (as documented through
photographic evidence). Transect BDS_ZOA1 experienced seven (7) different surface flow events (center
gauge), with the longest event totaling 150 consecutive days during the early part of the monitoring year.
The gauges recorded eighteen (18) separate periods that encompassed all gauges across the entire array
during the early monitoring year with a maximum duration of 98 days. Based upon rainfall data obtained
from the nearest functional CRONOS station (KNCA, New River MCAS), rainfall events (3 -Day Antecedent)
ranging from 0.14 -inch to 3.98 -inches resulted in the documented flow events. Photographic and/or video
evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall events on/prior to February 27, May 11, September 28 and
November 4. With increasing watershed size (downslope), the duration of surface flow increased within the
valley. During periods of surface inundation, water depths in the center of the valley ranged from 0.1 inch
to 8.1 inches. Refer to Appendix E for graphs of duration and amplitude of surface water in Valley BDSA.
Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Valley BDSA consisted of the
following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) wracking (from straw mulch and plant detritus); (3)
vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (4) water staining; (5) change in plant community; (6) and multiple
observed flow events. Photographs of the zero -order valley are provided in Appendix A. Ordinary High
Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Photographic and video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 30
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

Valley HM1:
Surface water and flow was documented in the transect of Valley HM1 over several periods during the
monitoring year. The slope of the valley over the length of the monitoring section is approximately 0.006%
(refer to Construction Documents and As -Built Plan).
The duration and amplitude of the surface water varied at the transect. The transect occurring in the zero -
order stream is installed midway in the constructed valley, although the entire valley exhibited surface flow
following several rainfall events throughout the monitoring year (as documented through photographic
evidence). Transect HM_ZOA1 experienced eight (8) different surface flow events (center gauge), with the
longest event totaling 150 consecutive days during the early part of the monitoring year. The gauges
recorded seven (7) separate periods that encompassed all gauges across the entire array during the
monitoring year with a maximum duration of 123 days. Based upon rainfall data obtained from the nearest
functional CRONOS station (KNCA, New River MCAS), rainfall events (3 -Day Antecedent) ranging from
0.45 -inch to 3.98 -inches resulted in the documented flow events. Photographic and/or video evidence of
flow was recorded following rainfall events on/prior to February 27, May 11, September 28 and November
4. With increasing watershed size (downslope), the duration of surface flow increased within the valley.
During periods of surface inundation, water depths in the center of the valley ranged from 0.1 inch to 11.7
inches. Refer to Appendix E for graphs of duration and amplitude of surface water in Valley HM1.
Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Valley HM1 consisted of the
following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) wracking (from straw mulch and plant detritus); (3)
vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (4) water staining; (5) change in plant community; (6) and multiple
observed flow events. Photographs of the zero -order valley are provided in Appendix A. Ordinary High
Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Photographic and video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.
(f.) Stream Enhancement
The primary success criterion for the First Order Stream Enhancement will be:
Documentation of increases in flow duration and frequency compared to pre -construction conditions during
periods of normal rainfall.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 31
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

A majority of the stream enhancement has occurred through the reestablishment of interconnectivity with
the upstream portions of the watershed. This reestablishment has increased the functional acreage of the
watershed, corresponding to increased flow frequency and duration in the lower sections of each stream.
In order to determine the extent of flow enhancement, a total of two gauge transects (one per reach) was
installed within enhancement reaches HU -3 (Transect HU_REF1), and BD -6 (Transect BD_REF1A).
These gauge transects have recorded water levels within 12 -inches of the surface for an average of 27.5%
and 33.4% of the growing season, respectively. Note that Well# BDS_SG2 is located within an
enhancement reach and recorded a hydroperiod of 100% of the growing season. These data indicate
enhanced hydroperiods throughout these stream reaches.
D. Contingency Measures
Stream banks and in -stream structures (i.e. root wads, log vanes, etc.) were monitored for evidence of
surface bank erosion (i.e. down -cutting) subsequent to above normal rainfall and high flow events. Some
minor down -cutting of the floodplain was noted in areas where surface water in the floodplain flows back
into the stream channel. However, these features have not resulted in any significant deposition within the
channel and do not appear to adversely affect stream function. In fact, these features are common within
natural, unimpaired streams and are evidence of the connectivity between the stream and its floodplain.
Most of the areas in which this has been observed appear to have met a point of equilibrium and have
become increasingly stable with the growth of stream bank vegetation. No re -grading or reinforcement of
the stream banks are recommended at this time.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The implementation of the Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank restores and connects
large headwater wetland areas to first -order tributaries of Bachelors Delight Swamp. As a result of the
work, there has been a discernible hydrologic response within the stream valleys and the adjacent riparian
and non -riparian wetlands. Vegetation and hydrologic monitoring of the BDMB indicate that the site is
progressing well during the second year following the implementation of the restoration activities. Overall,
the site exhibited a diverse assemblage of characteristic trees and shrubs. Vegetation data document high
rates of survivorship among the planted species (x stem density = 489 stems per acre). The restoration
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 32
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report

areas in the small stream swamp, streamhead pocosin, and wet pine flat communities met and exceeded
the target hydrologic criteria. All of the restoration and enhancement wells met the success criteria, and
overall the site has demonstrated hydroperiods characteristic of the target wetland communities.
Overall, the BDMB appears to be progressing well toward the targeted wetland community types. No
contingency measures are recommended at this time. The restoration site is already providing key wetland
functions by reducing sediment/nutrient runoff; increasing floodwater storage; and re-establishing wildlife
habitat. The site will be continued to be monitored over the next five years (through Year 7), and the
findings of such will be provided in subsequent annual monitoring reports for agency review and
concurrence.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 33
Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report