The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20060952 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_200902120(- O?S?- Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Monitoring Report - MY02 Orange and Durham Counties, NC Basin 03030002 - Contract # D050011-2 ' • Submitted lo: qv December 2008 ;_:yPt i?J J 5? 1O"v":' TER 3Pd?N'?! r P, . 2008 ''` 'F ;OSYSTEM i?la i%Ei,, r '' _y?ENT PROGRAM • Monitoring and Design Firm 0 KCI ASSOCIATES OF NC Landmark Center II, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27609 Phone: (919) 783-9214 Fax: (919) 783-9266 Project Contact: Kristin Knight-Meng Email: kknight(a kci.com n LJ Broom Farm Wetland Restoration Basin 03030002 KC/ Associates of North Carolina 2008 - MY02 TABLE OF CONTENTS • 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Objectives ....................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach ................................... 1 1.3 Location and Setting ................................................................................... 1 1.4 Project History and Background ................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT CONDITIONS AND MONITORING RESULTS .......................... 5 2.1 Vegetation Assessment ............................................................................... 5 2.2 Wetland Criteria Attainment Tables ............................................................... 5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Project Restoration Components .................................................................1 Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ......................................................3 Table 3. Project Contact Table ..................................................................................3 Table 4. Project Background Table ...........................................................................3 Table 5 Hydrologic Monitoring Summary ...............................................................5 Table 6 Hydroperiod History ...................................................................................5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...............................................................................................2 • Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View .................................................................................4 APPENDIX A - VEGETATION DATA APPENDIX B - HYDROLOGIC MONITORING AND HYDROPERIOD APPENDIX C - PHOTO LOG • Brown harin Wetland Restoration ACl Associates o%.Aordh Carolina Basin 03030002 2008 - 11)'02 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Project restored 24.6 acres and enhanced 3.3 acres of riparian wetland. New Hope Creek, which runs adjacent to the site, has a contributing drainage area of 33.3 square miles (21,331 acres) at the downstream limits of the site and is located within USGS 8-digit HUC 03030002 and NCDWQ Sub-basin 03-06-05 of the Cape Fear River Basin. The 46.1 acre project site is located on an active floodplain of New Hope Creek along the Orange-Durham County line. The restoration was completed to achieve the following objectives: • Restore aquatic/terrestrial habitat • Improve water quality • Increase groundwater recharge • Enhance nutrient cycling • Restore a native bottomland hardwood community Project construction occurred in November 2006. Construction involved plugging and filling ditches, installing level spreaders, and creating microtopography. The site was planted with native trees and shrubs common to Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood communities. Following construction and planting, baseline data collection occurred in February 2007. This report describes the second year of monitoring that took place in 2008. Vegetation was planted at a density of approximately 436 and 100-200 stems per acre in the restored and enhanced wetlands, respectively. Twenty vegetation plots were monitored to assess planted vegetation survivability, growth, and vigor. The second year monitoring counted an average of 346 stems per acre, which exceeds the success criterion of 320 stems/acre. There was, however, increased mortality of planted stems due to drought conditions, deer browse, and competition from tall fescue. An assessment of the site's vegetation found Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) on the outskirts of the site with Chinese lespedeza (Leppedeza cunteata) and thistle (Cirisium sp.) observed within the site. The thistle was sprayed with herbicide during the 2008 monitoring year. These species will continue to be monitored in the future to determine if other corrective action is necessary. Second year monitoring found the vegetation component of the project to be on track to meeting the success criteria. During the 2008 monitoring year, wetland hydrology was achieved at all seven wells in the restoration area and the well in the reference wetland. The hydrology success criterion states that groundwater must be within 12 inches of the soil surface in excess of 12 consecutive days (5% of the growing season) at each well. The daily rainfall data depicted on the gauge data graphs were obtained from the on-site precipitation gauge. The precipitation gauge was installed in 2006 prior to project implementation. Daily rainfall data were obtained from the State Climate Office of North Carolina for Durham, North Carolina to confirm on-site precipitation data. The combined precipitation data show that Durham experienced normal precipitation during the growing season in 2008. Site photographs were taken from permanent photo points established throughout the site. Photo documentation facilitates the qualitative evaluation of wetland conditions. The photo point locations were selected in order to document representative site conditions. The results of the 2008 monitoring of the Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Project indicate that the site is on track to meeting the project's success criteria. Brown Harm Welland Restoration KC1 Associates of North Carolina Basin 03030002 2008 -A 1)'02 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.1 Project Objectives • Restore aquatic/terrestrial wildlife habitat • Improve water quality • Increase groundwater recharge • Enhance nutrient cycling • Restore to native bottomland hardwood communities 1.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach Before restoration, the land use was primarily agricultural for at least the past 50 years. The wetland was restored by plugging and filling drainage ditches throughout the site, removing ditch spoil from wooded areas to restore natural drainage patterns, placing water diversion features to redistribute the surface hydrology, re-creating microtopography across the site to enhance surface water retention and storage, and planting the site with Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest species. 1.3 Location and Setting The Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Site is located within the 03030002 (Upper Cape Fear 02) Watershed Cataloging Unit (8-digit HUC) and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Sub- basin 03-06-05 (Figure 1). New Hope Creek, which runs adjacent to the site, has a contributing drainage area of 33.3 square miles (21,331 acres) at the downstrearn limits of the project. Jordan Lake is approximately 11 miles downstream of the site. The project watershed is located within the Piedmont physiographic province and is part of the Triassic Basins Level IV Ecoregion. 1.4 Project History and Background Table 1. Project Restoration Components Project Name: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration L U O O Segment/ Reach ID w F; Q Brown Farm 24.6 R 24.6 1.0 24.6 Brown Farm 33 E 3.3 0.5 1.7 Mitigation Unit Summations Riparian Nonriparian Total Wetland Wetland Wetland Buffer Stream (10 (Ac) (Ac) (Ac) (Ac) Comment 26.3 R = Restoration F = Enhancement Brown Farm II'etland Restoration Basin 03030002 K(T Issociates of.A'orth Carolina 2008 - A/) 02 0 • • ORANGE DURHOII A COUNTY qOUN- 7 c 1 Erwin Rd - - ?.. ?- Project Site t? Mt. Moriah Rd r 1 ! I _t J , 1 t City of Durham , • ???? ?, • 15-501 y IY `..' - Town of ,,. ?IILL Chapel Hill 51 //^?ty1 1 ^ \ ll? ?J J --- I ?- / I ^? '1 ' ? I i ? _ `c'am _I I ; f ? I 54 0? ` Jordan Lake Figure 1. Vicinity Map Project Location Major Roads KC1 Other Roads Major Streams and Rivers IF C I Lakes and Resenvns MunicipalitieS 1:63.360 Counties I inch equal, I miles TECHNOLOGIES ylii?y ENVIRONMEMAL TECHNOLOGIES AND CONSTRUCTION, INC. Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Project Name: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Actual Completion or Delivery Restoration Plan May 06 Jun 06 Construction N/A Nov 06 Mitigation Plan Feb 07 Mar 07 Year I Monitoring Se 07 Nov 07 Herbicide Sprayed for Invasive Species Control N/A Jun 08 Year 2 11011itorin(.z Se 08 Dec 08 Table 3. Project Contact Table Project Name: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Design, Monitoring, and KCI Associates of NC Maintenance Firm Landmark Center 11, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Rd. Raleigh, NC 27609 Contact: Ms. Kristin Knight-Meng Phone: (919) 783-9214 Fax: (919) 783-9266 Construction Contractor KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction. Inc. Landmark Center 11, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Rd. Raleigh. NC 27609 Contact: Mr. Ryan McDavitt Phone: (919) 783-9214 Fax: (919) 783-9266 Nursery Cill Ide Native Plant Nursery 621 Starburst Lane Ralei-h, North Carolina 27603 Contact: Mr. Georoe T. SxNearin<uen Phone: (919)302-6900 Fax: (509) 351-5324 Table 4. Project Background Table Project Name: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Project County Durham and Orange Counties Project Area 46.1 Acres Drainaze impervious cover 17 o Ph ysio-ra hic Re,ion Piedmont Ecoreaion Triassic Basin Dominant soil types Wehadkee USGS HUC for project and reference 030 30002 NCDWQ Sub-basin for project and reference 03-06-05 °io of project easement fenced 65'o 0 • • B1 011 n /term ff etland Restoration ! O,-IssoL'Otes of. orth (`arolina Basin 03030002 3 2008 -.11) 02 SNOISIA3a lO 1 1 N31N3 Z Z Ow4w, ]Avg Iwamn WS 3 W "v 1 nS I L 3 ' S1901033•S 3NNV 1 33M' N3 S •S VN11Ok1VO HiNO ,UNIIOO wvHana / 3ONVUO g 1 8 d H J I - 103roNd NOUV dO1S32i ONV U3M z g >133NO 3dOH MEIN - vquvj WONG 0 D- W w O d g z 0Es70 NC GRID NAD '83 2m m>> m ix 0: 38 8 aw 1 ??il"O? 99 tS?tsIN Z,? ` / : -1 ' O O 1 / 11\111 ell' nN2 1 \ 1 -- 1 Iii Ate' '? a r 1 i ?`' y,0 1 ' , a N r11 ? J 1 'Ilk 8i 11- ? ' ? 1'1 a "IV 1 ? \? sy3 ?uvna; ------------------ 0 0 N °o N U_ S o o ? 0 0 • • • 2.0 PROJECT CONDITIONS AND MONITORING RESULTS • r? L 2.1 Vegetation Assessment See vegetation data and assessment in Appendix A. 2.2 Wetland Criteria Attainment Tables Table 5. Hydrologic Monitoring Results Pro'ect Name: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration H dro eriod Well # <5% 5%-8% 8%-12.5% >12.5% Max. No. of Consecutive Days Dates Meeting Success 1 X 29 8/27/08-9/25/08 2 X 77 3/24/08-9/8/08 3 X 71 3/24/08-6/2/08 4 X 33 9/6/08-10/8/08 5 X 76 3/24/08-6/8/08 6 X 68 3/24/08-5/31/08 7 X 67 3/24/08-5/29/08 Ref. Wetland X 44 3/25/08-5/8/08 Table 6. Hydroperiod History Pro'ect Name: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Well # Pre-Restoration Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 1 <5% >12.5% >12.5% 2 <5% >12.5% >12.5% 3 <5% 5%-8% >12.5% 4 <5% 5%-8% >12.5% 5 <5% 8%-12.5% >12.5% 6 <5% 5%-8% >12.5% 7 <5% 8%-12.5% >12.5% Ref. Well <5% 5%-8% >12.5% The wetland wells used to monitor site hydrology were installed in early 2007. The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within 12 inches of the surface was detennined for each groundwater gauge. This number was converted into a percentage of the 223-day growing season. Wetland hydrology was achieved at all of the wells on the site (Table 5). Based on these data, the site has exceeded the minimum duration of 12 consecutive days with the water table within 12 inches of the soil surface for the 2008 growing season (Appendix B). Table 5 presents the hydrological monitoring results for 2008. 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 as 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 a normal year for rainfall during the growing season. Rainfall was within the 30"' to 701" percentiles for the months of February, April and June. Rainfall was less than the 30"' percentile threshold in January, May, and October and was greater than the 70'x' percentile threshold in March, July, August, September, and November (Appendix B). To illustrate that the site is a riverine system, a stream gauge was installed on New Hope Creek to document overbank flooding. This gauge was installed in February 2008. Since installation, the gauge has recorded 15 overbank flooding events (over 253.8' elevation). Of these events, all of them exceeded 254 feet in elevation, which would inundate approximately 75% of the site. One event was over 256 feet in elevation, which inundated the entire site (Appendix B). Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Basin 03030002 KCI Associates of North Carolina 2008 - MY02 C? Appendix A Vegetation Data • Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Basin 03030002 KCI Associates of North Carolina 2008 - MY02 Appendix A - Vegetation Data Tables ?? Table Al. Stem counts for each species arranged by plot Pro'ect Name: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Plots Species 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Initial Totals Year 2 Totals Survival Trees ios ros vir iniana 1 1 1 100% raxinus enns lvanica 6 4 5 3 1 3 2 23 24 104% Driodendron tuli i era 1 6 1 17% uercus lauri olia 2 1 2 7 5 71% uercus l rata 1 4 2 1 2 9 10 111% uercus michauxii 1 5 6 1 1 4 23 18 78% uercus a oda 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 23 18 78% uercus hellos 2 2 2 9 6 67% Unknown 2 44 2 5% *Plot 1 was moved in MY02 Plots Species 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Initial Totals Year 2 Totals Survival % Trees Fraxinus enns lvanica 1 2 1 1 8 1 2 6 25 22 88% iriodendron tuli i era 1 5 1 20% N ssa s lvatica 1 0 0% uercus lauri olia 1 1 3 1 7 6 86% uercus l rata 6 2 4 8 3 1 4 28 28 100% uercus michauxii 1 2 1 2 1 8 7 88% uercus pagoda 3 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 22 18 82% uercus hellos 4 1 8 5 63% Unknown 1 30 1 3% ?J Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Basin 03030002 KCl Associates of North Carolina 2008 - MY02 Table A2. Stem Density By Plot Project Name: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Date : 6/10/08 and 6/13/08 Crew : B. Roberts, K. Vaughan v 4 -' C Ol CC E a L ? • v u 7 Ol v 6? 4J v C6 Or ? 4l v d 1. + C Plot # 9. Q L V Fi i Fr a ? , 3 ?' a Ol O 01 ti Ol U OI 3 01 ? F D 1 6 1 1 1 9 360 2 1 4 4 5 1 15 600 3 2 6 3 2 13 520 4 1 1 1 3 6 240 5 5 2 2 9 360 6 3 1 4 160 7 1 2 4 3 2 12 480 8 2 2 80 9 3 1 3 7 280 10 2 2 2 2 8 320 11 1 1 6 1 3 12 480 12 2 2 1 5 200 13 1 4 2 5 12 480 14 8 2 10 400 15 3 1 1 5 200 16 1 1 1 1 4 8 320 17 8 3 1 1 13 520 18 1 2 1 4 160 19 2 1 1 2 1 7 280 20 6 1 4 1 1 13 520 Total Avera a Densit 348 • • 0 Brown Farm ffMand Restoration KCI Associates ofA orth Carolina Basin 03030002 2008 - ,11Y02 L -J Table A3. Vegetation History Stems/Acre Project Name: Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Plot # Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 1* 640 560 360 2 760 720 600 3 680 560 520 4 520 240 240 5 640 520 360 6 400 320 160 7 680 680 480 8 560 280 80 9 440 360 280 10 480 480 320 11 640 520 480 12 520 240 200 13 640 560 480 14 720 480 400 15 320 320 200 16 480 440 320 17 600 560 520 18 320 280 160 19 480 480 260 20 640 600 520 Not 1 was moved in MY02. Plot 1 was repositioned during the second monitoring year when it became apparent that the monitoring plot was on top of the line that separated the upland from the restored wetland. There was a decrease in average stems/acre during the second monitoring year. Extreme drought conditions from the previous year, deer browse, and competition from dense herbaceous vegetation are the likely causes of the planted vegetation mortality. While some mortality occurred in the monitored plots, site visits have documented extensive volunteer populations of green ash and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), which are both desirable wetland species. The survivability of planted stems will be monitored closely to determine if supplemental planting is required in the future. The number of trees per acre is on track to meeting the vegetative success criterion of 320 stems/acre. • Brown Farm Wetland Restoration Basin 03030002 KCI Associates of Korth Carolina 2008 - MY02 Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet ,up Site: Brown Plot: 1 Date: 6/10/2008 Plot Map Photo PVC Point Marker North ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.53 3 Resprout 2 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica 0.67 3 Browsed 3 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.53 3 Browsed 4 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 1.20 3 5 Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcata) 0.54 2 Insect damage 6 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.69 3 Browsed 7 Green Ash (Fraxinus penns lvanica) 0.35 2 Insect damage 8 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica 0.60 3 Browsed 9 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.56 3 Browsed 09 8 • 7 4 •6 0 •3 •6 2 • •1 Plot was moved in MY02 Vigor 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year Species Percent of Total Green Ash (Fraxinus enns lvanica) 75.0% Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 25.0% Densitv: Total Number of 4 Trees Survivability: Total Number of 4 Trees / 0.025 acres = 160 trees / acre / 10 trees x 100 = 40 % survivability ;0 4, 71 ist `?"ear Monitoring 2nd Year Monitoring w Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet • L__J u Site: Brown Plot: 7 Date: 6/10/2008 Plot Map . 6 . 7 • 8 • 17 g x16 X5 • 10 • 15 4 • 3 • x2 • 14 • 13 • 1 X11 12X Photo PVC Point Marker North ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda ) 0.37 3 Top died back 2 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) Dead 3 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.31 3 Resprout 4 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 0.47 2 Browsed 5 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) Dead 6 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.71 3 Insect damage 7 Willow Oak (Quercus hellos) 0.54 3 Top died back 8 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 0.72 3 9 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 0.54 3 Top died back 10 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.45 3 Resprout 11 Unknown Dead 12 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) Dead 13 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.43 2 14 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0 76 2 Accidently sprayed 15 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.37 3 16 Unknown Dead 17 Green Ash (Fraxinus peons Ivanica) 0.64 3 vigor: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year Species Percent of Total Willow Oak (Quercus hellos) 16.7% Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 8.3% Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 25.0% Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 33.3% Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 16.7% Density: Total Number of Trees Survivability: Total Number of 12 Trees 0.025 acres = 480 trees / acre 17 trees x 100 = 71 % survivability 0 1st Year Monitoring 2nd Year Monitoring L _J 12 • Site: Brown C? - I Photo PVC Point Marker 1] North ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Unknown Dead 2 Unknown _ Dead 3 Unknown Dead 4 Unknown Dead 5 Unknown Dead 6 Unknown Dead 7 Unknown 0 83 1 Noleaves 8 Unknown Dead 9 Laurel Oak (Quercus launfolia ) Dead 10 Unknown _ Dead 11 Unknown 0.55 1 Noleaves 12 Unknown Dead 13 Unknown Dead 14 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii ) Missing vigor: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive yea Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet Plot: 8 Date: 6/10/2008 Plot Map 10 x12 X14 X9 oil 13x x6 x$ .7 x5 Xi 7<2 X4 3 E 1 Density: Total Number of 2 / Trees Survivability: Total Number of 2 , Trees 1st Year Monitoring 0.025 acres = 80 trees / acre 14 trees x 1 00 = 14 % survivability 2nd Year Monitoring • • 0 Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet • 0 • Site: Brown Plot: 9 Date: 6/10/2008 Plot Map Photo PVC Point Marker North ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Green Ash (Fraxinus ennsylvanica) 0.85 2 Browsed 2 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0 68 2 3 Unknown Dead 4 Unknown Dead 5 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0 63 2 Resprout from base 6 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda ) 0.49 3 7 Green Ash (Fraxinus penns lvanica 0.48 2 Resprout 8 Unknown Dead 9 Laurel Oak (Quercus launfolia) 0.36 2 Top died back, resprout from base 10 Unknown Dead 11 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0 73 3 some insect damage vigor: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year • 1 X10 9 6 • • 7 • 5 1?4 • 1 2 • Species Percent of Total Green Ash (Fraxinus enns lvanica 42.9% Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia ) 14.3% Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 42.9% Density: Total Number of 7 Trees Survivability: Total Number of 7 Trees 1st Year Monitoring 0.025 acres = 280 trees / acre 11 trees x 100 = 64 % survivability 2nd Year Monitoring • • 0 Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet Site: Brown Plot: 10 Date: 6/10/2008 Plot Map • 49 Photo PVC Point Marker North ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 0.62 2 2 Unknown Dead 3 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.80 3 4 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 0 37 2 Main stem has died back 5 Unknown Dead 6 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 0.98 3 7 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.60 3 8 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.72 2 9 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) Dead 10 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 0.80 2 11 Green Ash Fraxinus penns lvanica) 0.76 3 12 Unknown Dead vigor: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive yea. • 1U 12 11 ? X9 7 • 4 • 6 V 5 3 2 • 1 Species Percent of Total Willow Oak (Quercus phellos 25.0% Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 25.0% Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 25.0% Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 25.0% Density: Total Number of $ / Trees Survivability: Total Number of $ , Trees 1st Year Monitoring 0.025 acres = 320 trees / acre 12 trees x 1 00 = 67 % survivability 2nd Year Monitoring s #A. 0 E to Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet • • CJ Site: Brown Photo PVC Point Marker North ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda ) 0.75 2 2 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.73 3 3 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.63 3 4 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata ) 1.10 4 5 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda ) 0.47 3 Top has died back 6 Unknown Dead 7 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.47 3 Some insect damage 8 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.69 3 Top has died back 9 Green Ash (Fraxinus ennsylvanica 0.71 3 10 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 0.64 2 Browsed 11 Unknown Dead 12 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0 5i 3 13 Overcup Oak (Quercus l rata) 0.72 3 14 Unknown Dead 15 Unknown Dead 16 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0 "0 3 vigor 4=excellent, 3=good. 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year Plot: 11 Plot Map Date: 6/10/2008 •16 111 5 0 13 14 • 12 1.111 /' • 7 v • 5 6 •9 $ • •10 • 4 • 1 3 • 2 • Species Percent of Total Overcu Oak (Quercus lyrata 50.0% Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 8.3% Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 8.3% Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 25.0% Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 8.3% Density: Total Number of Trees Survivability: Total Number of Trees 1st Year Monitoring 12 / 12 / 0.025 acres 480 trees / acre 16 trees x 100 = 75 % survivability 2nd Year Monitoring • Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet 0 Site: Brown Plot: 12 Date: 6/10/2008 Plot Map North •13 12 11 • X9 •6 •7 g • 5X X2 1 3 Photo PVC Point Marker C ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera ) Dead 2 Unknown Dead 3 Unknown Dead 4 Unknown Dead 5 Unknown Dead 6 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica ) 0 15 3 Browsed 7 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.67 3 Browsed 8 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata ) 0 72 3 Browsed 9 Unknown Dead 10 Unknown Dead 11 Overcu Oak (Quercus lyrata ) 0.65 3 Browsed 12 Unknown Dead 13 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanlca ) 0.60 3 Browsed Vigor 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year Species Percent of Total Green Ash (Fraxinus penns lvanica 40.0% Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 40.0% Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 20.0% Density: Total Number of 5 Trees 0.025 acres Survivability: Total Number of 5 13 Trees x 100 200 trees / acre 38 % survivability • 0 1st Year Monitoring 2nd Year Monitoring 0 Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet • Site: Brown Plot: 13 Plot Map • Photo PVC Point Marker North ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata) 0.28 1 Resprout 2 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.72 3 3 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.78 3 Browsed 4 Unknown Dead 5 Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tuli ifera) Dead 6 Unknown Dead 7 Cherr bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.67 3 Moderately browsed 8 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 0 79 3 Browsed 9 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata ) 0.46 3 Browsed 10 Green Ash (Fraxinus penns lvanica) 0.58 2 Heavily browsed 11 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda ) 0.81 3 Top broke off, resprout at break 12 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.92 4 Browsed 13 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.44 2 Browsed 14 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.55 3 Browsed 15 Unknown Dead 16 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.81 3 Browsed Vigor 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak. 1=unlikely to survive year Date: 6/10/2008 13 • 14 15 16 • 12 • • 8 10 1 9 '' 6x •2 X 5 3 • 4 1 • Species Percent of Total Green Ash (Fraxinus enns lvanica) 8.3% Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 33.3% Cher bark Oak Quercus pagoda) 41.7% Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 16.7% Density: Total Number of ,? 2 Trees Survivability: Total Number of ,? 2 Trees / 0.025 acres = 480 trees / acre / 16 X 100 = 75 % survivability 1st Year 2nd Year Monitoring Monitoring C • 0 Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet • Site: Brown Plot 14 Plot Map • Photo PVC Point Marker North ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Cher bark Oak Quercus pagoda) Dead 2 Unknown Dead 3 Unknown Dead 4 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.63 3 5 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata ) 0.60 3 6 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.58 3 7 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.75 4 8 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.56 4 9 Overcup Oak (Quercus l rata 0 25 2 Resprout 10 Unknown Dead 11 Overcu Oak (Quercus 1 rata) 0.50 3 Top has died back 12 Unknown Dead 13 Unknown Dead 14 Unknown Dead 15 Overcup Oak (Quercus l rata) 0.25 2 Resprout 16 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.57 3 Browsed 17 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0 50 3 Browsed 18 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) Dead Vigor* 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year Date: 6/10/2008 • 16 17 • 18X 15 • 13 12 X lie 14 1o X • 7 • 6 8 • 9 • 5 • 4 • X1 2 3X 80.0% Density: Total Number of ,? 0 / Trees Survivability: Total Number of ,? 0 / Trees 1st Year Monitoring 0.025 acres = 400 trees / acre 18 X 1 00 = 56 % survivability r ' ?r y, rf 2nd Year Monitoring • E is Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet 0 Site: Brown Plot: 15 Date: 6/10/2008 Plot MaD • • C? *1 Photo PVC Point Marker Worth ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata) 0.47 3 2 Unknown Dead 3 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.54 3 Top has died back 4 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) Dead 5 Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda ) 0.30 3 6 Unknown 0.35 3 7 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.65 3 8 Unknown Dead Igor 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year 8X 7• 6• •5 4 3 • 2X • 1 20.0% Density: Total Number of 5 Trees Survivability: Total Number of 5 Trees 1st Year Monitoring 0.025 acres = 200 trees / acre x 100 = 63 % survivability 2nd Year Monitoring • • 0 Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet • 6/13/2008 Plot: 16 Date Plot Map • • Site: Brown Photo PVC Point Marker North ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Willow Oak (Quercus hellos) 0.82 2 To has died back 2 Cher bark Oak Quercus pagoda 0.68 3 3 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) Dead 4 Laurel Oak (Quercus /aurifolia 0.73 2 5 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii 0.28 1 Resprout from base 6 Unknown Dead 7 Unknown Dead 8 Unknown Dead 9 Willow Oak Quercus phellos 0.77 3 10 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 075 3 11 Green Ash (Fraxinus penes Ivanica) 0.57 3 12 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos 0.49 3 Vigor 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year •11 •12 • 9 • 10 8 7 •5 6 x • 4 3 •1 •2 Species Percent of Total Willow Oak (Quercus hellos 50.0% Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 12.5% Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 12.5% Laurel Oak (Quercus launfolia) 12.5% Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 12.5% Density: Total Number of Trees Survivability: Total Number of Trees 1st Year Monitoring / 0.025 acres = 320 trees / acre / 12 X 1 00 = 67 % survivability • • 0 2nd Year Monitoring Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet Site: Brown Plot: 17 Date: 6/13/2008 Plot Map 15X 12• 13• 14• • 11 10 • 9• 7X 8• •6 5• 4 • 1 2 • 3 • PVC Marker North Photo Point • ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.84 2 Browsed 2 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.85 2 Heavily browsed 3 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.56 2 Browsed 4 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.62 2 Browsed 5 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 0.82 3 Browsed 6 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 0.67 1 Very few leaves 7 Unknown Dead 8 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica 0.73 1 Very few leaves 9 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.52 2 Browsed 10 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 0.57 3 11 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.65 2 Browsed 12 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.72 3 13 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.84 2 Browsed 14 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.67 2 Browsed 15 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) Dead I Vigor 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year Species Percent of Total Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 61.5% Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 7.7% Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 23.1% Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 7.7% Densitv: Total Number of Trees 13 / 0.025 acres = 5520 trees / acre Survivability: Total Number of Trees 13 / 15 X 1 00 = $7 % survivability 1st Year 2nd Year Monitoring Monitoring • • Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet • Site: Brown Plot 18 Date: 6/13/2008 Plot Mat) r1 L_J • C?: 0 Photo PVC Point Marker North ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 52 2 Top has died back 2 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0 79 3 Some insect damage 3 Unknown Dead 4 Tulip Poplar (Linodendron tulipifera) Missing 5 Green Ash (Fraxinus enns lvanica) Missin 6 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) Missing 7 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.26 2 Res rout 8 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.63 2 Top has died back vigor! a=exceiient, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year s 7 . s 4x 3 1 2 Species Percent of Total Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25.0% Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 50.0% Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 25.0% Density: Total Number of 4 , Trees Survivability: Total Number of 4 / Trees 0.025 acres = 160 trees / acre 8 X 100 = 50 % survivability • • 1st Year Monitoring 2nd Year Monitoring n Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet is Site: Brown Plot: 19 Plot Mai) • 0 Date: 6/13/2008 • 11 • 12 X5 X10 • 9 • 6 X7 g • 4X 3 X1 • 2 Photo PVC Point Marker North ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) Dead 2 Green Ash (Fraxinus penns lvanica) 0 70 2 Browsed 3 Unknown Dead 4 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) Dead 5 Willow Oak (Quercus hellos Dead 6 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.83 3 some insect damage 7 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) Dead 8 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 0.56 2 Top has died back 9 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica 0.94 1 Heavily browsed 10 Water Tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) Dead 11 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.80 3 some insect damage 12 Laurel Oak (Quercus launfolia) 0.57 2 Browsed vigor: 4=exceuent, a=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year Species Percent of Total Green Ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 33.3% Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 16.7% Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 33.3% Laurel Oak (Quercus launfolia) 16.7% Density: Total Number of s Trees Survivability: Total Number of 6 Trees 1st Year Monitoring j 2nd Year Monitoring E • 0 0.025 acres = 240 trees / acre 12 x 100 = 50 % survivability Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet • Site: Brown Plot: 20 Date: 6/13/2008 Plot Map • • Photo PVC Point Marker North ID Species Height (m) Vigor Comment 1 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.50 2 Main stem has died back 2 Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) Dead 3 Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 0.46 2 Main stem has died back 4 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda ) 0.24 1 Main stem has died back 5 Green Ash (Fraxinus penns Ivanica) 0.58 2 Heavily browsed 6 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica 0.60 2 Browsed 7 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata ) 0.82 3 8 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.59 2 9 Unknown Dead 10 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.62 2 Browsed 11 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica 0 67 3 12 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata ) 0.84 4 13 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda Missin 14 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata ) 1.07 4 15 Overcup Oak (Quercus I rata) 0.83 3 16 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 0.52 2 Browsed Vigor: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=weak, 1=unlikely to survive year •16 15 • 13 • 14 10 • • 11 12 9 8 • 7 • 6 5 • 1 • 3 • 4 • Species Percent of Total Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii 7.7% Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 7.7% Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 7.7% Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 46.2% Overcup Oak (Quercus l rata) 30.8% Density: Total Number of 13 Trees Survivability: Total Number of 13 Trees 1st Year Monitoring / 0.025 acres = 520 trees l acre / 16 X 100 = 81 % survivability 2nd Year Monitoring • • 0 • Appendix B Hydrologic Monitoring and Hydroperiod • Broil n l arm Weiland Restoration Basin (130 31)002 KCl Associates o North Carolina 2008 - Ra)'02 • 0 0 0 r s Q T L co 0 L 2 d m 0 d v c d W E L m U- a 3 0 ML W O 12/2/2008 11/4/2008 10/7/2008 9/9/2008 8/12/2008 7/15/2008 m 6/17/2008 0 5/20/2008 4/22/2008 3/25/2008 2/26/2008 1/29/2008 1/l/2008 N O O co CO U') V co N N N N N N N N N N N N (11) uOl;en813 C 0 w >) 0 c? a? rn 0 /Ln v C (u!) Ilejulea c0 LO NT M N t Q L 0 L r Q co 7 m 0 E L m U- a 3 0 L m 0 12/2/2008 11/4/2008 10/7/2008 9/9/2008 0- 8/12/2008 > i0 W 7/15/2008 c O U) m 4) O 6/17/2008 o ) 0 (L n v 5/20/2008 I ?o cu 4/22/2008 ; 3/25/2008 2/26/2008 1/29/2008 1/l/2008 LO LO LO LO U') LO 1;3- ;T 1;31 N N N N N N N N N N • • (11) uOl;enO13 (u!) Ilejuleb CO ?n v cf) N • t CL L 0 L 2 N 0 E L m U. c 3 0 ML W 0 12/2/2008 11/4/2008 10/7/2008 9/9/2008 8/12/2008 7/15/2008 0 6/17/2008 0 5/20/2008 4/22/2008 3/25/2008 2/26/2008 1/29/2008 111/2008 (0 LO 0 co r- LO LO LO U) LO V) IZT IZT N N N N N N N N N N (11) u01lena13 C 0 a? w C 0 0 f? N cn m c 0 C7 (u!) Ilejulem c0 LO ? co N (u1) Ilejulea co in Iq co N ?- O t Q. tm O L. 2 M d CD E L m U- c 3 O ML W 12/2/2008 i _ 11/4/2008 N 10/7/2008 T co 9/9/2008 c o j 8/12/2008 7/15/2008 N ? c 6/17/2008 0 c o j 0 - 5/20/2008 I I ? ? (D ? o co 4/22/2008 I ._?..s.,,..: 3/25/2008 U 3 0 m 2/26/2008 N tee, ? 1/29/2008 a : W c o ? c c7 cn 1 /1 /2008 LO LO co ? ° v co v N N N N N N N N N N (11) u013enal3 • 12/2/2008 11/4/2008 10/7/2008 9/9/2008 E t Q c? L 0 2 CD tm ca E L m u_ c 3 0 ML W LO l.[) LO LO N LO U') N N N N N N (11) uol;ena13 C 0 8/12/2008 > a) w >) 7/15/2008 0 W m m 6/17/2008 0 m c 3 0 5/20/2008 4/22/2008 (ul) Ile;ulem co LO v m N t Q. m L O L T? i LO d CD 7 ca C? E L m LL 3 0 L m 12/2/2008 11/4/2008 10/7/2008 9/9/2008 c 0 8/12/2008 > a) w U) 7/15/2008 C O (0 a) 6/17/2008 c 3 0 C? 5/20/2008 4/22/2008 1 3/25/2008 2/26/2008 1/29/2008 1 /1 /2008 o rn oo ti LO LO LO Lo LO LO LD N N N N N N N N N N (4) u01;ena13 is • (u!) Ilejuleb CO LO v co N • 1 12/2/2008 11/4/2008 10/7/2008 9/9/2008 • t Q m L IM O L 2 CD co m 0 E L m u_ c 3 O L ao c O 8/12/2008 > a) w 7/15/2008 c O O N m m 6/17/2008 o ) c O /L n v 5/20/2008 m 4/22/2008 I1 3/25/2008 2/26/2008 1/29/2008 1/1/2008 Cl) N O m 00 LO LO U-) LO LO Lo LO N N N N N N N N N N (41) uOl;ena13 (ul) Ilejulem CO L M N t Q m L O 2 ti d tm m 0 E L m UL c 3 O L m (ul) Ileluiem LO V ch N 12/2/2008 11/4/2008 10/7/2008 9/9/2008 Ic o 8/12/2008 > w U) lid 7/15/2008 c 0 6/17/2008 0 a) U) 0) c 0 (D 5/20/2008 ?o c 'ca 4/22/2008 ; 3/25/2008 2/26/2008 1/29/2008 1/l/2008 w v N • f`J C) rn LO LO co LO LO L N N N N N N N (41) UOIIBA013 • 171 • d N of = ? a ? i c O co C L O m m LL cn C C O O co O L U m QY ti o O a o 2 m ? Z o O 12/11/2008 11/13/2008 10/16/2008 9/18/2008 8/21/2008 7/24/2008 d D 6/26/2008 5/29/2008 5/l/2008 4/3/2008 3/6/2008 2/7/2008 N L) N C 0 N a? w v c M a? c6 a`) Q c 0 a? w 00 r- to LO LO (0 LO 0 LO LO N N N N N N (13) U01leAGIB 0 • 0 • • • Brown farm lYelland Resioraiion Basin 03030002 Appendix C Photo Log KCI Associales o Xorih Carolina 2008 - 11) 02 0 • • • Photo Point IA: View looking east towards Vegetation Plot #1. 6/10/08 - MY-02 rnoto romt 1 ts: View looking northeast toward Vegetation Plot #5. 6/10/08 - MY-02 • • • Photo Point 2: View looking north toward Vegetation Plot # 3. 6/10/08 - MY-02 Photo Point 3: View looking north vN°ith Vegetation Plot #10 on left. 6/10/08 - MY-02 0 • • rnoto rolnt 4: View looking north toward Vegetation Plot #17. 6/13/08-MY-02 1 11- 1 „111L v 1167W RJOKwg w rin trom the tar eastern part ofthe project site. 6/13/08 - MY-02 • • • Photo Point 6: View looking south toward Vegetation Plot #20. 6/13/08 - MY-02 Photo Point 7: View looking south. 6/13/08 - MY-02