20031133 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20100506

X200 3i i3 f
r-ec'cl 51 (.011 o
HAW RIVER SWAMP WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
ANNUAL WETLAND MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 5 (YEAR 2009)
GUILFORD AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
CONTRACT #'S AW03001 and D04011
NahU l1 Rcsotw cs
Rc s1f,w.1tion & Coll ce x'16 )j I
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
restorationsystems.com
[phone]
August 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC, a private environmental restoration company, has completed the restoration of
wetlands at the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") to assist
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in fulfilling restoration goals in the region.
The Site is located in the Cape Fear River basin (United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit
03030002) approximately 8 miles north of the Greensboro city limits on the Guilford and Rockingham
county line. The Site encompasses 60 acres within the Haw River floodplain and as constructed offers
riverine wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation, with benefits to water quality and wildlife in
a rapidly developing watershed.
A Detailed Wetland Restoration Plan outlined methods to restore prior-converted (PC) agricultural fields
that had been ditched, drained, and cleared for row crop production to pristine riverine wetlands. The
plan outlined restoration procedures including 1) the excavation of a floodplain adjacent to the southern
bank of Midway Creek in order to reestablish over-bank flooding, 2) plugging and filling sections of an
existing canal/ditch system, and 3) diverting a secondary tributary to force discharge down the Haw River
floodplain.
Mitigation objectives at the Site include the following.
1. Remove agricultural activities from the floodplain and banks of the Haw River.
2. Remove the Site from potential land uses associated with encroaching urbanization.
3. Increase flood storage potential within the Cape Fear Basin.
4. Provide floodplain surfaces to the Haw River for natural redevelopment of geomorphological
processes.
5. Re-establish anastomosed stream channels and Piedmont swamp and bottomland forest
communities within the floodplain ecosystem.
6. Intercept and assimilate nutrient and sediment-laden run-off from adjacent and upstream
watersheds.
7. Assist in establishing a continuous wetland bio-reserve (corridor) between Cone and Benaja
Swamps and the adjacent bottomland ecosystems.
The monitoring protocol for the Site consists of an analysis of two primary parameters: hydrology and
vegetation. Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed for a minimum of 5 years or until success
criteria are fulfilled. Eight groundwater monitoring gauges and eight 0.11-acre vegetation plots were
installed in wetland restoration areas to provide representative coverage across the Site.
The Site achieved defined (or targeted) success criteria for hydrology at all eight restoration area
groundwater gauges in the Fifth Monitoring Year (Year 2009), with greater than 28 consecutive days
(12.5 percent) of saturation during the growing season.
As a whole, vegetation plots across the Site were well above the required 260 stems per acre with an
average of 1597 stems per acre in the Fifth Monitoring Year (Year 2009).
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site page i
Annual Wetland Monitoring Report Restoration Systems, LLC
Year 5 (2009)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 .0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
2.0 MONITORING PROGRAM ........................................................................................................4
2.1 Wetland Hydrology ..................................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Hydrology Monitoring Procedure ..................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Hydrologic Success Criteria ..............................................................................................4
2.1.3 Hydrological Monitoring Results and Comparison with Success Criteria .......................... 6
2.2 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................6
2.2.1 Vegetation Monitoring Procedure ..................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Vegetation Success Criteria .............................................................................................. 7
2.2.3 Vegetation Sampling Results and Comparison to Success Criteria .................................... 8
3.0 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................10
4.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Site Acreage as Constructed ...................................................................................................... I
Table 2. 2009 (Year 5) Groundwater Gauge Results ...............................................................................6
Table 3. Reference Forest Plot Summary ................................................................................................ 7
Table 4. Planted Species and Densities ................................................................................................... 8
Table 5. 2009 Vegetation Monitoring Data and Results ...........................................................................9
Table 6. Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results ................................................................................ 10
Table 7. Summary of Vegetation Plot Results ....................................................................................... 11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location Map ...................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................................................... 5
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Gauge Data
Appendix B. Vegetation Plot Photographs
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site page ii
Annual Wetland Monitoring Report Restoration Systems, LLC
Year 5 (2009)
HAW RIVER SWAMP WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 5 (2009)
GUILFORD AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems, LLC, a private environmental restoration company, has completed the restoration of
wetlands at the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") to assist
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in fulfilling restoration goals in the region.
The Site is located in the Cape Fear River basin (United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit
03030002) approximately 8 miles north of the Greensboro city limits on the Guilford and Rockingham
county line (Figure 1). The Site encompasses 60 acres within the Haw River floodplain and, as
constructed, offers riverine wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation as presented in the
following table, with benefits to water quality and wildlife in a rapidly developing watershed.
Table 1. Site Acreage as Constructed
Type Acreage
Riverine Wetland Restoration 26.7
Riverine Wetland Enhancement 2.5
Riverine Wetland Preservation 18.0
Forested Upland Buffer 12.8
TOTAL 60.0
The Detailed Wetland Restoration Plan outlined methods designed to restore prior-converted (PC)
agricultural fields that had been ditched, drained, and cleared for row-crop production to pristine riverine
wetlands. The plan outlined restoration procedures including 1) the excavation of a floodplain adjacent to
the southern bank of Midway Creek in order to reestablish over-bank flooding, 2) plugging and filling
sections of an existing canal/ditch system, and 3) diverting a secondary tributary to force discharge down
the Haw River floodplain.
Mitigation objectives at the Site include the following.
1. iwawvc agricultural a.;iivitics from tl,,, ?oodplain and L-ai?ls ofthe IIavv° Riv,;,.
2. Remove Site from potential land uses associated with encroaching urbanization.
3. Increase flood storage potential within the Cape Fear Basin.
4. Provide floodplain surfaces to the Haw River for natural redevelopment of geomorphological
processes.
5. Re-establish anastomosed stream channels and Piedmont swamp and bottomland forest
communities within the floodplain ecosystem.
6. Intercept and assimilate nutrient and sediment-laden run-off from adjacent and upstream
watersheds.
7. Assist in establishing a continuous wetland bio-reserve (corridor) between Cone and Benaja
Swamps and the adjacent bottomland ecosystems.
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site page 1
Annual Wetland Monitoring Report Restoration Systems, LLC
Year 5 (2009)
iv"b C c??l p - t?s,LLF = ItF;E,'e A NG r S WES w.i _ r 11.T'Y'
Oa
T
1 1'
87
?, my t? -- ?, ?•?iPpi. ? ? _ ?' ? It"? I ? f
I ,?! r •uorrL r ?+TM I Ir _ ??ae 1 }
14
_ ? •T?
65 vo-? +r"0•? `t. ' i ram,. , -? ?,«: I u
\ 'y?_ I? - s?• 4i }??v\nfYr avy-L?,9^"'-?' r'xi pr ? TF r"?1?
?"?h +°-+'' ? Try a9 i a n s'rt 5 s y -.- _
i t
w.+s._„q - ?, i to ? r a .._,l 'n cr ? 1. , \V?.,a ??• ?' ?? -1
!
-r o I- ? ? a a,- ?1
C I Np"i +` tP 1 (- y W. i I &I Y
ae:A Yt 87
,wa. ?,!
5. $`ja fl °r`? ?y k':1ru? Y <.s t,
!
y ,
r ??I 9dhoN -+`0' +",rts ,? L, i I ( u? raa es? 29
7 rY 1
M.rvo<r? L - ..-q?..?
Z 'aL I Jam., 159 _ __
aW Reference Location
"P
( jJ" ? .. u t y.y gxL,a
} jr
d
158
279 r t50 _-15p 47SI ??
` PJ
?- Site Location
29
f - r
1 y- M,,n - 3 k I? r ? l??.
JfA _
^
f ? t ` ' ? • r,dr:E:9..` ?'tz -a1nRenuE +"N' P Li ? i Ha!din d ` ?? ?I ? s°1 ? a 3
..YYYIII
J •4v fits ?
Fork -c ..,(ak ` ?-.? F !ow ? I ? ? .3. ? /'??? 1 ? ? ? ?rz?( ? W
-???fl v,y?!?? ?ylra9a?! -S - ! ???? ???j/ vi ? ?''r? ? ? ? ? '?5?--1'-V'^•u. ??
qvi-
0 1 mi. 4 mi.
1:158,400
Source: 2003 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, pp. 17 & 18.
Dwn. by:
SITE LOCATION MAP cLF FIGURE
20 Raleigh, NC 27607 Suite 7 Ckd by:
[phone] HAW RIVER WETLAND RESTORATION SITE WGL
Guilford and Rockingham Counties, North Carolina Date: Jul 2009 1
Project: 09-005
In February 2003, EEP contracted with Restoration Systems, LLC to complete Phase I (northern half) of
the Site. Subsequently, in August 2004, EEP contracted Restoration Systems to complete Phase II
(southern half), the remainder of the Site. A combined Detailed Wetland Restoration Plan was completed
for both phases of the project with final permits issued in September 2004. Upon completion of the
detailed plan and issuance of permits, construction plans were developed and construction was initiated in
February 2005. Backwater Environmental, a subsidiary of Osborne Co. Inc., completed earthwork and
grading at the Site and as-built construction drawings in late winter/early spring of 2005. Carolina Silvics
completed planting of the Site in April 2005. Axiom Environmental, Inc. completed an as-built mitigation
plan in June 2005.
Information on project managers, owners, and contractors follows.
Owner Information
Restoration Systems, LLC
George Howard and John Preyer
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
[phone]
Monitoring Performer Information Designer Information
Axiom Environmental, Inc. EcoScience Corporation
Grant Lewis and Corri Faquin Jens Geratz and Jerry McCrain
20 Enterprise St., Suite 7 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
[phone] [phone]
Earthwork Contractor Information Planting _Contractor Information
Backwater Environmental, Inc. Carolina Silvics
Wes Newell Dwight McKinney
P.O. Box 1654 908 Indian Trail Road
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312 Edenton, North Carolina 27932
[phone] [phone]
As outlined in the Detailed Wetland Restoration Plan, this project was designed and constructed based
upon reference (relatively undisturbed) wetlands downstream of the Site (Figure 1). As-Built construction
drawings dated May 2005 include Site alterations designed to restore groundwater, surface flow dynamics,
and wetland hydrology as follows: 1) installation of ditch plugs, 2) ditch and canal backfilling, 3) wetland
depression excavation, 4) installation of log weir outfall structures at outfall points, 5) river levee removal,
6) Midway Creek alterations, 8) unnamed tributary diversion, and 9) planting of 24,950 seedlings.
This report represents the Fifth Year Annual Monitoring Report. Monitoring activities were performed
throughout Year 2009, including recording groundwater table elevations and plant species densities.
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site page 3
Annual Wetland Monitoring Report Restoration Systems, LLC
Year 5 (2009)
Based on the Detailed Wetland Restoration Plan, under normal climatic conditions, the hydrologic success
criterion requires saturation (free water) within 1 foot of the soil surface for a minimum of 5 percent of the
growing season for the floodplain flats (bottomland hardwood forest) areas depicted in Figure 2. The
floodplain depressions (swamp forest) must support saturation (free water) within 1 foot of the soil surface
for a minimum of 12.5 percent of the growing season. This hydroperiod translates to saturation for a
minimum 12-day (5 percent) to 28-day (12.5 percent) consecutive period during the growing season.
2.1.3 Hydrological Monitoring Results and Comparison with Success Criteria
Hydrographs for each monitoring location are provided in Appendix A along with daily rainfall totals for
2009 collected at a nearby rain station in Greensboro, North Carolina (Weather Underground 2009). All
gauges achieved hydrology success criteria for the Fifth Year (Year 2009) of annual monitoring with
greater than 28 consecutive days (12.5 percent) of saturation during the growing season, as required for
swamp forest hydrology (Table 2). Data for 2009 has been collected through July 23, 2009 and will
continue to be collected throughout the remainder of the growing season.
Table 2. 2009 (Year 5) Groundwater Gauge Results
Gauge Community Max Consecutive Days Saturated
During Growing Season (Percent)
* Defined (or Targeted)
Success Criteria
Achieved
1 swam forest 67 days (29.6 %) Yes
2 swam forest 75 days (33.2 %) Yes
3 swamp forest 119 days (100 %) Yes
4 swam forest 115 days (50.9 %) Yes
5 swam forest 31 days (13.7 %) Yes
6 swam forest 118 days (100 %) Yes
7 swam forest 31 days (13.7 %) Yes
8 swam forest 119 days (100 %) Yes
BH Ref bottomland hardwoods -- --
SF Ref swamp forest 117 days (100 %) Yes
* Data for 2009 has been collected through July 23, 2009 and will continue to be collected throughout the remainder of the growing
season; data will be available upon request.
1.2 Vegetation
2.2.1 Vegetation Monitoring Procedure
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with guidelines presented in
Mitigation Site Classification (MiST) documentation (USEPA 1990) and Compensatory Hardwood
Mitigation Guidelines (USDOA 1993). The following presents a general discussion of the monitoring
protocol.
Vegetation will receive visual evaluations during the periodic reading of monitoring gauges to ascertain the
general conditions and degree of overtopping of planted elements by weeds. Subsequently, quantitative
sampling of vegetation will be performed once annually during the fall for a minimum of 5 years or until
vegetation success criteria are achieved. Sampling dates may be modified to accommodate river flood
events and plot inundation, if needed.
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site page 6
Annual Wetland Monitoring Report Restoration Systems, LLC
Year 5 (2009)
Sixteen sample transects (8 plots) were installed within planted areas of the Site to represent the various
hydrologic regimes and plant communities (Figure 2). Each transect is 300 feet long and 8 feet wide (0.055
acre). Two transects were set up on each of the eight groundwater monitoring gauges for a total of eight,
0.11-acre plots. In each sample plot, monitored vegetation parameters include species composition and
density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will be recorded but not
used for vegetative success criteria. Photographs of the 8 vegetation plots are included in Appendix B.
2.2.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for floodplain forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon the density and
growth of characteristic forest species. Additional success criteria are dependent upon density and growth
of "Character Tree Species," which include planted species, species listed by Schafale and Weakley (1990)
as occurring in Piedmont bottomland and swamp forests, and species identified in the reference forest
ecosystems (RFEs). Planted tree species and those identified in the reference forest ecosystem will be used
to define "Character Tree Species" as termed in the success criteria (Tables 3 and 4).
Table 3. Reference Forest Plot Summary
Species Number of
Individuals* Relative Density
Percent Relative Basal
Area Percent Importance
Value
Acer rubmm (red maple) 10 31.3 35.4 0.21
Fraxinus enns lvanica (green ash) 10 31.3 28.0 0.20
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore) 2 6.3 11.0 0.07
Quercus lyrata (overcup oak) 2 6.3 7.3 0.06
uercus nibra (northern red oak) 1 3.1 6.9 0.04
Salix ni ra (black willow) 1 3.1 6.0 0.04
Acer ne undo box elder 2 6.3 0.5 0.03
Ca rya ovata (pignut hickory) 1 3.1 2.4 0.03
Celtis laevi ata (hackberr) 1 3.1 1.5 0.03
Fa us randi olia American beech 1 3.1 0.7 0.02
Ulmus americana (American elm) 1 3.1 0.3 0.02
Total 32 100 100 1
* Summary of frn!r O 1-acre Ants
An average density of 320 stems per acre over all sampling transects of Character Tree Species must be
surviving at the end of three monitoring years. Subsequently, 280 character tree stems per acre must be
surviving in year 4, and 260 character tree stems per acre must be surviving in year 5. Planted species must
represent a minimum of 30 percent of the required stem per acre total (96 stems per acre). A total of
24,950 bare root seedlings of 17 species were planted on the Site at a density of 680 trees per acre (Table
4). Each naturally recruited character species may represent up to 10 percent of the required stem per acre
total. In essence, seven naturally recruited character species may represent a maximum of 70 percent of the
required stem/acre total. Additional stems of naturally recruited species above the 70 percent threshold are
discarded from the statistical analysis. The remaining 30 percent are not necessarily removed from the
Site, but will be left as a reserve and future seed source for species maintenance during mid-succession
phases of forest development.
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site page 7
Annual Wetland Monitoring Report Restoration Systems, LLC
Year 5 (2009)
Table 4. Planted Species and Densities
Species Number Planted
Ulmus americana American elm) 2300
Nyssa sylvatica (black um) 150
Salix ni ra (black willow) 1000
uercus pagoda cherr bark oak) 3500
Fraxinus enns lvanica (green ash) 1500
Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) 1200
Carya alba (mockernut hickory) 300
uercus rubra (northern red oak) 300
Quercus lyrata (overcup oak) 3000
Betula ni ra river birch 100
uercus alcata (southern red oak) 400
Celtis laevigata (sugarberry) 1200
uercus michauxii swam chestnut oak) 4800
Platanus occidentalis (American sycamore) 200
uercus alba white oak) 400
uercus hellos willow oak 2500
Liriodendron tuli i era (yellow poplar) 2100
Total 24,950
2.2.3 Vegetation Sampling Results and Comparison to Success Criteria
Quantitative sampling of vegetation was conducted in June 2009. Results are provided in Table 5.
Vegetation success criteria for year 5 (260 tree stems per acre) were exceeded for the 2009 annual
monitoring year with an average of 1597 stems per acre across the Site. In addition, each individual
vegetation plot met success criteria with the exception of plot number 3. This plot is primarily
characterized by herbaceous freshwater emergent vegetation including swamp rosemallow (Hibiscus
moscheutos), arrowhead (Sagittaria sp.), toothcup (Rotala ramosior), Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum
pensylvunicunq, and vai ious utdur smartweeds (Puiygonutn spp.). l iuwever, the iiuinbei of woody stems
within this plot continues to increase each year with the establishment of natural recruits; this trend is
expected to continue.
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site page 8
Annual Wetland Monitoring Report Restoration Systems, LLC
Year 5 (2009)
V?
?z^
Woo
Q O O
Fz?
o¢
zW
O y
., o
F z
d
F
W
V
W
O
O
N
L

L
E 3
i
V O
V] F V ?
N ?
N M M - ,_, h ? ?
N n
N 00
7 M Q`.
V1 O`
M ^
^ N
7 7 ?D
N .^ M ,__, Q+
?
y C ?
L Y
R O ?
e U
F
L
V

pN

U

M

?n

^

Vi

?

?

r

oo

M

U

C

^

N

V

'-'

M

^

M
?
^ M •--. N V Vl M G M ^ M
O
F
E N V - M ,_, ,,, M ? O V N N 7 0 1? N C O ?

? r ^ r

r
?
?
^,,,
W
?
O
N
M
N
M
N
?
0? M N N
°
?
^
N
?,,
V
oo
N
N
N
N o
r 00
v r

M
M _ op M N
l Vi
m
0. , T l N
p O ^ M ^ oo m oo CA
M
oo
r
M
M
O?.
r

a S
i
M
O
C'
?O
r
r
?
N
N
N
N
O
O
?/1 _
O
M
p
M
?
`O
M
N
?
N
NC
M
Q'
r
OM

N
O

^
.-.
Zo

7

V1

7

'?'?

N

??

M ?
a

F wa wa
U F U F
?

L
O y'
O
H L V

.0
C
4
c o o °
' =
" .
o
i U
z V
z
p 3 0 ._ ? R

o
b
ti
E
o
°
06
°
3
Z
Z
st
CIS

* a o? e o 0 0 c r y h y h ti N ci i d
Y ? ? Z ? ? O ? Z ? ? V ? O
6 v U ? r
O q 5c
e? ? C i Y v o~i Y
3 k
C F
. o, o, C A J .? ?J v?j
c
0
c
V
U
L
c
a
o ?
C1 w
2
u ?°
.-. c
O ?
v
N U
N G
M R7
Rs ,ce
y 4
U
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the Site achieved defined (or targeted) success criteria for hydrology at all eight restoration
area groundwater gauges during the Fifth Monitoring Year (Year 2009), with greater than 28 consecutive
days (12.5 percent) of saturation during the growing season. Groundwater data over the entire monitoring
period is summarized in the following table.
Table 6. Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
Gauge Percenta e
Year 1 (2005) Year 2 (2006) Year 3 (2007) Year 4 (2008) Year 5 (2009)**
1 Yes/90 days Yes/74 days Yes/50 days Yes/76 days Yes/67 days
(40.0 percent) (32.7 percent) (22.2 percent) (33.6 percent) (29.6%)
2 Yes/23 days Yes/55 days Yes/34 days Yes/38 days Yes/75 days
(10 percent) (24.3 percent) 15.1 percent) (16.8 percent) (33.2%)
3 Yes/ 138 days Yes/226 days Yes/90 days Yes/94 days Yes/119 days
(58 percent) (100 percent) (39.8 percent) (41.6 percent) (100 %)
4 Yes/51 days Yes/ 154 days Yes/68 days Yes/90 days Yes/115 days
(23 percent) (68.1 percent) (30.2 percent) (39.8 percent) (50.9%)
5 Yes/] 7 days Yes/66 days Yes/35 days Yes/41 days Yes/31 days
(8 percent) (29.2 percent) 15.6 percent) 18.1 percent) (13.7%)
6 Yes/88 days Yes/226 days Yes/90 days Yes/94 days Yes/118 days
(39 percent) (100 percent) 39.8 percent) (41.6 percent) (100 %)
7 Yes/47days Yes/55 days No/20 days Yes/125 days Yes/31 days
(21 percent) (24.3 percent) (8.8 percent) (55.3 percent) (13.7%)
8 Yes/ 140 days Yes/159 days Yes/64 days Yes/42 days Yes/119 days
(62 percent) (70.4 percent) (28.4 percent) (18.6 percent) (100 %)
BH Ref * Yes/22 days Yes/ 19 days -- --
(9.7 percent) (8.4 percent)
SF Ref * Yes/226 days Yes/ 120 days Yes/226 days Yes/117 days
(100 percent) (53.3 percent) (100 percent) (100 %)
* Reference gauges were installed prier to year 2 (2005) monitoring.
** Data for 2009 has been collected through July 23, 2009 and will continue to be collected throughout the remainder of the
growing season; data will be available upon request.
As a whole, vegetation plots across the Site were well above the required 260 stems/acre with an average of
1597 stems per acre in the Fifth Monitoring Year (Year 2009). Vegetation data over the entire monitoring
period is summarized in the following table.
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site page 10
Annual Wetland Monitoring Report Restoration Systems, LLC
Year 5 (2009)
Table 7. Summary of Vegetation Plot Results
Stems/Acre Con tin Towards Success Criteria
Plot Year 1
2005 Year 2
2006 Year 3
2007 Year 4
2008 Year 5
2009
1 1264 1227 965 1018 1491
2 2209 1455 1456 1582 3191
3 100 73 118 164 218
4 1255 1191 1001 645 1764
5 1209 791 719 1791 2136
6 345 209 319 282 527
7 1091 1082 992 1118 2064
8 945 845 810 800 1155
Average for All Plots 1197 962 855 985 1597
2009 represents the fifth and final year of monitoring activities at the Haw River Swamp Wetland
Restoration Site. Over the course of the monitoring period, all groundwater gauges met hydrological
success (Table 6) and all vegetation transects, with the exception of Transects 3 and 6, were above the
targeted density of 260 stems/acre during all monitoring years (Table 7). The area within and around
Transects 3 and 6 received supplemental plantings in January 2007 and again in 2009. This area is
consistently the wettest portion of the site and tree mortality was most likely due to hydroperiods that
exceeded. the tolerance of some of the planted species. Although replanting with species tolerant of
prolonged saturation or flooding such as water tupelo and bald cypress might have reduced mortality, the
area was replanted only with species outlined in the Restoration Plan. Bald cypress and water tupelo are
not native to the Piedmont and are restricted to areas east of the Fall Line. As described in Section 2.2.3,
the area is being colonized by woody and herbaceous perennial shrubs and forbs and increasing numbers of
woody stems.
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site page 1 1
Annual Wetland Monitoring Report Restoration Systems, LLC
Year 5 (2009)
4.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1. United States Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). 1993. Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers
in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1). North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Schafale, M. P and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1977. Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture.
United States Department of the Army (USDOA). 1993 (unpublished). Compensatory Hardwood
Mitigation Guidelines. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Classification (MIST).
A Methodology to Classify Pre-Project Mitigation Sites and Develop Performance Standards for
Construction and Restoration of Forested Wetlands. USEPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989.
USEPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC.
Weather Underground. 2009. Station at Lake Brandt (KNCGREEN4) in Greensboro, North Carolina.
(online). Available:
http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KNCGREEN4 [July 21,
2009]. Weather Underground.
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site page 12
Annual Wetland Monitoring Report Restoration Systems, LLC
Year 5 (2009)
APPPENDIX A
GAUGE DATA
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Ste
Annual Wetland Monitoring Report Restoration Systems, LLC
Year 5 (2009)
(sayoui) uoi4e;idi'3aad
CO CD V N 00 CD V- N
?- Cl O O O Cl
O
ea
m ?
c ?
00
0 0
0
m
NLO
L
3
2
6002/8/ L L
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
600£0 0 w
m 600Z/£Z/O L
cn
= 600Z/9 L/0 L
0 600Z/L/O L
600Z/6Z/6
m o
o = 600Z/LZ/6
zw
6002/£ L/6
600Z/9/6
600Z/8Z/8
600Z/OZ/8
6002/Z L/8
600Z/b/8
600Z/LZ/L m
600Z/6 L/L p
600Z/L L/L
600Z/£/L
600Z/9Z/9
N
M ?.
600Z/L L/9
600Z/6/9
600Z/L/9
600Z/bZ/9
0 600Z/9 L/9
600Z/8/9
eA
c 6002/0£/ti
0 6002/ZZ/b
N 600Z/t7 M7
s C
600Z/9/b
M
6002/6Z/£
600Z/ L Z/£
'T NOMCDtN0000 VNON CD000N?twMON CD 000
NNNNNM
(sayOui) Jana-1aa;eM
(sayoui) uoi;e;idioaad
00 Cfl V: N 00 CO It N
r - O O O O O
N
d
ev
C7 v
d
!0
r- R
O
(? o
o
N
Ln
L ?
4) 4)
R
3
ca
2
6002/8/ l L
60OZ/ L £/0 L
O
fq
60OZ/£Z/O L
o? 60OZ/9 L/0 L
C
0 60OZ/L/O L
60OZ/6Z/6
o 0
V 60OZ/LZ/6
z ui
60OZ/£ L/6
60OZ/9/6
60OZ/8Z/8
60OZ/OZ/8
60OZ/Z L/8
6002/17/8
6002/LZ/L
60OZ/6 L/L p
60OZ/L L/L
60OZ/£/L
60OZ/9Z/9
60OZ/L L/9
6002/6/9
7t 60OZ/ L/9
6002/tZ/9
C 60OZ/9 L/9
O
60OZ/8/9
= N 60OZ/0£/b
0 60OZ/ZZ/17
L
N 60OZ/1 L/7
L O
60OZ/9/ti
2(n
60OZ/6Z/£
60OZ/ L Z/£
?NOOOCO't NOOO(O'T NON,T CQ0?C) to wC,N?c000aN?C0
NNN -- --NNNNNMMMM
(sayoui) Iana-l aa;eM
(segoui) uoi;e;id!OOJd
o0 (9 N 00 CO d N
O 6 O O O
M
C7 ?
a?
c ?
O ?
C7 0
o
d?
LO
N L
L
}
3
m
2
c
(
c
u
Q
d
>z
o:
zu
CO
N
s
V
0
2
?- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6002/8/ L L
60OZ/ L E/0 L
60OZ/£Z/O L
60OZ/9 L/0 L
60OZ/L/O L
60OZ/6Z/6
60OZ/ L Z/6
60OZ/E L/6
60OZ/9/6
60OZ/8Z/8
60OZ/OZ/8
600Z/Z L /8
60OZ/b/8
6002/LZ/L
60OZ/6 L/L p
60OZ/L L/L
60OZ/£/L
60OZ/5Z/9
60OZ/L L/9
60OZ/6/9
60OZ/L/9
60OZ/bZ/9
60OZ/9 L/5
60OZ/8/9
6002/0£/b
60OZ/ZZ/b
60OZ/K/17
60OZ/9/b
60OZ/6Z/E
60OZ/LZ/E
w 0 It N O w O't N O 00 O v N O N (9 0? O N v
N N N N N ? r- ? ? ? ? r ? ?
(sayoui) Iana-1 aa;eM
(seg3ui) uoi;e}idl38Jd
00 0 N CO 0 V- N
O O O O Cl
R
C7 ?
c ?
O ?
V ?
? N
N L
L (?
3
2
60OZ/8/ L L
_.____.-----____.--.
0 60OZ/ L £/0 L
N
60OZ/£Z/O L
60OZ/9 L/0 L
a 60OZ/L/O L
60OZ/6Z/6
ai o
o 60OZ/ L Z/6
zw
60OZ/£ L/6
60OZ/9/6
60OZ/8Z/8
60OZ/OZ/8
60OZ/Z L/8
60OZ/b/8
60OZ/LZ/L
60OZ/6 L/L p
60OZ/L L/L
60OZ/£/L
60OZ/9Z/9
60OZ/L L/9
60OZ/6/9
60OZ/ L/9
° 60OZ/bZ/9
c L R r " 60OZ/9L/9
d 600Z/8/9
C 0 a is C c S
"nor
~ 60OZ/ZZ/b
3 ; -0 'a W: ; r.
C° " L ` ' ° ° 60OZ/t707
C ; co
L C = r t? s Y 60OZ/9/17
60OZ/6Z/£
60OZ/ L Z/£
00 CD,t N a w 0V'N0000'TN0 (90?0N ;rww0N'Twma
NNNNN--- -- ' -NNNNNM
(sayoui) Iana-1 Ja;eM
(seg3ui) uoi;e;idl38Jd
00 (D V' N 00 w V N
1- - O O O O O
m
c?
m ?
c ?
O ?
C7 0
o
N
vJ L
L (?
3
c?
600Z/8/ L L
0 600Z/L£/0 L
d 600Z/£Z/O L
C 600Z/9 WO L
(L° a 600Z/L/O L
E - 600Z/6Z/6
o
'o c 6002/LZ/6
zw
600Z/£ L/6
600Z/9/6
600Z/9Z/8
600Z/OZ/8
600Z/Z L/9
600Z/b/8
6002/LZ/L
600Z/6 L/L p
600Z/L L/L
600Z/£/L
600Z/5Z/9
MMM 600Z/L L/9
600Z/6/9
600Z/ L/9
600Z/t;,Z/9
0 600Z/9 L 9
600Z/9/9
600Z/0£/t,
c 600Z/ZZ/b
L
N o 600Z/b M?
600Z/9/b
co ma
600Z/6Z/£
600Z/ L Z/£
000 CD V N0MCD V NON?(D000N V 000004 V (0, co It CD
-r?-?NNNNNCl)
III (sayoui) Jana-1 Ja;eM
(S043ul) uoi;e;idi00ad
CO CD N co CD N
r O O O O O
co
a?
3
ea
C7 ?
d ?
a?
c '
O ?
V
N
G1 ..?
,,=^ to
v/ L
L
3
ea
2
60OZ/8/
L L
_ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - _ _
a 60OZ/ L £/0 L
60OZ/£Z/O L
cn
60OZ/9 L/0 L
0 60OZ/L/O L
L
60OZ/6Z/6
d o
o = 60OZ/LZ/6
zw
60OZ/£ L/6
60OZ/9/6
60OZ/8Z/8
60OZ/OZ/8
60OZ/Z L/8
6002/17/8
60OZ/LZ/L
60OZ/6 UL p
60OZ/L UL
6002/£/L
60OZ/9Z/9
60OZ/L L/9
60OZ/6/9
60OZ/ L/9
, 60OZ/bZ/9
c 60OZ/9 L/9
0
60OZ/8/9
rn 60OZ/0£/b
c
0 60OZ/ZZ/b
0
L
N 60OZ/b L/b
s 0
L 6002/9/17
N 60OZ/6Z/£
60OZ/ L Z/£
000(DrfNO00CDIT NO00CD V- NON CD000N V- CD000N'V
MNNNNN??--? ' ' ' ----- NNCV
(s043ui) 18n0-1 JO;eM
(segoui) uoi;e;idioaad
00 CO ll? N co to It N
O O O O O
ti
a?
7
ea
C7 ?
a?
c ?
O ?
O ?
00
0
_d v
N W)
L
3
ea
2
600Z/8/ 6 6
0 600Z/ 6 £/0 6
N
6007./£Z/O 6
600Z/9 6/0 6
c 600Z/L/O 6
600Z/6Z/6
d o
o 600Z/6Z/6
zw
600Z/£ 6/6
600Z/9/6
600Z/8Z/8
600Z/OZ/8
600Z/Z 6/8
600Z/b/8
600Z/LZ/L
600Z/6 6/L p
600Z/ 6 6/L
600Z/£/L
600Z/9 Z/9
° 600Z/L 6/9
600Z/6/9
600Z/ 6/9
600Z/17Z/9
600Z/96/9
N
600Z/8/9
600Z/0£/b
3 600Z/ZZ/b
0
N ; 600Z/b6/b
p "v
600Z/9/b
6002/6Z/£
600Z/ 6 Z/£
000 C0 NON CQOOONv- 0w0 N IT 0w0 NIT 0
N N N N N M M M M
(sayoui) Iana-1 aa;eM
(sayoui) uoile;idioaJd
00 (fl V: N 00 (O It N
r O O O O O
W
m
C7 ?
m M
?0
3m
c ?
m
O
,Ln
V
N
Ln
?
L M
3
m
6002/8/ L L
___ _. ___---_
_.
a 600Z/ L £/0 L
N
d 600Z/£Z/O L
N
600Z/9 L/0 L
0 600Z/L/O L
600Z/6Z/6
E
0
o c 600Z/ L Z/6
zw
600Z/£ L/6
600Z/5/6
600Z/9Z/9
600Z/OZ/9
600Z/Z L/9
600Z/b/9
6002/LZ/L
600Z/6 L/L p
6002/L L/L
600Z/£/L
600Z/9Z/9
600Z/L L/9
600Z/6/9
600Z/ L/9
? T
6002/bZ/9
= 600Z/9 L/5
0
0
6002/8/9
a? 600Z/0£/t,
3 600Z/ZZ/17
0
L
CM ? 600Z/K/17
m o
L 600Z/9/17
co 600Z/6Z/£
600Z/ L Z/£
O 00 (O N O 00 CJ N O N (9 0? C) N ? w w O
(y r r r r r i r r r r r N
(sayoui) Iana-l Ja;eM
(sayaui) uoi;e;idlOGJd
00 t0 V N co (0 V- N
?- O O O O O
N
L
O
LL
a
E
m
3
N
d
C7 ?
v ?
c ?
L 3
?o
L 0
+?+ N
ea ...
'Q L
O
L.
0
m
r
U)
L
3
60OZ/8/L L
- - - - - - - - - - - -
0 60OZ/ L £/0 L
m 60OZ/£Z/O L
60OZ/9 L/0 L
0 60OZ/L/O L
60OZ/6Z/6
y O
'c o 60OZ/ L Z/6
Z LU
60OZ/£ L/6
60OZ/5/6
60OZ/8Z/8
60OZ/OZ/8
60OZ/Z L/8
60OZ/t,/8
60OZ/LZ/L
60OZ/6 L/L p
60OZ/L L/L
60OZ/£/L
60OZ/9Z/9
60OZ/L L/9
60OZ/6/9
60OZ/L/9
60OZ/t7Z/9
a 60OZ/9 L/5
N
m 60OZ/8/5
60OZ/0£/t,
0 6002/ZZ/ti
co
6002/bL/b
O
60OZ/9/t7
60OZ/6Z/£
60OZ/ L Z/£
w (o ' N O w w ? N O N (O o0 O N c0 00 O
r r r r r i r r r r r N
(sayaui) Iana-1 J04eM
(seg3ui) uoi;e;id[DGJd
CO CD V: N CO (D ? N
? ? ? ? ? O O O O O
OC 0
N2 ?
4) 00
R o?
0
CLo
?pC4
_ ?U)
L
i+
v}
Q
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
c
O
y
ea
a?
a?
c
cc ?3
o
.Q t7
E o
o c
zw
c
O
m
M
3
0
co 0
N 4-
0
L `
600Z/9/L L
600Z/ L £/0 L
600Z/£Z/O L
600Z/9 L/0 L
600Z/L/O L
600Z/6Z/6
600Z/ L Z/6
60OZ/£ L/6
600Z/9/6
600Z/9Z/9
600Z/OZ/9
600Z/Z L/9
600Z/b/9
600Z/LZ/L
600Z/6 L/L p
600Z/L L/L
600Z/£/L
600Z/9Z/9
600Z/L L/9
600Z/6/9
600Z/ L/9
600Z/17Z/9
600Z/9 L/5
600Z/9/9
600Z/0£/ti
600Z/ZZ/V
600Z/ti L/b
600Z/9/i7
600Z/6Z/£
600Z/ L Z/£
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O CO I- CD LO IT Cl) N
r
(sayoui) y;dea
APPPENDIX B
VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
Annual Wetland Monitoring Report Restoration Systems, LLC
Year 5 (2009)
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
Year 5 (2009) Annual Monitoring
Vegetation Plot Photographs (Taken June 2009)
Rd g
No Photograph Available
N ?
N 6
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
Annual Wetland Monitoring Report Restoration Systems, LLC
Year 5 (2009)