20040895 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20120306

tl
Nahunta Mitigation Project
Wayne County, North Carolina
FINAL-
Prepared for
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Prepared by
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 782 -0495
And
Ecosystem & Land Trust Monitoring
PO Box 1492
3674 Pine Swamp Road
Sparta, NC 28675
November 2009
DENR - WATER DUAUTY
WETLA M AND STQRMWATER BWCH

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Table of Contents
0
1.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................. ..............................1
2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. ...............................
2
2.1
Project Description ....................................................................... ...............................
2
2.2
Project Purpose ............................................................................. ............................... 2
2.3
Project History & Schedule .......................................................... ............................... 5
3.0 HYDROLOGY ........................................................................................ ..............................5
3.1
Hydrologic Success Criteria ......................................................... ...............................
5
3.2
Description of Hydrology Monitoring Efforts .............................. ...............................
5
3.3
Results of Hydrology Monitoring ............................................... ...............................
13
3.3.1 Site Data ............................................................................ ...............................
13
3.3.2 Reference Data .................................................................. ...............................
13
3.3.3 Climate Data ..................................................................... ...............................
20
3.4
Hydrologic Conclusions ............................................................. ...............................
21
4.0 VEGETATION ....................................................................................... .............................23
4.1
Vegetation Success Criteria ........................................................ ...............................
23
4.2
Description of Species and Vegetation Monitoring .................... ...............................
23
4.3
Results of Vegetation Monitoring ............................................... ...............................
23
4.4
Vegetation Observations & Conclusions .................................... ...............................
25
5.0 STREAM
MONITORING ................................................................... ...............................
25
5.1
Stream Success Criteria .............................................................. ...............................
25
5.2
Stream Morphology Monitoring Plan ......................................... ...............................
26
5.2.1 Cross Sections ................................................................... ...............................
26
5.2.2 Longitudinal Profile .......................................................... ...............................
26
5.2.3 Hydrology ......................................................................... ...............................
26
5.2.4 Photo Reference Stations .................................................. ...............................
26
5.2.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrates .............................................. ...............................
27
1
5.3
Stream Morphology Monitoring Results .................................... ...............................
27
5.4
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey Results ................................ ...............................
29
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... ...............................
30
0

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
List of Figures
Figure1. Vicinity Map ..................................................................................... ............................... 3
Figure2. USGS Map ........................................................................................ ............................... 4
Figure 3. Monitoring Summary Map ................................................................ ............................... 7
Figure4. Groundwater Hydrographs .............................................................. ............................... 14
Figure 5. 2009 Precipitation Data ................................................................... ............................... 21
List of Tables
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives ...................................... ............................... 2
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History .............................................. ...............................
5
Table3. Project Contacts .................................................................................. ...............................
5
Table 4. Hydrologic Monitoring Results ........................................................ ...............................
19
Table 5. Comparison of Nonnal Rainfall to Wayne County 2009 Observed Rainfall ..................
20
Table 6. Additional Hydrology Results .......................................................... ...............................
23
Table 7. Planted Tree Species ........................................................................ ...............................
23
Table 8. Results of Vegetation Monitoring .................................................... ...............................
24
Table 9. Volunteer Tree Species .................................................................... ...............................
25
Table 10. Stream Areas Requiring Observation ............................................. ...............................
28
Table11. Crest Gauge Data ............................................................................ ...............................
29
Table 12. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters ........................ ...............................
29
Table 13. Summary of 2009 Monitoring Results ........................................... ...............................
30
Table 14. Summary of Vegetative Monitoring Data 2005- 2009 ...:................ ...............................
31
Table 15. Summary of Hydrology Monitoring Data 2005- 2009 .................... ...............................
32
APPENDICES
Appendix A As -Built Survey
Appendix B 2009 Profile and Cross Section Data
Appendix C 2009Gauge Data
Appendix D 2009 Site Photos
M

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
1.0 SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2009 growing season on the
Nahunta Swamp Mitigation Site. The project encompasses five properties: Cole, Tapp,
Edmundsen (divided into North and South sections), Gonder, and Cook. The Cook and
Edmundsen North properties contain non - riverine wetland restoration and do not include stream
restoration. The Cole, Tapp, Edmundsen South, and Gonder tracts included both wetland and
stream restoration. The 2009 data represents results from the fifth and final year of hydrologic
and vegetation monitoring for both wetlands and streams.
The Nahunta Swamp site involved the restoration of a non- riverine, wet, hardwood forest system
and a Coastal Plain, small stream swamp as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The
project covers approximately 249 acres, with approximately 126 acres of prior- converted
cropland. The project involved work on the Edmundsen, Cook, Cole, Tapp, and Gonder tracts, as
defined in the site - specific mitigation plan. Hydrology was restored by filling onsite drainage
ditches and topographic manipulations, in conjunction with stream restoration. After construction,
it was determined that 10,815 feet of stream channel were restored along with 117.0 acres of
wetland restoration, 0.5 acres of wetland enhancement, and 31.3 acres of wetland preservation.
Appendix A contains the As -Built survey.
This Annual Report presents the data from 25 hydrologic monitoring stations, 6 stream crest
gauges, 23 vegetation monitoring stations, and 24 pennanent cross sections, as required by the
approved Mitigation Plan for the site. One of the hydrologic monitoring stations is equipped with
a manual groundwater gauges and 24 stations are equipped with automated gauges and a manual
calibration gauge. The specific locations of vegetation plots, monitoring gauges, permanent cross
sections, crest gauges, and rainfall gauges are shown on the site plan (Figure 3).
Weather data from the Goldsboro Weather Station (ID #313510) were used in conjunction with a
manual rain gauge located on the site to document climatic conditions. The manual gauge was
used to validate observations made at the automated station.
In 2009, 22 hydrology monitoring gauges recorded a hydroperiod of at least 12.5 percent of the
growing season. Of the three remaining gauges, one exhibited a hydroperiod of six percent while
the other two exhibited hydroperiods less than two percent of the growing season. The gauges
recording hydroperiods below five percent of the growing season are located on either the Gonder
or Tapp tracts. All three of these gauges achieved a 12.5 percent hydroperiod at a depth of 21
inches or less (see Table 6). Reference wetland gauges recorded hydroperiods of three to 35
percent of the growing season.
This Annual Report documents vegetation survival based on twenty -three vegetation monitoring
plots, as specified in the approved mitigation plan for this site. The vegetation monitoring
indicated a survival range of 270 stems per acre to 710 stems per acre with an average of 556
stems per acre. The site has met the final vegetation survival criteria of 260 stems per acre
surviving after the fifth growing season.
The restored stream channels have remained stable and are providing the intended habitat and
hydrologic functions. At least one bankfull event was recorded in each of the restored stream
channels on the Cole, Edmundsen, and Gonder tracts. There were no bankfull events recorded on
any of the three stream reaches for the Tapp tract during the 2009 monitoring season. All
monitored cross sections show very little adjustment in stream dimension, and it was concluded
that the site has met the stream success criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan for the site.

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Nahunta Swamp mitigation site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Region near the
Towns of Goldsboro and Fremont, North Carolina (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The wetland and
stream restoration areas are located on the historic floodplain of Nahunta Swamp. The site is
located within the eight -digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03020203. The tributaries targeted for
restoration originate on the higher ground and interstream divide areas and discharge to Nahunta
Swamp after flowing across its floodplain. All of these tributaries were channelized in the past to
improve drainage from surrounding agricultural fields. All restored field areas are classified as
prior- converted (PC) cropland by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Due to the large land area encompassed by the project, the number of streams, and the complexity
of the project, the project is divided into five tracts: Cole, Cook, Edmundsen, Gonder, and Tapp.
The targeted restoration communities for the Nahunta Swamp mitigation site are the "Coastal
Plain, small stream swamp," and "non - riverine hardwood forest" communities, as described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990). Restoration of the site involved the restoration of small tributaries
by raising the streams back to the floodplain elevations, raising the local water table by filling the
drainage ditches onsite, scarification of the fields and breaking of the local plow pan to provide
increased surface storage of water, and establishing stable outlets for storm flows.
2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE
Monitoring of the Nahunta Swamp Site is required to demonstrate successful mitigation based on
the criteria found in the Mitigation Plan for the site and in the Neu -Con Umbrella Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Bank Instrument. Hydrologic, vegetation, and stream monitoring are
conducted on an annual basis. This Annual Report details the results of the monitoring efforts for
2009 (Year 5) at the Nahunta Swamp Mitigation Site.
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives
Reach Name
As -Built Length (ft)
Mitigation Units
Restoration Approach
R1 (Cole)
1,159
1,150
Restoration
R2 (Tapp)
1,820
1,820
Restoration
R3 (Tapp)
1,090
1,090
Restoration
R4 (Tapp)
1,452
1,452
Restoration
R5 ( Edmundsen)
2,083
2,083
Restoration
R6 ( Gonder)
3,211
3,211
Restoration
Total
10,815
10,815
Wetland
117.0
117.0
Restoration
31.3
6.3
Preservation
0.5
0.3
Enhancement
Total
148.8
123.6
2

A ~�M ndell
SR
♦ ' o
P Cy♦ a Q
S
-+ 14C222 rn t • n v
tiso a N
°
o )
70 'o )a 4'
n .° N
o
a W
D p9a e
a 5
�c
to Route 3069
Reference Site N
a d,
e ' gtate Roed 12 6
e
Project Site
r e�
a�
s
fd
r
0
r
Big D dd Od
2p 4
oreh 4 £ 6N
oa
S to Road 211
5
-4
m
o °
J
m
Isberry
S 1 8 rn p
4
U We all 13 0
R' uad Cr
2
N f-
o
Kry
m` spa 5t to
8 a>>
Nahunta Site Legend
Vicinity Map • Reference Sites
Wayne County
�— Streams
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Roads
Miles Nahunta Site

�_.. -
_
--'�? Reference Site ;
Cem
-000
FEET rA
M Q - COM
7 77
7. �� .yam• ,'<` -° �'�\
oa jai �,y,s•.or. rwoiMU —.�.• o • \/
r. WAS
�1�J X0-1 '`� 1Neada I y � - � ,Y s • ��^ •
Asa B r
COM
a i
Og Oak ` ,' ` • l
O
- BigDercfdy'S'
ws
CIOUnWAIS
lit
Figure 2
rim Nahunta Site
USGS Map
Wayne County
0 5001,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
Legend
Streams
Roads
Nahunta Site

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY & SCHEDULE
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Month
Activity
January 2005
Construction Completed
February 2005
Post - restoration Monitoring Begins
November 2005
1 st Annual Monitoring Report
November 2006
2nd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2007
3rd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2008
4th Annual Monitoring Report
November 2009
5th Annual Monitoring Report
Table 3. Project Contacts
Contact
Firm Information
Project Manager
EBX -Neuse 1, LLC
Norton Webster
(919) 608 -9688
Designer
Buck Engineering PC
Kevin Tweedy, PE
(919) 463 -5488
Monitoring Contractor
WK Dickson and Co., Inc
Daniel Ingram
(919) 782 -0495
3.0 HYDROLOGY
3.1 HYDROLOGIC SUCCESS CRITERIA
As stated in the approved Mitigation Plan, the hydrologic success criterion for the site is
restoration of the water table so that it remains within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least
12.5 percent of the growing season (31 consecutive days). The day counts are based on the
growing season for Wayne County, which is 249 days long, beginning on March 10 and ending
November 13, as determined from National Weather Service Wetlands Determination Tables
(WETS) for the Goldsboro 4 SE, NC3510 station. Due to reporting errors on the NC CRONOS
database website, rain data from the Goldsboro 4.4 E, NC -WY -1 station were used for the months
of October and November. The Mitigation Plan specified that data would be collected from
manual and automated groundwater gauges.
The Mitigation Plan further specifies that in order for the hydrologic data to be considered
successful, the data must demonstrate wetland conditions are present in normal or dryer than
normal conditions. Figure 3 (Site Plan) details all gauge locations.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF HYDROLOGY MONITORING EFFORTS
One manual groundwater gauge and 24 automated Infinities groundwater gauges were monitored
during the 2009 growing season. Additionally, five automated Infinities groundwater gauges were
monitored on a reference site adjacent to the Nahunta Mitigation Site. Groundwater gauges, both
manual and automated, were installed to a minimum depth of at least 40 inches below the ground
surface. The monitoring protocol for the site specifies that automated monitoring stations will be
downloaded and checked for malfunctions on a monthly basis. During monthly site visits, manual
groundwater gauges are read and rainfall totals are collected from the onsite rain gauge.

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
Automated Gauges
Automatic groundwater gauges record water table elevations twice daily at 08:00 and 20:00.
Infinities gauges employ pressure sensors that record water elevation above the bottom of the
sensor (with atmospheric pressure compensation). Immediately adjacent to each automatic gauge
is a manual calibration gauge. The calibration water table depth is recorded at monthly
downloads. To detennine wetland hydroperiods the automatically recorded data are compared to
the calibration data to determine a standard correction factor between the calibration gauge and
the automatic gauge for each location. The standard correction factor is applied to correct daily
readings. The corrected daily readings are used to determine wetland hydroperiods.
Manual Gauges
Water table depths are recorded monthly in manual groundwater gauges. To calculate wetland
hydroperiods interpolations are made between monthly readings by correlating twice daily
automatic gauge readings. Each manual gauge is correlated to an automatic gauge based on
proximity, landscape position, and the relationship of their groundwater depth readings (i.e. if
their readings are separated by a consistent value). Once the appropriate automatic gauge has
been selected a correction factor is calculated for each monthly gauge reading. This correction
factor typically varies by several inches on a monthly basis. A daily rate of change between
monthly correction factors is calculated to determine the daily correction factor. The daily
correction factor is then applied to the automatic gauge readings to calculate an estimated daily
water table depth for the manual gauge.
Data Interpretation
Wetland hydroperiods are calculated from twice daily water table depth elevations. A
hydroperiod is calculated if the water table is equal to or less than -12 inches below ground
surface for at least 24 hours. If a gauge falls below -12 inches for two consecutive readings (24
hours) then the hydroperiod ends at the last reading within -12 inches. if a gauge falls below -12
inches for only one reading then maintains a reading above -12 inches for a minimum of 24 hours
then the hydroperiod is calculated continuously. This methodology accounts for minor technical
malfunctions experienced by the automatic gauges.

Cd °o
0
W
O
^^ M
w CO GVN
0 bA
o Q)
D Lrn
N N c;s o
z
Q
W 00•
0
' a=
O�C m
• ` ` � .�i a, , • f ,, r ~ •` •`r ON,
• _ t.. ' /` • • \ , - 1, • • • {
LU
co
- rte' •� • �, �• .. � � �
' �. ..(�'• \� ' gyp''. U i.
W Y
. y

c�
W
+� w
o o
B-0
s +
o o
v Z o s
J
LU
O0•
Lu
cn
Q7 ` +� 'a r
co
W
ak
Ala
h
W
k.
.Q t
f a
04 CL
i =zz

w
CL
0 6-0 o
Ln ,n
= cV CN �
V
0 n
Z
Q
J
W 00•
O
W bA
4 's
� o
cd O
Z
t .
LLI OR
LU
lot
f. ti/�.'.
r

O
ce
W
CL
J
W
C
17
w � �
Ct
ct
o3
000
tu
uj
cm
ar
tu
.I .. jam. r, ' I'- _ •tr.• }ti„ " {" �• r ••""` • .".: {, .. � ,
fir• :1^ J r W , m1
I I , •r• w .';mot• •�.. •w: •;c�Y•' ''�. . .. �+ -
•.rr `•:'t �tir'r:•: 1 J jti• t +j •r � i z
n .: `�• ,.''•..i: � r''a -' »', »fir'• '.�...' • •" •; - � - 1
.•• .rte { � +r•' _..., �.
,` .� .;trt, �� ^r'•h,_� ~. .ts•'.J•r� ^ ~•C;�w�•'�'.e'�_r''• . "A••�r •� ''.t 1�
/ � � �r ,rf. -� � ,r'• +tL.�r'•� yr• ;': Ls1'' • %••• "r• ,R•r •, "' � ,
: /'+ t .a. emery .r•� { � 'it �'r •t •�, "� 1
�`+8 { y »�'� 1�' rya 7� »Ir� •rte rt.l� ;�j,,r.•i •• ter•• 11.
:RJ. `IYC'".rr- '.ti ,+'f� ,��.. -r. •. f;.: •+'• 'y•�• ri-• -• .. ar•.\ .':.� /1I
'S i i� 1 ..r't �• .T ,�
`•'• r •ti .r'" `.• :.... l'r•:r t !fit,; •' }. :•�; +,f•
J.t. ��,•. ter' —,.•
,J . ✓: •{ ,. t '•• 1 r ',• __rte' -.-
• a �.r' ��r �.� 1.•�t''s't •,w: ��•_ •' tix:� ` 'ice"
7L r..:•e4 =
� •.-• ••_ r. , ��"' rte,,• -"'°

w
IL
O
2
D
J
w
G
o
8-',)
0
Ln U-) o
N N t\
V
A
006
ca)
' = ,
41 L
ml
1 r: • Lu 1
of
cc
Al
Lu 1.1 `,t,�•• �•, . -' l !
l l ,fit'', yJS r ' ` "r ' ,er • ~ti.'\ ,'. f.f;
r 1 t .��nJ• �' Jam`• r•' . %, a - �s-�. +' .1 •
1 1 '., '�r :Yi. -;r �/ •♦ - � tom'- � "�. �i'• -�, .. 1
m � -t'• .r• 'y,• .:.ter.- � '.j ..
'.l 't •1.. ••I• , 1
Ne
Ils
11 r.`.�:'. �♦ 1 � S ''s, rte'' :: •
'✓ �` I. J .'. s ti sy♦ •x• `sr _ .rat' r. ;�• (.
Cd .
Z O

C)
O
ne
w
CL
0
J
f--
W
►i
o
8-0 0
Ln L o
V
n�
O0•
A I
"tow",
I
I � �
1 /
s
� 1
If •�
= +J
� f
� 11
i
� / 1
I � /
I
l I rl
i I 1
! J1
cC
cl b!J
s~
� O
Z O

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
3.3 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGY MONITORING
3.3.1 Site Data
The following hydroperiod statistics were calculated for each monitoring station during the
growing season: 1) most consecutive days that the water table was within twelve inches of the
soil surface; 2) cumulative number of days that the water table was within twelve inches of the
soil surface; and 3) number of times that the water table rose to within twelve inches of the soil
surface. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 4. The location of the
groundwater and the stream gauges are shown on Figures 3a -3f. Figures 4a4h provide charts of
the water table depth for each of the monitoring gauges on the Cole, Tapp, Edmundsen, Gonder,
and Cook properties. Appendix C contains all the 2009 rain and monitoring gauge data.
Table 6 lists the minimum depth at which the under performing gauges achieved a 12.5 percent
hydroperiod. These data demonstrate that all of the wetland area had a water table within 21
inches of the surface for considerable portions of the growing season.
3.3.2 Reference Data
One automated groundwater gauge (REFAWI) was installed in a reference site during April 2003.
In March 2005 two more gauges were installed in this reference area, one manual (REFMW2)
and one automated (REFAW3),In the spring of 2007 REFMW2 was replaced with an automated
gauge. This reference site is located along R1 upstream of the restoration area. The site is a
"Coastal Plain, small stream swamp," as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) and is
located along the toe of the slope above the Nahunta Canal floodplain. Two additional automated
groundwater gauges (REFAW4 and REFAW5) were installed in a reference wetland adjacent to
the Cole tract in March of 2008. This area is a forested tract located immediately southeast of the
Cole Tract restoration area and is on the Nahunta Canal floodplain. The reference gauge data
show the range of conditions that were experienced across the site.
The same hydroperiod statistics were calculated for each reference monitoring station during the
growing season as were calculated for the site monitoring stations. Three out of the five
automated reference gauges (REFAW 1, REFAW2, and REFAW3) recorded hydroperiods that
exceeded the 12.5 percent hydroperiod established as the target for the site. The two remaining
reference gauges recorded hydroperiods of three and six percent of the growing season. The
reference gauge data are presented in Table 3 and Figure 5.
13

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Figure 4. Groundwater Hydrographs
Figure 4a. 2009 Nahunta Groundwater Gauges
10
5
0
d
u -5
C.
0
-10
w
L
-15
'o
°o
-20
U
-25
-30
-35
10
9
8
7
6A
us
9
5
.9�
i
4
3
i
2
1
0
J F M A M i 1 A S O N D
Months
f Goldsboro Daly Ran&l Cole A W 1 ■ Cole M W 2
Figure 4b. 2009 Nahunta Groundwater Gauges
5 10
Growing Season
0
i�
-5
u -10
G
O
a -l5
d
L
w -20
�v
c
0
-25
'U
30
1
-35 1 lilt
-40
J F M A M
Goldsboro Daily Raintatl
9
8
7
- - - - -- -------------------------- -- - - - - -- 6 a
9
e
5
g
4
a
3
2
I
A.& L 1 . ;11 . -d kAL Ll l 0
J J A S O N D
Months
Tapp AWI ---- TappAW2 TappAW3
14

to-
5
0
d
u -5
c
c
O
-10
d
ki
m -15
3
e
e
-20
V
-25
-30
-35
J
10
5
0
u -5
C
C
g -10
m -15
'O
C
7
-20
V
-25
-30
-35
J
Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Figure 4c. 2009 Nahunta Groundwater Gauges
F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
M Goldsboro Daily Rainfall —Tapp AW4 TappAW5 TappAW6
Figure 4d. 2009 Nahunta Groundwater Gauges
F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
M Goldsboro Daily Rainfall — Ed AW l Ed AW2 —Ed AW 3 — Ed AW4
15
10
9
8
7
6r
V
C
G
5
4
4
3
2
1
0
10
9
8
7
6A
Vi
.5
5
8
4 �!
3
2
1
0

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Figure 4e. 2009 Nahunta Groundwater Gauges
10 Io
Groeing Season
5 9
0 8
I
I i �
7
-5
C
e 6 t
�a -10 5
----- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - -- - - - --------- -- - - - - -- °
cs7 5 z°
a 4
e o.
V -20-- 3
i
-25
2
-30-. LL 1
-35 1111. J . . , J..� 1 . _ 4� U l _ 0
J F M A M 1 1 A S O N D
Months
l MIGOldsboro Daily Raised — Ed AW5 Ed .A\k 6 —Ed AW7
Figure 4E 2009 Nahunta Groundwater Gauges
5
0
-5
ffi
r
-10
I w -15
a
A
V
-20
0
V
-25
-30
-35
1 F M A M
Goldsboro Daily Rainfall
iu
9
8
7
6 r
5
8
6
4
a
3
2
1
LUIL 11
1 1 A S O N D
Months
— GonAWI — GonAW2 — GonAW3
16
0
A.
1 1 A S O N D
Months
— GonAWI — GonAW2 — GonAW3
16
0

to
5
0
u -5
C.
e
-10
W
L
-15
v
a
-20
G7
-25
-30
-35
Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Figure 4g. 2009 Nahunta Groundwater Gauges
to
I
9
8
I
7
6
V
CI
5 is
I
4
a
i
3
I
2
1
0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Nontl s
1 M Goldsboro Da* Ram&l — GonA \ \'4 GonAW5 — GonAW6 L
Figure 4h. 2009 Nahunta Groundwater Gauges
to _ _ 10
Growing Season
5 I � 9
P11
0 8
`a -5
I 7
c i
a�
$ -t0 j`I. I
-- I-?- i-I - - -- - ----------------- -- - - - - -- 5
W i I I
L i
3
O I
l � i 4
-20
3
{ I
-25
2
-i0 1
�5 . _ 4.� Ll i
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
= Goldsboro Daily Rainll — Cook A i Cook AW2 —Cook AW3 Cook AW4 ;
17
�
rall.
'w
L11111 LmL Li
to
I
9
8
I
7
6
V
CI
5 is
I
4
a
i
3
I
2
1
0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Nontl s
1 M Goldsboro Da* Ram&l — GonA \ \'4 GonAW5 — GonAW6 L
Figure 4h. 2009 Nahunta Groundwater Gauges
to _ _ 10
Growing Season
5 I � 9
P11
0 8
`a -5
I 7
c i
a�
$ -t0 j`I. I
-- I-?- i-I - - -- - ----------------- -- - - - - -- 5
W i I I
L i
3
O I
l � i 4
-20
3
{ I
-25
2
-i0 1
�5 . _ 4.� Ll i
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
= Goldsboro Daily Rainll — Cook A i Cook AW2 —Cook AW3 Cook AW4 ;
17

5
0
-5
ffi
r
9-10
-10
a
d
w -15
d
m
3
4 -20
7
O
'L^
V
-25
-30
Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
Figure 4i. 2009 Nahunta Reference Groundwater Gauges
-35 & 1. ■r ME MEMO. .IPL.M A.alb M I .T MMLM# 0 au • - u 4=- Li as i
J F M A M 1 J A S O N D
Months
M Goldsboro Daily RaidaD REFAWI REFAW2 — RFFAW3
Figure 4j. 2009 Nahunta Reference Groundwater Gauges
to
5
0
T
u -5
e
C
C
-10
k7
a -15
7
C
O
.° -20
V
-25
-30
-35
1
F M A M 1 .I A S O N D
Months
= Goldsboro Daily Rainfall — REFAW4 REFAW 5
18
10
9
8
7
6.0
S_
e
5 p
9
a
u
4 is
4
3
2
1
0
10
9
8
7
6 s
S
C
5
8
id
4 L
o.
3
2
1
0

Nahzznta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Table 4. Hydrologic Monitoring Results
2009 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 10 -Mar through 13 -Nov, 249 days)
Gauge
Consecutive
Cumulative
Occurrences
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
Cole AW 1
34
13
66
27
7
Cole MW2
51
20
153
61
8
Tapp AW 1
39
16
42
17
2
Tapp AW2
14
6
30
12
5
Tapp AW3
4
2
19
8
9
Tapp AW4
52
21
80
32
5
Tapp AW5
43
17
49
20
2
Tapp AW6
45
18
61
24
4
Ed (North) AW 1
48
19
60
24
3
Ed (North) AW2
46
18
57
23
3
Ed (North) AW3
48
19
69
28
4
Ed (South) AW4
96
39
182
73
11
Ed (South) AW5
55
22
193
77
12
Ed (South) AW6
48
19
70
28
4
Ed (South) AW7
49
20
68
27
3
Cook AW 1
84
34
99
40
5
Cook AW2
44
18
64
26
5
Cook AW3
78
31
85
34
2
Cook AW4
45
18
51
20
2
Gonder AW 1
34
14
39
16
3
Gonder AW2
49
20
66
27
3
Gonder AW3
44
18
49
20
2
Gonder AW4
45
18
58
23
2
Gonder AW5
5
2
12
5
5
Gonder AW6
46
18
59
24
4
Ref AW 1
75
30
84
34
4
Ref AW2
82
33
95
38
7
Ref AW3
86
35
134
54
16
Ref AW4
16
6
46
18
7
Ref AW5
8
3
21
8
6
19

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Table 5. Comparison of Normal Rainfall to Wayne County 2009 Observed Rainfall
Month
Average
Normal Limits
Goldsboro
Precipitation
On -Site
Precipitation
30 Percent
70 Percent
January
4.64
3.56
5.37
2.91
- --
February
3.67
2.47
4.28
1.03
6.37*
March
4.55
3.28
5.53
6.58
5.38
April
3.45
2.15
4.31
2.45
3.16
May
3.87
2.65
4.83
5.54
4.45
June
4.03
2.51
4.94
2.12
4.10
July
5.34
3.51
6.38
6.13
4.74
August
5.52
3.49
6.34
4.94
3.28
September
5.57
2.43
7.4
2.09
2.17
October
3.1
1.99
4.39
1.69
- --
November
3.01
1.94
3.65
6.34
6.33 **
December
3.44
2.28
4.25
- --
- --
Annual
- --
46.79
56.33
- --
- --
Total
50.20
--
--
41.82
39.98
*On -site rainfall data for February is a cumulative total from Dec 08 - Feb 09.
** On -site rainfall data for November is a cumulative total from Oct 09 - Nov 09
3.3.3 Climate Data
Figure 5 is a comparison of the 2009 monthly rainfall to historical precipitation for Wayne
County (MRCS WETS Tables). Observed precipitation data were collected from an automated
weather station in Goldsboro and an on -site manual rain gauge. Rainfall data collected from the
on -site rain gauge showed amounts slightly above those taken from the Goldsboro weather
station. On -site gauge data show rainfall amounts just below those of the historic average, except
in February, which is a cumulative total from December through February and November, which
is a cumulative total from October and November. Monthly rainfall amounts for December were
not available at the time this report was prepared.
►F1

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Figure 5.2009 Precipitation Data
2009 Precipitation for Nahunta Site
12
11
10
9
y 8
d
Z
7
0 6
Z 5
L ,
a 4
3
2
1
0
J F M A M J J
Months
Goldsboro Dady Rainfall —C~ On -site Raingauge - - - - - -
3.4 HYDROLOGIC CONCLUSIONS
A S O
I- -- - -I _._.
N D
30th/70th Percent& —>�s Goldsboro Monthly Rainfall
Typical hydrologic conditions were modeled during the design phase to estimate the function of
the restored site. The data indicated that the restored hydroperiod would be approximately 12.5
percent across much of the restored wetland site. Coastal Plain, small stream swamp systems have
highly variable flows and, depending on the size of the watershed, can become dry during parts of
the year. High water table conditions are often experienced only for brief periods during the early
and later parts of the growing season. Since no wetland system is homogeneous throughout,
hydrology will vary across the restored site. Factors that will affect hydrology in any particular
location include seepage inputs and outputs, degree of ponding, frequency of stream flooding
events, soil type, precipitation, and subsoil conditions.
The approved Mitigation Plan states that if the rainfall data for any given year during the
monitoring period is not normal, the reference wetland data can be accessed to determine if there
is a positive correlation between the performance of the restoration site and the natural hydrology
of the reference site. During the 2009 growing season, precipitation was mostly within or slightly
below normal limits for most of the growing season. Generally, the reference wetland
hydroperiods exceeded the restoration hydroperiods. It should be noted that the reference wells
AW 1, AW2, and AW3 are considerably up- gradient from the Nahunta Swamp Canal which
bisects the mitigation site and therefore may not accurately represent the full range of conditions
at the mitigation site.
21

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Cole Property (7.9 acres of restored wetlands)
The Cole property is the northern most property within the Nahunta Swamp site. This property
has two gauges; one manual and one automated and is located adjacent to the reference sites
(Figure 3a). Figure 4a shows the hydrograph of the two onsite gauges. Both gauges on the Cole
tract exhibited successful hydroperiods of 14 and 20 percent of the growing season. The Cole
property has met the success criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan.
Tapp Property (17.9 acres of restored wetlands)
The Tapp property has six automated gauges (Figure 3b). Figures 4b and 4c show the
hydrograph of the onsite gauges. Tapp gauges AW2 and AW3 exhibited wetland hydroperiods of
six and two percent of the growing season, similar to reference wetland gauges RW4 and RW5.
All other automated gauges on the Tapp tract of the Nahunta Mitigation site exceeded the 12.5
percent success criteria, with wetland hydroperiods ranging from 16 to 21 percent. Table 6
displays the depths at which Tapp AW2 and AW3 achieved hydroperiods of 12.5 percent of the
growing season. Based on a comparison to reference conditions, the Tapp property appears to
have achieved the wetland restoration objectives specified in the Mitigation Plan for the site.
Edmundsen Property (North -16.5 acres of restored wetlands; South -21.0 acres of restored
wetlands)
The Edmundsen property is broken into two areas. Edmundsen North is located on the north side
of Big Daddy Road and involves non - riverine wetland restoration only (Figure 3c). Edmundsen
South is located on the south side of Big Daddy Road and is associated with riverine wetland
restoration (Figure 3d). Figures 4d and 4e show a combined hydrograph of the onsite gauges.
Edmundsen North reach has three automated gauges (Ed AW 1, Ed AW2, and Ed AW3).
Edmundsen South reach has four automated gauges (Ed AW4, Ed AW5, Ed AW6, and Ed AW7).
All seven of the gauges located on the Edmundsen tract were successful and exhibited wetland
hydroperiods ranging from 18 to 39 percent of the growing season. The Edmundsen property has
met the success criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan.
Gonder Property (17.9 acres of restored wetlands)
The Gonder property has six automated gauges (Figure 3e). Figures 4f and 4g show the
hydrographs of the on -site gauges. Five of the six automated groundwater gauges on the Gonder
tract exhibited successful wetland hydroperiods ranging from 14 to 20 percent of the growing
season. Gonder AW5 recorded a hydroperiod of less than two percent of the growing season,
similar to reference wetland gauge RW5. Table 6 displays the depth at which Gonder AW5
achieved hydroperiods of 12.5 percent of the growing season. Gauge AW5 has recorded short
hydroperiods in all previous monitoring years. It is believed that this gauge may be located within
highly conductive soil layers. Soil investigations in this area have confirmed the presence of
sandy inclusions within generally clayey soils. Based on a comparison to reference conditions,
the Gonder property appears to have achieved the wetland restoration objectives specified in the
Mitigation Plan for the site.
Cook Property (29.2 acres of restored wetlands)
The Cook property has four automated gauges (Figure 3f). Figure 4h shows the hydrograph of
the four onsite gauges. All four automated groundwater gauges on the Cook tract exceeded the
hydrologic success criteria and reference conditions with wetland hydroperiods ranging from 18
to 34 percent of the growing season. Monitoring data from previous years documented that the
Cook site has frequently exceeded the success criteria and the hydroperiods documented for the
reference site. The Cook property has met the success criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan.
22

l
r�
Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Table 6. Additional Hydrology Results
s G'aage"
Hydroperiyods
` i - - �] w4 b }i�i��°e,t +I •:k �4p"
p¢m(Corisecapv_e
dl��y J�teEX�. U-,�'F J�Y,.wt"�'' qt ." ye' A
e
1
@,WasMAchi "inches)v' ,
Tapp AW2
-15.38
Tapp AW3
-20.55
Gonder AW5
-18.88
4.0 VEGETATION
4.1 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
The interim measure of vegetative success for the Nahunta Mitigation Plan was the survival of at
least 320 3 -year old planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The
final vegetative success criteria is the survival of 260 5 -year old planted trees per acre at the end
of year five of the monitoring period.
Up to 20 percent of the site species composition may be comprised of invaders. Remedial action
may be required should these (i.e. loblolly pine, red maple, sweetgum, etc.) present a problem and
exceed 20 percent composition.
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND VEGETATION MONITORING
The following tree species were planted in the Wetland Restoration Area:
Table 7. Planted Tree Species
mID'
Wig.
>S.eientii►crName `tjW,;
d.CornmooN0* - -
;FAC Status
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
FACW
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
FAC
3
Nyssa aquatica
Water Tupelo
OBL
4
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
FACW
5
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
OBL
6
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
FACW-
7
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
FAC
8
Quercus phellos
Coastal Willow,Oak
FACW-
9
Quercus shumardii
Shumard Oak
FACW-
10
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
OBL
All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged with orange flagging and marked with a
three -foot piece of PVC pipe to identify them as the planted stems (vs. any colonizers) and to help
in locating them in the future. Each stem was then tagged with a permanent numbered aluminum
tag.
4.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING
The following tables present stem counts for each of the monitoring plots. Each planted tree
species is identified across the top row, and each plot is identified down the left column. The
23

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
numbers on the top row correlate to the ID column of the previous table. Trees are flagged in the
field on a quarterly basis before the flags degrade. Flags are utilized because they will not
interfere with the growth of the tree. Volunteers are also flagged during this process. The plots are
further sectioned into the individual tracts that comprise the Nahunta Project. Annual variation in
stem count data can be attributed to mortality and regeneration from root stock of stems
previously assessed to be dead.
Table 8. Results of Vegetation Monitoring
K NRE ,w=
6-'pMV' s m I9240 Totals Acre.
Cook
N1
3
6
0
1
22
10
0
13
3
0
58
580
N2
12
0
0
1
2
.25
0
5
0
16
61
610
N3
1
13
0.
7
4
15
1
22
0
0
63
630
N4
20
0
0
4
6
7
0
19
0
15
71
710
N5
2
0
14
10
4
2
1
5
0
28
66
660
Edmundsen North
N6
6
5
0
12
7
15'
0
2
0
13
60
600
N7
9
2
0
7
13
12
3
8
0
6
60
600
N8
4
7.
2
4
3
17
0
5
0
10
52
520
Tapp
N9
17
8
0
0
5
7
0
4
14
3
58
580
N10
8
5
0
4
9
6
0
12
10
7
61
610
N11
3
6
0
2
4
8
0
4
8
17
52
520
N12
6
5
0
3
8
0
0
8
38
0
68 `
680
Cole
N13
4
1
0
3
4
8
0
11
11
8
50
500
N14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
60
600
Edmundsen South
N15
6
5
0
1
4
10
0
5
12
2
45
450
N16
11
6
0
5
6
0
0
8
5
6
47
470
N17
6
5
0
4
3
3
0
4
12
6
43
430
N18
2
8
0
4
3
4
4
15
5
7
52
520
Gonder
N19
4
1
0
9
9
0
0
14
10
9
56
560
N20
9
8
5'
2
6
1
5
5
7
5
53
530
N21
8
5
3
1
6
1
0
0
3
0
27
270
N22
10
3
9
0
4
1
0
18
5
9
59
590
N23
8
2
5
0
4
6
0
11
12
9
57
570
Average Stems per Acre: 556
Range of Stems per Acre: 270 -710
24
�i

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
Volunteer species are also monitored throughout the five -year monitoring period. The following
tree species were identified as volunteers within the Wetland Restoration Area:
Table 9. Volunteer Tree Species
IDak
'¢Sere tficName
°Comp °monxName
FACE Status:.1
A
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
FAC
B
Betula nigra
River Birch
FACW
C
Populus deltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
FAC+
D
Acer rubrum
Red maple
FAC
E
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweetgum
FAC+
F
Pinus taeda
Loblolly Pine
FAC
Due to the presence of multiple volunteer woody species observed in most all of the vegetation
plots, the site was mowed between rows of planted trees. There persists many volunteer woody
species in the space between the planted stems that were not mowed but sprayed with herbicide.
Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and red maple (Acer rubrum), are the most common
volunteers, though river birch ( Betula nigra), eastern cottonwood ( Populus deltoides), persimmon
( Diospyros virginiana) and loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda) were also observed.
4.4 VEGETATION OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
After construction of the mitigation site, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia wild
rye (Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea)
was broadcast on the site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre. These species are on the site, though
they pose no threat to the survival or health of the planted or naturally occurring hydrophytic
vegetation. Hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation, including rush (Juncus effusus), spike -rush
(Eleocharis obtusa), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), boxseed (Ludwigia spp.), arrowleaf
tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), smartweed (Polygonum spp.), false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica), climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens) and sedge (Carex spp.), occur on site,
particularly in areas of inundation. The presence of these herbaceous wetland plants helps to
confirm the presence of wetland hydrology on the site.
There are weedy species occurring on the site, though none seem to be posing any problems for
the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. Commonly seen weedy vegetation includes
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), goldenrod (Solidago
spp.), horseweed (Conyza spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), broomsedge (Andropogon spp.),
beggarticks (Bidens spp.) and wild dill (Foeniculum vulgare). Any threatening weedy vegetation
found in the future will be documented and discussed.
This site was planted in non - riverine hardwoods and coastal plain swamp species in March 2004
and December of 2004. There were twenty -three 1 /10'' acre vegetation- monitoring plots
established throughout the planting areas. The 2009 vegetation monitoring documents an average
tree density of 556 stems per acre. The site has met the minimum final vegetative success criteria
of 260 trees per acre by the end of year five.
5.0 STREAM MONITORING
5.1 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA
As stated in the approved Mitigation Plan, the stream restoration success criteria for the site
includes the following:
25

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
• Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five -year
monitoring period.
• Cross Sections: There should be little change in as-built cross sections. Cross sections
shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all monitored cross
sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for "E" or "C" type
channels.
• Longitudinal Profiles: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features
are remaining stable, e.g. they are not aggrading or degrading. Bedforms observed should
be consistent with those observed in "E" and "C" type channels.
• Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness
of erosion control measures.
• Benthic Macroinvertebrate: Sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates within the restored
stream channel shall be conducted for the first three years of post- restoration monitoring.
5.2 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING PLAN
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted
following construction completion on the Nahunta Swamp Site:
5.2.1 Cross Sections
Two permanent cross sections were installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration, with one
of the locations being a riffle cross section and one location being a pool cross section. A total of
24 permanent cross sections were established across the mitigation site. Each cross section was
marked on both banks with permanent pins. Permanent cross section pins were surveyed and
located relative to a common benchmark to facilitate easy comparison of year -to -year data. The
annual cross section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank,
bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. Riffle cross sections are classified using the
Rosgen stream classification system. Permanent cross sections for 20098 (Year 5) were surveyed
in August 2009.
5.2.2 Longitudinal Profile
A complete longitudinal profile is surveyed in years one, three, and five. The profile is at least
3,245 feet in length (30 percent of the total restored length) and equitably distributed across the
reaches. Measurements include thalweg, water surface, and top of low bank/ bankfull. Each of
these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature, e.g. riffle, run, pool, and glide, and
the max pool depth. A common benchmark will be used each year to facilitate comparisons of
year -to -year data. Longitudinal profiles for Year 4 were surveyed in August 2009.
5.2.3 Hydrology
Six crest gauges (one per reach) were installed on the site to document bankfull events. Crest
gauges are checked monthly, and the highest out -of -bank flow event that occurred during the
previous month is recorded. See Figures 3a -3f for crest gauge locations.
5.2.4 Photo Reference Stations
Photographs are used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations are marked
with wooden stakes and Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) coordinates have been determined for
each location. Reference photos are taken at each permanent cross section from both
streambanks. The survey tape is centered in the photographs of the bank, and the water line is
located in the lower edge of the frame with as much of the bank as possible included in each
c

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
photo. In- stream structures (e.g., rock vanes, cross vanes, and constructed riffles) are also
photographed. Photo reference stations will be photographed at least once per year for at least
5 years following construction. Appendix D contains representative site photos.
5.2.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrate data are collected from the reference reach (upstream of project reach)
and within the project reaches. Pre - restoration data were collected in April 2002, prior to
initiation of stream restoration practices. The site was sampled at reaches 1, 3, and 5 and reach 1
was sampled upstream of the project property as a reference reach. Post - restoration sampling was
conducted one year after construction activities were completed, and is conducted annually
thereafter for a total of three years. Sample collection follows protocols described in the standard
operating procedures of the Biological Assessment Unit of the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality. The Qual -4 collection method is used for the collection of macroinvertebrate samples,
- and astate- certified laboratory performs the identification of the macroinvertebrate samples. The
` metrics calculated include total and Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa
richness, EPT abundance and biotic index values
5.3 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING RESULTS
Permanent cross sections and longitudinal profiles for the 2009 monitoring year were surveyed in
August 2009. Cross section and profile monitoring data for stream stability were compared to
baseline data collected in February of 2005. Permanent cross sections document the stream
dimension at 24 locations (Appendix B). The cross sections show that there has been very little
adjustment to stream dimension since construction. Profile measurements (Appendix B) indicate
that there has been little adjustment to stream profile and all the restoration reaches fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for "E" or "C" type channels.
In- stream structures installed within the restored reaches included constructed riffles, log vanes,
log weirs, and root wads. Visual observations of structures throughout the past growing season
indicate that all structures are functioning as designed. Aside from a few areas of concentrated
beaver activity, no specific problem areas are evident. All stream channels are stable and no
repairs or remedial actions are necessary. Stream areas requiring observation are described in
Table 10. Although these areas of concern are not threatening the overall success of the stream
restoration, EBX intends to remove the beaver dams and repair the areas of minor erosion with
re- seeding and live stakes in the winter of 2009 -2010.
Photographs have been taken throughout the monitoring season to document the evolution of the
restored stream channels and onsite vegetation (Appendix D). Low stream flows were observed
- in several reaches during the growing season, and several of the stream reaches were dry for
periods of the growing season. The low flow conditions contributed to growth of herbaceous
vegetation in isolated sections of the stream channels. Each reach is discussed in detail below.
Reach 1 (Cole, 1159 linear feet restored length)
Reach 1 had stream flow for most or all of the growing season. Several beaver dams have been
constructed throughout Reach 1, none of which are having any adverse affects on the channel.
Two riffle cross sections ( #1 and #3), one pool ( #2) cross section, and 405 linear feet of profile
(STA 13 +10 to 17 +15) were surveyed on Reach 1. The channel dimensions remain stable. Four
bankfull events were documented through the use of the on -site crest gauge and visual evidence
of out -of -bank flow. The highest reading recorded by the crest gauge showed an out of bank flow
2.00 feet above the normal bankfull stage.
Reach 2 (Tapp, 1820 linear feet restored length)
27
`,

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL -Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Sections of Reach 2 were dry for a significant portion of the growing season, primarily in the
upper portions of the reach. As a result, vegetation has grown throughout channel. Two riffle
cross sections ( #4 and 46), two pool cross sections ( #5 and #7), and 605 linear feet of profile
(STA 15 +00 to 21 +05) were surveyed on Reach 2. Little change was observed on this reach and
the channel dimensions remain stable. No bankfull events were recorded on Reach 2 during the
2009 monitoring season.
Reach 3 (Tapp, 1090 linear feet restored length)
Reach 3 had stream flow for most of the growing season. Two riffle cross sections ( #8 and #10),
one pool cross section ( #9), and 395 linear feet of profile (STA 13 +65 to 17 +60) were surveyed
on Reach 3. The channel dimensions remain stable. No bankfull events were documented on this
reach during the 2009 monitoring season. In 2007 a large sediment deposit was removed from
Reach 3 and deposited outside of the conservation easement. Cross Section 8 is in the repaired
section of channel and shows little change in dimension resulting from the repair. No additional
sediment deposits have been observed in Reach 3 following the repair.
Reach 4 (Tapp, 1452 linear feet restored length)
Reach 4 was dry for a significant portion of the growing season. Vegetation has grown
throughout the channel, especially in the riffles. Two riffle cross sections ( #11 and #13), one pool
(#12) cross section, and 600 linear feet of profile (STA 16 +15 to 22 +15) were surveyed on this
reach. No erosion was observed, and the channel dimensions remain stable. No bankfull events
were documented on this reach during the 2009 monitoring season.
Reach 5 (Edmundsen South, 2083 linear feet restored length)
Reach 5 had stream flow for the majority of the - growing season. Some vegetation has grown in
the riffles, causing some minor aggradation. Several beaver dams have been constructed
throughout the reach causing water to back up and flow through the floodplain before entering
back into the channel. As a result of the beaver activity, some slight bank erosion has occured
downstream of the dams. Three riffle cross sections ( #14, #16 and #18), two pool ( #15 and #17)
cross sections, and 685 linear feet of profile (STA 21 +00 to 27 +85) were surveyed on this reach.
The channel dimensions remain stable. A bankfull event was documented during the March site
visit showing a stream flow 1.35 feet above bankfull stage.
Reach 6 (Gonder, 3211 linear feet restored length)
Reach 6 had stream flow in the upper 600 feet for most of the growing season. Below the upper
600 feet, the stream channel runs through areas of apparent high conductivity soil and, during low
flow conditions, leaves the channel through subsurface flow. Though the lower section was
usually dry, there is clear evidence that during high flows water was present throughout the
channel. The manual crest gauge recorded two bankfull events on Reach 6 during the monitoring
season, one in February and on in March. The bankfull event documented during the March site
visit showed a stream flow of 0.5 feet above bankfull stage. Some vegetation has grown in the
riffles, causing slight aggradation. Four riffle cross sections ( #19, #21, #23 and #24), two pool
( #20 and #22) cross sections, and 1075 linear feet of profile (STA 25 +20 to 35 +95) were
surveyed on this reach. The channel dimensions remain stable.
Table 10. Stream Areas Requiring Observation
28
1
Reach 1 16 +75
Erosion behind rootwad, no action recommended
2
Throughout Reach 1
Series of beaver dams, no action recommended
3
Throu hout Reach 5
Series of beaver dams, no action recommended
28

I- �'
Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL -Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Table 11. Crest Gauge Data
"We M
RZ ecorded,�p'.­.,N
ear,SN�,,,,,�
ear'�Z�"
R4
a"q
�p Vv"
January
---
---
---
---
---
- --
February
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
March
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.35
0.50
April
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
May
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
June
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
July
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
August
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
September
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
October
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
November
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
December
---
---
---
---
---
---
Table 12. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters
5.4 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY RESULTS
According to the Mitigation Report, benthic macroinvertebrates samples are to be taken in Years
1, 2, and 3. Therefore, no benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was performed this year. Based on
past years sampling and results, the Nahunta restoration sites have macroinvertebrate assemblages
that are tolerant and characteristic of slow moving streams or impoundments.
29
ear,SN�,,,,,�
ear'�Z�"
;i "Y"
ix
C
Bankfall Cross-sectional Area,
12.0
6.2
4.0
10.1
9.9
11.3
Abkf (sq ft)
Avg. Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft)
16.0
10.0
10.9
16.5
14.6
15.3
Bankfull W/D
21.5
19.1
29.7
27.5
21.6
20.9
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax (ft)
1.4
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.3
5.4 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY RESULTS
According to the Mitigation Report, benthic macroinvertebrates samples are to be taken in Years
1, 2, and 3. Therefore, no benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was performed this year. Based on
past years sampling and results, the Nahunta restoration sites have macroinvertebrate assemblages
that are tolerant and characteristic of slow moving streams or impoundments.
29

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 13. Summary of 2009 Monitoring Results
• The hydrologic monitoring results showed much improved site conditions throughout all
six tracts at the Nahunta Mitigation Site. Of the twenty -five hydrology monitoring
gauges, twenty -two recorded a successful consecutive hydroperiod of at least 12.5
percent of the growing season. The three remaining gauges had hydroperiods consistent
with those of the reference gauges, indicating that the hydrology of the site has been
restored in accordance with the objectives specified in the Mitigation Plan for the site.
• Vegetation monitoring documented the average number of stems per acre on site to be
556, which is a survival rate of greater than 80 percent based on the initial planting count
of 690 stems per acre. The vegetation has met the final success criteria of 260 stems per
acre specified in the Mitigation Plan for the site.
• The restored stream channels have remained stable. All surveyed cross sections and
profiles for 2009 show very little adjustment in stream dimension. A minimum of one
bankfull flow event was documented on reaches 1, 5, and 6 in 2009. It was concluded
that all streams have met the stream success criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan for
the site.
• Summary data for the five year monitoring period is presented in the Tables 14 and 15.
30
:Perceatof=Ga'u es.:,':
;•Percent.of
1;G
s .s_°
Wetland,
Stream
Wit>i4Wetland;•- -
Ve etation"
g
Nuintier of
Restoration
= =
Tract?
:
0Acres ;.`
Linear -
a ,:. a'
„ . =H dro eriod ;;
=Y,d,, _P , e, -
:Plots >24,
:.
''�Baakfull
Tµ
:•'
stems
-
° _= -;
��p,
�p`:i�'
acre.-
•'��n.
:
r: + °.-rg�.au, ,: b�€ `r
� i,�, =° -': -n � :i
• ``���:.� :o-Ys,c.�, *� �.t '�•
�.�'s3i a'M{rix�, �� °�;,� rte,
Cole—
7.9
1,159
100
100
100
2
Reach 1
Tapp -
17.9
1,820
83
67
100
0
Reach 2
Tapp -
1,090
- --
- - --
100
0
Reach 3
Tapp —
- --
1,452
- --
- --
100
0
Reach 4
-
Edmundsen
16.5
- --
100
100
100
- --
North
Edmundsen
South —
21.0
2,083
..100
100
100
1
Reach 5
Gonder —
24.5
3,211
83
83
100
2
Reach 6
Cook
29.2
- --
100
100
100
- --
Total
117.0
10,815
• The hydrologic monitoring results showed much improved site conditions throughout all
six tracts at the Nahunta Mitigation Site. Of the twenty -five hydrology monitoring
gauges, twenty -two recorded a successful consecutive hydroperiod of at least 12.5
percent of the growing season. The three remaining gauges had hydroperiods consistent
with those of the reference gauges, indicating that the hydrology of the site has been
restored in accordance with the objectives specified in the Mitigation Plan for the site.
• Vegetation monitoring documented the average number of stems per acre on site to be
556, which is a survival rate of greater than 80 percent based on the initial planting count
of 690 stems per acre. The vegetation has met the final success criteria of 260 stems per
acre specified in the Mitigation Plan for the site.
• The restored stream channels have remained stable. All surveyed cross sections and
profiles for 2009 show very little adjustment in stream dimension. A minimum of one
bankfull flow event was documented on reaches 1, 5, and 6 in 2009. It was concluded
that all streams have met the stream success criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan for
the site.
• Summary data for the five year monitoring period is presented in the Tables 14 and 15.
30

r,
Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Table 14. Summary of Vegetative Monitoring Data 2005 -2009
Plait .t
� „t Stems per Here
v e t
- 20U5:h,R -F 2006; : 2007$ X"A 8 ON X2009 . =
Cook
N1
650
640
580
580
580
N2
640
640
590
610
610
N3
660
640
600
630
630
N4
710
710
710
710
710
N5
670
660
650
660
660
Edmundsen North
N6
640
640
600
600
600
.N7
740
710
600
600
600
N8
600
610
550
570
520
TapA
N9
600
600
590
590
580
N10
600
610
610
610
610
N11
580
570
530
530
520
N12
720
670
650
670
680
Cole
N13
620
560
550
510
500
N14
610
590
600
600
600
Edmundsen South
N15
530
530
480
470
450
N16
630
470
480
460
470
N17
560
450
440
440
430
N18
670
610
540
520
520
Gonder
N19
670
640
610
580
560
N20
610
590
550
560
530
N21
630
600
320
270
270
N22
700
640
600
590
590
N23
690
650
570
570
j 570
31

Nahunta Mitigation Site
FINAL - Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Table 15. Summary of Hydrology Monitoring Data 2005 -2009
s.�� _�: € °°t✓ --} ,`: �'W
yY gam. _ " -..2
b'„
ydroperioda .���"4.,;,Wp���'���'.N��,:
J:4ik,:"
� „. {.:
>
rc'.` .Pq ,”
.,r^ 200044+
',I'd'S:t.'v._t
Cole AW1
9
19
14
7
13
Cole MW2
78
19
12
35
20
Tapp A W 1
13
6
3
8
16
Tapp AW2
6
8
4
4
6
Tapp AW3
6
12
4
3
2
Tapp AW4
13
30
8
30
21
Tapp AW5
N/A
N/A
4
22
17
Tapp AW6
N/A
N/A
5
18
18
Ed (North) A W 1
19
11
5
24
19
Ed (North) AW2
19
11
6
22
18
Ed (North) AW3
19
11
5
19
19
Ed (South) AW4
8
33
5
19
39
Ed (South) AW5
18
28
5
19
22
Ed (South) AW6
8
14
4
25
19-
Ed (South) AW7
8
15
4
26
20
Cook AWl
19
34
8
31
34
Cook AW2
22
32
5
23
18
Cook AW3
22
30
23
32
31
Cook AW4
19
29
0
10
18
Gonder A W 1
7
7
2
5
14
Gonder AW2
15
8
7
24
20
Gonder AW3
15
12
5
19
18
Gonder AW4
15
19
6
3
18
Gonder AW5
2
4
1
1
2
Gonder AW6
N/A
N/A
7
19
18
Ref AWI
39°
30
15
35
30
Ref AW2
18
18
11
26
33
Ref AW3
—6 -9
11
22
40
35
Ref AW4
N/A
N/A
N/A
13
6
Ref AW5
N/A
N/A
N/A
6
3
Note: 2007 was a severe drought year
32

APPENDIX A
As -Built Survey

n �
c�
mF
—I O z
a w
G m Q
0 m
N
�D z
O s>
E U �
G
m
F
D
� U
L)
F-d
r~
u
i
b
�-e
tl.
0
V
O
�1
C)
O
N
r
A
O
O F+
�L
A
h
ti �
3
O
lz
y
c
u
0
i
1
2
QU
W
...
i
J Z
Uaz �W
w �>
W J w Z
zvic�a =g
aZg w wU) a-
�o�w °go
w a- uj g
J U) ~
w U N? D O
J Q✓ 0 mi to
F- Uw0Q�
N 1�
M
N
W
z
w
0
z
0
o
7d
w
w
WWWS
o
10 W
zi
WD i
w
ow
O
a lO
N
gW
ww
w
wo
J of
z ^�
IR
F28
M
�<
� 1
�
CE
\
o j
O
i
J Z
Uaz �W
w �>
W J w Z
zvic�a =g
aZg w wU) a-
�o�w °go
w a- uj g
J U) ~
w U N? D O
J Q✓ 0 mi to
F- Uw0Q�
N 1�
M
N
g
w �e
W � Za`'LL3
�U
f� z
tl
0.
w
CL
0
W
O
Z 4
Y
oa
N Z
Z
OUC
U
`r °o
wn
� n = N
U
?
sl
o W2� �a
0 J U
d Low
z c}i � >C
O f, ofZ WZ w�a
w C n °° x<
o
Q iO o
o
0.�
w
Z P O O N M r N M N
W Y7 N P In O N N 0
J pp O ^ O M
� � N
D4 m Q
Q w
H LU LU
� Z �
U W p W
0 Ono
J
�y � ZQZa�
~ y O M N 0 O W) O J
au� �Ln
W L 3 3
Inca
U U U U U U 0 d
CLCLoCC
oc oc o[ oe oe oc o_ a. a
0 0 0
� Z
U s = LU
as O O J O LL
LL
rA N N w
V O O
Ln kn L
dWVAl 9 VJNAHVN t,90,0199109d,
W
z
w
0
z
0
o
7d
w
w
WWWS
o
10 W
zi
WD i
w
ow
O
a lO
N
gW
ww
w
wo
J of
z ^�
F
mm
F28
M
�<
g
w �e
W � Za`'LL3
�U
f� z
tl
0.
w
CL
0
W
O
Z 4
Y
oa
N Z
Z
OUC
U
`r °o
wn
� n = N
U
?
sl
o W2� �a
0 J U
d Low
z c}i � >C
O f, ofZ WZ w�a
w C n °° x<
o
Q iO o
o
0.�
w
Z P O O N M r N M N
W Y7 N P In O N N 0
J pp O ^ O M
� � N
D4 m Q
Q w
H LU LU
� Z �
U W p W
0 Ono
J
�y � ZQZa�
~ y O M N 0 O W) O J
au� �Ln
W L 3 3
Inca
U U U U U U 0 d
CLCLoCC
oc oc o[ oe oe oc o_ a. a
0 0 0
� Z
U s = LU
as O O J O LL
LL
rA N N w
V O O
Ln kn L
dWVAl 9 VJNAHVN t,90,0199109d,

U
X//
S
U)
fA
J
OO. `1
X�L
0
•o
8
i
Q W q❑
fb °CD
A' 8
�
�Z W
AI
s
E
fqO�
r�,1
Ua
w
w
Da'<��
Z
eLL
8
O
N
W
mF
g
a
w °Z
o
0
'
W
m Q }
R
r ow
i2
z
�10
Oz° ai F
w�.-
�Tri
g
o_w i
ohs
tl
�o
U
X//
S
U)
fA
J
OO. `1
X�L
R
J
!J '
t r
�.r
it rr 00%s�
ILJ
V/ ,^
w
OON
r
i
Q
�-j
O
U
00+
.
©w
J
C) ��\ O
> `S J
- - - - --
- - -- ACC
NAHUNTA SWAMP ° N
N U
0
•o
°�w
Q W q❑
fb °CD
�Z W
AI
M
E
fqO�
r�,1
Ua
w
Da'<��
O J U) +
8
O
N
o °om
U W Q
o
}
J LL
r
'
W
m Q }
M
z <0 U)
R
J
!J '
t r
�.r
it rr 00%s�
ILJ
V/ ,^
w
OON
r
i
Q
�-j
O
U
00+
.
©w
J
C) ��\ O
> `S J
- - - - --
- - -- ACC
NAHUNTA SWAMP ° N
N U

o
an
=e ^o
°W
W
s
g
Z
x W z 8
i O mF
m
a
0
LUZ��
O LL
1N�N+
M
W
ii
W 7
ZO) p
'
�i
J
J �
N�
m
�QUo
<
p
ate`
t� WH N
m J m w
WE
V
=z
U C7
-
�Z }e0
Om
U W F}
HONgi �<
_
�..\
! I
�Fyy]j g
6 O N
Cl)
y
U')
— —
W
z
W
LL
N
\ \
1.1
U)
I' .I
Ate'
I
SSG
�
SS3��
--
- - - - --
OD
1 1
�
1 1
11
I I Op *9l
�
11
I I
�
I
lay W
/
I
Iu)I v
FLU
�
,�
,
1
�
I '
�, Xell
\
I I
i
NCO
I I
�S
ao
13 =,

8
an
=
LU
w w QaW I
W p �,
i Z Z eLL w o
2; Z Cpl ;a _ �^ %, ZO
_
o j 0 2 °
-L.,
JyN j
q
r om
o
w CO w ow
2J _ U O = +8
-0. 5 w < t> 2
w W
P�'1
J
Z
LL
m
xx
W U
8 C m
/GG�55i
— -- c4
1p
O
O
N
r
M
13 +00 �
J
m / J
Z$ / XSEC g_
�o L o
Fa
~�N
� J
/ J
H
W
W U
J w Q
U C7 Co
N
N �
Q Q
N 2 y J
v�v +9L m
O
zin v a Co Lo
W
V)
13
I J
1
00+ 1
x
S,r �
—� - - - -- — - — - — - — _Hldd SS300V _ _ _ -- - - -- -_ -- - - --
do dol31VV41Xoaddb) g30
~ _ AMMS VlNnHNN_
1 �1•
1 .rte
N
N
H2
U
m
2 d'
U
O
Z
W

8
o dill ��
W
W co €..' x CO
= W Wa
r Z m i , Q U O 1i'j �i
ow
ac m W 7 IL
td
h
0 NC9 =y yw /- /— �r —s��� F U m f�
V I
lz
oca
w co
w
z
LL
/ U
o°
o m
of
J
>r
J
ce) \' \
J I \
J \
` v \
J
\ co
co
\ J
\
ti
a \ \
H
o
J \ \
ZI 03SX - - - -- - - - - -
\\
o \.
o° \
ciw N \
w C7 \ \
N
\' \
N
� \ N
� Y
N
J s
0 x2A� e ~ U
yx
a
xz
u�
z
z
zw
/
I

d o 0
z 'AHtB p W lo-
L, $ T y�p
W W a¢
O v�
$ w g��a yN `�d^ IVL
= ZZ r Z ~OW $ \ �D U) W
0 Q� OO Z'i ' Oath + h
W� wa °w �Z � U w Q} g O N
5 °w
V� N oLL ur a'K
tl w LL ~ �
yK} 2N_2V �O Z N 2 M
�Oa)s F< ��11 Q C7 m 2 C
g O
w
i
CO Z
Ig
U.
Zz
II -
i
I�' / .._.._. 498 -
I
I ��11 ti
V
Z 3 +pp
oco Z
LU
.j
w
LO
w a
,,II
;._ if
iim IiI
I _ �
�i
�I Z 4
LU
LU
II I I� Z 0 C�v�
oLO - - -- - -_ - �y
w0 w
Wa
495 /
1,

i \ \
\ \
\
QDW \ \
W
Waw � \
MZ% i \
L5•£4 +SL NOIIVIS
6 133HS 3NIlHO1dW
23 +00
\
w
wQ Q
U c)
•,
tiyl �
-
-
\ V
\ oo +iz'
z
1 w
CO
0
J Z
LU
2
O
❑ w
tq O
W w 0 w
❑ ;� W
LL
fp(6 iR U)
Boa°
O 'H y +
�Woz
U W
J W LL
6
a
J
W
ZZaZ .
U
LL
".9
S
I
z
W
U)
0
z
D
W
`I
� % 1
L5•£4 +SL NOIIVIS
6 133HS 3NIlHO1dW
23 +00
\
w
wQ Q
U c)
•,
tiyl �
-
-
\ V
\ oo +iz'
z
1 w
CO
0
J Z
LU
2
O
❑ w
tq O
W w 0 w
❑ ;� W
LL
fp(6 iR U)
Boa°
O 'H y +
�Woz
U W
J W LL
6
a
J
W
ZZaZ .
U
LL
".9
S
I
z
W
U)
0
z
D
W
I
z
W
U)
0
z
D
W

o MgTCHLINE SHEET 12 0
W di STATION 27 +38•
83
I l SR
io° ,
W i In
In
IS
J w� Vr I ' ( L,
^GO iF
I
1 I
I '
�:1
I I I �o <U-
I w"+
1 I 2 }
�Lu
CD
I 1
}
� 01,
z I : Q0U
W I, I
z
I ° J 11 I
Lq
I I 1
i t I I I p
I i i I
LL
LU
i I I I I
Ial
Zvi Iwl
1 I
'al 00 IUI I
CL
i t I I Q
I 0p *�Z I
cn
OZ 33SX
w I I Q
I z 11 Z
I COD I I
I I I I I
i i I I
3 ,
I I 1
i I I I
I
I I w0 I '
00 *81 U C7 i i
i l
i I I I
I
I I I I
ok 1
� i 1
1
=z.. * ��
w �
1
l % LID V 1 1
i 12+ �4x0
I , ,
I
i
� 1 1

ri
w
W
0
Z
'0
V
llll�
M
J
Tcn
100. \
5II-1
J
XSEc 22-' _
0
ff-�l
N
o
J
J
Q
I
1 (�
rn ; I
i 42+ 0 1
o
J
Qb o -J1�
1 0
z
v j o
N I
I R
U I y U
CD
Ln
00 I u� z
3 I
J I I
I I '
I I (
II I
II
I I I
I I
I I (
I I I
I I
I�
I I I
I I
I I
I 1
I I (
1 =I
I ~1 ( a
ICI (
V!
IQI I
I I I
II I =
1 I Q
II I z
I I
I ! I
I I
1 1
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 1 `
I I
I I
I
I I �
I I
I I � •
I I
I
I I +
I I
I
I I.
I IlJ
I I LU
I
I I �
I 1 I Z Q
Y
m
1 1
I I
I I
I
I I
I 1 l
I I
I I
£S'S£ +LZ NOIIVIS 6l 133HS 3NIIHO1VW
z
O
O y
W
LU 2 O
LU0
wZ).jw
Q LL
0 Q
p G h +
F
3 -jFm
w }
H0U
Q LL 1
1lyy]� 4s
�d
w
z
°w
J
LL

i.
APPENDIX B
2009. Profile and Cross Section Data

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
m�
a�a
O d �N
�6L.o
a
0
Z F
x+
�C
x
4(
0
M
8
v
m
0
a
v
0
i i'c —+ o
(1J) ugleeal3
r
5
r v
o i
0
c °o
� N
ti
a
US
} W r N
A t �
C U
A G1 1
z e u
0 10
m
CL` �
A
c
V
rn
o
J
L o Lf) o
0 o rn m
0 n v v
(u) UOilen013
0
0
0
rn
O C
O O
t�
O
0
0
0
(n

0
O
CL
N
O
—Q)
N
O
� U
co
L
m
Z
m
C) 0
m
m
I
a
o �
co y
I�
11
M
LO
L_ I
dl
0
Cl)
O
N
i
i
O
r
O
L O LO O LO O
O p O O O 6 O
O O O
r
(4) U0118AO13

Y
C
R
CD
t
R
E
m
c
0
O
J
Y
C
m
m
J
0
C
Y
O
O
J
N
ch
C
O
U
O
y
O
U
C6
c
7
L
z
T LO O to O LO M U)
O 00 O 6 O 0 O �
(11) UOIIBA913
W
O
M,
f0
d
r
o I(0
v
m
m
LO co
cc
(6
N
}
� N
C
> I
m
o Q
co
Y
i I I
0
N
I I
0
T

Y
C
t0
m
T
t
R
a+
C
Y
O
O
J
s
N
C
O
U
O
U)
O
N
O
U
co
c
L
(0
Z
IA N 0 Lo O 0 O 0 O
N O r O O O O O OD O
r r r
( ) UOl ;ena13
O
co
O
r
n
(0
}
O
O
v
m
a�
}
0
� M
(Q
}
I
� N
O L_ c0
7
m
CD Q
M 1
O
N
m
O
I I '
N
d
I

0
O
a
c
0
U
U)
U)
O
U
C6
c
cn
Z
co Ln
O L6
O
U) LO V Ln
O 4 O C-j
O O
( )J) u01len8l3
0
rn
0
OD
o Ln
m
m
}
I
v
CD
cc
N
}
0
LO
O
It
0
co
O
N
O
O
co
O
,y.
m
N
}
I
N
LC
N
}
I
m
Q
w
Y

N
cc
t0
C
0
Q
U
N
U)
O
U
co
c
t
m
Z
Un o
o
0
LO m to
M CD 06
(11) U011BA913
0
It
LO
M
_LO
f6
N
}
O IM
f0
N
}
U') Cl)
N
N
}
N
m
Q
i
Kam`
o m
Q.
LO
0
w Ln
rn rn

O
O
CL
C
O
U
N
0
U
c
c
t
cu
Z
to O tO
O
O 0)
CF) LO O LO
m 6 O)
(4) u01;en913
O
O
O
co
O L
(6
N
}
I
}
C7
O `0
to N
}
t_ I
m
m
O }
v I
m
CD Q
Y
O
N --
O
r
O
O

_O
06
C
O
U
N
U)
O
U
ci
c
s
co
Z
N.
C)
r-
W)
m
m
}
o Ico
v
Imj
Ali
O
r
I
O r-_ co
I
m
Q
I
a
CD I
N �p
I
O
O
In r In O LO O U7 00
O O O O O O0 O
(4) uOIJenaJ�

Y
C
l0
m
T
L
C1
R
R
CD
C
Y
O
O
J
O
O
CL
d
c
0
U
Y)
O
U
C6
c
D
t
m
Z
0
rn
0
00
O cn
c0
(D
}
o �
CO �
}
co
O
LO
}
I
-0 N
N
N
O }
� I
m
Q
cn
Y
Cl
Y N
C
R
m
d
J
t�0 O
C
Y
O
O
J
O
U� O cf) O LO 00 lf) I-
O O O m o0 m t` O
O O O O
r
(11) UOIIBA813

(U
O
C
O
U
Cn
O
U
c6
C
L
C9
z
6
Cr Uf 00 In
CT 00 Cn f-:
CT C)
(?4) uOIJen913
0
Lo
Ln
O
v
LO
co
O
ch
L t
N>
O
N
tc i
O
O
m
W
m
}
R
m
}
I
M
N
}
I
N
}
I
r
m
I

Y
C
m
m
T
t
C)
m
C
Y
O
O
J
1
a>
c
O
U
N
U)
U)
O
L
U
cn
C
73
L
(6
Z
O �
O Lfj
O
r
In ui It to
O O O Cl)
r
(4) UOIIBA913
O
O
c0
O
Z
Or
Cl)
IQ
d
O
I
N
I
O
r
O
M In
N
O
O
O
r

` 4
' 1
c '
�i
t
it
Ilk
140. ,
Ali
1

Y
C
l0
m
t
NNL_
IL
cm
C
Y
O
O
J
Y
C
O
m
G1
J
w
l0
C
Y
O
O
J
ci
r
C
O
U
U)
U)
O
U
co
Y
ca
Z
C) of rn aD
O O 0)
(74) U01jeA913
0
Q0
0
Ln
0
v
Tol
@
}
I
m
co
ca
f0
N
}
O L N
co :!6 }
.j
m
Q
0
N
Y
O
C2]
d

N
V'
r
C
O
U
N
co
cn
O
U
:a
c
7
L
N
Z
0
00
CD
r-
`m
o I0
v
co
0
LO M
(6
_ I
O L �
i5 >w-
co
I
O
N d
O
O
In f- l() CO U7 0 LO t U7
O O O O O
(14) u011en913

O
O
CL
Lfi
c
0
U
N
N
O
L
U
w
c
t
m
Z
O LO
O L6
O
LO U') 'IT LO
O 4 O (h
O O
()J) UOIJeA813
O
O
O
ul
O �
to
}
I
(0
N
}
O
LO
o �c
0
co
O
N
O
O
co U')
O N
O
^v.
cc
}
N
f0
N
}
I
m
w
Y
d

Y
C
m
m
d
J
r
C
Y
O
O
J
W
cfl
c
O
U
N
U)
U)
C0
O
U
to
c
L
C�
z
O
co
0
LO
m
a�
co I
v
m
m
�I
� ch
O L
M Q
w
Y
I
O f
N a a
O
r
O
LO w lA lA In 't lA M In
CO O 6 O 4 O M O N
O O O O O
(14) U0118A91=1

O
O
a
O
U
N
U)
N
O
U
c9
c
L
co
Z
In In V- LO co LO N U7
O 4 O CM O (V O r
O O O CD
(u) U01jen913
O
O
00
O LO
m
a>
I
}
I
ch
� N
I
N
c6
N
O }
� I
m
O Q
M
w
Y
O
N
O
O

C
M
m
N
J
l0
C
Y
O
O
J
N
C
r
C
O
U
U)
to
to
O
U
C
c
L
co
Z
In LO 11, LO M LO
O 4 O CM O CV
Cn CA CA
(4) UOIJBA813
P
o m
i
v
�v
m
(0 I!
i
M
f6
N
O It17
� N
'C }
O I
3
m
M III'
w
Y
cc
_d
O
IN
O
r
0
04 LC)
r
O
O

N
d
r
C
O
U
N
U)
N
N
O
U
co
c
7
t
c0
Z
In O In M In w 0 f� LO
r
(1j) U0118AO13
C)
OD
0
L
m
a�
o
(0
v,
m
}
I
o cn
LO
ca
m
I I
N
(0
I
m
o Q
co
r-
Y
O
N a cc
O
L7

O
O
d
O
N
C
O
U
O
O
U
c�
c
L
Z
00 LO r Ln O «)
m n 0) O
CY) m m
(14) u01lena13
0
00
O
r-
r,
O m
0 �
}
v
`m
}
O
In
w
O X-
0
co
O
N
O
O
Cl)
co
N
}
I
N
f0
}
I
m
Q
Y

Y
C
ca
m
L
to
rn
C
O
O
J
af
N
C
O
U
(D
co
cn
N
O
U
co
c
Z)
L
(0
Z
U� co U? n U�
00 O r.- D) tD
O O D)
()}) UOIIBA913
O
co
O
n
LO
`m
N
}
c°o I
v
m.
a�
}
0
u7 co
2
m
N
}
_ I
O L m
> I
m
c
w
Y
O
N
m
Q.
w
I
O
r
O
to U')
O
D7

JL
C
10
m
d
J
R
co
C
Y
O
O
J
0
O
O_
N
N
C
O
U
N
N
O
U
C6
c
co
Z
rn
rn
LO (D LO
cfl rn Sri
rn rn
(}j) UOIj2n81�
0
0
ti
c�
o �
m }
I
v
a�
}
0
O
0
m
0
N
0-
C)
rn
i
M
co
N
}
L
>5 N
N
}
m
Q
_! I

N
ri
N
C
O
U
O
U)
U)
O
U
c
Z3
co
Z
I-- LO O U7
m O O
(14) UOI}I?A813
m
0
r—
m
m
Y
Co I0
v
m
}
CD I
m
m
}
I
� N
O L �
'I
m
o Q
co
0
N
O
O
cn
V
O

Y
C
m
w
L
a1
O
O
J
Y
C
t0
m
d
J
t0
Of
C
Y
O
O
J
W
v
N
C
O
U
CD
U)
W
cn
O
U
co
c
i s
co
Z
0
W
N
N
}
I
o v
LO
`m
a�
}
c+�
m
N
o }
v I
� N
L N
U N
> I
O
M —
m
Q
w
Y
O
N
a
O
O
In CO LO M O ,q o M u) N
CO O 6 O 4 O M O N O
O O O O O
(4) UOIIBA913

APPENDIX C
2009 Gauge Data

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report /or 2009 (Year 5) Appendix C
1
• 11•
-_
®®`
®`
®
111
��
®�
®i
PIN
1

Nahunta Mrtigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
C
Appendix C -
(
\ l
\
\ I
r J
i \
i
,J
i J
�.J
\J
l
\ 1
J
• 11•
�
-�
11
�
1.1
�
®��
®m
1 11'
®
-�
11•
II
®�����®
C
Appendix C -
(
\ l
\
\ I
r J
i \
i
,J
i J
�.J
\J
l
\ 1
J

\ i
Nahunta Mrtigauon Site Annual Monitonng Report for 2009 (Year 5)
3
Appendix C
• 11•
�
-��
111
��
®�
®��
11.11•,�
�
-
®
®
®��
'®
®���
��•
1' 11•
�_�
®�m
11.
111
®®'
��
11.11•
®-
®
®��
®���®'
�-
������
®���I
X11•
3
Appendix C

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5) Appendix C
., 11•
111
_
®����
®�®'

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Mordonng Report /or 2009 (Year 5) Appendix C
5
S•�Yl1JYI' L•f��-
����������
1
11.11�•�
��
�-
��
®�
®�����
5

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Appendix C
�J
. r
�J
l
r�1
11�•
�
-®'
®��®"
®'
�
111
��
own
ogle"
Appendix C
�J
. r
�J
l
r�1

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5) Appendm C
7
OfframITSTO m,
EFRONT.I. m.
7

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
C
CJ
�l
Appendix C -�
J
r �\
l �
J
/ 1
�J
C_l
� 1
`.
/ 1
�. J
OWFIMP.I. m.
C
CJ
�l
Appendix C -�
J
r �\
l �
J
/ 1
�J
C_l
� 1
`.
/ 1
�. J

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
E
Appendm C
1 11•
m��
I 1
11•
�
®
®�����
11•
��
®�
®���
111
��
®�
E
Appendm C

Nahunta Mrtigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Iw
CII
0
n
Appendix
\i
1
J
J
C
�J
\
�J
C l
C;
Jll
�J
.J
�•
®mmm
®�mmm
®
®mm
. �•
®
®m
®mm
®mmm
®mm
. �•
m
®
®mm
®mm
mm
®m
: •
®mmmm
®mmmmmmm
: •
m
®m®
� �
mmmm
®m
®�
: •
®m
®mmmmmmmmm®
• •
m
®m
®m
®m
®m
®
®mm
: •
®mmm
®mmm
®mmmm
�•
mm
®
®m
®mmmmmmm
: •
m
•
m
®
®
®mm
®mmmm
•
m
•
mmm
®mm
®
®mmm
•
mm
®m
®
®
®
®mmmm®
•
mm�mmmmm
®
®mmm
. •
®mmmm
�
m
®mm
®mm
t ��•
®mm
®
®�mmmmmm�
Iw
CII
0
n
Appendix
\i
1
J
J
C
�J
\
�J
C l
C;
Jll
�J
.J

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
il
Appendix C
t• tt•
�
®
®
®����®"
��®
t 1.
tl•
®�
It
®'`
®
®mm������
il
Appendix C

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Appendix C `J
1
�1
.i
i�
�i
1
,J
O
OFTSMSM m,
. 11•,1•
�®`
®®'
®
®®�®'
��®'•
. 11'11•
�����
®®'
�®'
"®'
�®'
Appendix C `J
1
�1
.i
i�
�i
1
,J
O

I
Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monitonng Report /or 2009 (Year 5)
IF
Appendix C

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5) Appendm C
14
mmmmmmmmmm®
1 I
1 • 11'
-------
-
-
-
-
--
1 1'
-------
-
-
-
-
--
14

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Mondonng Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Appendix C
IMMISTO
®����--
_
-
-
-
-
®-
11•
®���®'
-_
-
-
--
111
11•
®'
®��
®-
-
-
-
-
--
111
11•
®���
®
-
-_
-
--
111
11•
�����
-
-
-
-
--
111
' • 11'
®����-
-
-
-
-_-
111
1 • 11•
���
®�-
-
-
-
-
--
111
Appendix C

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
16
AppentimC
�J
�J
�J
� 1
�s
EFFEMSTRim
16
AppentimC
�J
�J
�J
� 1
�s

Nahunta Mdigation Site Annual Monitonng Report for 2009 (Year 5) Append. C
m
I 11•®'
®®®`
�
111
111
1 1
m
111
1 1
®'
11
-
�� . 1111 •
�����---
-
-
-
-
--
� . 1111'
��®
I 1
�
-
-_
-
-_
1 1
�•.
11.11•
11
��
®�_--
-
-
-
-
--
11.1.1,•
�®
'®�®'
-
-
-
-
-_-
11
---
-
-
-
-
®-
1
m

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monrtonng Report for 2009 (Year 5)
m
Appendix C - -
1
�J
�i
� J
�J
/-1
� l`
t tt•
®���-
-
-
-
-
--
t t
WITSM, NO m,
nFr6m,557, m,
IMBNOT.T. •
tt•
®�®
t tt
��������
t tl
�
ORMSTO TOW
m
Appendix C - -
1
�J
�i
� J
�J
/-1
� l`

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
M
1
Appendix C
mm
1. . •
�
®��
®---
_
-
-_
--
,
•
�
iii
®�
®-
-
-
-
-
--
�
M
1
Appendix C

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
20
\_ J
Appendix C
J
\ i
\
�J
J
i
i
r
J
/
�J
�1
_J
�y J
,i
^1
`� J
i�l�Y1��
®�
®�
1 1
111
1 1
111
11
111
®m-
' 11•
®�
®��-
-
-
-
-
--
111
lYCii•JGLI�
®�
®�'
�-
-
-
-
-
--
1 1
1 . 11•®1`
�
®®
'®-
_-
_
-
-
-�-
20
\_ J
Appendix C
J
\ i
\
�J
J
i
i
r
J
/
�J
�1
_J
�y J
,i
^1
`� J

Nahunta Mitigation Site Annual Monttonng Report for 2009 (Year 5) Appendix C
21
tt•
��
®��
tt
i it
t tt
i t
tit
t tt
�
--
21

APPENDIX D
2009 Site Photos

0
SPA 1 — Erosion behind root wad @ station 16 +75 (Reach 1)
SPA2 — Beaver dams throughout Reach 1

0
SPA — Beaver dams throughout Reach 5
Log Weir (typical)

0
Riffle (typical)
Pool (typical)

y. v 7tt t
ir
C
IT
A.
f.a, i' � , .may � . _ � . � -. •-.E � � '

so�
Ira,
* �7v
JL
.71
ilk
-VOL.
JL

0
General channel conditions
Root wad (typical)

z.e
'
s
Ar 1 �r
•4 1 � A
If �
I
Y c
0/1/2009
d.
a.

I

0
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #5
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #6
0

Rf - ° :� mod: •�;,r.
i
' l�a!20/2009
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #7
1020;2009

�..�•:�;
- /1
'� #�
.,�
�'. �.�
�. '
i
�.
.,�-
.. ..r�. ..`.
�I �,/a,
i
�;'2t��2�09�,
.,
.,
�� --
F / � . *"
1�
� � -:
'�.,.� -
fi���� /'Aj'
r.,i
\ �� , .
.s �.!' '�
¢� � _

P7,2 ti �.�
4 ► � ' ' ., tr- 1 �'� � T -. 1 .� ... fir(`
r
•5
X �
10/20/2009
:.
T
r
�. % it •.
'
".*� ' � `
,. � . � - ;
Y��r1�'• 9 tom. .

YY
Q
ioj,� 0-1, 6,
10/20/2009

J h
Y
10120/ x}09
10/2W.409

is
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #17
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #18
0

a
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #19
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #20

1 O/20 12 0 M

a
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #23