20070810 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20120823

1-1)w Q Copy' ()9-osib
DUKE SWAMP WETLAND AND STREAM
RESTORATION PROJECT
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2010 (YEAR 3)
Contract Number D06065 -A
Submitted to: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103 RECEIVED
Raleigh, � l�� J DEC 1 7 2010
AUG 2 3 101
�++o$SjjI!;; tem 2
L' I11 aoncSeIIlent DENR - WAIkk cuAUTY NC ECOSYSTEM
PROGRAM WETLANDS AND STORMW'„•MR BROM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Prepared by: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
rkn..i sd« CRylReerNq inc.
ww Rego" Paecway
3u"200
Cory. Norlh CevAm 27618
Fn3W 91Q46S.3e99
F- 919.4054K
December 2010
'311

l_ TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ll 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2 1 Project Objectives
j_
22 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
23 Location and Setting
{ I
24 Project History and Background
l_
25 Project Plan
3 0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
r-
3 1 Vegetation Assessment
3 1 1 Description of Vegetative Monitoring
( 3 1 2 Vegetative Success Criteria
I ^ 3 1 3 Vegetative Observations and Results
-1 3 1 4 Vegetative Problem Areas
3 1 5 Vegetation Photographs
1 1
32 Stream Assessment — Reach UT l a
32 1 Description of Stream Monitoring
3 2 2 Morphometnc Success Criteria
f ~ 3 2 3 Morphometric Monitoring Results
3 2 4 Hydrologic Success Criteria
32 5 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
3 2 6 Stream Problem Areas
j32 7 Stream Photographs
32 8 Stream Stability Assessment
3 2 9 Quantitative Measures Summary Tables
33 Stream Assessment — UTIb and UT2
3 3 1 Description of Stream Monitoring
3 3 2 Hydrologic Criteria
3 3 3 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
3 3 4 Stream Problem Areas
3 3 5 Stream Photographs and Videos
34 Wetland Assessment
-
34 1 Description of Wetland Momtonng
3 4 2 Wetland Criteria
~ , 3 4 3 Wetland Monitoring Results
344 Wetland Problem Areas
3 4 5 Wetland Photographs
40 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5 0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
i� 60 REFERENCES
Duke S%% amp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06065 A
? December 2010 Monitoring Year 3 DRAF r
1
3
3
7
7
11
I1
11
11
12
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
24
24
25
27
27
0

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Vegetation Data
APPENDIX B - GeomorphiciData
APPENDIX C - Wetland Data
Attached CD — Site Videos
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Project Restoration Components
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts
Table 4
Project Background
Table 5
Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site — As -built
Table 6
Verification of Bankf ill Events
Table 7
Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall (Inches)
Table 8
Hydrologic Monitoring Results
Table A 1
Vegetation Metadata
Table A 2
Vegetation Vigor by Species
Table A 3
Vegetation Damage by Species
Table A 4
Vegetation Damage by Plot
Table A 5
Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table A 6
Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table B 1
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table B 2
Baseline Stream Summary
Table B 3
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Duke S%% amp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project EEP Contract No D0606D A
December 2010 Momtonnt, Year 3 DRAFT

4j
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Location of Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Figure 2A
As -built Plan Sheet 1 for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Figure 2B
As -built Plan Sheet 3 for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Figure 2C
As -built Plan Sheet 4 for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Figure 2D
As -built Plan Sheet 5 for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Figure 2E
As -built Plan Sheet 6 for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Figure 2F
As -built Plan Sheet 7 for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Figure 3
Historic Average vs On -Site Observed Rainfall
Duke Sk%amp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project EF P Contrau No D0606-) A
December 2010 Monitoring Year 3 DRAF"1
ilil

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2010 growing season
(Monitoring Year 3) on the Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Site ( "Site ") As per
the approved Restoration Plan for the Site, this Annual Monitoring Report presents data on
stream geometry, wetland monitoring data, stem count data from vegetation monitoring stations,
and discusses any observed tendencies relating to stream stability and vegetation survival
success
Historically, land use on the Site consisted of agricultural production The UTIa area was used
for seasonally rotated crop production Mowing and crop production had curtailed any efforts
for native woody vegetation to establish along the stream banks which resulted in an inadequate
riparian buffer throughout reach UT1a The historic flow pattern and flooding regime of UT2
had been altered significantly Backwater effects had been the result of an existing spoil pile that
ran along the right bank ofUTlb in the forested wetland area Flows were being diverted along
this spoil pile and blocking the natural connection between UT1 and UT2 Prior to restoration,
Duke Swamp was channelized and lacked bedform diversity After construction, it was
determined that 5,441 linear feet (LF) of stream were restored
A total of 12 monitoring plots were used to predict survivability of the woody vegetation planted
1 on -site The Year 3 vegetation monitoring indicated an average survivability of 350 stems per
acre During Year 3 monitoring, vegetation plots 5, 10, 11, and 12 were found to have low stems
counts Tree densities within plots 5, 10, 11 and 12 ranged from 0 to 200 stems per acre It
appears that stem mortality within vegetation plots 5, 10, 11 and 12 are experiencing problems
�f due to heavy competition with a thick herbaceous layer and /or wet soil conditions
According to the Year 3 vegetation monitoring data, 4 plots on the downstream portion of UTIa
have not met the interim vegetative success criteria of 320 stems per acre after Year 3
monitoring Baker will be working with EEP during 2011 in order to reach a solution for
resolving the concerned vegetative problems areas on the Site These areas will be assessed with
I EEP during Year 4 to determine an appropriate course of action
Cross - section and longitudinal profile data for stream stability were collected during Year 3
monitoring The seven permanent cross - sections along the restored channel were re- surveyed to
I
document stream dimension at the end of monitoring Year 3 All cross - sections indicate that
there has been very little adjustment to stream dimension since construction During Year 3
monitoring approximately 3,375 LF of stream channel was re- surveyed to document longitudinal
profile morphology The results of the Year 3 longitudinal profile show that the riffles and pools
have remained relatively stable since construction
Dimension, pattern, profile and >n -stream structures remained stable during Year 3 The on -site
y crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least three bankfull flow events during Year 3 of the
post - construction monitoring period Inspection of conditions during site visits revealed visual
i evidence of out -of -bank flow, confirming the highest crest gauge reading of 3 54 feet (42 48
inches) above the bankf ill stage
The crest gauge on the Site has documented at least one bankfull event per year since as -built
I conditions Three bankfull events have been recorded in separate years, which meet the success
` criteria as stated in the site Restoration Plan The crest gauge readings will continue to be
f Duke Sµamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project EEP Contract No D0606� A
' December 2010 Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT

recorded through Year 5 of the project in order to observe flood events that may occur on the
Site
As first noted during Year 1 monitoring, the area between stations 38 +00 and 40 +00 has
undergone subsidence on the right floodplain Prior to restoration activities, this area was the
connection between the remnant channel and farm pond 3 that was filled in during construction
The settling has allowed below bankfull flows to permanently flood the right floodplain as
shown on cross - section 7 The floodplain elevation of cross - section 7 has decreased since as-
built conditions, but it has remained stable since Year 1 data collection This subsided area has
also remained stable and no sigiuficant changes have been noted since Year 1 This area will
continue to be closely observed during future site visits and any significant changes will be
reported in future reports
Other than the subsided area between stations 38 +00 and 40+00, the Site is on track to meet the
stream success criteria specified in the Site's Restoration Plan Remedial plans for the area
between 38 +00 and 40 +00 are being developed
Weather station data from the Buckland Elementary Weather Station (Buckland, BUCK -
ECONET) in Gates, NC, in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site were used
to document precipitation amounts Rainfall data from the Edenton automated weather station
(COOP 312635) are also used when data from the Buckland station or the on -site gauge exhibit
errors During Year 3, the on -site rainfall gauge exhibited several errors in data collection,
therefore, data from the Buckland station was validated with data from Edenton station
Total observed rainfall at the Buckland station for the period of January 2010 through October
2010 was 46 50 inches, as compared to the Edenton gauge of 51 99 inches for the same period
According to the Buckland gauge, total rainfall during the Year 3 monitoring period from
January 2010 through October 2010 was 3 54 inches above the historic approximated average
A total of five automated groundwater - monitoring stations were installed across the project area
to document hydrologic conditions of the restored site The success of the on -site wells during
Year 3 is attributed to precipitation that fell onto the Site and is also accredited to the higher local
water table as a result of the Site's restoration and periodic backwater conditions from Duke
Swamp
A total of five automated water level gauges documented the occurrence of numerous flooding
events within the UT 1 b area during Year 3 of post - construction monitoring
The Site is on track to meet the hydrologic success criteria specified in the Site's Restoration
Plan
Dube S%% amp Wetland and Stream Restoration Protect LLP Contract No D06063 -A
December 2010 Monitoring Year 3 DRAFI

2 0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project involved the proposed restoration of 5,422 LF of stream and 15 acres (AC) of nvenne
wetlands Table 1 summarizes the restoration areas on the Site Selected site photographs are shown
in Appendix A, B and C Based on the as -built survey, a total of 12 0 acres of nvenne wetlands and
5,441 LF of stream were restored on the Site The project also enhanced 7 6 acres of nvenne
wetlands on the Site A conservation easement totaling 25 4 acres has been recorded that protects
the streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers in perpetuity
21 Project Objectives
The specific goals for the Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project were as follows
• Restore functional stream channels
• Restore riparian wetlands
• Enhance existing riparian wetlands
• Improve water quality within the Duke Swamp watershed by reducing sediment and nutrient
inputs
j • Improve aquatic and riparian habitat functions by creating deeper pools with in- stream
I structures
1 • Establish native stream bank and floodplam vegetation within the agricultural field areas
U
22 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
After examining the assessment data collected and exploring the Site s potential for restoration, an
approach to the Site was developed that addressed restoration of both stream and wetland functions
within the agricultural field areas The approach also needed to take into account the existing
swamp system at the downstream end of the Site, which had been impacted in the past by
channelization Topography and soils on the Site indicated that the project area most likely
functioned in the past as a tributary stream system with associated wetlands, feeding into the larger
Duke Swamp system
Therefore, a design approach was formulated to restore this type of system First, appropriate stream
types for the valley types, slopes, and desired wetland functions were selected and designed to tie in
at the upstream road culvert Then a grading plan was developed to restore the adjacent wetland
areas to a "Coastal Plain small stream swamp" as identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990), which
had been previously converted to farmland Finally, a design approach was developed for the
downstream swamp area, to remove the past effects of channelization and restore historic flow
patterns within the swamp Special consideration was given to minimizing disturbance to existing
wetland and wooded areas
For analysis and design purposes, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc (Baker) divided the Duke Swamp
tributaries into three reaches labeled UTIa, UTIb, and UT2 to Duke Swamp UTIa begins on the
upstream side of the project at a culvert under SR 1320 From the culvert, UTIa flows west and
ends inside the forested wetland boundary UTIb then continues through the forested area and
eventually connects to the Duke Swamp system UT2 begins at the outlet of a small cypress pond on
!� Duke S% +amp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project EFP Contract No D06065 A 3
' December 2010 Momtori% Year 3 DRAFT

the northwestern corner of the Site UT2 flows south from the pond and connects with UTIb within
the forested wetland area
UTla Channel Restoration
A stable cross - section was achieved by restoring a single thread, meandering channel across the
abandoned floodplam, increasing the width/depth ratio, and raising the streambed to restore a
channel that was appropriately sized for its drainage area Due to the upstream road culvert and the
need to not increase flooding conditions of the road, floodplam grading was performed to allow for
increased capacity during large storm events Grading activities were aimed at restoring historic
flow patterns and adjacent wetland hydrology by removing past channel spoil and other agricultural
land manipulations The channel was restored to a C -type stream (Rosgen 1994) and the sinuosity
was increased by adding meanders to lengthen the channel and restore bed -form diversity Minimal
grade control was required for the project, due to the low channel slope and low potential for channel
incision In- stream wooden structures, such as log vanes, rootwads, and cover logs were included in
the channel design to provide Improved aquatic habitat
UTlb Channel Restoration
As discussed in the approved restoration plan, UTIb was channelized through an existing wetland
swamp system The channelization and piling of spoil along the right bank had disrupted the historic
flow and flooding patterns of the site, and disconnected the natural confluence of UTI and UT2
However, historic channel remnants existed within the area adjacent to the existing canal
Restoration of this reach sought to restore historic flow and flooding processes, while avoiding and
minimizing disturbance to the existing wetland vegetation The restoration of UTla through the
farm fields ended at the edge of the jurisdictional wetland system At this location, the constructed
UT 1 a channel connects with a historic channel remnant which forms the beginning to UT 1 b
Construction equipment entered the existing wetland area along UTlb by traversing the existing
spoil pile, thereby avoiding disturbance to wetland vegetation The excavator placed the spoil
material back Into the channel and restored the natural topography in the area of the spoil pile
Flows through UTIb are now allowed to follow historic flow patterns and functions as a DA -type
stream system as it spreads out through numerous channel remnants, in the same way the system
once functioned The historic connection between UTI and UT2 was restored
UT2 Channel Restoration
As discussed in the preceding section, restoration in the area of UTlb and UT2 Involved removing
the existing spoil pile which was affecting the flow of UT2 The UT2 channel was experiencing
backwater ponding and damming effects as a result of the spoil pile By removing the spoil pile and
restoring the surrounding topography, the historic flow pattern and flooding regime of UT2 was
restored as a transition from a single to multi- thread channel Rather than ponding and flowing
along the spoil pile, flows greater than bankfull on the restored UT2 are now able to spread across
the UT2 floodplam and mix with overbank flows from UTI
1
Duke SN amp Wetland and Stream Restoration Protect CEP Contract No D06065 -A 4
December 2010 Monitoring Year 3 DRAFI 1

Wetland Restoration Area #1
Wetland functions on the Site had been severely )Impaired as a result of agricultural conversion The
main stream (UT1) flowing through the Site was channelized many years ago to reduce flooding and
provide drainage for adjacent farm fields As a result, most of the wetland functions were destroyed
within these agricultural field areas
Wetland restoration of the prior - converted farm fields on the Site involved grading areas of the farm
fields to resemble natural floodplam topography and raising the local water table to restore a natural
,— flooding regime Reach UTla was restored to a stable dimension, pattern, and profile, such that
riparian wetland functions were restored to the adjacent hydric soil areas Drainage ditches and
Pond 3 were filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table
-- Native wetland vegetation was planted throughout the riparian buffer areas
Wetland Enhancement Area #2
As mentioned above, wetland functions on the site had been severely impaired as a result of
agricultural conversion Wetland enhancement of the existing jurisdictional wetland pockets
involved grading areas of the farm fields to resemble natural floodplam topography and raising the
local water table to enhance natural flooding regime and hydrology Drainage ditches and Pond 3
_J were filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table Additionally,
the water level of Pond 1 was lowered to function as a wetland Native wetland vegetation was
planted throughout the riparian buffer areas as shown on the as -built plan sheets
I
Wetland Enhancement Area #3
Wetland enhancement of the existing jurisdictional wetlands within the downstream wooded area
involved the removal of an existing spoil pile by placing the spoil material back into the channel
thereby re- establishing the natural topography in the area The historic hydrologic connection
between UT and UT2 was restored Native vegetation was planted along the spoil pile that was
removed as shown on the as -built plan sheets
Duke S%% amp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project EEP Contract No D0606_') A
December 2010 Monttonn6 Year 3 DRAF r

Tahle 1 Prorect Restoration Comnonents
Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Pro ect No D06065 -A
Project
Linear
Segment or
Existing
Mitigation
Footage or
Mitigation
Mitigation
Reach ID
Feet /Acres
Type *
Approach"
Acreage
Ratio
Units
Stationing
Comment
Restoration - Priority I
UT I a
2,860
R
P I , P2
4,026
1 1
4,026
10 +00 - 50 +26
and II
Restoration of historic
UT 1 b
880
R
-
900
1 1
900
10 +00 - 19 +00
Flows throughout remnant
channels Flooding
functions and hydrologic
UT2
880
R
-
515
1 1
515
10 +00 - 15 +15
connectivity
Wetland area
Rrvermewetland
# 1
0
R
-
1 12
1 1 1
1 12
1 See plan sheets
I restoration
Wetland areas
Rrvenne%%etland
#2 and #3
7 5
E
-
7 6
2 1
3 8
See plan sheets
enhancement
Mitigation Unit
Summations
Stream (If)
Riparian Wetland AC
Non -rl allan Wetland AC
Total Wetland AC
Buffer AC
Comment
5441
196
0
196
254
*R= Restoration * *P1= Pnottty I
E = Enhamement P2 = Priority 11
0
Dube Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project EEP Contract No D0606D -A
December 2010 Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT
J
lv� '�

23 Location and Setting
The Site is located in Gates County, NC (Figure 1), approximately nine miles northeast of the town
of Gatesville The Site lies in the Chowan River Basin within North Carolina Division of Water
Quality sub -basin 03 -01 -01 and North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) targeted
local watershed 03010203040010
24 Project History and Background
Historically, land use on the Site consisted of agricultural production The UTIa area was used for
seasonally rotated crop production Mowing and crop production had curtailed any efforts for native
woody vegetation to establish along the stream banks which resulted in an inadequate riparian buffer
throughout reach UTla The historic flow pattern and flooding regime of UT2 had been altered
significantly Backwater effects had been the result of an existing spoil pile that ran along the right
bank of UTIb in the forested wetland area Flows were being diverted along this spoil pile and
blocking the natural connection between UT and UT2
rThe chronology of the Duke Swamp Restoration Project is presented in Table 2 The contact
information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3 Relevant
project background information is presented in Table 4
25 Project Plan
G Plans depicting the as -built conditions of the mayor project elements, locations of permanent
monitoring cross - sections, and locations of permanent vegetation monitoring plots are presented in
Figures 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E and 2F of this report
Duke S«amp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project CEP Contract No D06065 -A 7
December 2010 Monitoring Year 3 DRAT'

Table 2 Project Activity and Reoorhn2 History
Duke Swamp Restoration Site Pro ect No D06065 -A
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data
Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Apr -07
Restoration Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
N/A
Restoration Plan Approved
May -07
N/A
Apr -07
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Jun -07
Construction Begins
Jul -07
N/A
Jul -07
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
Dec -07
N/A
Dec -07
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Dec -07
N/A
Dec -07
Planting of live stakes
Dec -07
N/A
Dec -07
Planting of bare root trees
Dec -07
N/A
Dec -07
End of construction
Oct -07
N/A
Sep -07
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-
baseline
Oct -07
Oct -07
Oct -07
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -08
Oct -08
Dec -08
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec -09
Oct -09
Dec -09
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec -10
Oct -10
Dec -10
Year 4 Monitoring
Scheduled
Dec -1 1
Scheduled
Oct -11
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Scheduled
Dec -12
Scheduled
Oct -12
N/A
Duke S%% amp Welland and Stream Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06065 A 8
December 2010 Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT —

Tnhlr I PrniPCt C nntact Tnhle
Duke Swamp Restoration Site Project No D06065 -A
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact
Kevin Tweedy, Tel 919 - 463 -5488
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen, Tel [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen, Tel [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen, Tel 919 - 459 -9001
Seed Mix Sources
Mellow Marsh Farm, 919- 742 -1200
Nursery Stock Suppliers
International Paper, 1- 888 - 888 -7159
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel [phone]
Duke S«amp Wetland and Stream Restoiauon Piojed EEP Contract No D0606) A 9
Ll December 2010 Monitormb Year 3 DRAFI

Tahle 4 Prowet Rackuround Tahle
Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Pro ect No D06065 -A
Pro ect County
Gates County, NC
Drainage Area
Reach
UTIa and UTIb
29 miz
UT2
003 miz
Estimated Drainage % Impervious Cover
M 1
<5%
M2
<5%
Stream Order
UTIa and UTIb
2
UT2
1
Physiographic Region
Coastal Plain
Ecore ion
Mid - Atlantic Flatwoods
Rosgen Classification of As -Built
UTl a
C
UTIb
DA
UT2
DA
Cowardm Classification
UTIa, UTIb and UT2
Palustrine, Forested Wetland
Dominant Soil Types
UTIa
NaA, NoA,
UTIb
NaA
UT2
NaA, PaA
Reference site ID
Beaverdam Branch, Jones Count
USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites
3010203
NCDW Sub -basin for Project and Reference
03 -01 -01
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference
Reference
C
UTIa
C
UTIb
DA
UT2
DA
Any portion of any project segment 303d hsted9
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed se ment9
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor?
N/A
% of project easement fenced
0%
Duke S«amp Weiland and Stream Rastorauon Project I EP Contract No D06063 A 10 _
December 2010 Monttorm6 Year 3 DRAFT
i�

` 3 0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
I
31 Vegetation Assessment
3 1 1 Description of Vegetative Monitoring
As a final stage of construction, the stream margins and riparian area of the Site were planted
with bare -root trees, live stakes, and a seed mixture of temporary and permanent ground
cover of herbaceous vegetation The woody vegetation was planted randomly six to eight
feet apart from the top of the stream banks to the outer edge of the project's re- vegetation
limits In general, bare -root vegetation was planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre,
in an 8 -foot by 8 -foot gnd pattern The tree species planted at the Site are shown in Table 5
The permanent seed mix of herbaceous species applied to the project's riparian area included
Virginia wild rye (Elms virginicus), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), fox sedge (Carex
vulpmoidea), smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum), soft rush (Juncos of isus), and hop
sedge (Carex lupithna) This seed mixture was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 15 pounds
per acre All planting was completed in December 2007
At the time of planting, 12 vegetation plots — labeled 1 through 12 - were delineated on -site
to monitor survival of the planted woody vegetation Each vegetation plot is 0 025 acre in
size, or 10 meters x 10 meters All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged to
distinguish them from any colonizing individuals and to facilitate locating them in the future
The trees also were marked with aluminum metal tags to ensure that the correct identification
is made during future monitoring of the vegetation plots
On a designated corner within each of the 12 vegetation plots, an herbaceous plot was also
delineated The herbaceous plots measure 1 meter by 1 meter in size These plots are
photographed at the end of each growing season The locations of the 12 vegetation plots are
presented in Figures 2A through 2F
3 12 Vegetative Success Criteria
To characterize vegetation success criteria objectively, specific goals for woody vegetation
density were defined Data from vegetation monitoring plots should display a surviving tree
density of at least 320 trees per acre at the end of the third year of monitoring The final
vegetative success criterion is a surviving tree density of at least 260 five- year -old trees per
acre at the end of the five -year monitoring period
Table 5 Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site — As -built
Scientific Name
Common Name
Percent Planted by Species
Total
Number of
Stems
Bare Root Tree Species
Benda nigia
River Birch
15%
1,800
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
5%
600
FiaYmus pennsylvamca
Green Ash
7%
900
Nyssa sylvatica
Swamp Tupelo
14%
1,600
I� ^y Duke Sµ amp Watland and Stream Restoration Project EEP Contract No D0606-) A l 1
f December 2010 Monitoring Year 3 DRAF

Table 5 Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site — As -built
Scientific Name
Common Name
Percent Planted by Species
Total
Number of
Stems
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
19%
2,300
Quet cus lyi ata
Overcup Oak
10%
1,200
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
10%
1,200
Quei cus phellos
Willow Oak
8%
900
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
12%
1,400
Total
11,900
Native Herbaceous Species
Elymus vuginicus
Virginia wildrye
15%
NA
Panicum vugatum
Switchgrass
15%
NA
Cai ex vulpinoidea
Fox sedge
15%
NA
Polygonum
enns lvanicitm
Smart Weed
15%
NA
Juncus eJJ`itsits
Soft rush
25%
NA
Cai ex kipulina
Hop sedge
15%
NA
Woodv Vegetation for Live Stakes
Cephalanthus
occidentahs
Button Bush
10%
1,038
Salix nigia
Black Willow
10%
1,039
Sakcseiicia
Silky Willow
40%
1,040
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
40%
520
3 13 Vegetative Observations and Results
The species that were part of the permanent ground cover seed mixture broadcast on the Site
after construction were present during Year 3 monitoring of the Site
Tables A 1 through A 6 in Appendix A present vegetation metadata, vegetation vigor,
vegetation damage and stem count data of the monitoring stations at the end of the Year 3
monitoring period Data from the Year 3 monitoring event of the 12 vegetation plots showed
a range of 0 to 720 stems per acre The Year 3 data showed that the Site had an average of
350 stems per acre Data on the vegetation plots and problem areas that experienced low
stem counts during Year 3 are detailed in Section 3 1 4
Trees within each monitoring plot are flagged regularly to prevent planted trees from losing
their identifying marks due to flag degradation It is important for trees within the
monitoring plots to remain marked to ensure they are all accounted for during the annual
stem counts and calculation of tree survivability Permanent aluminum tags are used on
Duke Sx %amp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06065 -A 12 I
December 2010 Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT J
U F,

surviving stems to aid in relocation and identification during future counts Flags and PVC
posts are also used to mark trees because they do not interfere with the growth of the tree
No volunteer woody species were observed in any of the vegetation plots The plots will
continue to be assessed during Year 4 monitoring for volunteer species
3 14 Vegetahve Problem Areas
Based on the Year 1 vegetation monitoring results, it was determined that the Site would not
meet the interim success criteria of 320 stems per acre at the end of monitoring Year 3 A
large number of tree fatalities occurred within the floodplain on the downstream portion of
UTla during the 2008 growing season Many of the planted trees were lost soon after initial
planting when a large storm event caused straw mulch that had been placed over the site for
erosion control to wash and wrap around the newly planted stems, uprooting many trees
Also during 2008, high water levels within the floodplain during periods of the 2008 growing
season caused many of the smaller saplings to drown
Therefore, to increase the stems per acre within the floodplain, the Site was re- planted on
February 27, 2009 The re- planting was limited to the floodplam area below the terrace of
UTla The re- planting started at station 49 +75 and terminated near the SR 1520 culvert, near
station 11 +00 A total of 2,400 supplementary stems were planted in the affected area The
supplementary stems planted were limited to two water tolerant species, Bald Cypress
(Taxodium dishchuni) and Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatzca) The established herbaceous
vegetation on -site is expected to protect the newly planted stems from damage due to high
flows and wrack lines Subsequent to re- planting, the newly established trees within the
vegetation plots were flagged, marked with stakes and identified
Following the replanting event, Year 2 vegetation monitoring, the 12 vegetation plots showed
^ a range of 0 to 640 stems per acre The Year 2 vegetation data revealed that the Site
demonstrated an average of 403 stems per acre The vegetation plots that experienced low
stems counts following Year 2 monitoring were 2, 10, 11 and 12
For Year 3 vegetation monitoring, the 12 vegetation plots showed a range of 0 to 720 stems
per acre During Year 3 monitoring, vegetation Plot 1 displayed a density of 720 stems per
_ acre due to additional stems that were located during Year 3 monitoring The stems are now
I maturing and have reached a height that has allowed them to be located in the thick
— herbaceous ground cover The newly found stems are of the species that were planted during
the replanting in February 2009
The Year 3 vegetation data revealed that the Site demonstrated an average of 350 stems per
acre The same vegetation plots (10, 11 and 12) that were experiencing low stems counts
following Year 2 have remained relatively stable in Year 3 However, vegetation plot 5
showed density of 120 stems per acre for Year 3 and is most likely experiencing problems
due to the presence of a thick herbaceous cover within the plot boundaries
According to the Year 3 vegetation monitoring data, 4 plots on the downstream portion of
UTIa have not met the interim vegetative success criteria of 320 stems per acre after Year 3
monitoring Baker will be working with EEP during 2011 in order to reach a solution for
resolving the concerned vegetative problems areas on the Site These areas will be assessed
with EEP during Year 4 to determine an appropriate course of action
Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Protect CE.P Contrau No D06065 A 13
December 2010 Monitoring Year 3 DRAI 7

Vegetation plots 10, 11 and 12 are located on the downstream portion of the Site where
conditions are wet for most of the year The downstream portion of the Site ties into the
existing Duke Swamp system and thus experiences swamp like conditions during wet
periods Vegetation plot 10 once again displayed a density of 0 stems per acre during Year 3
and is submerged for most of the year Plot 10 is in an area on top of the remnant channel
and the remnant pond 3 where fill soils have subsided since construction Due to the
subsidence of the soils in vegetation plot 10, overbank flooding of at least 6 inches has
remained present in this area year round and has proved detrimental to sapling survival Plot
11 displayed a density of 200 stems per acre during Year 3 and is also experiencing heavy
competition with a very thick herbaceous layer and saturated soils Plot 12 displayed a
density of 80 stems per acre during Year 3 and is the most downstream vegetation plot This
plot is experiencing saturated soils for most of the year due to backwater conditions at the
UTla/UTlb tie -in The saplings in vegetation plot 12 are experiencing difficulties in
surviving the extremely wet conditions
These problem areas will be observed closely during Year 4 of monitoring, but it is likely
that these monitored locations will not support the typical woody density of drier locations
This is also observed in mature swamps, where constant saturation can lead to clear areas
where it is hard for volunteer recruitment to occur Under natural conditions, swamp systems
exhibit slow establishment of young trees, with sapling establishment typically occurring in
abnormally dry years
There are quite a few weedy species occurring on the Site, though only one seems to be
posing any problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation at this time The
species present on the Site and within some vegetation plots is identified as arrowleaf
tearthumb (Polygonttm sagittatum) This vine is growing in dense layers that are on top of
the planted herbaceous and planted stems As the Site matures it is expected that this species
will become less prevalent as has been noted on other restoration sites The other weedy
species are mostly annuals and seem to pose very little threat to survivability on site
3 15 Vegetation Photographs
Photographs are used to visually document vegetation plot success A total of 12 reference
stations were established to document tree conditions at each vegetation plot across the Site
Additional photo stations were also established at each of the 12 vegetation plots for
herbaceous vegetation monitoring Reference photos of the vegetation plots and herbaceous
conditions are taken at least once per year Photos of the tree plots and herbaceous plots
showing the on -site vegetation are included in Appendix A of this report
32 Stream Assessment — Reach UTla
3 2 1 Description of Stream Monitoring
Cross - sections Two permanent cross - sections were installed per 1,000 LF of stream
restoration work, with one of the locations being a riffle cross - section and one location being
a pool cross - section A total of seven permanent cross - sections were established across the
Site Each cross - section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the
exact transect used The permanent cross - section pins are surveyed and located relative to a
common benchmark to facilitate easy comparison of year -to -year data The annual cross-
Duke S%% amp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, CEP Contract No D0606-) A 14
December 2010 Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT —�

section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank,
bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg
Longitudinal Profiles A complete longitudinal profile was surveyed following construction
completion to record as-built conditions and to establish a baseline profile A longitudinal
profile will be completed during each year of the five -year monitoring period The profiles
will be conducted for the entire length of the restored channel (UTla) Measurements will
include thalweg, water surface, inner berm, bankfull, and top of low bank Each of these
measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e g , riffle, pool, and glide) In
addition, maximum pool depth will be recorded All surveys will be tied to a single,
permanent benchmark
3.2.2 Morphometric Success Criteria
To document the stated stream success criteria in the approved Restoration Plan, the
following monitoring program was instituted following construction completion on the Site
There should be little change in as -built cross - sections If changes do take place, they will be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e g ,
down - cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e g , settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio) Cross - sections will be
classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System (1994), and all monitored cross -
sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design
stream type
The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable, (i e ,
they are not aggrading or degrading) The pools should remain deep, with flat water surface
slopes, and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools Bedforms
observed should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type
3.2.3 Morphometric Monitoring Results
Year 3 cross - section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during November
2010 The seven permanent cross - sections along the restored channel (four located across
riffles and three located across pools) were re- surveyed to document stream dimension at the
end of monitoring Year 3 Data from each of these cross - sections are summarized in
-- Appendix B in Table B 3 All cross - sections, except cross - section 7, show that there has
been very little adjustment to stream dimension since construction
Cross - sections 1, 3, 5, and 7 are located across nffles, which are found between meander
bends Based on the Year 3 survey data, all nffle cross - sections exhibited a relatively similar
streambed elevation compared to baseline conditions The elevations of the nffle cross-
sections have remained stable since Year 1 cross - section monitoring All riffle cross - sections
are currently stable and do not show signs of channel instability
I— Cross - sections 2, 4 and 6 are located across pools which are found at the apex of meander
_ bends The Year 3 data show that the pool cross - sections exhibit a relatively similar
streambed elevation compared to baseline conditions Based on the Year 3 pool cross -
section data and visual observations, the pools have not shown strong development of point
bar features on the inside bank of the meander bends It is concluded that point bar features
have shown little development due to low sediment delivery from the watershed
Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP Contract No D06065 -A 15
December 2010, Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT

It also is significant to note that the Year 3 cross - section data continues to demonstrate that
the floodplain areas throughout the Site between the top of banks and the permanent cross -
section pins have experienced various degrees of settling This settling of the floodplain on
the Site is most evident in cross - section 7 This area was first noted to have subsided during
Year 1 monitoring The settling has allowed below bankfull flows to permanently flood the
right bank and floodplain of cross - section 7 The floodplain elevation of cross - section 7 has
decreased since as -built conditions, however, it has remained stable since Year 1 data
collection Conversely, the channel dimension of cross - section 7 has remained stable since
the as -built condition survey It is thought that the submersion of the meander bend is due to
settling of floodplain soils used to fill the old stream channel and farm pond in this area
These areas are not considered a threat to stream stability, and the area is providing increased
diversity of wetland habitat along the restored floodplain
The longitudinal profile for Year 3 was surveyed in November 2010 and was compared to
data collected during the as-built condition, Year 1 and Year 2 surveys The longitudinal
profiles are presented in Appendix B The results of longitudinal profile during Year 3 show
that the pools in UTIa have maintained elevations and depths similar to those documented
during the as -built survey However, some pools m UTla have filled in slightly during Year
3 These pools will be observed during Year 4 monitoring for stability and functionality
The water surface slopes across the pools have remained flat during Year 3 monitoring
The longitudinal profile shows that some of the riffles, most of which are located in the
middle portion of the Site, are at an elevation slightly lower than that found during as-built
conditions The results of the Year 3 longitudinal profile in the middle portion of the Site
show that the riffle elevations have stayed relatively stable since Year 1
Minimal in- stream structures were installed within the restored stream channel These
structures include constructed riffles, log vanes, and root wads Visual observations of these
structures throughout the Year 3 monitoring season have indicated that all structures are
functioning as designed and holding their elevation grade Log vanes placed in meander pool
areas have provided scour to keep pools deep and provide cover for fish The two
constructed nffles have maintained bed elevations and have provided some downstream
scour, providing habitat Rootwads placed on the outside of meander bends have provided
bank stability and in- stream cover for fish and other aquatic organisms
3.2.4 Hydrologic Success Criteria
One manual crest gauge was installed on the Site to document bankfull events The gauge is
checked regularly and records the highest out -of -bank flow between site visits The gauge is
located on the downstream portion of reach UTla at station 45 +50, which is presented in
Figure 2D
The approved Restoration Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream
restoration success Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five -year
monitoring period The two bankfull events must occur in separate years, otherwise, the
stream monitoring will continue until two bankf ill events have been documented in separate
years
Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration PrQlect, EEP Contract No D06065 -A
December 2010, Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT
16 U

3.2.5 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
Table 6. Verification of Bankfull Events
Duke Swamp Restoration Site, EEP Contract No. D06065 -A
Date of Data
Estimated Date of
Method of Data
Collection
Occurrence of
Collection
Measurement
Bankf ill Event
3/11/2010
2/7/2010
Crest Gage on UTIa
121
8/4/2010
6/16/2010
Crest Gage on UT 1 a
083
10/6/2010
10/1/2010
Crest Gage on UTIa
354
The on -site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least four bankfull flow events
during Year 3 of the post - construction monitoring period, as shown in Table 6 Inspection of
conditions during site visits revealed visual evidence of out -of -bank flows, confirming the
crest gauge readings The largest on -site stream flow documented'by the crest gauge during
Year 3 of monitoring occurred in October 2010 and was approximately 3 54 feet (42 48
inches) above the bankfull stage and was the result of overbank flooding of UTIa
The crest gauge on the Site has documented at least one bankfull event per year since as -built
conditions Three bankfull events have been recorded in separate years, which meet the
r ' success criteria as stated the site Restoration Plan The crest gauge readings will continue to
be recorded through Year 5 of the project in order to observe flood event depths that may
occur on the Site
3.2.6 Stream Problem Areas
During 2008, the Site experienced a bank/floodplain stability issue on the lower portion of
UT 1 a between stations 46 +00 and 49 +00 The left bank and floodplain in this section of the
' Site had subsided and were underwater during normal flow periods The area affected
- extended from the left stream channel to the left toe of terrace, where the old stream channel
had been filled Conditions were very wet during construction of the site, and the fill
material that was placed into the old channel subsequently experienced settling Repairs to
this portion of the Site were completed in November 2008 The area was backfilled with on-
site soil to raise the elevation of the floodplain to appropriate elevations This area was
^i backfilled from the toe of terrace to within 20 feet of the stream channel The remaining 20
feet of the affected area was too unstable to be accessed by heavy equipment, therefore, no
_ work was done adjacent to the channel In Year 2 and Year 3 this area was observed closely
during site visits Year 3 monitoring revealed that the repaired area is stable and did not
exhibit any restoration- related problems
As mentioned in Section 3 2 3, the area between stations 38 +00 and 40 +00 near cross - section
7, AW4 and vegetation 10 has undergone subsidence on the right floodplain This area was
first noted to have subsided during Year 1 monitoring The settling has allowed below
bankfull flows to permanently flood the right floodplain of cross - section 7 The floodplain
elevation of cross - section 7 has decreased since as-built conditions, but it has remained stable
since Year 1 data collection According to Year 3 cross - section data, this subsided area has
remained stable since Year,l monitoring No significant changes were noted during Year 3
Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP Contract No D06065 -A 17
December 2010, Monitonng Year 3 DRAFT

monitoring This area will continue to be observed closely during future site visits and any
significant changes will be reported in subsequent reports
For the period of Year 3 monitoring, UTIa did not experience any other restoration- related
problems
3.2.7 Stream Photographs
Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually A total of 10 reference
stations were installed and photographed after construction Photographs of these reference
stations will be continued for at least five years following construction Reference photos
will be taken at least twice per year, and will be taken in enough locations to document the
condition of the restored system Permanent markers were established to ensure that the
same locations (and view directions) on the Site are documented in each monitoring period
The restored stream will be photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream
portion of the restoration reach and moving upstream to the beginning of the reach
Photographs will be taken looking upstream at delineated locations Reference photo
locations will be marked and described for future reference Points will be sufficiently close
to provide an overall view of the reach The angle of the shot will depend on what angle
provides the best view, which will be noted and continued in future shots When
modifications to photo position must be made due to obstructions or other reasons, the
location will be noted along with any landmarks
Additional photographs will be taken to document any observed evidence of flooding
patterns such as debris, wrack lines, water marks, channel features, etc
Both stream banks are photographed at all permanent cross - section photo stations For each
stream bank photo, the photo view line follows a survey tape placed across the channel,
perpendicular to flow (representing the cross - section line) The photograph is framed so that
the survey tape is centered in the photo (appears as a vertical line at the center of the
photograph), keeping the channel water surface line horizontal and near the lower edge of the
frame
A photo log of the restored channel is presented in Appendix B of this report Photographs
of the restored channel were taken at the end of the monitoring season to document the
evolution of the stream geometry Herbaceous vegetation was dense along the edges of the
restored stream, making the photography difficult in some areas of the stream channel
3 2.8 Stream Stability Assessment
Table B 1 provides a summary of the results obtained from the visual inspection of in- stream
structures performed during Year 3 of post - construction monitoring The percentages noted
are a general, overall field evaluation of the how the features were performing at the time of
the photo point survey According to the visual stability assessment all features on the Site,
with the exception of the area described in Section 3 2 6, are performing as designed
3.2.9 Quantitative Measures Summary Tables
The quantitative pre - construction, reference reach, and design data used to determine
restoration approach, as well as the as -built baseline data used during the project's post -
construction monitoring period are summarized in Table B 2 (located in Appendix B)
I —}
t
Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP Contract No D06065 -A 18
December 2010, Momtonng Year 3 DRAFT
I

F
i
3.3 Stream Assessment — UT1b and UT2
-- 3.3.1 Description of Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of reaches UTIb and UT2 will be conducted for five years to
i evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices Since restoration of these reaches
involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions to remnant channel
segments in a multi- threaded swamp system, monitoring efforts will focus on visual
f documentation of stability and the use of water level monitoring gages to document
saturation and flooding functions
The occurrence of bankfull events and flooding functions within the monitoring period will
I be documented by the use of automated water level monitoring gauges, photographs and
videos Five automatic monitoring gauges were installed within the restored system to
document shallow groundwater and flooding levels The data loggers are programmed to
I collect data every six hours, which records the highs and lows of flooding with greater
accuracy
3.3.2 Hydrologic Criteria
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five -year monitoring period The
two bankfull events must occur in separate years, otherwise, the stream monitoring will
continue until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years The water level
monitoring gauges should document the occurrence of periodic inundation and varying
groundwater levels across the restored site The gauges should also document the
connectivity of flooding between the restored UTIb and UT2 reaches
3.3 3 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
According to the water level gauge data graph, presented in Appendix B, the on -site
— automated gauges documented the occurrence of numerous flooding events during Year 3 of
the post - construction monitoring period Flood gauges 1, 4 and 5 are located in the UTlb
wetland area and flood gauges 2 and 3 are located in the UT2 wetland area
As indicated by the data, the area around flood gauge 1 was consistently inundated by water
—� throughout the year The data show that flood gauges 2 and 3 were relatively close and
consistent in their water level measurements Flood gauges 4 and 5 were the least inundated
of the gauges dunng the growing season and both showed varying levels of flooding
Inspection of conditions during site visits revealed visual evidence of diffuse swamp flows,
confirming the flood gauge readings According to the data, the largest on -site flood event
documented by all the flood gauges during Year 2 of monitoring took place on October 1,
2010 All five flood gauges recorded their highest levels of 2010 during this time due to a
tropical system that passed over the Site According to the gauge data, all five flood gauges
recorded high readings during the same day, as demonstrated in Appendix B This event and
other smaller ones, documents the occurrence of numerous bankfull events and flooding
within UTIb and UT2 during Year 3 of monitoring
3.3.4 Stream Problem Areas
During Year 2 monitoring, UTIb and UT2 did not experience any restoration- related
problems
Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP Contract No D06065 -A 19
December 2010, Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT

3.4
3.3 5 Stream Photographs and Videos
Photographs and video footage are used to document restoration success visually A total of
three reference photograph stations were established after construction and will be continued
for at least five years Reference photos are taken at least twice per year at each station to
document the condition of the restored system and to document the connectivity between
reaches UTIb and UT2 Permanent markers were established to ensure that the photo and
video points are documented in the same location and view direction during each monitoring
period
As required by the Site Restoration Plan, reference videos are also recorded at photo stations
11 and 13 to determine connectivity between the restored reaches Videos are taken at least
twice a year or whenever a site visit determines that UTIb and UT2 are flowing across the
restored backfilled ditch that separated the two reaches prior to restoration
Photographs and videos were taken looking upstream at the established locations The angle
of the shots depended on what position provided the best view and was noted for future
shots Additional photographs were taken to document any observed evidence of flooding
patterns such as debris, wrack Imes, water marks, channel features, etc
A photo log of the UT 1 b and UT2 reference stations and photographs of each water level
monitoring gauge are presented in Appendix B and C Videos depicting the connectivity
between reaches UT 1 b and UT2 are presented in the CD attached with this report
It is noted that the videos points in the attached CD depict low to moderate flows across
video point 1 (photo point 11) in the south to north direction (UTIb towards UT2) During
site visits, video point 1 is normally observed flowing from UTIb across the remnant ditch
fill area towards UT2
However, during site visits immediately following a large storm events in March 2009 and
May 2010 it was noted that both video points (1 and 2) were flowing from north to south
(UT2 towards UTIb) These videos depicted flow in the north to south direction, presumably
due to the time of the site visit corresponding to rising flood waters within the main Duke
Swamp system It appears that during large storm events and high flows, the flood waters in
the main Duke Swamp system flow from north to south (UT2 towards UTIb) across the
remnant ditch fill area Once the flood water depths fall, the water resumes a south to north
direction (UT1B towards UT2) back across the remnant ditch fill This direction returns the
water to its normal low to moderate flow path around the downstream portion of the remnant
ditch fill area
Wetland Assessment
3.4.1 Description of Wetland Monitoring
Groundwater - monitoring stations were installed across the project area to document
hydrologic conditions of the restored site Five groundwater monitoring stations were
installed, with all five stations being automated groundwater gauges Groundwater
monitoring stations follow the USACE standard methods found In Stream Mitigation
Guidelines ( USACE 2003)
In order to determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, rainfall amounts are tallied
using data obtained from the Gates County WETS Station and an onslte ram gage
Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP Contract No D06065 -A
December 2010, Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT
20 0

3.4 2 Wetland Criteria
The primary objective of groundwater monitoring is to demonstrate that the Site is saturated
within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 8 percent of the growing season and that the
Site exhibits an increased frequency of flooding The restored site's hydrology was
compared to pre - restoration conditions both in terms of groundwater and frequency of
overbank events
3.4 3 Wetland Monitormg Results
The average growing season (defined as the period in which temperatures are maintained
above 28 degrees Fahrenheit under average conditions) for Gates County is 232 days,
i beginning on March 25 and ending November 11 Gates County has an average annual
rainfall of 50 39 inches (USDA 1992)
' Weather station data from the Buckland Elementary Weather Station ( Buckland, BUCK -
ECONET) in Gates, NC, are used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the
Site to document precipitation amounts The Buckland station is located approximately 7 0
miles from the Site Therefore, data from this station is the primary source of rainfall
information The manual rainfall gauge was initially installed in February 2008 and is used
to validate data observations at the Buckland station Rainfall data from the Edenton
automated weather station (COOP 312635) are also used when data from the Buckland
- station or data from the on -site gauge are missing or exhibit errors During Year 3, the on-
site rainfall gauge exhibited several errors in data collection, therefore, data from the
Buckland station was validated with data from Edenton station
Total observed rainfall at the Buckland station for the period of January 2010 through
October 2010 was 46 50 inches, as compared to the Edenton gauge of 5199 inches for the
same period According to the Buckland gauge, total rainfall during the Year 3 monitoring
period from January 2010 through October 2010 was 3 54 inches above the historic
approximated average
Much of the rain that fell during the 2010 growing season was at or below normal amounts
and occurred in the spring and fall The summer months of June and July were relatively dry
However, in late September and early October a tropical system moved over the region and
deposited a large portion of the 2010 growing season rain Prior to this event, the Site had
been relatively dry According to the Buckland gauge the storm event deposited
approximately 15 06 inches of rain from September 26 to October 1 (see Table 7 and Figure
3)
The Duke Swamp Restoration Plan specified that five automated monitoring wells would be
established across the restored site A total of five automated wells were installed in October
2007 to document water table hydrology in all required monitoring locations All wells are
located in the restored wetland areas adjacent to UTla, and the locations of monitoring wells
are shown on the as -built plan sheets Hydrologic monitoring results are shown in Table 8
Well hydrographs and a photograph log of the wetland well monitoring stations are included
in Appendix C of this report
During Year 3, five wells recorded consecutive hydropenods of at least 8 percent during the
growing season The recorded amounts for Year 3 are significantly greater than the 8 percent
recommended for wetlands in the site Restoration Plan During Year 3, recorded
Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP Contract No D06065 -A 21
December 2010, Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT

i4
hydropenods ranged from 8 percent to 100 percent for the growing season Due to above FI
average rainfall conditions dunng the 2010 growing season, the success of the on -site wells
is attributed to the timing of the precipitation that fell onto the Site and its watershed, and
also is accredited to the higher local water table as a result of the Site's restoration and
periodic backwater conditions from Duke Swamp The hydrology of the restored system
appears to be similar to the downstream wooded swamp area in responding to rainfall events,
which exhibits prolonged saturated conditions ,-
Table 7 Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall (Inches)
Duke Swamp Restoration Site. Project No D06065 -A
Month
Average
0
30%
o
70 /0
Buckland
Observed
2010
Deviation from
Average
January
449
2 63
6 13
284
-165
February
426
223
6 04
348
-078
March
471
2 93
631
553
082
Apnl
352
1 19
542
118
-234
May
456
241
644
628
172
June
395
2 19
5 5
206
-189
July
452
1 58
694
179
-2 73
August
4 85
211
7 18
524
039
September
445
1 56
682
1591
1146
October
3 65
1 18
566
2 19
-146
November
328
131
4 93
December
- 4 15
189
608
Totals
5039
4154
5963
465
+354
However, during the past three years of monitoring, it has been observed that the restored
channel (UT 1 a) retains a large portion of water that flows onto the Site This backwater
condition is attributed to a lower thalweg elevation of the restored channel at the tie -in point
with UTIb Hydrographs for all five wetland monitoring stations are presented in Appendix
C
J
Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP Contract No D06065 -A 22
December 2010, Momtormg Year 3 DRAFT

Figure 3. Historic Average vs. Buckland Observed Rainfall
16
14
12
t
10
c 8
O
6
�CL 4
i 2
a
0
Duke Swamp Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
d1ell
Average Historic 30% probable
— Historic 70% probable —F— Buckland Observed 2010
Table S. Hvdrologic Monitoring Results
Duke Swam p Restoration Site: Project
No. D06065 -A
Well ID
Most Consecutive
Days Hydrology has
been Met'
Cumulative Days
Meeting Criteria 2
Number of
Instances Meeting
Criteria
AW 1
182(78%)
225(97%)
2
AW2
45(19%)
147(63%)
9
AW3
232(100%)
232(100%)
1
AW4
231(99.3%)
231(99.3%)
1
AW5
19(8%)
87(37%)
11
Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing
season with a water table less than 12 inches from the soil surface.
2 Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season
with a water table less than 12 inches from the soil surface.
3 Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when
the water table rose to less than 12 inches from the soil surface.
Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065 -A 23
December 2010, Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT

3.4.4 Wetland Problem Areas
During Year 2 of monitoring, the Site did not experience any significant wetland restoration -
related problems
However, as mentioned in Section 3 2 6 the area on UT 1 a at stream stations 46 +00 through
49 +00 experienced a bank/floodplain stability issue during 2008 The left bank and
floodplain in this section of the Site had subsided and were underwater during normal flow
periods The lowered ground surface elevation in the area around AW5 caused very wet
conditions to occur in Year 1 In November 2008, the area was backfilled with on -site soil to
raise the floodplain to an appropriate elevation After repairs had been completed, AW5 was
reinstalled in the new fill material
In 2009 and 2010 this area was observed closely during site visits Monitoring has revealed
that the repaired AW5 floodplain is currently stable AW5 data from Year 2 and Year 3
demonstrates that drier conditions are being experienced following repair work These drier
conditions are attributed to the new higher elevation in the vicinity of the repaired floodplain
AW5 exhibited a 17 7 percent hydroperiod during the 2009 growing season and an 8 percent
hydropenod during the 2010 growing season
3.4.5 Wetland Photographs
A photo log of the wetland groundwater monitoring stations is presented in Appendix C
_II
Duke Swamp Weiland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP Contract No D06065 A 24 J
December 2010, Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT

�J
�l
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Vegetation Monitoring - A total of 12 monitoring plots were used to predict survivability of the
woody vegetation planted on -site Due to a low stem count during Year 1 monitoring, the Site
was re- planted in February 2009 The re- planting was limited to the floodplain area below the
terrace of UTla A total of 2,400 supplementary bare root trees were planted and limited to two
water tolerant species, Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum) and Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
The Year 3 vegetation monitoring indicated an average survivability of 350 stems per acre
During Year 3 monitoring, vegetation plots 5, 10, 11, and 12 were found to have low stem
counts The tree densities within plots 5, 10, 11 and 12 ranged from 0 to 200 stems per acre
Planted stems within vegetation plots 5, 10, 11 and 12 are experiencing problems due to heavy
competition with a thick herbaceous layer and/or wet soil conditions
According to the Year 3 vegetation monitoring data, 4 plots on the downstream portion of UT 1 a
have not met the interim vegetative success criteria of 320 stems per acre after Year 3
monitoring Baker will be working with EEP during 2011 in order to reach a solution for
resolving the concerned vegetative problems areas on the Site These areas will be assessed with
EEP early in Year 4 to determine an appropriate course of action
Stream Monitoring - The total length of stream channel restored on the Site was 5,441 LF This
entire length was inspected during Year 3 of the monitoring period to assess stream performance
Based on the data collected, all raffles, pools, and other constructed features within the restored
+ N channel are stable and functioning as designed
During Year 1 monitoring, one stream/wetland related repair was completed The Site
experienced bank and floodplain settling on the lower portion of UTIa between stations 46 +00
and 49 +00 The area was backfilled with on -site soil to raise the elevation of the floodplain to
post - construction conditions This repaired area was found to be stable and functioning properly
during Year 3 monitoring
—� On reach UTIa, the on -site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least three bankfull flow
_ events during Year 3 of the post - construction monitoring period On reaches UT 1 b and UT2, all
five of the automated water level gauges documented the occurrence of numerous flooding
events during Year 3 of the post - construction monitoring period Photographs and videos
recorded the connectivity between reaches UTIb and UT2
IThe crest gauge on the Site has documented at least one bankfull event per year since as -built
conditions Three bankfull events have been recorded in separate years, which meets the success
criteria as stated the site Restoration Plan The crest gauge readings will continue to be recorded
through Year 5 of the project in order to observe flood events that may occur on the Site
The area between station 38 +00 and 40 +00 has undergone subsidence on the right floodplam
The settling has allowed below bankfull flows to permanently flood the right floodplain near
AW4, vegetation plot 10 and cross - section 7 The floodplain elevation of cross - section 7 has
decreased since as-built conditions, but it has remained stable since Year 1 data collection The
subsided area between stations 38 +00 and 40 +00 has also remained stable and no significant
changes have been noted This area will continue to be closely observed during future site visits
and any significant changes will be reported in future reports
-- Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP Contract No D06065 -A 25
December 2010, Monitoring Year 3 DRAFr

Other than the subsided area between stations 38 +00 and 40 +00, the Site is on track to meet the
stream success criteria specified in the Site's Restoration Plan
Wetland Monitoring - During 2010, all five monitoring wells recorded hydropenods greater than
8 percent during the growing season Due to the above average rainfall conditions during the
2010 growing season, the success of the on -site wells is attributed to the timing of the
precipitation that fell onto the Site and its watershed, and also is accredited to the higher local
water table as a result of the Site's restoration and periodic backwater conditions from Duke i
Swamp A total of five automated water level gauges documented the occurrence of numerous
flooding events within the UTIb area during Year 3 of post - construction monitoring
Total observed rainfall at the Buckland station for the period of January 2010 through October
2010 was 46 50 inches, as compared to the Edenton gauge of 5199 inches for the same period
According to the Buckland gauge, total rainfall during the Year 3 monitoring period from
January 2010 through October 2010 was 3 54 inches above the historic approximated average
I�
Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP Contract No D06065-A 26
December 2010, Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT

5.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and deer tracks are common on the Site During the Year 3 monitoring
season, heron, egret, ducks, snakes, turtles, frogs and crawfish were periodically observed
t Many types of water birds were observed on the site throughout the monitoring season
_ A visual confirmation of a Northern River otter was observed in UTIb during November 2010
iJA photo of the sighting is located at the end of the Photo Log in Appendix B
60 REFERENCES
L
Rosgen, D L 1994 A Classification of Natural Revers Catena 22 169 -199
^( Schafale, M P , and A S Weakley 1990 Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
—t Parks and Recreation NCDENR Raleigh, NC
_ I USDA, NC Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Survey of Gates County, North Carolina, 1992
US Army Corps of Engineers, 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines Prepared with cooperation
from US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and the
NC Division of Water Quality
http //www saw usace army mil /wetlands/Mitigation/Documents /Stream
j�
_ Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, EEP Contract No D06065 -A 27
December 2010, Monitoring Year 3 DRAFT

FIGURES

CU 03010205
r
r'
Role" Location
/ N) 997902.96
Q 2697200.58
37
Bameft Creak
CU 03010203
1 ro
W
1
SKO R*WO-V PWkwy Su4e 200
Car. MC 27518 wDO"65-A
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Duke Swamp Site - Project No. D06065 -A
Gates County Project
Location 0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
Figure 1. Location of Duke Swamp Restoration Site.

3
A
O
• 0
i
�I
VICINITY MAP
14DEX OF SHEETS
1 .......................... TITLE SHI
_ ................. .. STREAM
TA)
SIIIIIERAL
loo 25 0 50 loo
SPECIFIC)
4,026 FEET
VEGETATI
1- 6 .....................
CONVENT
2- 2A ...................
STRUCTU
3.6 ...................... A54U LT
6 ...................... AlloWLT
7 ........................ A04ULT
6 .........................
AS WILT
FIGURE 2A
DUKE SWAMP WETLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
NC ECOSYSTEM E1II11ANCEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT # D06065 -A
GATES C 0 UNTY
LOCATION: NINE MILES NORTHEAST OF GATESVILLE OFF SR 1320
TYPE OF WORK: AS -BUILT DRAWINGS FOR MITIGATION REPORT
109351
RLVm71U
MR m =mmrm Y70 ✓76-
GRAPHIC SCALES A BUILT SUMMARY YEAR 0 BASELINE DA PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF:
1 1 11
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF: PROJECT ENGINEER
NCDENR —ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM THIS DOCUMENT
2728 CAPITAL BLVD, SURE 1H 103 ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
RALEIGH, NC 27604 SEALED BY:
KEVIN TWEEDY, FE KEVIN TWEEDY
027337
PROJECT ENGINEER MARCH 24, 2008
DECEMBER 2007 THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
COMPIETTON DATE A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
KAYNE VAN STELL
GUY PEARCE PROJECT MANAGER
PROJECT CONTACT
PL
SIGNATURE:
S- ( -
TA)
loo 25 0 50 loo
AS -BUILT UT1A DESIGN STREAM =
4,026 FEET
RESTORATION LENGTH (TOTAL)
PLANS
AS -BUILT UT1B DESIGN STREAM =
900 FEET
RESTORATION LENGTH
50 25 4 50 loo
AS -BUILT UT2 DESIGN STREAM =
515 FEET
�-
tttttSIIIm
RESTORATION LENGTH
j_m
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
AS -BUILT RIVERINE WETLAND _
-
7.6 ACRES
ENHANCEMENT ACREAGE (AREAS #2 AND #3)
AS -BUILT RIVERINE WETLAND =
12.0 ACRES
NCEEP CONTACT:
RESTORATION ACREAGE (AREA #1)
1 1 11
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF: PROJECT ENGINEER
NCDENR —ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM THIS DOCUMENT
2728 CAPITAL BLVD, SURE 1H 103 ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
RALEIGH, NC 27604 SEALED BY:
KEVIN TWEEDY, FE KEVIN TWEEDY
027337
PROJECT ENGINEER MARCH 24, 2008
DECEMBER 2007 THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
COMPIETTON DATE A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
KAYNE VAN STELL
GUY PEARCE PROJECT MANAGER
PROJECT CONTACT
PL
SIGNATURE:

h Jill,
F 1 \
\ \11111111 II I
1 \ \ \
\ \� \� \\\'\ \ � 6I`•� I
g \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\
�� 1� 11111111I�\
I
�WQg
W Z
F�
Rg
I I l
ra
° I\
I; 01 0 /11\
�1A���\ Lu imn
/, �`
w
0
0
CL
n
.�
e
U
� o
0
/ I
/ m
sz
zo
LU
�I
m�
_ � �vice -�ue-am-tone-tsc�en +tpw -����s ��va -�

f 0
c—
hl z
lz
� F
IL
�' ( Ilil ►
'I
u
/ z
II I I IIlI {I
°°
to
\ \ 1
mm
o
-
I I II I I
1 1 1 0 ll 1 1 I \\
ag III IIli�lll � ice,. j �Q
no II I III \
1 \
I � 1111111 \ �
'
N1) I / l N w
c
R 1 `«
I I

END CqN=WW ale ST& W20 00
BEGIN 1— 000 ii
:L
cs
r
'.�����
tg-
I �
BCP 17 \ WATER `
N) 998075 6088
E) 2887 897 \ � LEVEL
D 955EL) 8^447 1 GAUGE
\ v STA. W15 07
WATER
LEVEL
GAUGE 01
PP 011
/VPP
/
18
X828
VEGETATION
_ _ o
PLOT 012 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ l BCP 2S ,� / ° % v v % ° v 0A v
o o v / @ ° o ° / ,o
BENCH LRAITS ®
P % WATER ` o
E) 2981 /
/ — l
vGAUGE 03 /
"EQ
a
87TA.10+00.00
® FILLED CHANNEL
DITCH PLUG
! FIGURE 2D
+ NOTE CONTOURS SHOWN DEPICT PRE - CONSTRUCTION CONWlONS
naa Doamme
CASSNAurCISUEDAND
BLUM Br
KM L TIMEEDr
�
3A9=
nae MEDA ewu NOT OR CONSIDERED
A CERi DOCL22M
� � w
w
Ph onorurnw
w— wow
k
BCP 90
998229 8889
2695234104,
24 573 /
DUKE SWAMP AS -DEULr
PLAN VIEW
3.0 s 2 so 1
SCALE (FT)

0
N
O]
FIGURE 2E
mid
FILLED POND 3
A- WETLAND RESTORATION AREA # 1 =10 5 AC
DRAINED POND 1
(WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREA # 2 = 13 AC)
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREA # 2 = 0 4 AC
POND 2 REMAINED
(WETLAND ENHANCEMENT = 0 AC)
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREA # 2 = 0 4
AS -BUILT WlrrL ND SUMMARY
AS-BUILT RIVERINE WETLAND
RESTORA11ON ACREAGE (AREA #1) - 12 0 ACRES
BUILT RNERJINE WETLAND
EN HANCMAENT ACREAGE
(AREA #2) = 21 ACRES
®AS -BUILT RIVE INE WETLAND
ENHANCEMENT ACREAGE (AREA #3) = 5 5 ACRES
VVETI AND ENHAti..�...�..
THIS DOC MEWr
ORKO VILY ISSLIED AND
SEALED BY
10?VDI L TWEEDY
maw
MARCH 21.2008
THIS MEDU SMALL MDT BE CONSIDERED
A CEATff® DOCIA031r
Bl • � ��waawo.0
DUiE SWAMP AS-BLIJLT
WETLAND OVABRVMW
T�4 1�3 210
SCALE (Fl)

NOTES-
1 TOTAL PLANTING AREA a 17 2 AC
2 TOTAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA a 254 AC
3 SEE VEGETATION SELECTION TABLES ON SHEET 1A
CONSERVATION EASEMENT PLANTING
MATURE ENHANCEMENT AREA (AREA NOT PLANTED)
Tm DOCUMENT
CRXWMUY 93SUMAM
WALED Or
KM L WAMDr
� m, moe
AACIBU CD- O&WLOCUMENTT
.awipr" rr bs
I = ft. mmaAm
=N: , v.m
VEGETATION OMRVMW
FIGURE 2F 15 o IJs
SCALE (Fi)

U,
APPENDIX A
VEGETATION DATA

VEGETATION
TABLES

i aoie A i vegezauon mezaaaza
Duke Swamp Restoration Site Project No D06065 -A
Report Prepared By Dwayne Huneycutt
Date Prepared 11/18/2010 14 01
abase name
abase location
iputer name
size
cvs eep- entrytool v2 2 7_2009 ALL OTHER PROJECTS–Not Crowns mdb
L \Nfonitonng \Veg Plot Info \CVS Data ToohPG_LG_DS
CARYWDHUNEYCU2
96194560
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT —
Metadata
Description of database file the report worksheets and a summary of project(s) and project data
Prof planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre for each year This excludes live stakes
Prof total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre for each year This includes jive stakes all planted stems and all natural/volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems dead stems missing etc )
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distnbution of vigor classes listed by species
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot dead and missing stems are excluded
ECT SUMMARY - --
– —
,ct Code
DS
!ct Name
Duke Swamp
ription
EEP Full Delivery
Basin
Chowan
h(ft)
5441
m to edge width (ft)
45
(sq m)
4548908
fired Plots (calculated)
12
fled Plots
0

Table A 2 Veaetation Viaor by Soecies
Duke Swamp Restoration Site Project No D06065 -A
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Betula rn ra
9
2
Celtis laevi ata
1
v`
c
p`0F
yQ�
Vow
�o
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0
2
Celtis laevi ata
0
1
Fraxmus pennsylvanica
0
2
N ssa s Ivatica
6
9
5
3
4
Quercus I rata
0
18
Quercus I rata
6
51
4
0
1 1
Taxodwm distichum
0
36
Quercus michauxn
1
2
TOTA 110
0
4
Quercus phellos
4
2
3
1
Taxodwm distichum
9
16
4
4
1
Platanus occidentalis
9
3
3
Unknown
1
TOTAL 110
1 44
42
161
3
181
1
Table A 3 Vegetation Damage by Species
Duke Swamp Restoration Site Project No D06065 -A
my
vm
v`
c
p`0F
yQ�
Vow
�o
Betula rn ra
0
11
Celtis laevi ata
0
1
Fraxmus pennsylvanica
0
2
N ssa s Ivatica
0
31
Platanus occidentalis
0
16
Quercus I rata
0
18
Quercus michauxn
0
7
Quercus phellos
0
11
Taxodwm distichum
0
36
Unknown
0
5
TOTA 110
0
138

Table A 4 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Duke Swamp Restoration Site Project No D06065 -A
i auie A o nanteu stems Dy not ano species
IDuke Swamp Restoration Site Project No D06043 -A
0y
O�
1)) 4)
M
1)) 6) n7
`m
ao°
�o
Q
���•
QO
y
O
h
O`1
O
O
QO
OpIb
DS -B 0001-year 3
0
18
Ooo
DS B 0002 year 3
0
OOO
10
00~ 6~ O~
zr
DS B -0003 year 3
0
�pC
13
C7
O
DS- B-0004 year 3
0
16
F�
�y
DS-B-0005-year 3
0
13
DS -B -0006 year 3
0
16
DS -B -0007 year 3
0
15
0 0 0
DS B -0008 year 3
0
15
0.O
DS-B-0009-year 3
0
Q Q
9
Q
Q Q Q
Q Q
DS -B -0010 year 3
Betula ni ra
river birch
1
4
DS -B -0011- ear 3
0
8
3
DS -B -0012- ear 3
0
5
6
TOTAL
12
1 0
138
1
i auie A o nanteu stems Dy not ano species
IDuke Swamp Restoration Site Project No D06043 -A
n/a no stems I I 1 01 1
1 19 19 — 1051 101 1 18
1)) 4)
M
1)) 6) n7
h
OpIb
ti0ah
Ooo
Ooo O�
O� CPo
OOO
OOO Og
00~ 6~ O~
zr
C
�pC
$
C7
O
O
Co CO CO
C7 Cl C7
F�
�y
Fo
Q\ � a�0
Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh 1h Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh
0 0 0
G�
hQ
Go
0.O
P
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q
Q Q Q
Q Q
Betula ni ra
river birch
111
4
2751
1
3
6
1
Celtis laevi ata
sugarberry
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
2
1
2
2
N ssa s Ivatica
black um
23
6
383
5
3
8
2
4
1
Platanus occidentahs
American sycamore
12
5
24
4
4
1
2
1
Quercus I rata
overcu oak
15
8
1 88
3
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxu
swam chestnut oak
3
2
12
1
2
Quercus 0he110s
willow oak
9
3
3
2
2
5
n/a no stems I I 1 01 1
1 19 19 — 1051 101 1 18

Table A 6 Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Duke Swamp Restoration Site Project No D06065 -A
Tree Species
Plots
Year 3
Totals
Average
Stems /acre
I
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Betula nz ra
1
3
6
1
1 1
Celtzs laevr ata
1
1
Frutn?nS pennsylvanica
2
2
N1 ssa st lvatzca
5
3
8
2
4
1
23
Platanus occidentalzs
4
4
1
2
1
12
uelczzs l ratu
3
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
15
ueicus nuc ham u
1
2
3
uercuc phellos
2
2
5
9
Taxodium distzch :an
13
I
3
1
3
6
1
1
29
Unknown
1
Stems /plot
18
9
13
9
3
15
11
11
9
0
5
2
Stems /acre Year 3
720
360
520
360
120
600
440
440
360
0
200
80
350
Stems /acre Year 2
640
320
520
640
360
600
560
520
360
0
200
120
403
Stems /acre Year 1
680
120
600
400
80
200
520
480
360
0
360
40
320
Stems /acre Initial
688
607
648
688
769
729
688
F 850
1012
769
607
607
722

VEGETATION
PHOTOGRAPHS

Vegetation Plot 1- Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2- Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3- Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 3

Vegetation Plot 4- Herbaccous
kr r
� •s � t
"_ � r r r '• k � <- _�Y�
� s �
A
? " ry
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5- Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6- Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 6

Vegetation Plot 7- Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 8- Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 9- Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 9

Vegetation Plot 10- Herbacious
Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation Plot 11- Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 12- Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 1 1
1,
�i
•t
4 ti-
.r TiY�. �t �r•J,
Vegetation Plot 12

I
+�7
F V14" \' i 1
GEOMORPHIC
��1

STREAM TABLES

4
it
Table B 1 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stabthty Assessment
Duke Swamp Restoration Site Project No D06065 -A
Performance Percentage
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
B Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
C Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
D Meanders
100%
100%
100%
1 100%
E Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
F Bank Condition
100%
90%
95%
95%
G Wads
100%
100%
100%
100%

Table B 2 Baseline Stream Summary
Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Project EEP Project D06065 A
Duke Swamp Reach UT1a
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
Pre Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Dimension Riffle
LL
UL
Eq
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Max
BFVJidth ft
179
188
196
168
187
205
194
177
205
234
Flood prone Width fl
1510
1660
1810
1740
1950
2160
500
750
1000
850
1049
1249
BF Mean Depth (ft
23
30
38
1 2
14
15
14
12
16
19
BF Max Depth (ft)
40
47
54
21
23
24
18
22
25
21
22
23
BF Cross sectional Area (ft')
400
570
740
248
263
257
27 0
254
200
327
Wdth/Depth Ratio
52
66
80
11 0
140
170
140
126
147
16 8
Entrenchment Ratio
77
89
101
104
105
106
80
100
120
53
59
64
Bank Height Ratio
1 2
13
1 3
1 2
1 3
1 3
10
10
10
10
BF Velocity s
10
Pattern
Channel Bellwidth ft
49
77
105
49
77
I 105
Radius of Curvature ft
30
35
40
30
45
I 60
Meander Wavelength ft
92
109
125
92
1D9
I 125
Meander VAdth Ratio
3
5
6
5
7
I 8
—
Profile
Riffle Len th ft
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
I —
—
—
—
Riffle Slo a ft/ft
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0 0003
—
—
—
—
Pool Length ft
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Pool Spacing ft
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
55
77 5
1 100
—
—
—
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d351 d50 / d84 / d95
06/ OB/ 10/ 18/ 23
3/4/5/9/1 2
061 Oa/ 10/ 1a/ 23
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/F
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1 —
—
—
—
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m'
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length ft
2 860
3 983
4 026
Drainage Area SM
29
32
29
29
Ros en Classification
ES
E5105
C5
C5
BF Discharge (cfs)
258
256
256
Sinuosity
1 05
166
1 6
16
BF slope (fVft)
00003
0 0004
ON
00003
__ � C__ L,_ U _J _= O O Cl =

Table B 3 Morphologv and Hvdraulic Monitonno Summary
Duke Swamp Wetland and Stream Restoration Protect EEP Project No D06065 -A
Reach UT1a (4026 Feet)
Parameter
Cross - section 1
Riffle
Cross - section 2
Pool
Cross - section 3
Riffle
CrosssecUon 4
Pool
MYt MY2 I MY3 I MY41 MY5
MY1 I MY2 I MY3 MY4 MYS
MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY41 MY5
MY1 I MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width ft
1701
1981
1738
1679
2059
1270
1807
1896
1853
2510
3084
2448
BF Mean Depth ft
144
1 23
134
141
1 12
1 48
169
144
151
191
164
180
Width /De th Ratio
118
161
130
119
184
86
107
1315
1226
1312
1886
136
BF Cross - sectional Area ft'
245
244
233
236
23 1
188
305
273
280
480
504
441
BF Max Depth ft
227
221
206
264
266
221
257
224
229
361
351
34
Width of Flood prone Area ft
9843
9844
9849
91 28
9129
91 24
108 22
108 55
10821
111 31
111 28
111 37
Entrenchment Ratio
58
50
1 57
50
41
65
55
53
54
44
36
45
Bank Height Ratio
1 0
10
10
1 0
09
10
10
1 0
09
1 0
10
1 0
Wetted Perimeter ft
1989
2227
2006
1961
2283
1566
21 45
21 84
2155
2892
3412
2808
Hydraulic Radius ft
1 2318
10956
1 1615
1 2035
1 012
1 2005
14219
125
1 2993
1 66
1 477
1 5705
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Parameter
Cross section 5
Riffle
Cross - section 6
Pool
Cross - section 7
Riffle
MY1 I MY2 I MY3 MY41 MY5
MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY41 MYS
MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY41 MY5
Dimension
BF Width ft
1962
1947
1847
2930
3717
3077
2695
2526
2449
BF Mean Depth ft
1 67
153
153
1 39
1 15
1 27
1 38
1 52
1 47
Width/Depth Ratio
117
127
121
21 0
323
243
196
1667
1661
BF Cross sectional Area ft'
3280
299
28 3
409
427
39
371
383
361
BF Max Depth ft
260
153
202
278
282
258
266
256
247
Width of Flood prone Area ft
11859
12364
12376
13989
13982
13985
12488
12489
12486
Entrenchment Ratio
60
63
1 67
40
32
1 38
46
49
1 51
Bank Height Ratio
1 0
10
10
1 2
10
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
Wetted Perimeter ft
2296
2253
2153
3208
3947
3331
2971
283
2743
Hydraulic Radius ft
1 4266
1 3271
1 3144
1 2749
1 082
1 1708
1 2487
1 3534
1 3161
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)

STREAM DATA
AND PHOTOGRAPHS

Duke Swamp Longitudinal Profile Station 10+00 to 43+75
22
21
20
19
18
0
= 17
. . .. ... ........
M
16
- - --------- ... . .......... ... ..... ... ..
15
14
—As-built —Year 1 Thalweg
13
...... .. . ... —Year 2 Thalweg —Year 3 Thalweg
—Water Surface —To of Bank
12
'
1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 1, Station 13 +30
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
De, ,th`
W/D
BH Ratio
ER`
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cc
23.3
17.38
1.34
2.06
13
1
5.7
19.75
1 9.73
Duke Swamp Cross - section 1
24
23
22
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -o
21
20
- - -- -
0
0
19
m
w
18
As -Built
Year 1
17
Year 2
—Year 3
16
- -�o -- Bankfull
-- -0-- Floodprone
15
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
110 120 130 140
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 2, Station 17 +69
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2010
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1 18.8
12.7
1.48
2.21
1 8.58
1
6.5
19.55
19.58
24
Duke Swamp Cross - section 2
23
- - --
22
------------------------ - - - - -- ---------- - - -• -- ------- - - - - -- - -- -- o
21
r
20
0
0
19
m
w
18
17
As -Built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
16
-- -0-- Bankfull
- - -a -- Floodprone
15
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
110 120 130 140
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 3, Station 20 +27
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
I BH Ratio
I ER
BKF Elev
TA ,,Elev
Riffle
Cc
1 28
18.53
1.51
2.29
1 12.26
1 0.9
1 5.4
19.62
19.45
Duke Swamp Cross - section 3
24
23
22 o------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21
c 20
------ - - - - -- �...t'..�. -�..
4.
19
m
w 18
As -Built Year 1
17
Year 2 —+- -Year 3
16 - --o -- Bankfull - --o -- Floodprone
15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 4, Station 26 +81
(Year 3 Data - Collected november 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
44.1
24.48
1.8
3.4
1 13.6
1 1
4.5
19.6
19.52
IDuke Swamp Cross - section 4 I
24
23
22
21
20
0
19
W 18
17
16
15
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 -Year 3
-0 -- Bankfull - -o -- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 5, Station 31 +47
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cc
28.3
18.47
1.53
2.02
1 12.05
1
6.7
19.38
19.48
Duke Swamp Cross - section 5
24
23
22
---------------- — ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,� 21
20
19
V7—As-Built
m 18
W
17
Year 1
Year 2 —• —Year 3
16
--&-- Bankfull - - -& -- Floodprone
15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 6, Station 37 +13
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
4 _ ?iY ���
�., �e �
�y.
Sd��i ���
a"" A i � D"T�i
!,.'. 4� f -: �,• r�- e=�.,. et
����� ��-
��^! ... .,
IDuke Swamp Cross - section 6 1
24
23
22
21
20
0
19
d
w 18
17
16
15
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 —Year 3
--0 -- Bankfull - - -0— Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 7, Station 42 +05
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Tye
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev,
Riffle
Cc
36.1
24.49
1.47
2.47
16.61
1
5.1
19.09
19.18
Duke Swamp Cross - section 7
24
23
22
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - -o
21
$
20
19
- - -------- - - - - --
R
d
18
w
17
As -Built
Year 1
16
Year 2
— +—Year 3
0 -- Bankfull
- - -& -- Floodprone
15
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
110 120 130 140
Station (ft)

Photo Point 1
Photo Point 2
Photo Point 3
Photo Point 4
Photo Point 5
Photo Point 6

fa4 �i'
—M�L-
s
-
r► r

Photo Point 13
Bankfull evidence observed at farm culvert
(Storm event occurred on October 1, 2010)
Crest Gauge — 3.54 feet
Strong bankfull evidence observed at station 19 +00
(Storm event occurred on October 1, 2010) (Storm event occurred in March, 2010)
Northern River Otter
(Observed in UT 1 b, November 2010)

Duke Swamp Flood Gauge Measurements - UT1 b and UT2
55 d G I auge 5 - UT1b ____ —Flood Gauge 1 - UT1b Flood Gauge 2 - UT , 2 VON
Flood Gauge 3 - UT2 —Flood Gauge 4 - UT1b —Ground Elevation 0'
45
35
25
r
m
= 15
V
U)' 5
w
3
'All.
5 Al I
-15
-25 ,
Date
■
■
,` ���� . ,..�► �.'�`�..� ►�.. � � i�4 ■1 �
4
1,10
��11��f�1i1►�,.LL►ii
i�' �.
11�
�,�

• ••• • gill •
L
`i,�1'1.�"'"��li��'M11�,��.� ".��"�1:�1�1�1���i'�,� �' !`'I�.�'i'i'1����i1�'i�f�iill►� Sri" ��,�,►�1�1 ��
�ii�i�►l��`�7i�ui► `� ���1'►�:��'; ,'�ti'''; a'; l':Irlr�l�i�`ilirll►'�i�t.:, f11� ��ili���
Mal ��I�I■■ ■ ■ ■��1�■�■ ■ ■I�li���� ►�i����11 ■I

Duke Swamp Flood Gauge Measurements - UT2
55
45
35
c
25
m 15
U
3
V7
d 5
f0
i
-5
-15
-25
?ij9 / ?�8 4i7 �8 6ije_�8 �ij)��g 1p�'s �B1Z'� ?OOH � 009 4ij4j ?oO9 si�9 �ij �9 ,p /g'i'O /2��9 y�O�� 4j9` %:0 si�2O�� �/20�� 'p/�2���'�S /����
Date
Flood Gauge 2 -UT2 Flood Gauge 3 -UT2 —Gro
und Elevation 0'
(
l
i
1
i;
El 1 ��
IIr''Y
�
Al
i
f

APPENDIX C
WETLAND
Fol • •1

1 1
1 1
—AW3 —AW5 --12 inches
i
1 1
I
1 1
1 11, t �I��.
' • pmMown
1 1
nllA11.I�.l:�J�.- ::..L.i � :���� ._,..�.�.. � ..t�.,;l,►J �,l�rAt11 �ii,i��i�i�i� ►�M I��� ,I��Iin��;�i�l-�'��1r�!'I�
IS
tj �,�`.�
� [i�
1111141111 M
I
1 1
[Iola?
1 1
• 1 1
r

4000
3000
w 2000
a�
t
U
C
1000
N
N
000
N
.r
-1000
-2000
Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Wetland Gauge Station - AW1
D"
uke Swamp AW1
- -12 inches below ground surface
— Ground Surface
-3000
Date
/ I I
/

40.00
30.00
20.00
U
C
i[I 1 I'
N
N
J
0.00
(0
-10.00
-20.00
-30.00
7p 7 Z 7i 6'i Oi 70 � Z A %00%00%00 70-%000%00Z07%0 7 �i 6'i7 ��, `9�c� 77
�1s/� 7 ,7/oO7�OO81��00p77/00007O/006 0/2000 0 00 �' 00`� %70 /070 7/070 07 � %07
> > O
Date
Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Wetland Gauge Station - AW2

Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Wetland Gauge Station - AW3
4000
—Duke Swamp AW3
30 00 - -12 inches below ground surface - - - - -- -- - - - — - -- — - - — --
Ground Surface
2000 - - — - - - - -- -- -- -- - -- -
U)
m
L
1000 — - -- -- -- - - — - - - - - -- - - - -
aa) 000
J
r
M-1000 - — - - -- - -- - -- -- - - -- -- -- - — - - -- - - -2000 - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-3000
' poi 'moo �`
� o 0 0 > > o
0 0 0 , ro
Date

4000
3000
2000
a�
L
U
1000
5
a�
000
a�
CU
-10 00
-2000
-3000
Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Wetland Gauge Station - AW4
Duke Swamp AW4
-12 inches below ground surface
Ground Surface
o o �
Date

Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Wetland Gauge Station - AW5
5000
4000
3000
2000
10 00
m
c
> 0 00
LLL
-10 00
a�
J
cc
-20 00
-30 00
'o 'o o
Date
AW5 rem ved f r str am re airs 0/10 008,
re -in tailed 1/15 010, - -
_ Eleva ion o grou d s_u ace i creased
after repair wer co leted
-- -+ -Duke Swamp AW5 — - - - — —
-12 inches below ground surface
- - - - -- — — - - - - - -- -- - -- -- -- - - - -- - — -- --
Ground Surface
-4000
°

-I
{
l� 1
1 -
►J
�l
WETLAND
WELL PHOTOGRAPHS

Auto Well 1 — North, August 2010
Auto Well 1 — East, August 2010
Auto Wcll 1 — South, August 2010
Auto Well 1 — West, August 2010
Auto Well 2 — North, August 2010
Auto Well 2 — East, August 2010

Auto Well — South, August 2010
Auto Well — West, August 2010
Auto Well — North, August 2010
Auto Well — East, August 2010
Auto Well — South, August 2010 Auto Well — West, August 2010

.14
i

Auto Well 5 — South, August 2010
Auto Well 5 — West, August 2010
Flood Gauge 1 — North, November 2010
Flood Gauge 1 — East, November 2010
Flood Gauge 1 — South, November 2010 Flood Gauge 1 —West, November 2010

Flood Gauge 2 — North, November 2010
Flood Gauge 2 — East, November 2010
Flood Gauge 2 — South, November 2010
Flood Gauge 2 — West, November 2010
Flood Gauge 3 — North, November 2010 Flood Gauge 3 — East, November 2010

Flood Gauge 3 — South, November 2010
Flood Gauge 3 — West, November 2010
Flood Gauge 4 — North, November 2010
Flood Gauge 4 — East, November 2010
Flood Gauge 4 — South, November 2010 Flood Gauge 4 — West, November 2010

/ /,/ 7 ay,� '.� �! �� ,3 � ► -� .� ,,��, 41 . Ifs, -.
t
f
pY
_yam -. f i jl! f '�< •
l �•+ � y.
r �i ah
f
pY