20090565 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_Text_20150330

Bachelors Delight
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
Annual Monitoring Report – Year 1

Onslow County, NC
White Oak River Basin
(Cataloging Unit #03030001)

Prepared on behalf of:
Weyerhaeuser NR Company
(Sponsor)

Prepared by:
Wilmington, N.C.

March 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
2.0. PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 2
A. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2
B. MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................. 3
C. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................... 3
3.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 7
A. WETLAND RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT SUCCESS CRITERIA ........................................ 7
4.0 MONITORING RESULTS (YEAR 1) ...................................................................................... 9 A. VEGETATION MONITORING ..................................................................................................... 9
B. HYDROLOGIC MONITORING .................................................................................................. 12
(1.) Summary of Precipitation ............................................................................................ 12
(2.) Small Stream Swamp ................................................................................................... 13
(3.) Streamhead Pocosin ................................................................................................... 13
(4.) Wet Pine Flat ................................................................................................................ 16
C. STREAM MONITORING ........................................................................................................... 19
(1.) Photo Documentation ................................................................................................... 19
(2.) Ecological Function ...................................................................................................... 19
(3.) Channel Stability/Survey Procedures ........................................................................ 20
(a.) Cross-Sections........................................................................................................ 20
(b.) Longitudinal Profiles .............................................................................................. 20
(c.) Pebble Counts ......................................................................................................... 21
(d.) Stream Flow Monitoring (First Order Channel) .................................................... 21
(e.) Stream Flow Monitoring (Zero Order Channel/Headwater) ................................. 27
(f.) Stream Enhancement ............................................................................................. 33

D. CONTINGENCY MEASURES .................................................................................................... 33
5.0 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................34

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES

Figure 1 ........................................................................................................................................ Vicinity Map
Figure 2 .................................................................................................................. Mitigation Quantities Map
Figure 3. ................................................................................................................................ Site Impact Map
Figure 4. .......................................................................................................... Geographic Service Area Map
Figure 5 ............................................................................................................................... Plot and Well Map
Figure 6 .................................................................................... Longitudinal and Cross Section Location Map
Table 1. ........................................................................................ BDMB Planting List (April 2013/May 2013)
Table 2. ............................................................................................ Summary of Tasks Completed – BDMB
Table 3 ................................................................................ Vegetation Plots and Wells by Community Type
Table 4A ........................................................... Annual Monitoring Data Sheets, Year 1 – CVS Plots (100m²)
Table 4B ................................................................... Annual Monitoring Data Sheets, Year 1 – 0.10-ac Plots)
Table 5 ................................... Summary of Year 1 Hydrologic Monitoring (Small Stream Swamp - Riparian)
Table 6 ................ Summary of Year 1 Hydrologic Monitoring (Reference - Small Stream Swamp - Riparian)
Table 7A ........ Summary of Year 1 Hydrologic Monitoring (Streamhead Pocosin Restoration – Non-Riparian)
Table 7B .............................................Summary of Year 1 Hydrologic Monitoring (Reference - Non-Riparian)
Table 8. .................... Summary of Year 1 Hydrologic Monitoring (Wet Pine Flat Restoration – Non-Riparian)
Table 9. .................................................................... Stream Lengths and Number of Cross-Section Stations
Table 10. ............................................................................................. Longitudinal Profiles by Stream Reach
Table 11. ........................................................... Summary of Year 1 Bankfull Events (Hewitts Branch (HE-1))
Table 12. ....................................................... Summary of Year 1 Bankfull Events (Huffmans Branch (HU-1))
Table 13. ....................................................... Summary of Year 1 Bankfull Events (Half Moon Creek (HM-1))

Appendix A. ........................................................................................................................ Site Photographs
Appendix B ................................................................ Individual Plot Data Sheets (Year 1 Monitoring – 2014)
Appendix C. ....................................................................... Palmer Hydrologic Drought Severity Index Maps
Appendix D. ........................................................................ NC Division of Water Resources Drought Maps
Appendix E. ......................................................................... Hydrographs (January 2014 – December 2014)
Appendix F. .............................................. Longitudinal/Cross-Section Surveys, Cross-Section Photographs
Appendix G. ......................................................................................... Ordinary High Water Mark Indicators

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On behalf of the Bank Sponsor (Weyerhaeuser NR Company) (WEYCO)), Land Management Group (LMG)
has completed Year 1 annual monitoring of the Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
(BDMB). The BDMB consists of 361 acres and includes 9,503 linear feet of first order stream restoration,
7,283 linear feet of zero order restoration, 5,966 linear feet of stream enhancement (Enhancement II),
11,400 linear feet of stream preservation, 60 acres of Riparian (Riverine) Wetland Restoration (i.e. small
stream swamp); 28 acres of Riparian (Riverine) Wetland Enhancement; 48 acres of Riparian (Riverine)
Wetland Preservation; 85 acres of Non-Riparian Wetland Restoration (i.e. streamhead pocosin and wet
pine flat); and 13 acres of Non-Riparian Wetland Preservation (Figure 1).

Restoration work for the BDMB project included the construction of single thread and zero order channels,
which involved grading activities designed to re-establish proper elevations and hydrology. In addition, the
headwater wetlands of the Bank site were restored via the backfilling and/or plugging of ditches and
removal and/or plugging of collector canals in former agricultural fields. As was documented in the
Mitigation Plan, the streams and wetlands of Bachelors Delight Swamp and its tributaries had been
historically impaired by silvicultural practices since the early 1970s. As a result, extensive channel
modification and removal of characteristic riparian vegetation occurred, leaving little functional habitat. For
the single thread channels, the initial grading work removed existing silvicultural bedding and contoured the
stream valley corridors to original grades. Ditches within the headwater areas were backfilled to existing
grade, and access roads were removed. Culverts associated with the access roads were removed and
permanent rock fords were constructed that raised the invert elevation to reconnect the streams to the
existing floodplains. These areas were planted with hardwood species associated with the target small
stream swamp community. Headwater (zero order) streams were restored by reestablishing the hydrologic
connection between the headwaters and downstream section of the reach through removal of existing
silvicultural bedding, backfilling and/or plugging of ditches, and re-contouring of the upper valleys (for those
occurring within agricultural fields). Combined, these activities re-established diffuse, braided flow patterns
throughout the length of the identified stream valleys. Plantings consistent with small stream swamp and
riparian wetland communities of the outer Coastal Plain were established throughout these areas.
Construction of the BDMB was completed in May 2013. Refer to the As-Built Report submitted November
2013 for more detailed information regarding the implementation of the BDMB.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 1
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Per the approved restoration plan, monitoring of the site includes the assessment of both hydrologic and
vegetative conditions over the course of a seven year monitoring period. Following the completion of the
earthwork, a total of twenty-four (24) 0.025 acre plots (10m x 10m), and eighteen (18) 0.10 acre plots were
established throughout the planted area. A total of sixty-eight (68) shallow groundwater monitoring wells
were installed throughout the project area. Of these wells, ten (10) are stream gauges, seven (7) are
riparian restoration wells, eighteen (18) are riparian reference wells, eight (8) are non-riparian restoration
wells, one (1) is a non-riparian reference well, and twenty-four (24) are zero order restoration wells
composing eight (8) well arrays within the zero order valleys.

Hydrologic monitoring was conducted throughout the year (through December 31, 2014). The annual
vegetation monitoring was conducted in July 2014 and January 2015. Based upon the data collected, the
BDMB site exhibits a high rate of survivorship of planted species as evidenced by an average observed
density of 505 stems per acre. The hydrologic response to restoration efforts is also evident via
groundwater and surface water data collected. Hydrologic residency times have increased relative to the
pre-construction condition, and wetland hydroperiods have been re-established across many areas of the
site.

The following Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) presents the findings of the first year of monitoring for the
BDMB.

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

A. Introduction
WEYCO began implementation of the restoration project in November 2012. The BDMB is located east of
the junction of Gum Branch Road and Quaker Bridge Road in northern Onslow County, NC and
encompasses much of the headwater wetland and streams of Bachelors Delight Swamp (Figure 1). Of the
361 acres, 60 acres consists of Riparian (Riverine) Wetland Restoration (i.e. small stream swamp); 28
acres consists of Riparian (Riverine) Wetland Enhancement; 48 acres consists of Riparian (Riverine)
Wetland Preservation; 85 acres consists of Non-Riparian Wetland Restoration (i.e. streamhead pocosin
and wet pine flat); and 13 acres consists of Non-Riparian Wetland Preservation (Figure 2). In addition, the
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 2
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

project provides 9,503 linear feet of first order stream restoration, 7,283 linear feet of zero order restoration,
5,966 linear feet of stream enhancement (Enhancement II), and 11,400 linear feet of stream preservation.
Placement of fill material within existing ditches (Figure 3) was authorized under Nationwide Permit 27
issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on January 19, 2011 (Action ID# 2009-00832) and
the corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification issued on February 21, 2011 (DWQ Project #09 0564).

B. Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The larger Bank restoration project is intended to provide suitable, high-quality wetland and stream
restoration to mitigate for authorized impacts within the White Oak River Basin (USGS 8-digit Hydrologic
Unit 03030001; DWQ Subbasin 03-05-02). The objective of the project is to restore natural vegetative and
hydrologic conditions throughout the nonriparian, riparian, and Coastal Plain stream habitat that have been
compromised by previous land use activities. The primary functions to be restored or enhanced as a result
of the restoration project include: surface water storage (i.e. flood attenuation; sediment/nutrient retention;
organic carbon transport to downstream food-webs; and wildlife/aquatic habitat). The project provides a
unique opportunity to restore an entire watershed within a region currently experiencing acute development
pressures with impaired waterbodies. Note that the Geographic Service Area (GSA) excludes the 14-Digit
Cataloging Units located to the south and east of HWY 17 in Pender and New Hanover Counties (Figure 4).

C. Project Implementation
Restoration activities were initiated in November 2012 and included the construction of dry Priority I stream
channels directly adjacent to the existing ditches. Construction of the single thread channels involved
grading activities designed to re-establish proper elevations and hydrology. As construction progressed
downstream, existing ditches and canals were filled and silvicultural bedding was removed. Clay plugs
were used at prescribed intervals to reduce potential subsurface drainage within backfilled ditches. Soil
removed for the construction of the Priority 1 channels was used to fill in the existing ditches and restore
natural contours within the floodplain. Natural woody material (i.e. root wads and log vanes) was used to
construct the in-stream structures throughout each section. Existing roadbeds and adjacent spoil piles
were removed, and the material was used to backfill the road-side canals. Permanent rock fords were
installed at the locations of existing culverts to raise the invert elevation and reconnect the stream to the
existing floodplain. Riparian wetlands were restored (60 acres) and enhanced (28 acres) as a result of
stream channel and ditch modifications within the site. Zero order valleys were restored and enhanced via
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 3
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

the backfilling of laterals and/or plugging of canals within the headwaters, removal of silvicultural bedding
and recontouring of the natural valley slope, which restored natural hydrologic inflows (via groundwater
contributions and overland flow). Culverts and roadbeds bisecting the zero order valleys were removed
and rock fords were installed to facilitate natural drainage to the downstream section of the reaches. Non-
riparian wetlands (85 acres) located throughout interstream flats and converted agricultural fields on the
Site were restored via the backfilling and/or plugging of ditches and/or collector canals and associated
grading work along secondary and tertiary ditches. Restored wetlands were planted with characteristic
wetland trees corresponding to the targeted community type (small stream swamp, streamhead pocosin,
and wet pine flat).

Approximately 69,870 hardwood tree seedlings were planted throughout the restored small stream swamp,
streamhead pocosin and wet pine flat communities between April 2013 and May 2013. Planting was
conducted by the NC State Natural Resources Foundation, Inc. Seedlings were planted on approximate 9-
ft centers, corresponding to an average density of 547 seedlings per acre. Bare-root plant material was
provided by Arborgen Nursery (Blenheim, SC) and from the North Carolina Forest Service Claridge Nursery
(Goldsboro, NC). Per the restoration plan, two non-riparian vegetative communities (streamhead pocosin
and wet pine flat) and one riparian vegetative community (small stream swamp) were established
throughout the 361-ac project area. Swamp black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) and bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum) comprised a majority of the seedlings planted within the riparian zones (60-ac), totaling
approximately 26,700. In addition to bare root material, live stakes were installed along the banks of the
restored stream channels on approximate 4-ft centers to provide for enhanced bank stabilization and
vegetative cover. Live stake species included silky dogwood (Cornus amonum), black willow (Salix nigra),
and elderberry (Sambucus Canadensis). Species such as long leaf pine (Pinus palustris), Atlantic white
cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), cherrybark oak (Quercus
pagoda), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and shumard oak (Quercus
shumardii) were planted within the non-riparian zones (85-ac) within the former agricultural fields (See
Table 1 for seedling quantities by species). Approximately 88-acres composed of the former agricultural
fields were divided into six planting areas: (1) long leaf pine (34-ac); (2) Atlantic white cedar (13-ac); (3)
Atlantic white cedar-sweet bay mix (11-ac); (4) bald cypress and gum mix (10-ac); (5) oak mix (6-ac); and
(6) pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) (2-ac).

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 4
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 1. BDMB Planting List (April 2013/May 2013)

Riparian Restoration Small Stream Swamp 60-ac1
Common Name Scientific Name # Planted
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 13,000
Swamp Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica 9,000
Total 22,000
Non-Riparian Restoration Streamhead Pocosin 54-ac2
Common Name Scientific Name
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 2,100
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 14,028
Swamp Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica 1,400
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 3,700
Cherrybark Oak Quercus pagoda 1,600
Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 1,400
Sweet Bay Magnolia virginiana 1,000
Shumard Oak Quercus shumardii 400
Pond Cypress Taxodium ascendens 1,200
Total 26,828
Non-Riparian Restoration Wet Pine Flat 34-ac3
Common Name Scientific Name
Longleaf Pine Pinus palustris 21,042
Total 21,042
Grand Total 69,870
1 Approximately 28-ac planted in this community
2 Approximately 35-ac planted in this community
3 Approximately 29-ac planted in this community

Note that approximately 21-ac in the former agricultural fields was left undisturbed due to the presence of
natural hardwood stands and relict wind-rows. Long leaf pine and Atlantic white cedar were planted in
slightly higher landscape positions in the stream head pocosin and wet pine flat communities, while the
remaining species were planted in areas that will likely experience longer flooding durations. The transition
between the small stream swamp community and the streamhead pocosin and wet pine flat communities in
the outer Coastal Plain represents subtle shifts in composition rather than distinct breaks between wetland
types. An overlap of planted species occurs along the boundaries between the wetland communities.
Refer to Table 2 for a list of tasks and associated completion dates for the implementation of the BDMB.

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 5
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 2. Summary of Tasks Completed on BDMB

Description of Task Date
Logging within Limits of Clearing November 2012
On-site Meeting with COE Staff – Construction Review March 2013
Completion of Earthwork April 2013
Site Planting April 2013
On-Site Meeting with COE Staff April 2014
Year 1 Monitoring July 2014/January 2015
Year 1 Monitoring Report Submitted March 2015

Per the approved restoration plan, monitoring of BDMB includes the assessment of both hydrologic and
vegetative conditions over the course of a seven year monitoring period. Following the completion of the
earthwork, a total of twenty-four (24) permanent 0.025 acre plots and eighteen (18) 0.10 acre plots were
established throughout the planted and restored (i.e. former) small stream swamp, streamhead pocosin,
and wet pine flat communities (Table 3). A total of sixty-eight (68) shallow groundwater monitoring wells
were installed throughout the project area. Of these wells, ten (10) are stream gauges to document bankfull
and flow events, seven (7) are riparian restoration wells, eighteen (18) are riparian reference wells, eight (8)
are non-riparian wells, one (1) is a non-riparian reference well, and twenty-four (24) are zero order
restoration wells composing eight (8) well arrays within the zero order valleys. Wells have collected data
from January 2014 through the present.

Table 3. Vegetation Plots and Wells by Community Type

Community Type Acreage Vegetation Plots Monitoring Wells Stream Gauges
Small Stream 60 17 31 10
Streamhead Pocosin 54 13 4 0
Wet Pine Flat 34 12 4 0
TOTAL 148 42 39 10
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 6
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

3.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

A. Wetland Restoration/Enhancement Success Criteria
The wetland restoration effort will be evaluated based upon performance criteria related to vegetative
density and wetland hydrology. Monitoring will be conducted at the site an annual basis for a period of
seven (7) years. Note that non-planted individuals of characteristic wetland species may volunteer into the
restored site. Suitable volunteers are an important component to the restored wetland as they serve as
indicators for appropriate hydrologic regimes and provide increased diversity. The presence of suitable
volunteers demonstrates trending of the site toward vegetative success.

The primary success criteria for the Bachelors Delight Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank will be:
1. Demonstrated density of planted species to meet or exceed 320 trees per acre at the end of three years
(post-planting), 260 trees per acre at the end of five years, and 210 (seven-year old) character canopy tree
species per acre at the end of seven years. The IRT may allow for the counting of acceptable volunteer
species toward the 210-tree per acre density upon the review and evaluation of the annual monitoring data.

2. If, within the first three years, any species exhibits greater than 50% mortality, the species will either be re-
planted or an acceptable replacement species will be planted in its place.

3. No single volunteer species (most notably red maple, loblolly pine, and sweet gum) will comprise more than
50% of the total composition at Year 2 or Year 3. If this occurs, remedial action, as approved by the IRT
may be required. During Year 4 and Year 5, no single volunteer species, comprising over 50% of the total
composition, may be more than twice the height of the planted trees. If this occurs, remedial action, as
approved by the IRT, may be required. The need to conduct additional volunteer sampling after Year 5 will
be determined by the IRT.

4. The hydrologic criterion is premised on the specific community type to be restored.
(a) For the non-riparian wetland pine flat, the hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a
static water table at, or within, 12” of the soil surface for 6% of the growing season, equivalent
to 18 days based upon hydrologic monitoring undertaken from 01Feb through 30Nov of each
monitoring year. On 01Feb, soil temperature at three of the monitoring plots will be measured
at 12 inches below the soil surface and documented within the monitoring report. Should
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 7
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

earlier monitoring be considered, the project sponsor must also document biological activity on
the site pursuant to the applicable Regional Supplement to the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Earlier monitoring must be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to
commencement.
(b) For the non-riparian pocosin, the hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a static
water table at, or within, 12” of the soil surface for 10% of the growing season, equivalent to 30
days based upon hydrologic monitoring undertaken from 01Feb through 30Nov of each
monitoring year. On 01Feb, soil temperature at three of the monitoring plots will be measured
at 12 inches below the soil surface and documented within the monitoring report. Should
earlier monitoring be considered, the project sponsor must also document biological activity on
the site pursuant to the applicable Regional Supplement to the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Earlier monitoring must be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to
commencement.
(c) For the small stream swamp (headwater riparian) community (zero-order geomorphic
position), the hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a static water table at, or within,
12” of the soil surface for 12.5% of the growing season, equivalent to 38 days based upon
hydrologic monitoring undertaken from 01Feb through 30Nov of each monitoring year. On
01Feb, soil temperature at three of the monitoring plots will be measured at 12 inches below
the soil surface and documented within the monitoring report. Should earlier monitoring be
considered, the project sponsor must also document biological activity on the site pursuant to
the applicable Regional Supplement to the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Earlier
monitoring must be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to commencement.

The vegetative component for BDMB includes an assessment of the conditions within each of the forty-two
(42) permanent monitoring plots that have been established throughout the project area (Figure 5).
Hydrologic monitoring is being conducted via sixty-eight (68) automated shallow groundwater monitoring
wells recording on daily intervals (refer to Figure 5 for location of the monitoring wells). Data from the wells
are downloaded on approximate three-month intervals and imported into graphing software for analysis.
Monitoring reports are being submitted annually to the USACE and the IRT. These reports include results
of vegetative and hydrologic monitoring and photographic documentation of site conditions. Monitoring
reports also identify any contingency measures that may need to be employed to remedy any site
deficiencies (e.g. major stream design failures).
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 8
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

4.0 MONITORING RESULTS (YEAR 1)

A. Vegetation Monitoring
Year 1 monitoring data were collected in July 2014 and January 2015. A total of 1,278 stems were counted
throughout the twenty-four (24) 0.10-ac plots and 535 stems throughout the 0.025-ac plots (Table 4).
Inclusive within this total were 1,224 stems of planted species (correlating to a mean density of 505 stems
per acre) (refer to Table 4). Longleaf pine and Atlantic white cedar were the most abundant woody
species, with a total of 407 and 351 individuals, respectively. Bald cypress and swamp black gum were
also prevalent within certain plots.

In addition to the planted species, numerous volunteers were observed within the plots (Table 4). A
majority of these individuals, such as fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), sweet pepper bush (Clethra alnifolia), and
coastal doghobble (Leucothoe axillaris) are considered desirable volunteers since these plants are
representative of the target wetland community types.

The mean stem density observed for both planted and characteristic (desirable) wetland species for the
project area is 801 stems/acre. Note that this observed density excludes individuals of the following
species: (1) red maple (Acer rubrum); (2) sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua); (3) horse sugar (Symplocos
tinctoria); (4) groundseltree (Baccharis halimifolia); (5) loblolly pine (Pinus taeda); (6) winged sumac (Rhus
copallinum); (7) sassafras (Sassafras albidum); (8) persimmon (Diospyros virginiana); and (9) black cherry
(Prunus serotina). Individual plot data sheets are provided in Appendix B.

The most abundant volunteer species identified within the restored small stream swamp, streamhead
pocosin, and wet pine flat communities are (in order of abundance): (1) loblolly pine (901 total stems); (2)
fetterbush (289 total stems); (3) sweet pepper bush (157 total stems); (4) winged sumac (126 total stems);
and (5) sweet gum (74 total stems). Refer to Table 4 for volunteer species identified by plot. In general,
the observed volunteer species during Year 1 monitoring are considered characteristic of the target wetland
community types (i.e. small stream swamp, streamhead pocosin, and wet pine flat).

The most prevalent non-target species observed during Year 1 monitoring was loblolly pine and winged
sumac. While considered non-desirable (due to their potential to out-compete planted species), both
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 9
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

TABLE 4A: Bachelors Delight Stream And Wetland Mitigation Bank - Vegetation Monitoring (Year 1)
Species Common Name Planted/Volunteer HU
F

1
HU
F

2
HU
F

3
HU
F

4
HE
W

1
HE
W

2
HE
W

3
HE
W

4
HM

1
HM

2
BD
N
-
N
R
-
L
L

1
BD
N
-
N
R
-
L
L

2
BD
N
-
N
R
-
L
L

3
BD
N
-
N
R
-
L
L

4
BD
N
-
N
R
-
L
L

5
BD
S
-
N
R
-
L
L

1
BD
N
-
N
R
-
A
W
C
B
A
Y

1
BD
N
-
N
R
-
A
W
C
-
1
BD
N
-
N
R
-
A
W
C
-
2
BD
N
-
N
R
-
A
W
C
-
3
BD
S
-
N
R
-
A
W
C

1
BD
-
N
R
-
C
Y
P
G
U
M

1
BD
-
N
R
-
O
A
K

1
BD
-
N
R
-
O
A
K

2
To
t
a
l

S
t
e
m
s
Taxodium distichum bald cypress P 11 9 10 12 11 9 5 8 8 6 9 98
Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar P 12 10 12 12 9 12 67
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak P 6 7 13
Nyssa sylvatica swamp black gum P 2 4 4 1 7 3 4 4 2 31
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak P 3 4 7
Pinus palustris long leaf pine P 8 3 12 12 9 8 14 10 76
Pinus serotina pond pine P 0
Gordonia lasianthus loblolly bay P 1 2 3
Quercus nigra water oak P 0
Cornus amomum silky dogwood P 1 1
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay P 1 1
Cyrilla racemiflora titi V 0
Persea palustris red bay V 1 1
Morella cerifera wax myrtle V 1 5 6
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepper bush V 5 48 4 57
Leucothoe axillaris coastal doghobble V 2 7 9
Lyonia lucida fetterbush V 164 1 165
Baccharis halimifolia groundsel tree V 6 1 1 2 5 2 17
Symplocos tinctoria horse sugar V 1 1
Sassafras albidum sassafras V 3 3
Diospyros virginiana persimmon V 5 5
Rhus copallinum winged sumac V 14 4 34 52
Prunus serotina black cherry V 1 1
Liquidambar styraciflua sweet gum V 2 1 2 23 28
Acer rubrum red maple V 3 1 1 1 10 1 17
Pinus taeda loblolly pine V 2 10 9 4 5 15 4 3 3 25 13 31 7 9 3 8 7 13 8 50 229
Total Stems of Planted Species 11 11 10 24 15 10 12 11 16 11 12 12 9 10 14 10 13 10 12 12 9 23 9 11 297
Notes: Plots in Table 4A are CVS plots (100 m2)
Total Stems of Planted Species
+ Acceptable Volunteer Species 11 11 10 195 15 10 13 11 71 15 12 12 9 10 14 10 13 10 14 12 14 23 9 11 535

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 10
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

TABLE 4B: Bachelors Delight Stream And Wetland Mitigation Bank - Vegetation Monitoring (Year 1)
Species Common Name Planted/Volunteer Pl
o
t

R
1
Pl
o
t

R
2
Pl
o
t

R
3
Pl
o
t

R
4
Pl
o
t

H
F
1
Pl
o
t

H
F
2
Pl
o
t

H
F
3
Pl
o
t

H
F
4
Pl
o
t

H
F
5
Pl
o
t

H
F
6
Pl
o
t

H
F
7
Pl
o
t

H
F
8
Pl
o
t

H
F
9
Pl
o
t

H
F
1
0
Pl
o
t

H
F
1
1
Pl
o
t

H
F
1
2
Pl
o
t

H
F
1
3
Pl
o
t

H
F
1
4
To
t
a
l

S
t
e
m
s
Taxodium distichum bald cypress P 27 44 36 31 138
Taxodium acsendens pond cypress P 54 54
Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar P 57 55 65 49 58 284
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak P 24 24
Nyssa sylvatica swamp black gum P 21 11 12 30 74
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak P 22 22
Pinus palustris long leaf pine P 8 52 25 36 48 59 47 56 331
Gordonia lasianthus loblolly bay V 3 3
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepper bush V 7 2 91 100
Leucothoe axillaris coastal doghobble V 4 32 7 43
Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar V 4 21 25
Lyonia lucida fetterbush V 1 123 124
Quercus nigra water oak V 2 1 3
Morella cerifera wax myrtle V 9 12 3 24
Vaccinium spp.blueberry V 3 3
Persea Palustris red bay V 8 7 15
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay V 2 9 11
Pinus taeda loblolly pine V 6 212 32 3 128 20 15 25 133 10 30 15 2 10 23 6 2 672
Rhus copallinum winged sumac V 10 64 74
Symplocos tinctoria horse sugar V 12 6 18
Liquidambar styraciflua sweet gum V 13 23 10 46
Acer rubrum red maple V 6 2 13 1 2 13 37
Baccharis halimifolia grounsel tree V 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 17
Total Stems of Planted Species 48 55 56 61 46 57 55 52 54 65 49 58 25 36 48 59 47 56 927
Notes: Plots in Table 4B are 0.10-acre
Total Stems of Planted Species
+ Acceptable Volunteer
Species
80 245 160 62 46 65 62 52 54 65 58 58 25 36 48 59 47 56 1278

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 11
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

loblolly pine and winged sumac are commonly occurring as early successional species in the Outer Coastal
Plain. Based upon the data, other predominant volunteers (e.g. fetterbush, sweet pepper bush, doghobble,
etc.) are desirable and consistent with the restoration goals of the project (i.e. characteristic of the target
vegetative community). While certain volunteer species can potentially out-compete planted species, the
overall composition of the species observed is characteristic of small stream swamp, streamhead pocosin,
and wet pine flat wetlands of the outer Coastal Plain and appear to be well-adapted to the restored wetland
hydrology.

B. Hydrologic Monitoring (Wetlands)
As indicated above, a total of sixty-eight (68) shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed
throughout BDMB. Of the sixty-eight (68) wells, thirty-nine (39) monitor the restored wetland areas. The
number of wells installed within three of the community types (small stream swamp, streamhead pocosin,
and wet pine flat) was proportional to the acreage of each community type. A higher density of gauges was
utilized within the small stream swamp forest/zero-order stream given the nature of the monitoring
requirements for this wetland type.

1. Summary of Precipitation
Regional drought indices, including the Palmer Drought Index and the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (DWR) Drought Status Maps, were examined to interpret precipitation patterns and predicted
subsurface water storage conditions relative to long-term climatic data. In particular, the Palmer
Hydrological Drought Index maps depict hydrological (long-term cumulative) drought and wet conditions,
which more accurately reflect groundwater conditions. Based upon the 2014 index maps, the Onslow
County area of North Carolina exhibited normal groundwater conditions on a monthly basis for the entire
2014 calendar year. The Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index maps for 2014 are included in Appendix C.

The NC Drought Status Monitoring Program compares existing data to long-term (1965-2013) climatic
conditions for well data, stream baseflow data, and combined well and baseflow data. Contoured
percentile data (30th/70th percentiles) are graphically displayed on monthly drought images. Based upon
these maps, subsurface storage (i.e. groundwater) conditions were considered normal during January,
February, and May through November. The area was considered to be above normal in March, April, and
December. The NC DWR Drought Status Maps for 2014 are included in Appendix D.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 12
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

The nearest functional CRONOS Station (KNCA, New River MCAS) recorded 54.15 inches for the year.
According to the WETS long-term climatic data, mean annual rainfall for Hoffman Forest, NC is 56.49
inches, with a 30% chance of having less than 51.86 inches and a 30% chance of having more than 60.51
inches of precipitation. As a result, the observed annual precipitation total is considered normal. Note that
appendices C and D are provided digitally on the enclosed CD.

2. Small Stream Swamp
For the IRT-defined growing season (February 1 through November 30), thirty-five (35) of the thirty-seven
(37) wells exhibited hydroperiods of greater than 12.5% of the growing season (equivalent to 38
consecutive days), the success criterion for this community type. The observed hydroperiods ranged
between 8.3% of the growing season (Well BDN_RIP1) to 100% of the growing season (Wells HE_RIP1,
HU_ZOA1a, HU_ZOA1c, HU_ZOA2a). The observed mean hydroperiod for the thirty-seven (37) wells was
43.0% of the growing season. Note that Well (BDN_RIP1) exhibited elevated water tables for extended
periods with groundwater within the upper 13 inches of the soil profile for 70 consecutive days during the
early growing season. In addition, this well appears to have been installed within a location not consistent
with the targeted small stream swamp community type. Well (BDS_RIP1) appears to be installed just out of
the riparian zone and experienced well malfunctions over an extensive part of the growing season.
However, despite malfunctions, this well exhibited a water table within 12 inches of the soil surface for 140
days out of the approximate 180-day data collection period and 31 consecutive days (equivalent to 10.2%
of the monitoring period for 2014) which meets the success criteria for the Streamhead Pocosin community
in which it is installed. The location of this well will be evaluated and will be moved to the correct wetland
zone (i.e. within the riparian valley). Refer to Table 5 for a summary of the hydrologic data for the small
stream swamp (i.e. riparian) restoration wells. Hydrographs are provided in Appendix E. A summary of the
hydrologic data for the reference small stream swamp wetland is provided in Table 6.

3. Streamhead Pocosin
Of the four (4) wells in the streamhead pocosin community type, two (2) wells exhibited hydroperiods
greater than 10% (the success criterion – equivalent to 30 days) of the IRT-defined growing season. The
observed mean hydroperiod duration for all of the streamhead pocosin wells was 53 days (equivalent to
17.5% of the growing season). All but two wells (BD_GW4 and BD_GW7) met the target 10% hydrologic
criterion. However, these wells exhibited elevated water table within 12 inches of the soil surface for
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 13
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 5. Summary of 2014 Hydrologic Monitoring (Small Stream Swamp Restoration - Riparian)
2014 Growing Season February 1 - November 30
Well Number Total Number of days within 12"
(Jan 1 thru Dec 31)
Longest Number Of Consecutive Days Meeting Wetland Hydrology Criteria (in growing
season)
Dates of Longest Number of
Consecutive Days Meeting Wetland Hydrology Criteria
Percentage
of Growing Season
12.5%
Success
Criteria (38 Days)
>6 -
12.5%
12.5
- 25%
25 -
75% >75%
HE_RIP1 365 303 Feb 1 - Nov 30 100.0% Yes - - - X
HE_RIP2 349 268 Feb 1 - Oct 26 88.4% Yes - - - X
HU_RIP1 272 115 Feb 1 - May 26 38.0% Yes - - X -
HU_RIP2 239 100 Feb 1 - May 11 33.0% Yes - - X -
HU_ZOA1a 365 303 Feb 1 - Nov 30 100.0% Yes - - - X
HU_ZOA1b 238 103 Feb 1 - May 14 34.0% Yes - - X -
HU_ZOA1c 365 303 Feb 1 - Nov 30 100.0% Yes - - - X
HU_ZOA2a 365 303 Feb 1 - Nov 30 100.0% Yes - - - X
HU_ZOA2b 341 121 Feb 1 - Jun 1 39.9% Yes - - X -
HU_ZOA2c 317 115 Feb 1 - May 26 38.0% Yes - - X -
HU_REF1a1 190 49 Mar 21 - May 8 16.2% Yes - X - -
HU_REF1b 274 108 Feb 1 - May 19 35.6% Yes - - X -
HU_REF1c2 208 47 Aug 20 - Oct 5 15.5% Yes - X - -
BD2_ZOAa 108 71 Feb 1 - Apr 12 23.4% Yes - X - -
BD2_ZOAb 276 114 Feb 1 - May 25 37.6% Yes - - X -
BD2_ZOAc 325 121 Feb 1 - Jun 1 39.9% Yes - - X -
BDN_ZOA1a 160 65 Feb 1 - Apr 6 21.5% Yes - X - -
BDN_ZOA1b 266 102 Feb 1 - May 13 33.7% Yes - - X -
BDN_ZOA1c 305 100 Feb 1 - May 11 33.0% Yes - - X -
BDN_ZOA2a 256 99 Feb 1 - May 10 32.7% Yes - - X -
BDN_ZOA2b 260 101 Feb 1 - May 12 33.3% Yes - - X -
BDN_ZOA2c 236 72 Feb 1 - Apr 13 23.8% Yes - X - -
BDN_ZOA4a 321 137 Feb 1 - Jun 17 45.2% Yes - - X -
BDN_ZOA4b 342 151 Feb 1 - July 1 49.8% Yes - - X -
BDN_ZOA4c 328 121 Feb 1 - June 1 39.9% Yes - - X -
BDN_RIP13 156 25 Feb 1 - Feb 25 8.3% No X - - -
BD_REF1Aa4 234 110 Feb 1 - May 21 36.3% Yes - - X -
BD_REF1Ab5 240 113 Feb 1 - May 24 37.3% Yes - - X -
BD_REF1Ac 240 101 Feb 1 - May 12 33.3% Yes - - X -
BDS_RIP16 140 31 Mar 7 - Apr 6 10.2% No X - - -
BDS_ZOA1a 275 102 Feb 1 - May 13 33.7% Yes - - X -
BDS_ZOA1b 346 132 Jul 22 - Nov 30 43.6% Yes - - X -
BDS_ZOA1c 148 69 Mar 7 - May 14 22.8% Yes - X - -
HM_ZOA1a 266 108 Feb 1 - May 19 35.6% Yes - - X -
HM_ZOA1b 357 280 Feb 1 - Nov 7 92.4% Yes - - - X
HM_ZOA1c 354 132 Jul 22 - Nov 30 43.6% Yes - - X -
HM_RIP1 247 123 Jun 6 - Oct 6 40.6% Yes - - X -

1 - Well Malfunction (3/7-3/20) & (9/4-9/19) 3 - Well location not in representative community type 5 - Well Malfunction (8/19-9/11)
2 - Well Malfunction (1/1-1/26) & (3/3-3/27) & (8/16-8/19) & (11/29-12/16) & (12/24) 4 - Well Malfunction (5/30-8/19) 6 - Well Malfunction (5/17-8/21) & (10/25-12/31)
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 14
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 6. Summary of 2014 Hydrologic Monitoring (Reference – Small Stream Swamp - Riparian)
2014 Growing Season February 1 - November 30
Well Number
Total Number
of days within 12" (Jan 1 –
Dec 31)
Longest Number Of
Consecutive Days Meeting Wetland
Hydrology Criteria
Dates of Longest Number of
Consecutive Days Meeting Wetland Hydrology Criteria
Percentage of
Growing Season
12.5%
Success Criteria (38
Days)
>6 - 12.5% 12.5-25% 25 - 75% >75%
HE_REF1a1 233 202 Feb 1 - Aug 21 66.7% Yes -- -- X --
HE_REF1b2 310 279 Feb 1 - Nov 6 92.1% Yes -- -- -- X
HE_REF1c3 202 171 Jun 13 - Nov 30 56.4% Yes -- -- X --
HE_REF2a 365 303 Feb 1 - Nov 30 100.0% Yes -- -- -- X
HE_REF2b4 337 202 Feb 1 - Aug 21 66.7% Yes -- -- X --
HE_REF2c 348 121 Feb 1 - Jun 3 39.9% Yes -- -- X --
HE_REF3a5 276 102 Feb 1 - May 13 33.7% Yes -- -- X --
HE_REF3b6 249 85 Feb 15 - May 10 28.1% Yes -- -- X --
HE_REF3c 365 303 Feb 1 - Nov 30 100.0% Yes -- -- -- X
HE_REF4a7 56 5 Feb 13 - Feb 17 1.7% No -- -- -- --
HE_REF4b 365 303 Feb 1 - Nov 30 100.0% Yes -- -- -- X
HE_REF4c 365 303 Feb 1 - Nov 30 100.0% Yes X

1 - Well Malfunction 8/22-12/31
2 - Well Malfunction 11/7-12/31
3 - Well Malfunction 2/1-6/12
4 - Well Malfunction 8/22-9/18
5 - Well Malfunction 12/11-12/31
6 - Well Malfunction 1/11-2/14
7 – Well does not represent field conditions.

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 15
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

extended periods. Well BD_GW4 experienced well malfunctions from the beginning of the year through
September 17th, missing the majority of the growing season. Out of the 105 days the well was functional, it
recorded 73 days with water tables within 12 inches of the soil surface, with 42 recorded during the
remaining growing season. Based upon the recorded data and observed field indicators, hydrology in the
area of well BD_GW4 appears to have been restored. This area will be closely monitored during the Year 2
monitoring season. Well BD_GW7 experienced elevated groundwater levels for a 30-day period beginning
on January 30th and ending on February 28th. The well recorded water levels within 12 inches for 39 out of
a 42-day period in February and March (with the water table at 12.6 inches, 14.1 inches and 14.3 inches
below the soil surface for the other three days). In addition, this well exhibited a water table with 12 inches
of the soil surface for 157 days out of the 365-day data set, and 105 days out of the defined growing
season, equivalent to 43% of the monitoring period for 2014, and 35% of the growing season, respectively.

Refer to Table 7A for a summary of the hydrologic data for the streamhead pocosin restoration wells. A
summary of the hydrologic data for the reference non-riparian wetland is provided in Table 7B.
Hydrographs are provided in Appendix E.

4. Wet Pine Flat
Of the four (4) wells in the wet pine flat community type, three (3) wells exhibited hydroperiods greater than
6% (corresponding to 18 consecutive days) of the IRT-defined growing season. The observed mean
hydroperiod duration for all of the wet pine flat wells was 76 days (equivalent to 25% of the growing
season). All but one well (Well BD_GW8) met the target 6% hydrologic criterion. Well BD_GW8
experienced well malfunctions from the beginning of the year through June 6th, missing half of the growing
season. However, the well recorded water levels within 12 inches for 18 out of a 21-day period in
September (with the water table at 13.5 inches, 13.8 inches and 15.2 inches below the soil surface for the
other three days). Out of the 208 days the well was functional, it recorded 65 days with water tables within
12 inches of the soil surface, with 44 recorded during the remaining growing season. Based upon the
recorded data and observed field indicators, hydrology in the area of well BD_GW8 appears to have been
restored. This area will be closely monitored during the Year 2 monitoring season.

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 16
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 7A. Summary of 2014 Hydrologic Monitoring (Streamhead Pocosin Restoration – Non-Riparian)
2014 Growing Season February 1 - November 30
Well Number
Total Number of
days within 12" (Jan 1 – Dec 31)
Longest Number Of
Consecutive Days
Meeting Wetland Hydrology Criteria
Dates of Longest Number of
Consecutive Days Meeting Wetland Hydrology Criteria
Percentage of
Growing Season
10%
Success
Criteria (30 Days)
>6 -
12.5%
12.5-
25%
25 -
75% >75%
BD_GW41 73 18 Sept 18 - Oct 5 5.9% No -- -- -- --
BD_GW5 228 100 Feb 1 - May 11 33.0% Yes -- -- X --
BD_GW6 198 64 Feb 1 - Apr 5 21.1% Yes -- X -- --
BD_GW7 157 28 Feb 1 - Feb 28 9.2% No X -- -- --
1 - Well Malfunction 1/1-9/17

Table 7B. Summary of 2014 Hydrologic Monitoring (Reference – Non-Riparian)
2014 Growing Season February 1 - November 30
Well Number
Total
Number of
days within
12" (Jan 1 –
Dec 31)
Longest Number Of
Consecutive Days
Meeting Wetland
Hydrology Criteria
Dates of Longest
Number of Consecutive
Days Meeting Wetland
Hydrology Criteria
Percentage
of Growing
Season
6%
Success
Criteria (18
Days)
10%
Success
Criteria (30
Days)
>6 -
12.5%
12.5-
25%
25 -
75% >75%

NON_RIP_REF1

266 131 Jul 23 - Nov 30 43.2%

Yes Yes -- -- X --
1 - Well Malfunction 4/15-7/22

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 17
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 8. Summary of 2014 Hydrologic Monitoring (Wet Pine Flat Restoration – Non-Riparian)
2014 Growing Season February 1 - November 30
Well Number
Total
Number of
days within
12" (Jan 1 –
Dec 31)
Longest Number Of
Consecutive Days
Meeting Wetland
Hydrology Criteria
Dates of Longest
Number of Consecutive
Days Meeting Wetland
Hydrology Criteria
Percentage
of Growing
Season
6% Success Criteria (18
Days)
>6 -
12.5%
12.5-
25%
25 -
75% >75%
BD_GW1 334 129 Jul 25 - Nov 30 42.6% Yes -- -- X --
BD_GW2 233 64 Feb 1 - Apr 5 21.1% Yes -- X -- --
BD_GW3 237 97 Feb 1 - May 8 32.0% Yes -- -- X --
BD_GW81 65 12 Sept 8 - Sept 19 4.0% No -- -- -- --
1 - Well Malfunction (1/1-6/6)

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 18
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Refer to Table 8 for a summary of the hydrologic data for the wet pine flat restoration wells. A summary of
the hydrologic data for the reference non-riparian wetland is provided in Table 7B. Hydrographs are
provided in Appendix E.

C. Stream Monitoring

The primary success criteria for the First Order Stream systems will be:

Documentation of 2 bankfull events using techniques discussed below within a normal rainfall year in 3 of
the 5 years of monitoring. Additional monitoring may be necessary in the event of abnormal climatic
conditions.

Level 1 Monitoring will be required for the stream portion of the Bachelors Delight Wetland and Stream
Mitigation Bank as detailed in the Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003. Monitoring will occur every
year for the five year monitoring period.

Level 1 Monitoring includes Sections (1), (2), and (3) listed below.

(1) Photo-Documentation
Extensive photo documentation was implemented during Year 1 for the stream monitoring phase of this
project. Site visits were conducted and photographs were taken within 24 hours of a 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 inch
rain event along each reach during Year 1 monitoring. Photographic and video evidence of Ordinary High
Water Mark indicators and flow evidence were also collected. Photos of riparian area plantings (live
stakes) are provided in Appendix A. Photos were taken at all permanent cross-sections and are provided
in Appendix F. Ordinary High Water Mark indicators are provided in Appendix G. Please refer to the
enclosed CD for video evidence of flow.

(2) Ecological Function
The health of the riparian vegetation was documented as part of the wetland restoration monitoring efforts.
Multiple 0.10 ac. permanent monitoring plots were established throughout the riverine wetland restoration
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 19
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

including areas directly adjacent to the restored channel. Reference the vegetation monitoring section for
monitoring results.

(3) Channel Stability/Survey Procedures
(a.) Cross-Sections (First Order Channel)
The BDMB has restored 9,503 lf of Coastal Plain stream. The restoration has mimicked low gradient, low
velocity stream reaches characteristic of the outer Coastal Plain. No hardened materials (i.e. rock
structures) were used. Rather, natural materials (such as root wads and log vanes) have assisted with
channel stabilization and grade control. Given the size, uniform design, and gentle slope (0.005) of the
project, cross-sections were established every 1,000 feet of stream length (totaling 12 permanent stations).
Placement of these stations was designed to assess the performance of potential problem areas (i.e.
severe erosion, structural failure). These stations were also evenly distributed between riffles and pools
throughout the project. Refer to Table 9 for the number of cross-sections and Figure 6 for the locations of
the cross-section monitoring stations. Year 1 cross-section surveys are provided in Appendix F.

Table 9. Stream Lengths and Number of Cross-Section Stations

Reach Name
Proposed (lf)
Mitigation
Plan
Final Design
Length As-Built Length Cross-sections
Hewitts Branch (HE-1) 5,103 5,181 5,011 6
Huffmans Branch (HU-1) 3,445 3,445 3,354 4
Half Moon Creek (HM-1) 1,131 1,131 1,138 2
Total Length 9,679 9,757 9,503 12

(b.) Longitudinal Profiles
Guidelines regarding longitudinal profiles for projects totaling over 3,000 lf suggest that 30% of the area be
surveyed on an annual basis. Based on this guideline, a total of 2,850 lf of profile is required for the BDMB
project. The 2,850 lf of survey was divided throughout the individual reaches and includes some of the
permanent cross-sections (Table 10). Reference the longitudinal surveys in Appendix F in comparison to
as-built conditions (see Baseline Monitoring Report).
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 20
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 10. Longitudinal Profiles by Stream Reach
1 – First Order Streams Only

(c.) Pebble Counts
Streams in the BDMB are composed of sandy substrates typical in the outer Coastal plain. Since all
sediment falls into the sand category, gravelometer readings were not conducted. All sediment in the
constructed stream beds is less than 2mm and would be placed in the <2mm category for Wolman pebble
count analysis.

(d.) Stream Flow Monitoring (First Order Channel)
As indicated above, the 1st-order streams of BDMB occur within three distinct valleys that connect the
headwater wetlands on the northern portion of the tract to the Bachelors Delight Swamp on the south side
(a third order tributary of the New River). The three valleys are identified as Hewitts Branch (HE-1),
Huffmans Branch (HU-1), and Half Moon Creek (HM-1). A total of 8 gauges were installed adjacent to the
stream banks to document bankfull events on a daily basis. These gauges capture the upper, middle, and
lower end of each stream reach (3 gauges in HE-1, 3 gauges in HU-1, and 2 gauges in HM-1). Refer to
Figure 5 for a map depicting the location of 1st-order gauges. Indicators of Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) and video documentation were also used to identify the presence of surface water flow. Ordinary
High Water Mark indicators are provided in Appendix G. Please refer to the enclosed CD for video
evidence of flow.

Hewitts Branch (HE-1):
Surface water and flow was documented in each of the three (3) gauges over several periods during the
monitoring event. The valley exhibits a very gradual slope (0.0012%) from the upper end to the lowest end.
Gauge HE_SG-1 was placed the furthest up-gradient (fourth stream meander from source) in order to
Reach Name Proposed (lf) Final Design Length As-Built
Length % of Project1 Minimum
Profile (lf)
Hewitts Branch (HE-1) 5,103 5,181 5,011 52.7 1,502
Huffmans Branch (HU-1) 3,445 3,445 3,354 35.3 1,006
Half Moon Creek (HM-1) 1,131 1,131 1,138 12 342
Total Length 9,679 9,757 9,503 100 2,850
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 21
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

capture bankfull events at the head of the restored stream reach. Gauges HE_SG-2 and HE_SG-3 were
spaced approximately 1200-ft apart further down the stream. Refer to Figure 5 for the gauge locations.

The amplitude of the surface water varied at each gauge. Gauge HE_SG-1 exhibited a bankfull event
twenty-six (26) times during the monitoring period, while gauges HE_SG-2 and HE_SG-3 recorded twenty-
one (21) and twelve (12) bankfull events, respectively (Table 11). The gauges exhibited a significant
increase in the duration and amplitude of flow events during 2014 (post-construction Year 1). Video
evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall events during the monitoring year over multiple site visits.
Flow can be readily seen along each stream valley.

Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Hewitts Branch (HE-1)
consisted of the following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) presence of litter and debris; (3)
wracking; (4) vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (5) sediment sorting; (6) scour; (7) deposition; (8)
water staining; (9) and multiple observed flow events. Photographs of HE-1 are provided in Appendix A.
Ordinary High Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.

Huffmans Branch (HU-1):
Surface water and flow was documented in each of the three (3) gauges over several periods during the
monitoring event. Gauge HU_SG-1 was placed the furthest up-gradient in order to capture bankfull events
at the head of the restored stream reach. Gauges HU_SG-2 and HU_SG-3 were spaced approximately
1600-ft and 1000-ft apart further down the stream, respectively. Refer to Figure 5 for the gauge locations.

The amplitude of the surface water varied at each gauge. Gauge HU_SG-1 exhibited thirty-two (32)
bankfull events during the monitoring period, while gauges HE_SG-2 and HE_SG-3 recorded seven (7) and
three (3) bankfull events, respectively (Table 12). The gauges exhibited a significant increase in the
duration and amplitude of flow events during 2014 (post-construction Year 1). Video evidence of flow was
recorded following rainfall events during the monitoring year over multiple site visits. Flow can be readily
seen along each stream valley.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 22
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Huffmans Branch (HU-1)
consisted of the following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) presence of litter and debris; (3)
wracking; (4) vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (5) sediment sorting; (6) scour; (7) deposition; (8)
water staining; (9) and multiple observed flow events. Photographs of HU-1 are provided in Appendix A.
Ordinary High Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.

Half Moon Creek (HM-1):
Surface water and flow was documented in each of the two (2) gauges over several periods during the
monitoring event. Gauge HM_SG-1 was placed the furthest up-gradient in order to capture bankfull events
at the head of the restored stream reach. Gauge HM_SG-2 was placed approximately 800-ft further down
the stream. Refer to Figure 5 for the gauge locations.

The amplitude of the surface water varied at each gauge. Gauge HM_SG-1 exhibited fifteen (15) bankfull
events during the monitoring period, while gauge HM_SG-2 exhibited twenty-seven (27) bankfull events
(Table 13). The gauges exhibited a significant increase in the duration and amplitude of flow events during
2014 (post-construction Year 1). Video evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall events during the
monitoring year over multiple site visits. Flow can be readily seen along each stream valley.

Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Half Moon Creek (HM-1)
consisted of the following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) presence of litter and debris; (3)
wracking; (4) vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (5) sediment sorting; (6) scour; (7) deposition; (8)
water staining; (9) and multiple observed flow events. Photographs of HM-1 are provided in Appendix A.
Ordinary High Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 23
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 11. Summary of 2014 Bankfull Event Monitoring (Hewitts Branch (HE-1))

Gauge Number Total Number of Bankfull Events
Longest Number
of Consecutive Days During Bankfull Event
Dates of Bankfull Event(s)
3-Day Antecedent
Rainfall (Inches)
(KNCA, New River MCAS)
HE-SG1 26 4
Jan 3 Apr 16 0.57 1.06
Jan 6 Apr 19 -21 0.21 2.98 (thru 4/20)
Jan 11-12 May 1 0.59 0.48
Jan 15 July 4 0.46 1.84
Feb 2 Aug 4-5 0.08 3.72 (thru 8/4)
Feb 5-6 Aug 19-20 0.4 0.25
Feb 9 Aug 24-25 0.42 0.65
Feb 13-15 Sept 8-10 0.75 3.61 (thru 9/8)
Feb 22 Sept 13-15 0.27 2.86 (thru 9/13)
Mar 7-9 Nov 27-28 1.96 2.54
Mar 17-20 Dec 7 0.93 (thru 3/19) 0.46
Mar 26 Dec 24-26 0.43 4.06 (thru 12/24)
Mar 29-31 Dec 29-30 0.4 0.21
HE-SG2 21 4
Jan 3 Apr 20-21 0.57 2.98 (thru 4/20)
Jan 6 May 1 0.21 0.48
Jan 11-12 July 4 0.59 1.84
Jan 15-16 Aug 4-5 0.46 3.72 (thru 8/4)
Feb 2 Aug 19-20 0.08 0.25
Feb 5-6 Aug 24-25 0.4 0.65
Feb 13-14 Sept 8-11 0.75 3.61 (thru 9/8)
Mar 7-8 Sept 13-16 1.96 2.86 (thru 9/13)
Mar 17-20 Dec 25-26 0.93 (thru 3/19) 3.9
Mar 29-30 Dec 30 0.4 0.21
Apr 16 N/A 1.06 N/A
HE-SG3 12 2
Mar 30 Sept 9-10 0.4 2.59
Apr 20 Sept 13-14 2.98 (thru 4/20) 2.86
Jul 25 Nov 26-27 1.03 3.05 (thru 11/26)
Aug 4-5 Dec 7 2.4 (thru 8/5) 0.46
Aug 19 Dec 25-26 0.29 (thru 8/19) 3.90
Aug 24 Dec 30 0.65 0.21

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 24
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 12. Summary of 2014 Bankfull Event Monitoring (Huffmans Branch (HU-1))

Gauge Number Total Number of Bankfull Events
Longest Number of Consecutive Days During
Bankfull Event
Dates of Bankfull Event(s)
3-Day Antecedent
Rainfall (Inches)
(KNCA, New River MCAS)
HU-SG1 32 4
Jan 2 Jun 10 0.57 0.37
Jan 6 Jun 22 0.21 1.74
Jan 11-12 July 4 0.59 1.77
Jan 14-16 July 25 0.89 (thru 1/14) 1.03
Feb 3 Aug 2-5 0.08 3.82 (thru 8/5)
Feb 5 Aug 19 0.4 (thru 2/5) 0.25
Feb 11 Aug 24 0.91 (thru 2/11) 0.65
Feb 13 Sept 8-10 0.76 (thru 2/13) 3.61 (thru 9/8)
Feb 15 Sept 14 0.40 (thru 2/15) 2.86
Feb 20-22 Sept 24-26 0.27 1.27 (thru 9/25)
Mar 7-9 Oct 12-13 1.96 (thru 3/7) 0.72
Mar 17-20 Oct 15-17 0.93 (thru 3/19) 1.28 (thru 10/15)
Mar 29-31 Nov 24-27 0.4 (thru 3/29) 3.05 (thru 11/26)
Apr 19-21 Dec 9 2.98 (thru 4/20) 0.67 (thru 12/9)
May 5 Dec 24-26 0.01 4.06 (thru 12/24)
June 6 Dec 29-30 1.11 0.21
HU-SG2¹ 7 4
Sept 24-26 Dec 9 0.27 2.98 (thru 4/20)
Oct 12-13 Dec 24-26 1.96 (thru 3/7) 0.01
Oct 15-17 Dec 29-30 0.93 (thru 3/19) 1.11
Nov 24-27 0.4 (thru 3/29)
HU-SG3² 3 8
Nov 24 1.61 (thru 11/24)
Nov 26-27 3.05 (thru 11/26)
Dec 24-31 4.29 (thru 12/30)
¹-Well Malfunction 1/1-9/15
²-Well Malfunction 1/1-9/17

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 25
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 13. Summary of 2014 Bankfull Event Monitoring (Half Moon Creek (HM-1))

Gauge Number Total Number of Bankfull Events
Longest Number of Consecutive Days During
Bankfull Event
Dates of Bankfull Event(s)
3-Day Antecedent
Rainfall (Inches)
(KNCA, New River MCAS)
HM-SG1 15 4
Feb 5 Aug 12 0.40 (thru 2/5) 0.48
Feb 13 Sept 8 - Sept 10 0.76 (thru 2/13) 3.31
Mar 7 Sept 13 1.96 (thru 3/7) 2.86
Mar 17 Sept 25 - Sept 26 0.43 (thru 3/17) 1.18 (thru 9/25)
Mar 29 - Mar 30 Nov 24 0.40 (thru 3/29) 1.61 (thru 11/24)
Apr 19 - Apr 20 Nov 26 2.98 (thru 4/20) 3.05 (thru 11/26)
May 16 Dec 25 1.58 (thru 5/16) 3.90
Aug 3 - Aug 6 2.59 (thru 8/3)
HM-SG2 27 25
Jan 1 - Jan 7 Aug 1 - Aug 6 0.31 (1.09 thru 1/6) N/A (3.87 - 8/1-
8/6)
Jan 10 - Jan 18 Aug 8 N/A (1.11 - 1/10-1/18) 0.16
Jan 22 Aug 10 - Aug 12 0.11 0.17 (0.34 - 8/10-8/12)
Jan 31 - Feb 24 Aug 19 N/A (2.14 - 2/1-
2/21) 0.25
Mar 6 - Mar 13 Aug 24 2.01 (thru 3/7) 0.65
Mar 17 - Mar 23 Sept 8 - Sept 15 0.93 (thru 3/19) 3.61 (thru 9/8)
Mar 26 - Mar 27 Sept 24 - Sept 26 0.43 1.27 (thru 9/25)
Mar 29 - Apr 2 Oct 12 0.40 0.72
Apr 16 Oct 15 - Oct 16 1.06 1.28
Apr 19 - Apr 23 Nov 24 - Nov 27 2.98 (thru 4/20) 1.61 (3.05 thru
11/26)
May 1 - May 3 Dec 7 0.48 0.45
May 16 Dec 9 - Dec 10 1.58 0.67 (thru 12/9)
July 4 Dec 22 - Dec 31 1.77 0.53 (4.38 thru
12/30)
July 25 1.03

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 26
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

(e.) Stream Flow Monitoring (Zero Order Channel/Headwater)

The primary success criteria for the Zero Order/Headwater Stream systems will be
Documentation of 2 flow events using techniques discussed below within a normal rainfall year in 3 of the 5
years of monitoring. Additional monitoring may be necessary in the event of abnormal climatic conditions.

The zero-order streams of BDMB occur within five distinct valleys that are contiguous with riverine swamp
forest of Bachelors Delight Swamp. The five valleys are identified as HU2, BD2, BD4/BD4A, BD5/BD5A,
and HM1. A total of 8 gauge transects (three gauges per transect) were installed in the zero-order streams
to document the presence of surface water. These transects capture the head of each valley and the
downstream end of the longer valleys (2 transects in HU2, 2 transects in BD4, and 1 transect in BD2,
BD4A, BD5A and HM1). Refer to Figure 5 for a map depicting the location of zero-order/riparian wetland
gauges. Indicators of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and video documentation were also used to
identify the presence of surface water flow.

Valley HU2:
Surface water and flow was documented in the center of each transect from the upper origin of the valley to
its lower reach over several periods during the monitoring year. The valley exhibits a very gradual slope
(0.004%) from the upper transect (Transect HU_ZOA1) to the lowest transect (Transect HU_ZOA2). Refer
to the As-Built plans for the longitudinal profile of the center of the valley at each transect location.

The duration and amplitude of the surface water varied at each transect. The transect occurring in the
upper portion of the zero-order stream exhibited surface water for briefer periods, although the entire valley
exhibited surface flow following several rainfall events throughout the monitoring season. The transect
located furthest up-gradient (Transect HU_ZOA1) experienced eight (8) different surface flow events
(center gauge), with the longest event totaling 97 consecutive days during the early part of the monitoring
year. Transect HU_ZOA2 experienced fourteen (14) different surface flow events (center gauge), with the
longest event totaling 130 days during the early part of the monitoring year. The gauges recorded two (2)
separate periods that encompassed all gauges across the entire array during the early monitoring year.
Based upon rainfall data obtained from the nearest functional CRONOS station (KNCA, New River MCAS),
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 27
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

rainfall events (3-Day Antecedent) ranging from 0.38-inch to 3.31-inches precipitated the flow events.
Photographic and/or video evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall events on/prior to February 13,
April 16, September 15 and November 26. With increasing watershed size (downslope), the duration of
surface flow increased within the valley. During periods of surface inundation, water depths in the center of
the valley ranged from 0.1 inch to 5.9 inches. Refer to Appendix E for graphs of duration and amplitude of
surface water in Valley HU2.

Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Valley HU2 consisted of the
following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) wracking (from straw mulch and plant detritus); (3)
vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (4) water staining; (5) change in plant community; (6) and multiple
observed flow events. Photographs of the zero-order valley are provided in Appendix A. Ordinary High
Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Photographic and video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.

Valley BD2:
Surface water and flow was documented in the transect of Valley BD2 over several periods during the
monitoring year. The slope of the valley over the length of the monitoring section is approximately 0.004%
(refer to Construction Documents and As-Built Plan).

The duration and amplitude of the surface water varied at the transect. The transect occurring in the zero-
order stream is installed near the base of the valley, although the entire valley exhibited surface flow
following several rainfall events throughout the monitoring year (as documented through photographic
evidence). Transect BD2_ZOA experienced eleven (11) different surface flow events (center gauge), with
the longest event totaling 131 consecutive days during the early part of the monitoring year. The gauges
recorded two (2) separate periods that encompassed all gauges across the entire array during the early
monitoring year. Based upon rainfall data obtained from the nearest functional CRONOS station (KNCA,
New River MCAS), rainfall events (3-Day Antecedent) ranging from 0.29-inch to 3.61-inches precipitated
the flow events. Photographic and/or video evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall events on/prior
to February 13, April 16, September 15 and November 26. With increasing watershed size (downslope),
the duration of surface flow increased within the valley. During periods of surface inundation, water depths
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 28
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

in the center of the valley ranged from 0.1 inch to 6.5 inches. Refer to Appendix E for graphs of duration
and amplitude of surface water in Valley BD2.

Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Valley BD2 consisted of the
following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) wracking (from straw mulch and plant detritus); (3)
vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (4) water staining; (5) change in plant community; (6) and multiple
observed flow events. Photographs of the zero-order valley are provided in Appendix A. Ordinary High
Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Photographic and video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.

Valley BD4:
Surface water and flow was documented in the center of each transect from the upper origin of the valley to
its lower reach over several periods during the monitoring year. The upper transect of the valley was
installed near the base of the constructed zero order in the restored agricultural fields. The lower transect
was installed in the natural valley of the zero order enhancement area further downstream. The valley
exhibits a very gradual slope (0.0008%) from the upper end to the lower end of the constructed valley.
Refer to the Construction Documents and As-Built plans for the longitudinal profile of the center of the
valley at each transect location.

The duration and amplitude of the surface water varied at each transect. The transect occurring in the
upper, constructed portion of the zero-order stream exhibited surface water for briefer periods, although the
entire valley exhibited surface flow following several rainfall events throughout the monitoring year. The
transect located furthest up-gradient (Transect BDN_ZOA2) experienced eleven (11) different surface flow
events (center gauge), with the longest event totaling 100 consecutive days during the early part of the
monitoring year. The gauges recorded eighteen (18) periods that encompassed all gauges across the
entire array during the early to middle monitoring year. Transect BDN_ZOA4 experienced three (3)
different surface flow events (center gauge), with the longest event totaling 152 days, and the second
longest totaling 149 days, encompassing the majority of the monitoring year. The gauges recorded one
period that encompassed all gauges across the entire array during the monitoring year. Based upon
rainfall data obtained from the nearest functional CRONOS station (KNCA, New River MCAS), rainfall
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 29
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

events (3-Day Antecedent) ranging from 0.29-inch to 3.61-inches precipitated the flow events.
Photographic and/or video evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall events on/prior to August 6, and
September 15. With increasing watershed size (downslope), the duration of surface flow increased within
the valley. During periods of surface inundation, water depths in the center of the valley ranged from 0.1
inch to 8.3 inches, and 0.1 inch to 16.6 inches for transects BDN_ZOA2, and BDN_ZOA4, respectively.
Refer to Appendix E for graphs of duration and amplitude of surface water in Valley BD4.

Valley BD4A:
Valley BD4A represents a zero order spur of Valley BD4. Surface water and flow was documented in the
transect of Valley BD4A over several periods during the monitoring year. The slope of the valley over the
length of the monitoring section is approximately 0.0018% (refer to Construction Documents and As-Built
Plan).

The duration and amplitude of the surface water varied at the transect. The transect occurring in the zero-
order stream is installed near the head of the valley, although the entire valley exhibited surface flow
following several rainfall events throughout the monitoring year (as documented through photographic
evidence). Transect BDN_ZOA1 experienced twenty-five (25) different surface flow events (center gauge),
with the longest event totaling 66 consecutive days during the early part of the monitoring year. After
review of the well data, it appears that Well “A” of the transect may not be installed within the zero order
valley, as well data does not match observed field indicators. This transect will be evaluated and the well
may be moved to the proper location if needed. Based upon rainfall data obtained from the nearest
functional CRONOS station (KNCA, New River MCAS), rainfall events (3-Day Antecedent) ranging from
0.15-inch to 3.31-inches precipitated the flow events. Photographic and/or video evidence of flow was
recorded following rainfall events on/prior to, April 16, August 6, September 15 and November 26. With
increasing watershed size (downslope), the duration of surface flow increased within the valley. During
periods of surface inundation, water depths in the center of the valley ranged from 0.1 inch to 4.4 inches.
Refer to Appendix E for graphs of duration and amplitude of surface water in Valley BD4A.

Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Valley’s BD4 and BD4A
consisted of the following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) wracking (from straw mulch and plant
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 30
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

detritus); (3) vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (4) water staining; (5) change in plant community; (6)
and multiple observed flow events. Photographs of the zero-order valley are provided in Appendix A.
Ordinary High Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Photographic
and video evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.

Valley BD5A:
Surface water and flow was documented in the transect of Valley BD5A over several periods during the
monitoring year. The slope of the valley over the length of the monitoring section is approximately 0.0017%
(refer to Construction Documents and As-Built Plan).

The duration and amplitude of the surface water varied at the transect. The transect occurring in the zero-
order stream is installed near the base of the constructed valley, although the entire valley exhibited
surface flow following several rainfall events throughout the monitoring year (as documented through
photographic evidence). Transect BDS_ZOA1 experienced twenty-nine (29) different surface flow events
(center gauge), with the longest event totaling 23 consecutive days during the early part of the monitoring
year. The gauges recorded five (5) separate periods that encompassed all gauges across the entire array
during the early monitoring year. Based upon rainfall data obtained from the nearest functional CRONOS
station (KNCA, New River MCAS), rainfall events (3-Day Antecedent) ranging from 0.14-inch to 3.61-inches
precipitated the flow events. Photographic and/or video evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall
events on/prior to February 13, April 16, September 15 and November 26. With increasing watershed size
(downslope), the duration of surface flow increased within the valley. During periods of surface inundation,
water depths in the center of the valley ranged from 0.1 inch to 2.5 inches. Refer to Appendix E for graphs
of duration and amplitude of surface water in Valley BD5A.

Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Valley BD5A consisted of the
following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) wracking (from straw mulch and plant detritus); (3)
vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (4) water staining; (5) change in plant community; (6) and multiple
observed flow events. Photographs of the zero-order valley are provided in Appendix A. Ordinary High
Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Photographic and video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 31
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

Valley HM1:
Surface water and flow was documented in the transect of Valley HM1 over several periods during the
monitoring year. The slope of the valley over the length of the monitoring section is approximately 0.006%
(refer to Construction Documents and As-Built Plan).

The duration and amplitude of the surface water varied at the transect. The transect occurring in the zero-
order stream is installed midway in the constructed valley, although the entire valley exhibited surface flow
following several rainfall events throughout the monitoring year (as documented through photographic
evidence). Transect HM_ZOA1 experienced thirteen (13) different surface flow events (center gauge), with
the longest event totaling 129 consecutive days during the early part of the monitoring year. The gauges
recorded twenty (20) separate periods that encompassed all gauges across the entire array during the
monitoring year. Based upon rainfall data obtained from the nearest functional CRONOS station (KNCA,
New River MCAS), rainfall events (3-Day Antecedent) ranging from 0.29-inch to 3.61-inches precipitated
the flow events. Photographic and/or video evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall events on/prior
to February 13, April 16, September 15 and November 26. With increasing watershed size (downslope),
the duration of surface flow increased within the valley. During periods of surface inundation, water depths
in the center of the valley ranged from 0.1 inch to 10 inches. Refer to Appendix E for graphs of duration
and amplitude of surface water in Valley HM1.

Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within Valley HM1 consisted of the
following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) wracking (from straw mulch and plant detritus); (3)
vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (4) water staining; (5) change in plant community; (6) and multiple
observed flow events. Photographs of the zero-order valley are provided in Appendix A. Ordinary High
Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix G. Photographic and video
evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 32
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

(f.) Stream Enhancement

The primary success criterion for the First Order Stream Enhancement will be:

Documentation of increases in flow duration and frequency compared to pre-construction conditions during
periods of normal rainfall.

A majority of the stream enhancement has occurred through the reestablishment of interconnectivity with
the upstream portions of the watershed. This reestablishment has increased the functional acreage of the
watershed, corresponding to increased flow frequency and duration in the lower sections of each stream.
In order to determine the extent of flow enhancement, a total of two gauge transects (one per reach) was
installed within enhancement reaches HU-3 (Transect HU_REF1), and BD-6 (Transect BD_REF1A).
These gauge transects have recorded water levels within 12-inches of the surface for 22.4% and 35.6% of
the growing season, respectively. These data indicate enhanced hydroperiods throughout these stream
reaches.

D. Contingency Measures
Stream banks and in-stream structures (i.e. root wads, log vanes, etc.) were monitored for evidence of
surface bank erosion (i.e. down-cutting) subsequent to above normal rainfall and high flow events. Some
minor down-cutting of the floodplain was noted in areas where surface water in the floodplain flows back
into the stream channel. However, these features have not resulted in any significant deposition within the
channel and do not appear to adversely affect stream function. In fact, these features are common within
natural, unimpaired streams and are evidence of the connectivity between the stream and its floodplain.
Most of the areas in which this has been observed appear to have met a point of equilibrium and have
become increasingly stable with the growth of stream bank vegetation. No re-grading or reinforcement of
the stream banks are recommended at this time.

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 33
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report

5.0 CONCLUSION

The implementation of the Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank completes an integral
component of the watershed restoration effort. Removal of large outlet ditches and the re-contouring of the
stream valleys has resulted in the connection of vast headwater wetland areas to the upper first-order
reaches of the tributaries to Bachelors Delight Swamp. There has been a discernible hydrologic response
within the stream valleys and the adjacent riparian and non-riparian wetlands. Vegetation and hydrologic
monitoring of the BDMB indicate that the site is progressing well during the first year following the
implementation of the restoration activities. Overall, the site exhibited a diverse assemblage of
characteristic trees and shrubs. Vegetation data document high rates of survivorship among the planted
species ( stem density = 505 stems per acre). Due to several well malfunctions during the monitoring
year, a few of the restoration wells did not meet the target hydrologic criteria. However, a majority of the
wells did meet success criteria, and overall, in combination with recorded data and on-site investigations,
the site exhibited increased hydroperiods. It is anticipated that static water table elevations will continue to
rise across the site particularly during normal rainfall periods during the early growing season.

Overall, the BDMB appears to be progressing well toward the targeted wetland community types. No
contingency measures are recommended at this time. The restoration site is already providing key wetland
functions by reducing sediment/nutrient runoff; increasing floodwater storage; and re-establishing wildlife
habitat. The site will be continued to be monitored over the next six years (through Year 7), and the
findings of such will be provided in subsequent annual monitoring reports for agency review and
concurrence.

Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank 34
Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report