20041235 Ver 1_Monitoring Reports_20071101

Privateer Farms Restoration Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
November 2007
Prepared for:
.. '..
~~
~ ~ ~`~Ct}5~'titCtTl
\*
^., ~ , ,
Nc Department of Transportation NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Pro) <t 1)~, aloprr .r [ v d i;m~~ ,u. ,r~tai ^1n I ~ 1?Srasich IfiS2 hto~ S ar re (:.iter,
Offic '+f ~hituxsl t.uri:nrrxed fi. r-i;.i_~i..'~?`>-ttt S".

Pre ared B
Baker Engittaerinp NY, hIC.
~~ NtrA N,tyenuyPanway
y SatK2W
~ ~ Ga*y Nwgf Caroaoa 27Sid
Ptgre 919.483:94oe
Fax.:919.Afi3.:ia9t7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Privateer Farms Stream Restoration site ("Site") was restored through afull-delivery contract with the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Administrative management of thee. project has been
transferred to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). The goals and objectives of
this project were as follows:
1. Restore riverine wetlands through stream restoration, filling of agricultural drainage ditches, restoration of
a natural topography, and planting
2. Enhance riverine wetlands through stream restoration and supplemental planting
3. Increase stream length across Privateer Farms Restoration Project from 25,000 (LF) to approximately
34,005 LF through dimension, pattern and profile adjustments
4. Restore floodplain and other low-lying areas to their historic wetland ecosystem.
Construction of this project was completed in Apri12005. Stability of the Site must be annually monitored
and documented during afive-year period following construction completion. This report documents the
monitoring data collected at the Site during the 2007 growing season (Year 3 of the 5-year monitoring
period).
Table 1
Background Information.
Project Name Privateer Farms
Designer's Name Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Cary, NC, 27518
[phone]
Contractor's Name River Works, Ina
Project County Bladen and Cumberland Counties
Directions to Project Site From Raleigh, follow I-40 east to exit 328 (I- 95). Merge onto I-95
south and proceed to exit 49 (NC 53). Take NC 53 south
approximately 12.4 miles to the site. Turn right into site at a blue
sign labeled "Privateer Farms Road."
From Elizabethtown, follow NC 53 north. Travel through the town
of White Oak. From White Oak, travel approximately 5.0 miles to
entrance of the faun. Turn left into the site at a blue sign labeled
"Privateer Farms Road."
Drainage Area 6.0 miZ (End of Reach 5-end of the project)
USGS Hydro Unit 03030005
NCDWQ Sub-basin 03-06-15 and 03-06-16
Project Length 34,005 LF (Restoration)
Restoration Approach 34,005 LF of dimension, pattern, and profile
402.5 acres of riverine wetland restoration
25 acres of riverine wetland enhancement
Date of Completion Apri12005
Monitoring Dates Monthly through each growing season for 5 years.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

Table of Contents
1.0 Background Information ..........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Goals and Objectives ..............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................:.........................1
1.3 Project Description .................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Monitoring Results -Year 3 (2007) Data ................................................................................................5
2.1 Vegetation .....................................................................................................................:.........................5
2.2 Morphology ..........................................................................................................................................12
2.3 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................................14
2.4 Site Observations ..........................................................................................................:.......................23
Tables and Figures
Table 1 Background Information
Table 2 Bare-Root Tree Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Table 3 Density of Trees for the 15 Vegetation Sampling Plots
Table 4 Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Table 5 Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2007 (Year 3)
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Watershed Map
Figure 3 - 3d Overview As-Built Plan Sheets
Figure 4 Comparison of Observed Rainfall and Historic Average Rainfall
Figure 5 Well Data for Reach 1 and Reach 2 of the Privateer Restoration Project
Figure 6 Well Data for Upstream Half of Reach 3 of the Privateer Restoration Project
Figure 7 Well Data for Downstream Half of Reach 3 of the Privateer Restoration Project
Figure 8 Well Data for Upstream Half of Reach 4 of the Privateer Restoration Project
Figure 9 Well Data for Downstream Half of Reach 4 of the Privateer Restoration Project
Figure 10 Well Data for Upstream Half of Reach 5 of the Privateer Restoration Project
Figure 11 Well Data for Downstream Half of Reach 5 of the Privateer Restoration Project
Figure 12 Well Data for Reference Site Wells -Privateer Restoration Project
Appendices (Appendix materials are located on the enclosed CD)
Appendix 1 Selected Project Photographs
Appendix 2 Year 3Cross-sections
Appendix 3 Longitudinal Profile Year 3
Appendix 4 Well Data
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

1.0 Background Information
The Privateer Farms Restoration Site is located in Bladen and Cumberland Counties, North Carolina,
approximately fourteen miles southeast of Fayetteville (Figure 1). Land use for the Site over the past 20 years
had been primarily row crop agriculture. Stream and riparian functions on the Site had been severely
impacted as a result of agricultural conversion. Harrison Creek had historically meandered through the Site,
but was channelized in the early 1980s to reduce flooding and provide a drainage outlet for the extensive
network of ditches excavated across the Site. Subsequent to channelization, Harrison Creek existed as a large
canal running straight through the Site.
Restoration activities for the Site involved moving the stream channel back to its historic location and
elevation, and filling drainage ditches to raise the local water table and restore wetland and stream hydrology.
The plan also included scarification of the fields and breaking of the local plow pan to increase surface water
storage and provide a range of hydrologic conditions suitable for a variety of native wetland plant species.
The restoration plan for the Site predicted the restoration of 405 acres of riverine wetlands, 25 acres of
riverine wetland enhancement, and 33,985 linear feet (LF) of stream restoration. Following construction, the
as-built data indicated that the total area of restored riverine wetlands was 402.5 acres (excluding 2.5 acres for
road accesses), with 25 acres of enhanced riverine wetlands, and 34,005 LF of restored stream channel.
This Annual Monitoring Report presents data from 30 hydrologic monitoring stations and 15 vegetation
monitoring stations placed throughout the Site, in addition to stream monitoring data, as required by the
approved Restoration Plan.
1.1 Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of this project were as follows:
• Restore 402.5 acres of riverine wetlands
• Enhance 25 acres of riverine wetlands
• Increase stream length across the Site from 25,000 LF to approximately 34,005 LF through dimension,
pattern and profile adjustments
• Restore Harrison Creek's floodplain and other low lying areas to their historic wetland ecosystem
• Monitor success of the restored and enhanced features during afive-year period following construction.
1.2 Project Location
The Site is located approximately fourteen miles southeast of Fayetteville in Bladen and Cumberland
Counties. From Raleigh, follow Interstate I-40 east to exit 328 (I-95). Merge onto I-95 south and proceed to
exit 49 (NC 53). Take NC 53 south approximately 12.4 miles to the entrance of the Site. Turn right into the
Site at a blue road sign that reads "Privateer Farms Road."
From Elizabethtown, follow NC 53 north. Travel through the town of White Oak. From White Oak, travel
approximately 5.0 miles to entrance of farm. Turn left at a blue road sign that reads "Privateer Farms Road."
1.3 Project Description
The goal of the project is to restore natural stream and wetland systems to the Site. The stream system that
historically flowed through the Site was channelized and, as a result, was highly incised ("Gc" type stream -
Rosgen classification) prior to restoration. The natural channel design for the restored stream involved the
construction of a new, meandering channel across the agricultural fields. The furthest upstream portion of the
project used sections of the remnant historic channel for Harrison Creek that were still visible within the
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

existing wetland areas. The remaining portion of the restored channel was constructed as a Rosgen "C"
stream type with design dimensions based on historic reference parameters for Harrison Creek. These
reference parameters were determined from historic aerial photographs, the topography of the valley, and
local reference reach information. The total stream length across the Site was increased from approximately
25,000 LF to 34,005 LF.
The channel design allows discharges greater than bankfull flows to spread onto the floodplain, dissipating
flow energies and reducing stress on streambanks. In-stream structures were used to control streambed grade,
reduce stress on streambanks, and promote bedform sequences and habitat diversity. The in-stream structures
consisted of root-wads, log vanes, and log weirs that promote a diversity of habitat features in the restored
channel. Where grade control was a consideration, constructed riffles were installed to provide long-term
stability. streambanks were stabilized using a combination of erosion control matting, bare-root planting, and
transplants. Transplants provided immediate shading to the restored stream, as well as living: root mass to
increase streambank stability and create holding areas for fish and other aquatic biota.
While restoration of the stream channel followed the historic pattern of Harrison Creek, the restored stream
would most appropriately be considered a tributary to Harrison Creek. Flow from the headwaters of Harrison
Creek has been channelized around the perimeter of the farm. Due to elevation differences between the
restored stream and the channelized stream around the perimeter of the farm, flow from the headwaters of
Harrison Creek could not be diverted back into the restoration channel without causing significant hydrologic
trespass issues beyond the property boundary of Privateer Farms. The restored channel functions as a
headwater tributary to Harrison Creek. It has a drainage area of approximately one square mile at the upper
limits of the project, increasing to six square miles at the downstream end of the project (Figure 2).
Due to the extensive length of stream restoration and changes in drainage area from the beginning to the end
of the Site, the project was divided into five stream reaches. Design ratios were the same for'each design
reach and were based on reference reach information; however, the size of each restored channel reach
increased from upstream to downstream to reflect the increasing drainage area.
The large road that ran from north to south through the middle of the project area was graded to floodplain
level to allow spreading of flood flows over the restored floodplain. The excavated road material was used to
fill the road-side canals. The two roads that crossed the project area from east to west were left in place to
allow access across the Site to other parts of the farm.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

_..
,~~ , ~ t
,, , ~, ...
Fayetteville ~-!~ ~~,,: ~ N
4
`*. ~ ~ _-`
~ _ f /
1 v
_.,
r
t
s~
~'"
~~"" t
~~ ~ ~ < ~~ {
~..~
~.
~ ~ ~_; ,`
~a~ .
I}, ~,
~~ 4r ~ "~~q ~ +•_
Ho Mil~g~ ~, ."'^ j ~, ~ ,,~!~ o,. ,~
,~ ~._ ~ 1 ~ ._ -...r- - 1 ,--~
~ ~..- y~' ~~,,,,"' y
•,,._
n
~ #,;
i ~ ~
10
~,. ,-:
.~ •,
~ . _,r'^
~`^ '~~~ >> Privateer Farms ` ~
.~
..-
~,_..
~~~. '~ m. - = tr Property Boundary '~---
'~
,,
,.-.
~~ _.~ _.
,~
1 - ~~ ~ 87
`,L ~ ~ Bladen Co
~. ~ 4 ``~.~ ~ `^~,,
Project Boundary '~ ? ~~
_.,
20 A ,, ~ ~. ''`.
r' "~~
~'' ~ .w
~ ~~ ~~_..
1 ~~ . ~ '`~
i 1, ~, ~, ~ r,
~~ ~ ..
. ~,
` ~ ~ Panther Branch
\ t ~ ~, ,~
r z ,, _,'
11 t, f ~~ ~ ~., ~ ~~ a. Reference Site
. ~ .,,-
"~ ~ ~ t ~ ,' ~"-"
r'~
`. .'"
- ~ ~ ~~ _
..
t ~ r t
.. _..
~.
s ~ '~,,~ ~~ .~~~ -
~ Tw- W
_ _ ~~
..
}
-~} <,
. .,..-.,` J ....
r ~ ,j i '. T
~.
^~ ~,, n f ".~".".'.'-sue„
._, _` ..... ~ ~~~,..~` ~ _ ,„,..,.~ ~~,~w~
i ~
,~^ + +.~
~ f Eliza tht n,-.~,~
-; ~-_ ---- ~ P.k Enpx~aMnp NY,kx.
CUMBERLA i } =g ~ ~; ar ~„«~P
k.
-= Fah: k18 ~1fMOCny
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
BIA~EN 0 2 4 8
Miles

~, a _
.. ! .. ~ ,,, _,
J' _
t

~,
J
. ~ t

~ per.

_

~,
- - ~.
r _..
-wwq-. L. J'^ M .

~
"~ a

~rf , 1
~`
'
1 ~
.
~
Y i'^-
~
~ j

r_~_~ ~
}
_
_
.
~
r ,
~
t a ~~
i!1 I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~(~

.wn -
,t~, ,
~}-
~ ~
~ f a

;- 1

~ - ~}
t
.
_"
-
7'~~ t ~ _ _

`~
-"lit~L
T'
~ ~
,. ,-
.-

1-; ~_ r . ~ , _~-
~,
~_,__k ___ _ .
,
. ~•,
~
Watershed Boundary = 6 miz -> ~ -
-
_--
_.
_
.

, _ . ~..._
'
4

.~ _ ... _. -_

. ~ ~
~~ ~

...~.r.r-_._.
.u._,_ ~ _ _

~,
_ .
..a
~ ~ ~*
~ ~ ~

,tix
'} ~ ,: 1
L ~, ~ -~ '
~
- ~~. 5`. ~' ~

~ ~~ '',~

,+
\ ~
~:
,
.._~
~ .~.___
4 ~ ~ ' ^'
~
\ ~ i
;~
t
_
. ;~ Project Boundary _ .
l~.___ ~ - _ -
.. ~_~
r
r --

.. i
" _~ ~
- ~-~ i -
~ 1_-s- "_._... ~,_~ ~
~ ~ ~! t 4
r--:...

_._~,

,
Tam
,
~ ~~ . ~ .o+° ..~
• ~ ~ e.
~~
\
~ _ w.
-. - ~
y ~.

.
f~

., ..

~, _ ~ N
. ...
~.,

~~ .. - ~u -.,. , ;.
- ,
ryO'
~ m.. ,
o
-.- ~
~ _ 'S t.~'I. .l t T ,,
;~
r . ~

it.y~cr. _ ~

..
: ~ ..
~ ~ --
~.t
.. _
~~ .
mr ~
~
t ~
~
ti.A >.
e'
~ ,.
ii ~ r
E _ y wiles F.n~,.
l
_ _
._ w
.~

I ~.
f" r - _
/ ~, i
'~ ~ '_
Ctim~erl~~d Eo:
-a-- / r
~~ ~._~._.--~
-:-~,--
---
--`
_
~
~
...*. `$1'dd21Z~0
,a -

i

1 ~~..
~
f f • ~
iq '-~_
, IReoRM ••,
_~: a,.~s

.
~~ ~~~

r _-_
~~r a vl
_ ~ tin ~-.
.

-

__~ T --_ _ ...___ ~

~_~.._:.
~,,, - r
.

~
.~ _
_ --~.
~.
i . _
;
~.. -

-- 1.
_ ~ . ......._
~.. "Y :: _.mt._ _ e ~~
/ '~ -'-
a
u.
~ ~ ~_ t ~ ~ _ I ~
h I S - Y
~ _ .
4
/ '
n

f~~-.

~ ; ., .._
. ~
t ~ )

.~. .~_ -
? --
r

~
_- _~9Dkc ~ _
j
k
~

...
~ ,
~ ~ .o
~
~
~ l ) ~ ~
.,ea.

;.

__ ~~
~.~
f ,.~
~
~
_.
.

...
\
. ~, ~ a
{3
_

~,~ ~~~,,

~

~ _ ._r
7 _ ~ -
~
"'°'~""'~ 0 2,000 4,000
a ~® Feet Figure 2. Watershed Map

2.0 Monitoring Results - 2007 (Year 3) Data
The five-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the wetland hydrology,
vegetation components of the project, and stream components of the project. The specific locations of
vegetation plots, monitoring wells, permanent cross-sections, crest gauges, and a rainfall gauge are shown on
the as-built drawing sheets in Figures 3a through 3d. Photo points are located at each of the monitoring wells,
and at each of the grade control structures along the restored stream channel. Site photographs are included in
Appendix 1.
2.1 Vegetation
Bare root trees were planted within all areas of the conservation easement. A minimum 50-foot buffer was
established along all restored stream reaches. In most areas, the final buffer area was more than several
hundred feet wide and included restored wetland areas. In general, bare-root vegetation was planted at a
target density of 680 stems per acre, or an 8-foot by 8-foot grid. Planting of bare-root trees was conducted
during the dormant season, with all trees installed prior to March 20, 2005.
Observations were made during construction of the Site regarding the relative wetness of areas to be planted.
Planting zones were determined based on these assessments, and planted species were matched according to
their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area. Species planted are summarized in
Table 2.
Table 2
Bare-root Tree Species Planted Across the Restoration S
~
Willow oak Quercus phellos
ite.

8.6%

~
23,300

eak -moderate
Swamp chestnut Quercus michauxii 8.6% 23,300 weak
Laurel oak Quercus laurifolia 6.0% 16,200 moderate -weak
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata 6.3% 17,000 moderate
Swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora 7.9% 21,300 tolerant
Water tupelo Nyssa aquatica 8.2% 22,000 tolerant
Bald cypress Taxodium distichum 11.6% 31,200 tolerant
Water oak Quercus nigra 8.6% 23,300 weak -moderate
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 10.8% 29,200 moderate
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10.8% 29,200 moderate
Shumard oak Quercus shumardii 6.5% 17,500 weak
Chenybark oak Quercus pagoda 5.9% 15,900 weak -intolerant
Notes:
1. Based on information from US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Wetland Research Program (WRP)
Technical Note VN-RS-4.1 (1997).
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

E! M s
~
61~

~
~ _ ~~~~. A c

a
p ~
a ' . ,',r
.°
i

Q

d

{
~
i
t t~ _

~
~'
W
0
~
f
N

V

t
f
~ 1
/

ff7
~
~E
j
}
~ ~d~~
p ; i f

n
~ i^^
Z
ws /
}}
t f _
~ ~ ~ Ha~~
:I

m_m
- <
~ N
^^^^ N
O ~ w y

~
`

- a' , ~
~;
V ~
St r
,
~
R
~ ,
~
A
y ~ ~

Q ~

~ ~ ~

~ 1.

R
~
^I ~ ~ _~ ~} ~
' ~

~

~
~

~

..:.. . i~,

.. 1, ' i
1 `~
, I ? ~..
~
' ~~~ill
o g ., d
°d c?
~ V
~
'
/

m Iy (
j~
h
~
~„,
".~, .
r
~~~ t'~ ' i i9
(
~ ~~~p'
~ m
~~ O
~
~i ~..._ ........_ __... -
O
~ h ~ ~ ~~

,.
`
a ~~ ~

V x
~ o
. J = y
\ ~

'_.., 1'+ }
l
j
G2
,ti f
mi
/ W

/
J( ~
!4 ` ~Q

W l
- ~~~W~
~
~
~~ ~~ ~L~
~~

..._.... 0;...,
. f
i
...... {
~
~ pP ry P P n
IN.I T P YPf YNf
O pp
1 O~ P N N
P O ~ N
............ O m
Y Y ~ ~'!
.O
ri ,...........,~
o, N= ~:1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
rv ~ . .. ..
_~ e ..........
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Z Z Z Z
y J°J°J~J
~ oc
t<
,~K•
RR''
~ W ~ N s1 Y h
S S S S =
o ~~~~~ j
~ _
~~
_
m
-~`-~'

~~ .. ~
~ a.
~, ~ Q s
s
~ ~
W
y o000o
WW~e~
~~~~P W
W~
PP
~`~-
~ _ ~
`
II ~~
fg s d~:~~ ~g
~ ,'X
.-I
r 'c m
/' r
~
1
~
Z ~ x
z ~
~
~
~
~
`)
~
V ,~
~~ m Z p
~ N p
N N ~ MI

s
s 9
7
7
~~~
i LL z~ ~ ~ N g g
St R N
SLIt2Ib'd ~Td~T~Z~b'11Idd LSIO =.Z~d 02Id

'y'~~,.
a
E y~ 0+0
R a to ~^
a
... zw n,a
r _m
WON
l9FN
t
i
" Or
v O
N
Z W
~ O
~ ~ ~ ~~ s
J
~ ~ ~~ ~ o=
<a
gyp, ~~ . ~ W~ g
U ~ ~< N >~
O ® 1
E
j
1
E

~I
f
1 ~` .
..., 1•........,.
a
m
M
N
m
LL
22
U
OU
Z~
yW~ Z
KCQ
F
w~
~ppppO
~<
~~
g~

seq~ ~L
. ,.>. ~ < -... ~ ' ....,. 00'R~~ r18 VIA ,~'
~*+""* ~ 1913 /\~/}~/
~\
"~ ~~~ ~~... ;~cc~ r ~ ~~~' a `r
~m.e~
m rv' O
N i+i r J
a+~ a
i mm
~'"~ ~i
0
z..,
i'
r f °° v° n ~ ~~" ` ~
r o /~/~~ ~ ~ ,> / '~,~
' ~zw ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ -..'. ~ -Nm s .,
' '" ~~i ir~~i ` ~ :, , 'M1ri and f-.. ,
4.
' -,~a ~ ~t
..
~ f, ~r~ r~ r ''
it ~r r~ , :, - ~-,
rr r\ ~ r \r ,~ ~, `°~
,„
~ ~ r r ~ ~ ; ~, - -,;~
~~ .,
~ ~ ~~r ir~,~' ,...
~~~~ i rim %,~ ,~O ;.
r~~ri~~ ~ ~ ~ a~b F
nip a
NM m p
/ Z W SIYjR. ~ }iZS f~V.
.::~
~j~ ~ ~ yr ,~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K U 5~ O
~~ ~ ~ \~ O W Z ~~ t7 a
T r~ r/~~ ~ ° °~ ~ ~ 7~~ a
>.
\~ ~' v~r ~ \/ O
rig: . ~ ~~r ~~ ~,~~ -,.,\ y ~ O
m
\~ .erN~
$( ~~~y~. ~ ~ fr~^^ry~
4`~i ~. ~ G~~O
+@ N
~, ~~ Zw
.~
M
41
7
m
LL

~ a ~~ r
J ~
O+Ory ~J
Mr~
N I~u
zw >
~' o
,,,~ ,- ~ R
Q~ l
0
M^ \
N
ZW
-o o ,~
r~-nee
nnq~
v'°
oQ a
m~~~?
ZW
mss'

o~
in o
.. ~
~`
~o~ ~r,
N ~
2 W ~ / !~/
Y
\ `G
l~•

7
m

eun,~urE sxffr ax ~
srw zeaco.oo ~
~ ...
\~ ~ ~ [. _"
/v/ ~~/ ~
~~ ry- p
~~~\//\ ~~~// IVY- IIILLLi~i~i~ tV
r' ~ ~
\\~ ~~/ z w
y/ T\\ \\ ~ f ti..
~J%>~ r..
~~
i
~ A 7~
////\A
I
i
~ti%~~v ,
~~~
% ~~
~~ v~jl~ii~~'
~ ~ v ~ ~~o
iii 3.
'~~~ ~~i~ ~ { ~ w
~~ ~i~~ ,,~,; ,,
~ J
~y
~~~ ~~
~i~~
~~ ~ u
~^
,t~ ~ ~
,'
~,~~.,~ ,
s,
~F
~. m ~ -r;
~`~~~
N
aC
~ C
~. ~ ~ ~~ ~
o
~ ~ ~
ui ~ w a
'o o < ~ a
O~..q ~j2~1 u u ~z
((I~ ~~
`~" / O
I
.. .Y~\.....

a
~ ,<

O O N
~ jji ~u~i~~
1 M ~~
l Qm
~ ~N~~~~
~ zw Is
Jf
{ I
Jf
I
f
^w ~ "*ti:
M
N
7
O7
LL
fCHLNE 8lIEEf 67
SfA 7A6tb0.00
U I, I~
a vii
~ o
F ~ J
~ o ~ ~~ o
W ~~ ~ ~_
~^ ~ ~t
1~uu z
U ~< ~ >~
0 ® ,

~ ~ ~ O
N
_
a~~
~ ~
C7 ^ O
N
~

Y
~' ZW
``
J\,:G N~

~/ N ~~
W N u~i
~~ti
O
N

y Z W
~>
%~
~
~
,
.' ;~~
~o
~~,
_ N
N O+uMi S
GIN
2 W
mo
~ti~.
aOFNv

<
~~ qr-d
`~S_~
~
~
~~~^
0
N
Z W ~,

The restoration plan for the Site specified that 15 vegetation plots, each 25 feet by 100 feet in size would be
established across the restoration area. The initial planted density within each of the vegetation monitoring
plots is given in Table 3. The average initial density of planted bare root stems, based on the-.data from the 15
monitoring plots, was 670 stems/ acre. The data from the end of the third growing season are presented in
Table 3. The locations of the vegetation plots are shown in Figure 3a-3d.
Table 3
Density of Trees for the 15 Vegetation Sampling Plots.
~~
1 38 33 30 662 575 523
2 40 38 36 697 662 627
3 39 37 31 680 645 540
4 33 31 32 575 540 558
5 42 42 39 732 732 680
6 37 33 32 645 575 558
7 43 40 36 749 697 627
8 31 31 26 540 540 453
9 35 27 26 610 470 453
10 35 30 30 610 523 523
11 39 18 19 680 314 331
12 36 29 27 627 505 470
13 35 16 16 610 279 279
14 49 16 16 854 279 279
15 45 37 33 784 645 575
2.1.1 Results and Discussion
Fifteen monitoring plots, each 0.057 acre in size, were used to predict survivability of the woody
vegetation planted on-site. The vegetation monitoring for 2007 (Year 3) indicated an average
survivability of 498 stems per acre, which is on a trajectory to achieve an average vegetation survival
criteria of 320 stems per acre surviving after the fifth growing season.
2.1.2 Areas of Concern
Three monitoring plots had lower than expected survivability rates for Year 3. The survivability rates
for Plots 11, 13, and 14 ranged from 33 to 49 percent and densities ranging from 279'to 331. The
count for Plot 11 during Year 3 was one tree higher than the count for Year 2. This extra tree was
most likely recorded as dead during Year 2 but was actually green at the base and re-sprouted during
Year 3 growing season. The prevalence of volunteer species was also assessed to determine if natural
recolonization is compensating for lower planted stem densities. Volunteer species were noted in
Plots 8 and 14. Both of these plots demonstrated the presence of numerous Acer rubrum (red maple)
saplings that were 3 inches to 1 foot in height. Plot 14 also showed Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. 11
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

gum) saplings growing within the plot boundary. These saplings were not counted during the Year 3
monitoring event.
The three vegetation plots that displayed lower than expected survivability (Plots 11,.13, and 14) will
be monitored closely during the 2008 (Year 4) growing season. These three plots also displayed low
survivability numbers for 2006 (Year 2), but showed no further decrease in survivability between
Year 2 and Year 3. Therefore, it is possible that the plots will maintain their current numbers of
surviving trees through the completion of the monitoring period.
2.2 Morphology
Drainage area strongly influences channel morphology. Watershed areas for the reconstructed channel
increase from 1.0 square mile at the beginning of the project to 6.0 square miles at its downstream end
(southern limit of the Site). The project was divided into five stream reaches, and the size of each restored
channel reach was increased from upstream to downstream to reflect the increasing drainage area. Design
ratios were kept the same for each design reach and were based on reference reach information.
Year 3 monitoring for stream stability included, the longitudinal profile, data on 67 permanent cross-sections,
and data from two streamflow gauges. Data collection for the longitudinal profile was completed in May
2007 and cross-section data collection was completed in August 2007. The stream gauges are located on-site:
one near the upstream limit of the project (stream gauge # 1) and one near the downstream limit of the project
(stream gauge # 2). The locations of the gauges are shown in Figures 3a though 3d.
Permanent cross-sections are used to monitor channel dimension and bank erosion over time. Two permanent
cross-sections were established per 1,000 LF of restored stream, with equal proportion of sections across
riffles and pools. Each cross-section was marked on both banks with permanent pins that were surveyed
relative to a common benchmark. This ensures use of the same transects through the entire monitoring
period, facilitating easy comparison of year-to-year data. A complete longitudinal survey was completed in
2005 for the restored stream channel to provide abase-line for evaluating changes in bed conditions over
time. A complete longitudinal survey was performed the Year 3 growing season.
The annual cross-section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank,
bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. The longitudinal profile includes the elevations of all grade
control structures. The permanent cross-section and longitudinal profile data are provided in Appendices 2
and 3.
The stream gauges were installed on site to document continuous water level in the restored channel and
record the occurrence of bankfull events. The gauges automatically record water depth every six hours, and
have a continuous period of record extending from end of construction to present. The gauges are inspected
and their water level data is retrieved every month.
Photographs were taken to visually document restoration success during Year 3 of monitoring. Each
reference photograph station was marked with wooden stakes and bench-marked using a Global Positioning
System (GPS). Reference photos of both streambanks were taken at each permanent cross-section. On each
streambank photograph, the survey tape is centered and the water line is located along the lower edge of the
frame, showing as much of the bank as possible.
2.2.1 Morphology Success Criteria
The stream restoration success criteria for the site include the following:
• Cross-sections: There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. Cross-sections shall be
classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all monitored cross-sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for "C" type channels.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. 12
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

Longitudinal Profiles: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable, e.g. they are not aggrading or degrading. Bedforms observed should be
consistent with those observed in "C" type channels.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation
or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control
measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel
or of excessive increases in channel depth.
2.2.2 Results and Discussion
On site streamflow gauges documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event during Year
3 monitoring. The largest stream flow documented by the on site crest gauge occurred during the
beginning of the month in February and was approximately 10 inches above the bankfull stage at
stream gauge #2. During this event, stream gauge #2 registered a continuous out-of--bank flow for the
lower end of the Site for a period of 11 days, from February 1 to February 11, 2007. For this same
event, stream gauge #1 registered a continuous out-of--bank flow for the upper end of the Site for a
period of 2 days, from February 2 to February 3, 2007.
Visual evidence of the out-of--bank flows observed during a subsequent site visit helped confirm the
bankfull flow gauge readings. Based on observations of ponded water, debris lines, and deposited
sediment on the floodplain, this bankfull event spread over a substantial portion of the restored
wetland areas adjacent to the stream.
Due to electronic failure of stream gauge #2 in March 2007, the gauge was removed from the Site in
April 2007. Prior to removal, stream gauge #2 had documented enough data to meet'the success
criteria of two bankfull events within the five year monitoring period. Stream gauge # 1 is still in
operation on the upper end of the Site and is functioning properly.
Cross-section data collected for Year 3 indicate very little adjustment in channel dimension has
occurred since restoration of the stream channel, with all monitored cross-sections maintaining their
design parameters within acceptable ranges. Some cross-sections indicate that minor bed scour
features observed during Year 2 have filled back to as-built conditions during Year 3 (for example:
Cross-sections 6, 7, 9, 16 and 22). Several pool cross-sections are beginning to show the formation of
point bar features (Cross-sections 20, 32, 42, 44, 54). There are no cross-sections that indicate that
presence of bank erosion, and no areas of bank erosion have been observed on the site during Year 3.
The longitudinal profile data for Year 3 indicate that minor adjustments in bed elevation are occurring
along the design reaches, but changes are on the order of several tenths of a foot in most locations.
This is attributed to the dense growth of vegetation along the channel toes that restricts flows near the
center of the channel. This restriction under low flow conditions concentrates flows and provides for
some scouring of the thalweg in certain reaches. However, this scouring is considered a normal bed
adjustment process and has not been observed to cause channel instability. Log weir grade control
structures were installed along all restored stream reaches for this purpose, and the longitudinal
profile data indicate that these structures are maintaining grade.
In-stream structures installed within the restored stream included constructed riffles, log vanes, log
weirs, and root wads. Visual observations of structures throughout the past growing season have
indicated that the structures are functioning as designed.
Photographs were taken in October of the Year 3 growing season to document the evolution of the
restored stream channel (see Appendix 1). Restored pools have maintained a variety of depths and
habitat qualities, depending on the location and type of scour features (logs, root wads, etc.).
Permanent vegetation seeded on the restored stream banks was noted.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. 13
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3J MONITORING REPORT

2.2.3 Areas of Concern
No areas of concern have been identified for the restored stream channel segments.
2.3 Hydrology
The restoration plan for the Site specified that 30 monitoring wells (15 automated and 15 manual) would be
established across the restored area. Thirty wells (15 automated and 15 manual) were installed initially during
March 2005 to document water table hydrology in all required monitoring locations throughout the Site. The
locations of the monitoring wells are shown on the as-built plan sheets in Figures 3a through 3d.
The reference wetland site identified for this project and described in the Monitoring Plan is also being
monitored. Three automated monitoring wells were installed at the reference site during Apri12005 to
document variation in water table depth across the reference site. Data from these wells provide a base of
comparison for water table hydrology between the Site and the established wetland areas.
Monthly photographs were taken during the Year 3 growing season to document vegetation growth
throughout the restored wetland areas (see Appendix 1). The monitoring well locations will serve as the
reference points from which photographs of vegetation growth will be taken over time.
As per the approved Privateer Farms Monitoring Plan, historic rainfall for Cumberland County was used to
determine average rainfall and growing season dates for the Site. The automated weather station William O.
Huske L&D (UCAN: 14405, COOP: 319427) in Bladen County, located within five miles of the Site, was
used to determine rainfall over the Site during the 2007 growing season. Missing data are supplemented with
data from the next closest weather station, Elizabethtown Lock 2 gauge (UCAN: 14082, COOP: 312732) in
Bladen County.
For Year 3 monitoring, the automated weather station William O. Huske L&D (UCAN: 14405, COOP:
319427) measured total rainfall between March and September 2007 as 15.03 inches. A manual rainfall gauge
on the Site was used to validate observations made at the automated weather station. Data collected on-site
correlated well with the data from the weather stations. On-site rain gauge data measured total rainfall
between March and September 2007 as 15.42 inches. There was a difference of 0.39 inches between the data
collected on site and observations made at the automated weather stations for the Year 3 growing season.
2.3.1 Success Criteria
Successful restoration of wetland hydrology is defined in the project's Restoration Plan as achieving
continuous inundation of the site or continuous saturation of its soil within 12 inches'of soil surface
for a minimum of 12.5 percent of the growing season, or 30 consecutive days. The day counts are
based on the growing season for Cumberland County, which is 242 days long, beginning on March 18
and ending November 15, as calculated from National Weather Service Wetlands Determination
Tables (WETS) for Cumberland County. Data on inundation height or depth of soil saturation line
were obtained from the 15 automated monitoring wells and 15 manual monitoring wells in place
throughout the site. Data defining successful hydrologic conditions must demonstrate that wetland
conditions are present in normal or dryer than normal conditions.
If rainfall data for any given year during the monitoring period are not normal, and if the desired
hydrology for the project site is not on a trajectory to achieve success, then data from the pre-defined
reference wetland site for this project can be assessed to determine if there is a positive correlation
between the underperformance of the restoration site and the natural hydrology of the reference site.
If the restored site is inundated or saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for less than 12.5
percent of the growing season, but the post-restoration monitoring data reflect that the site meets
applicable USACE criteria for wetlands and the site is performing with similar hydrology as the
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. 14
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

monitored reference site, then the regulatory agencies may consider the site for mitigation of in-kind
impacts on a case-by-case basis.
2.3.2 Results and Discussion
The total monthly rainfall for the 2007 growing season was below the approximated long-term
average for the area. According to the automated weather station William O. Huske L&D, all months
of the 2007 growing season experienced below average rainfall with the exception of April, which
experienced normal conditions. For much of 2007, North Carolina was considered to be in severe
drought conditions.
According to the automated weather station William O. Huske L&D, total rainfall for the 2007
growing season was more than 15 inches below the long-term average for total growing season
rainfall. Year 3 may be considered an extremely dry year since the total monthly rainfall was half of
the long-term average for the growing season. Table 4 and Figure 4 compare historic and average
rainfall over the area with those observed during the 2007 growing season.
Data collected during Year 3 from the fifteen automatic monitoring well gauges at the Site showed
that groundwater levels met hydrologic success criteria for only five of the gauges. The ten automatic
gauges that did not meet the success criteria exhibited a continuous hydroperiod from 3.1 percent to
9.1 percent. However, the gauges did exhibit a cumulative hydroperiod from 10 to 58 days or 3.9
percent to 24.0 percent of the Year 3 growing season, indicating that the locations experience
significant wetness, but the water table fluctuated rapidly, therefore, surface saturated conditions
during the 2007 growing season were not present for long periods of time. Data collected from on-
site gauges are presented in Appendix 4. The hydrologic monitoring results for the gauges are shown
in Table 5.
The three wells located in the reference site also indicated drier than normal conditions for 2007. The
three automatic gauges exhibited a continuous hydroperiod from 2.5 to 16.5 days or 1 percent to 6.8
percent. The gauges exhibited a cumulative hydroperiod from 3 to 31 days or 1.0 percent to 12.8
percent of the Year 3 growing season. The REF3 gauge documented similar hydrologic conditions to
areas of the Site, with a continuous hydroperiod of approximately 6.8 percent. The other two
reference wells documented drier conditions, and it is suspected that these locations are experiencing
a significant drainage effect from the nearby stream channel, especially during the drought conditions
of 2007.
During Year 3 of the monitoring period AW6 and AW24 dataloggers were replaced due to
communication errors. Also during Year 3, monitoring wells MW25, AW24, AW20; AW 19, AW 13
and AW8 were either damaged or destroyed. The site visits at these gauge locations showed signs of
bear activity around the wells such as, bite marks on PVC and bent support posts. The gauges were
all located at the downstream portion of the Site and were out of public view in thick vegetation. Due
to these reasons, bear activity is attributed to the gauge destruction. All dataloggers or well casings
have been either replaced or repaired and the aforementioned wells are now fully operational and
collecting data at the time of this report preparation.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. 15
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

Table 4
Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall (Inches).

2.75
January 4.16 3.06 5.13
February 3.43 2.22 4.11 2.54
March 4.37 3.24 5.22 1.42
April 3.06 1.77 4.13 2.91
May 3.29 2.25 4.2 1.46
June 4.18 2.36 5.02 2:95
July 5.21 3.69 6.7 2.61
August 5.21 3.54 6.36 0.88
September 4.77 2.36 6.46 2.8
October 3.15 1.73 3.76 N/A
November 2.88 1.75 3.76 N/A
December 3.24 2.3 3.81 N/A
Figure 4. Comparison of Observed Rainfall and Historic Average Rainfall.
Privateer Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall

8
~'

m 7
s
~
6

~ 5

4

~°
. 3
a
'
~ 2
a~

In.

0
.~
' ~ Q > Q
> ~°

-- --~-- - Historic 30% probable - Historic 70% probable -f- Huske Obsen~ed 2007 • - -r - - Average

,... ~...
--+
-
,,~
~.~
_-___ __ ~= ~

BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. 16
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

Monitoring well data are shown in Figures 5 through 11 and in Appendix 4. A separate graph is
presented for monitoring wells in each of the five reaches that comprise the project, except for data
from Reach 1 which are included with Reach 2 data. Wherever there were more than 5 monitoring
wells in a single reach, data for that reach are presented in two separate graphs: one for the upstream
half of the reach and another for the downstream half of the same reach. Reference site well data are
presented in Figure 12.
Table 5
Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2007 (Year 3).
Monitoring
Station Most Consecutive Days
Meeting Criteria Cumulative Days Meeting
CriteriaZ Number of Instances
Meeting Criteria3
MW1° 48.5 (20.0%) 85 (34.9%) 2
MW2 73.5 (30.4%) 128 (52.9%) 4
MW3 73.5 (30.4%) 128 (52.9%) 4
AW4 73.5 (30.4%) 128 (52.9%) 4
MWS 73.5 (30.4%) 128 (52.9%) 4
AW6 48.5 (20.0%) 85 (34.9%) 10
MW7 48.5 (20.0%) 87 (36.0%) 8
AW8 138.5 (57.2%) 153 (63%) 4
AW9 48.5 (20.0%) 87 (36.0%) 8
MW 10 48.5 (20.0%) 87 (36.0%) ' 8
MWI1 47.5 (19.6%) 76 (31.2%) 8
AW12 47.5 (19.6%) 76 (31.2%) 8
AW13 21 (8.7%) 58 (24%) 9
MW14 21 (8.7%) 58 (24%) 3
AWLS 14 (5.8%) 40 (16.5%) 7
MW16 14 (5.8%) 40 (16.5%) 7
AW17 9.5 (3.9%) 17 (7.0%) 4
MW 181 8.5 (3.5%) 13 (5.2%) 4
AW19 8.5 (3.5%) 13 (5.2%) 4
AW2O 16.5 (6.8%) 32 (13.2%) 4
MW21 8.5 (3.5%) 13 (5.2%) 4
AW22 15 (6.2%) 39 (16.1%) 9
MW23 8.5 (3.5%) 13 (5.2%) 4
AW24 14.5 (6.0%) 35 (14.5%) 7
MW25 8.5 (3.5%) 13 (5.2%) 4
AW26 7.5 (3.1%) 10 (3.9%) 2
AW27 7.5 (3.1%) 11 (4.3%) 3
MW28 8.5 (3.5%) 13 (5.2%) 4
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. 17
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

AW29 22 (9.1%) 55 (22.5%) 7
MW3O 22 (9.1%) 55 (22.5%) 7
REF1 2.5 (1.0%) 3 (1.0%) 1
REF2 3.5 (1.4%) 4 (1.4%) 1
REF3 16.5 (6.8%) 31 (12.8%) 2
Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less
than 12 inches from the soil surface.
z Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less than 12
inches from the soil surface.
' Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to less than
12 inches from the soil surface.
° Groundwater gauge MW 1 is a manual gauge. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from gauge
AW6.
SGroundwater gauges MW2, MW3, and MWS are manual gauges. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based
on data from gauge AW4.
6 Groundwater gauges MW7 and MW 10 are manual gauges. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data
from gauge AW9.
~ Groundwater gauge MW 11 is a manual gauge. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from gauge
AW 12.
gGroundwater gauge MW16 is a manual gauges. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from gauge
AW15.
9 Groundwater gauge MW 14 is a manual gauge. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from gauge
AW13.
to Groundwater gauges MW 18, MW21, MW23, MW25, and MW28 are manual gauges. Hydrologic parameters
are estimated based on data from gauge AW 19.
tl Groundwater gauge MW3O is a manual gauge. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from
gauge AW29.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. ~g
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

Figure 5. Well Data for Reach 1 and Reach 2 of the Privateer Restoration Project.
Privateer Wells in Reach 1 & 2
20
,_ ...~--• MW1 __........ MW2 ...~._ MW3

io
v

o :~:
.........:~............
i
c °
.
:
..
.~-

-10 •
~ y
O
V' ~,

d ^

~ -30 ~'
_
•
D: ~
d -40 ~~"
d

J
~ -50
•'...
ca
3
-so

1/18/2007 2/17/2007 3/19/2007 4/18/2007 5/18/2007 6/17/2007 7/17/2007 8/16/2007 9/15/2007 10/15/2007
Date
Figure 6. Well Data for Upstream Half of Reach 3 of the Privateer Restoration Project.
Privateer Wells -Upstream Half of Reach 3
20
.`. 10 ~~ ~-~ AW4...*... MW5 AW6
v ~~'~'-•• ~c•-.
0 ---..... •~c.
~ -10
o ~
« -20
> ~~
~ -30
d
m -40
m
J
Y -50
m
3 AW6 rnalfunctan, w ould not communicate w Rh download device.
-60
1/18/2007 2/17/2007 3/19/2007 4/1812007 5/18/2007 6/17/2007 7/17/2007 8/16/2007 9/15/2007 10/15/2007
Date
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. 19
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

Figure 7. Well Data for Downstream Half of Reach 3 of the Privateer Restoration Project.
Privateer Wells -Downstream Half of Reach 3
zo
., ---e--- MW7 ___.-------AW8 -._.-._AW9 -•-x-•- MW10
10
°~
~ o - :.
'o ~ . ; .,
~ -10
O _ ~
~o -30
FY
m -40 '.• ~ ~'•.
d
J
u~ -50
ra
3
-so
1/18/2007 2/17/2007 3/19/2007 4/18/2007 5/16/2007 6/17/2007 7/17/2007 8/16/2007 9/15/2007 10/15/2007
Date
Figure 8. Well Data for Upstream Half of Reach 4 of the Privateer Restoration Project.
Privateer Wells -Upstream Half of Reach 4
za

---~•-- MW11 AW12 AW13 ---x--- MW14 AW15
10
v
,- -..-
0

.o
3 -10
0
C7
o
w -20
d
~ -30 ~ ~ • '
~ x
-40
d
J
~`ai, -50
A
3
-so

1/18/2007 2/17/2007 3/19/2007 4/18/2007 5/18/2007 6/17/2007 7/17/2007 8/16/2007 9/15/2007 10/15/2007
Date
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PO
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

Figure 9. Well Data for Downstream Half of Reach 4 of the Privateer Restoration Project.
Privateer Wells -Downstream Half of Reach 4
20
•••~••• MW16 AW17 ---~ - MW18 AW19
c
10

.~
_ ..
---•
7 0 ......-.
rn
'O
~ -10
O
V'
r -20 '•,~ .~

R -30
N
-40
d
J

A
3
Auto well 19 desVoyed by possible bear activity, well has been repaired
-60

1/18/2007 2117/2007 3/19/2007 4/18/2007 5/18/2007 6/17/2007 7/17/2007 8/1612007 9/15/2007 10/15/2007
Date
Figure 10. Well Data for Upstream Half of Reach 5 of the Privateer Restoration Project.
Privateer Wells -Upstream Half of Reach 5
zo

...
_ AW20 ...r.. MW21 -°--- AW22 ..~ MW23 AW24 ...x... MW25
_
.. 10
~
a~
v
~ .._
3 ~ ....._
N
.
~ -10 "
.;
O
~ ~
O -20
i/
1 ~~
A -30 -~ .
~ "--lK
_ ,

d
J
-7k
~
d -50
~ .,: ...
AW20, AVV24 and NNV25 were destroyed by possible bear activity.
The wells have been repaired
-60

1/18/2007 2/17/2007 3/19/2007 4/18/2007 5/1812007 6/17/2007 7117/2007 8!16/2007 9/15/2007 10/15/2007
Date
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. 21
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

Figure 11. Well Data for Downstream Half of Reach 5 of the Privateer Restoration Project.
Privateer Wells -Downstream Half of Reach 5
20

AW26 --.__. AW27 ... ~... IVIW28 ----- AW29 ...~... NNV30
c

d
v

0
~
(A ••---
~
C -10 ~ *'
3

O -20
r
d
1
~ -30
d

N -40
> •.
d
J
.

« -50 .
~ -..---- .... ~~
-_ •
3
-so

1/18/2007 2/17/2007 3/19/2007 4/18/2007 5/18/2007 6/17/2007 7/17/2007 8/16/2007 9/15/2007 10/15/2007
Date
Figure 12. Well Data for Reference Site Wells -Privateer Restoration Project.
zo
10
0
-10
-zo
-so
-ao
-50
Privateer Wells -Reference Site Wells
--- REF1 - REF2 ~ REF3
-60 I ~ r
1/18/2007 2/17/2007 3/19/2007 4/18/2007 5/18/2007 6/17/2007 7/17/2007 8/16/2007 9/15/2007 10/15/2007
Date
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. 22
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT

Due to the below average rainfall amounts during Year 3, ten automatic wells did not meet the success criteria
of a continuous hydroperiod of at least 12.5 percent of the growing season. Although hydrologic success
criteria were not met for many wells at the Site, the data show that 2007 hydrologic conditions at the Site
were more favorable than those occurring at the reference site for the same year. The data correlates well
with the type of wetland systems that are targeted in this project. Monitoring data from the reference site
Well #3 demonstrate positive correlations between the Site and the natural hydrology of the target system.
Based on these results, it was concluded that the Site is performing as designed and conditions are expected to
improve if the Site experiences "normal" levels of rainfall in the future.
2.3.3 Areas of Concern
Ten automatic wells did not meet the success criteria. However, severe drought conditions were
experienced during 2007. Data from monitoring Years 1 and 2, when rainfall conditions were closer
to normal, indicated that the site did meet hydrologic success in those years. Therefore, Site is
performing as designed and conditions are expected to improve.
2.4 Site Observations
Many different animal species were observed throughout the Site: white tail deer, wild turkey, great blue
herons, wood ducks and many other birds. Turtles, several snake species and small fish in the stream were
commonly observed on-site. No black bear sightings took place on-site during Year 3. However, evidence of
bear activity at the Site was noted in the area of several destroyed gauges wells.
Thick, herbaceous vegetation nearly covered the Site. Observed species included rush (Juncus sp.),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), lespedeza (Lespedeza), fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare), tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), and various other grasses.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. 23
PRIVATEER FARMS - 2007 (YEAR 3) MONITORING REPORT