20070810 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20090212

1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
o'- 0 ''o
DUKE SWAMP STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2008 (YEAR 1)
Submitted to: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, NC 27604
r
Ecosystem
VROGRAM

Prepared by: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ANelwl Baler E^~ag, kw-
8M Regency Parkway
- SuAe 200
Cary, North Caroline 27518
Phone: [phone],188
Fax: [phone]
December 2008
RECEIVED
DEC 2 3 2008
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
DRAFT
=i- ?wgp
IWETL4,ND." ANC f3PANCH

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................
1
........................................................................... ..
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ......................................................... 3
....................................
2.1 Project Objectives ............................................
3
.............................................................. ..
2.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach ....................................... 3
.................
2
3 Location and Settin ..
.
g ......................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Project History and Background .....................................................
7
...............................
2.5 Project Plan ..
.................................................................................................................... .. 7
3.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS ....................................... 11
' 3.1 Vegetation Assessment . ...................... 11
..........................................
3.1.1 Description of Vegetative Monitoring 11
....................................................................
3
1
2 Ve
etative Success Crit
i
.
.
g
er
a .................................................................................... 11
3.1.3 Vegetative Observations and Results ......................................... 12
.............................
3.1.4 Vegetative Problem Areas
......................................................................................
3.1.5 Vegetation Photographs 13
1
' ..........................................................................................
3
2 Stream Assessment - Re
ch UT1 3
.
a
a ................................................................................. 13
3.2.1 Description of Stream Monitoring ......................................... 13
.................................
3.2.2 Morphometric Success Criteria ............................................................................... 14
3.2.3 Morphometric Monitoring Results ...................................... 14
...................................
3
2
4 H
drolo
ic Success Crit
i
.
.
y
g
er
a ................................................................................... 15
3.2.5 Hydrologic Monitoring Results .............................................. 15
................................
3.2.6 Stream Problem Areas
............................................................................................
3.2.7 Stream Photographs 16
................................................................................................
3
2
8 Strea
St
bilit
A 16
.
.
m
a
y
ssessment ....... ......................................................................... 17
3.2.9 Quantitative Measures Summary Tables ........................................ 17
........................
3.3 Stream Assessment - UTlb and UT2 ..... 17
' .......................................................................
3.3.1 Description of Stream Monitoring
..........................................................................
3
3
2 H
drolo
i
it
C
i 17
.
.
y
g
c
r
er
a .................................................................................................
3.3.3 Hydrologic Monitoring Results 17
..............................................................................
3.3.4 Stream Problem Areas 18
............................................................................................
3.3.5 Stream Photographs and Videos 18
.............................................................................
3.4 Wetland Assessment 18
......................................................................................................
3.4.1 Description of Wetland Monitoring 19
........................................................................
3.4.2 Wetland Criteria 19
......................................................................................................
3.4.3 Wetland Monitoring Results 19
...................................................................................
3.4.4 Wetland Problem Areas 19
..........................................................................................
3.4.5 Wetland Photographs 21
.............................................................................................. 22
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 23
.............
5.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
...................................................................................... 23
6.0 REFERENCES
.................................................................................................................24
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A
December 2008, Monitoring Year I DRAFr 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Vegetation Data
APPENDIX B - Geomorphic Data
APPENDIX C - Wetland Photographs
Attached CD - Site Videos
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Design Approach for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Background
Table 5. Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Table 6. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 7. Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall (Inches)
Table 8. Hydrologic Monitoring Results
Table A.1. Vegetation Metadata
Table A.2. Vegetation Vigor by Species
Table A.3. Vegetation Damage by Species
Table A.4. Vegetation Damage by Plot
Table A.5. Stem Count by Plot and Species
Table A.6. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table B.I. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table B.2. Baseline Stream Summary
Table B.3. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A
December 2008, Monitoring Year 1 DRAFT
11
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
w
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Duke Swamp Restoration Site.
Figure 2A. As-built Plan Sheet 1 for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site.
Figure 2B. As-built Plan Sheet 3 for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site.
Figure 2C. As-built Plan Sheet 4 for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site.
Figure 21). As-built Plan Sheet 5 for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site.
Figure 2E. As-built Plan Sheet 6 for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Figure 2F. As-built Plan Sheet 7 for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Figure 3. Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A
December 2008, Monitoring Year 1 DRAFT
iii
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2008 growing season
(Monitoring Year 1) on the Duke Swamp Stream Restoration Site ("Site"). As per the approved
Restoration Plan for the Site, this Annual Monitoring Report presents data on stream geometry,
stem count data from vegetation monitoring stations, and discusses any observed tendencies
relating to stream stability and vegetation survival success.
Historically, land use on the Site consisted of agricultural production. The UT1a area was used
for seasonally rotated crop production. Mowing and crop production had curtailed any efforts
for native woody vegetation to establish along the stream banks which resulted in an inadequate
riparian buffer throughout reach UTIa. The historic flow pattern and flooding regime of UT2
had been altered significantly. Backwater effects had been the result of an existing spoil pile that
ran along the right bank of UT1b in the forested wetland area. Flows were being diverted along
this spoil pile and blocking the natural connection between UT1 and UT2. Prior to restoration,
Duke Swamp was channelized and lacked bedform diversity. After construction, it was
determined that 5,441 linear feet (LF) of stream were restored.
A total of 12 monitoring plots 100 square meters (m2) (10m x 10m) in size were used to predict
survivability of the woody vegetation planted on-site. The Year 1 vegetation monitoring
indicated an average survivability of 320 stems per acre. Due to the low stem count, the Site is
scheduled to be re-planted in winter of 2008/2009. The re-planting will be limited to the
floodplain area below the terrace of UT1a.
Dimension, pattern, profile and in-stream structures remained stable during Year 1. The on-site
crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least three bankfull flow events during Year 1 of the
post-construction monitoring period. Inspection of conditions during site visits revealed visual
' evidence of out-of-bank flow, confirming the highest crest gauge reading of 2.00 feet (24.0
inches) above the bankfull stage.
During Year 1 monitoring, one stream/wetland related repair was completed. The elevation of
the floodplain area along the lower portion of UT1a between stations 46+00 and 49+00 was
determined to be too low, resulting in frequent flooding that damaged many of the planted trees.
' The area was backfilled with on-site soil to raise the elevation of the floodplain to a more
appropriate elevation. This area will be closely observed during Year 2 of monitoring.
Weather station data from the Buckland Elementary Weather Station (Buckland, NC, BUCK -
ECONET) were used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to document
precipitation amounts. For 2008, the total rainfall during the monitoring period was below the
normal average (from January 2008 through November 2008 rainfall was 12.73 inches below
average).
A total of five automated groundwater-monitoring stations were installed across the project area
' to document hydrologic conditions of the restored site. During Year 1, groundwater monitoring
stations recorded wet conditions, with hydroperiods greater than the required 8 percent during
the growing season.
' A total of five automated water level gauges documented the occurrence of numerous flooding
events within the UT1b area during Year 1 of the post-construction monitoring.
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A 1
' December 2008, Monitoring Year 1 DRAFT'

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project involved the proposed restoration of 5,441 LF of stream. Table 1 summarizes the
restoration areas on the Site. Selected site photographs are shown in Appendix A, B and C. A total
' of 12.0 acres of riverine wetlands and 5,441 feet of stream were restored on the Site. The project
also enhanced 7.6 acres of riverine wetlands on the Site. A conservation easement totaling 25.4
acres has been recorded that protects the streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
' 2.1 Project Objectives
The specific goals for the Duke Swamp Site Restoration Project were as follows:
• Restore functional stream channels
• Restore riparian wetlands
• Enhance existing riparian wetlands
• Improve water quality within the Duke Swamp watershed by reducing sediment and nutrient
inputs
• Improve aquatic and riparian habitat functions by creating deeper pools with in-stream
structures
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation within the agricultural field areas.
2.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
After examining the assessment data collected and exploring the Site's potential for restoration, an
approach to the Site was developed that addressed restoration of both stream and wetland functions
within the agricultural field areas. The approach also needed to take into account the existing
swamp system at the downstream end of the Site, which had been impacted in the past by
channelization. Topography and soils on the Site indicated that the project area most likely
functioned in the past as a tributary stream system with associated wetlands, feeding into the larger
Duke Swamp system.
Therefore, a design approach was formulated to restore this type of system. First, appropriate stream
types for the valley types, slopes, and desired wetland functions were selected and designed to tie in
' at the upstream road culvert. Then a grading plan was developed to restore the adjacent wetland
areas to a "Coastal Plain small stream swamp" as identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990), which
had been previously converted to farmland. Finally, a design approach was developed for the
downstream swamp area, to remove the past effects of channelization and restore historic flow
patterns within the swamp. Special consideration was given to minimizing disturbance to existing
wetland and wooded areas.
r For analysis and design purposes, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) divided the Duke Swamp
tributaries into three reaches labeled UTla, UTIb, and UT2 to Duke Swamp. UTIa begins on the
upstream side of the project at a culvert under SR 1320. From the culvert, UT1a flows west and
ends inside the forested wetland boundary. UTIb then continues through the forested area and
eventually connects to the Duke Swamp system. UT2 begins at the outlet of a small cypress pond on
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A 3
December 2008, Monitoring Year I DRAFr

I Wetland Restoration Area #1
Wetland functions on the Site had been severely impaired as a result of agricultural conversion. The
main stream (UT1) flowing through the Site was channelized many years ago to reduce flooding and
provide drainage for adjacent farm fields. As a result, most of the wetland functions were destroyed
within these agricultural field areas.
Wetland restoration of the prior-converted farm fields on the Site involved grading areas of the farm
fields to resemble natural floodplain topography and raising the local water table to restore a natural
flooding regime. Reach UT1a was restored to a stable dimension, pattern, and profile, such that
riparian wetland functions were restored to the adjacent hydric soil areas. Drainage ditches and
1 Pond 3 were filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table.
Native wetland vegetation was planted throughout the riparian buffer areas.
Wetland Enhancement Area #2
As mentioned above, wetland functions on the site had been severely impaired as a result of
agricultural conversion. Wetland enhancement of the existing jurisdictional wetland pockets
involved grading areas of the farm fields to resemble natural floodplain topography and raising the
local water table to enhance natural flooding regime and hydrology. Drainage ditches and Pond 3
were filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table. Additionally,
the Pond 1 water level was lowered to function as a wetland. Native wetland vegetation was planted
' throughout the riparian buffer areas as shown on the as-built plan sheets.
Wetland Enhancement Area #3
Wetland enhancement of the existing jurisdictional wetlands within the downstream wooded area
involved the removal of an existing spoil pile by placing the spoil material back into the channel
thereby re-establishing the natural topography in the area. The historic hydrologic connection
between UT1 and UT2 was restored. Native vegetation was planted along the spoil pile that was
removed as shown on the as-built plan sheets.
n
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A 5
December 2008, Monitoring Year 1 DRAFT
2.3 Location and Setting
The Site is located in Gates County, NC (Figure 1), approximately nine miles northeast of the town
of Gatesville. The Site lies in the Chowan River Basin within North Carolina Division of Water
Quality sub-basin 03-01-01 and North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) targeted
local watershed 03010203040010.
2.4 Project History and Background
Historically, land use on the Site consisted of agricultural production. The UT1a area was used for
seasonally rotated crop production. Mowing and crop production had curtailed any efforts for native
woody vegetation to establish along the stream banks which resulted in an inadequate riparian buffer
throughout reach UT1a. The historic flow pattern and flooding regime of UT2 had been altered
significantly. Backwater effects had been the result of an existing spoil pile that ran along the right
bank of UT1b in the forested wetland area. Flows were being diverted along this spoil pile and
blocking the natural connection between UT1 and UT2.
The chronology of the Duke Swamp Project is presented in Table 2. The contact information for all
designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3. Relevant project background
information is presented in Table 4.
2.5 Project Plan
Plans depicting the as-built conditions of the major project elements, locations of permanent
monitoring cross-sections, and locations of permanent vegetation monitoring plots are presented in
Figures 2A, 2B, 2C, 21), 2E and 2F of this report.
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A 7
December 2008, Monitoring Year 1 DRAFT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 3. Proiect C'nntactc
Duke Swam Restoration Site: Proiect No. D06065-A
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Kevin Tweedy, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
Nurser Stock Suppliers International Paper, 1-888-888-7159
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact: Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact: Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel. [phone]

Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A
December 2008, Monitoring Year I DRAFT'
9
3.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
3.1 Vegetation Assessment
3.1.1 Description of Vegetative Monitoring
As a final stage of construction, the stream margins and riparian area of the Site were planted
with bare root trees, live stakes, and a seed mixture of temporary and permanent ground
cover herbaceous vegetation. The woody vegetation was planted randomly six to eight feet
apart from the top of the stream banks to the outer edge of the project's re-vegetation limits.
In general, bare-root vegetation was planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre, in an 8-
foot by 8-foot grid pattern. The tree species planted at the Site are shown in Table 5. The
permanent seed mix of herbaceous species applied to the project's riparian area included
Virginia wild rye (Elms virginicus), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), fox sedge (Carex
vulpinoidea), smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and hop
sedge (Carex lupulina). This seed mixture was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 15 pounds
per acre. All planting was completed in December 2007.
At the time of planting, twelve vegetation plots - labeled 1 through 12 - were delineated on-
site to monitor survival of the planted woody vegetation. Each vegetation plot is 0.025 acre
in size, or 10 meters x 10 meters. All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged to
distinguish them from any colonizing individuals and to facilitate locating them in the future.
The trees also were marked with aluminum metal tags to ensure that the correct identification
is made during future monitoring of the vegetation plots.
On a designated corner within each of the twelve vegetation plots, one herbaceous plot was
also delineated. The herbaceous plots measure 1 meter x lmeter in size. These plots are
photographed throughout the growing season. The locations of the 12 vegetation plots are
presented in Figures 2A through 2F.
3.1.2 Vegetative Success Criteria
To characterize vegetation success criteria objectively, specific goals for woody vegetation
density have been defined. Data from vegetation monitoring plots should display a surviving
tree density of at least 320 trees per acre at the end of the third year of monitoring, and a
surviving tree density of at least 260 five-year-old trees per acre at the end of the five-year
monitoring period.
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A 1I
December 2008, Monitoring Year 1 DRAFr
No volunteer woody species were observed in any of the vegetation plots. The plots will be
assessed during Year 2 monitoring for volunteer species.
3.1.4 Vegetative Problem Areas
Based on the Year 1 vegetation monitoring results, the Site would not meet the success
' criteria of 320 stems per acre at the end of monitoring Year 3. The large number of tree
fatalities occurred within the floodplain on the downstream portion of UTla during the 2008
growing season. A number of the planted trees were lost soon after planting when a large
storm event caused straw that had been placed over the site for erosion control to wash and
wrap around the planted stems, uprooting many of the planted trees. Also during 2008, high
water levels within the floodplain during periods of the 2008 growing season caused many of
the smaller saplings to drown.
Therefore, the Site is scheduled to be re-planted in problem areas during the winter of
2008/2009. The re-planting will be limited to the floodplain area below the terrace of reach
UTla. The re-planting will start at station 50+00 and terminate near the SR 1520 culvert,
approximately at station 11+00. The re-planting densities will be at 100 percent downstream
of the farm access culvert and will decrease gradually to 50 percent density on the upstream
portion of the Site. Established herbaceous vegetation on-site is expected to protect the
newly planted stems from damage due to wrack lines. Replanted species will be larger
' specimens of flood tolerant species. Subsequent to re-planting, the newly established trees
within the vegetation plots will be flagged and identified.
There are quite a few weedy species occurring on the Site, though none seem to be posing
any problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. The weedy species are
mostly annuals and seem to pose very little threat to survivability on site.
3.1.5 Vegetation Photographs
Photographs are used to visually document vegetation plot success. A total of 12 reference
stations were established to document tree conditions at each vegetation plot across the Site.
Additional photo stations were also established at each of the 12 vegetation plots for
herbaceous vegetation monitoring. Reference photos of both tree conditions and herbaceous
conditions are taken at least once per year. Photos of the tree plots showing the on-site
vegetation are included in Appendix A of this report. Photos of the herbaceous plots are also
included in Appendix A.
3.2 Stream Assessment - Reach UTIa
3.2.1 Description of Stream Monitoring
' Cross-sections: Two permanent cross-sections were installed per 1,000 LF of stream
restoration work, with one of the locations being a riffle cross-section and one location being
a pool cross-section. A total of seven permanent cross-sections were established across the
Site. Each cross-section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the
exact transect used. The permanent cross-section pins are surveyed and located relative to a
common benchmark to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross-
section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank,
bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg.
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A 13
December 2008, Monitoring Year 1 DRAFr
I The longitudinal profile for Year 1 was surveyed in August 2008 and was compared to the
data collected during the as-built condition survey. The longitudinal profile is presented in
' Appendix B. The results of longitudinal profile show that the pools in UT1a have maintained
elevations and depths similar to those documented during the as-built survey. The
longitudinal profile shows that some of the riffles, most of which are located in the middle
' portion of the Site, are at an elevation slightly lower than that found during as-built
conditions. The water surface slopes across the pools have remained flat during Year 1
monitoring.
Minimal in-stream structures were installed within the restored stream channel. The
structures include constructed riffles, log vanes, and root wads. Visual observations of these
' structures throughout the Year 1 growing season have indicated that all structures are
functioning as designed and holding their elevation grade. Log vanes placed in meander pool
areas have provided scour to keep pools deep and provide cover for fish. Constructed riffles
have mostly maintained bed elevations and have provided downstream scour holes, providing
habitat. Root wads placed on the outside of meander bends have provided bank stability and
in-stream cover for fish and other aquatic organisms.
r 3.2.4 Hydrologic Success Criteria
One manual crest gauge was installed on the Site to document bankfull events. The gauge is
checked regularly and records the highest out-of-bank flow between site visits. The gauge is
located on the downstream portion of reach UTla at station 45+50, which is presented in
Figure 2D.
The approved Restoration Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream
restoration success. Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year
monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years, otherwise, the
stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull events have been documented in separate
years.
3.2.5 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
The on-site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least three bankfull flow events
during Year 1 of the post-construction monitoring period, as shown in Table 6. Inspection of
conditions during site visits revealed visual evidence of out-of-bank flow, confirming the
crest gauge readings. The largest on-site stream flow documented by the crest gauge during
Year 1 of monitoring was approximately 2.00 feet (24.0 inches) above the bankfull stage and
was the result of overbank flooding of UT1a.
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A 15
' December 2008, Monitoring Year t DRAFT
Both stream banks are photographed at all permanent cross-section photo stations. For each
stream bank photo, the photo view line follows a survey tape placed across the channel,
perpendicular to flow (representing the cross-section line). The photograph is framed so that
the survey tape is centered in the photo (appears as a vertical line at the center of the
photograph), keeping the channel water surface line horizontal and near the lower edge of the
frame.
A photo log of the restored channel is presented in Appendix B of this report. Data for each
of the seven permanent cross-sections are also included in Appendix B.
Photographs of the restored channel were taken at the end of the monitoring season to
document the evolution of the stream geometry. Herbaceous vegetation was dense along the
edges of the restored stream, making the photography of some of the stream channel areas
difficult.
3.2.8 Stream Stability Assessment
Table B.1. presents a summary of the results obtained from the visual inspection of in-stream
structures performed during Year 1 of post-construction monitoring. The percentages noted
are a general, overall field evaluation of the how the features were performing at the time of
the photo point survey. According to the visual stability assessment all features on the Site,
with the exception of the area described in Section 3.2.6, are performing as designed.
3.2.9 Quantitative Measures Summary Tables
The quantitative pre-construction, reference reach, and design data used to determine
restoration approach, as well as the as-built baseline data used during the project's post-
construction monitoring period are summarized in Appendix B.
3.3 Stream Assessment - UT1b and UT2
3.3.1 Description of Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of reaches UT1b and UT2 will be conducted for five years to
evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices. Since restoration of these reaches
involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions to remnant channel
' segments in a multi-threaded swamp system, monitoring efforts will focus on visual
documentation of stability and the use of water level monitoring gages to document
saturation and flooding functions.
The occurrence of bankfull events and flooding functions within the monitoring period will
be documented by the use of automated water level monitoring gauges and photographs.
Five automatic monitoring gauges were installed within the restored system to document
shallow groundwater and flooding levels. The data loggers are programmed to collect data
every 6 hours.
3.3.2 Hydrologic Criteria
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the 5-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue
until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years. The water level
monitoring gauges should document the occurrence of periodic inundation and varying
groundwater levels across the restored site. The gauges should also document the
Duke Swamp Restoration project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A 17
December 2008, Monitoring Year I DRAFT
3.4 Wetland Assessment
3.4.1 Description of Wetland Monitoring
Groundwater-monitoring stations were installed across the project area to document
hydrologic conditions of the restored site. Five groundwater monitoring stations were
installed, with all five stations being automated groundwater gauges. Groundwater
monitoring stations follow the USACE standard methods found in Stream Mitigation
Guidelines (USACE and NCDWQ 2006).
In order to determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, rainfall amounts will be
tallied using data obtained from the Gates County WETS Station and an onsite rain gage.
3.4.2 Wetland Criteria
The primary objective of groundwater monitoring is to show that the site is saturated within
' 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 8 percent of the growing season and that the site
exhibits an increased frequency of flooding. The restored site's hydrology was compared to
pre-restoration conditions both in terms of groundwater and frequency of overbank events.
3.4.3 Wetland Monitoring Results
Weather station data from the Buckland Elementary Weather Station (Buckland, BUCK -
ECONET) were used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to
document precipitation amounts. The manual rainfall gauge was initially installed in
February 2008 and is used to validate observations made at the Buckland station. Total
observed rainfall at the on-site rain gauge for the period March 2008 through October 2008
was 25.14 inches, compared to the Buckland gauge of 25.86 inches for the same period. For
2008, total rainfall during the monitoring period was below the normal average (from
' January 2008 through November 2008 rainfall was 12.73 inches below average). Much of
the rain that fell during the 2008 growing season fell in July and September, when
evapotranspiration losses were highest (Table 7 and Figure 3).
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A 19
December 2008, Monitoring Year I DRAFT
The Duke Swamp Restoration Plan specified that five automated monitoring wells would be
established across the restored site. A total of five automated wells were installed in October
2007 to document water table hydrology in all required monitoring locations. All wells are
located in the restored wetland areas adjacent to UT1a, and the locations of monitoring wells
are shown on the as-built plan sheets. Hydrologic monitoring results are shown in Table 8.
Well hydrographs and a photograph log of the wetland well monitoring stations are included
in Appendix C of this report.
During 2008, all five wells recorded hydroperiods significantly greater than 8 percent during
the growing season. The performance of the on-site wells during the 2008 growing season is
attributed to a higher local water table following restoration of the Site. Due to the below
normal rainfall conditions during the 2008 growing season, the success of the on-site wells is
not directly ascribed to precipitation that fell onto the Site. The success however, is
accredited to the higher local water table as a result of the Site's restoration and periodic
backwater conditions from Duke Swamp. The hydrology of the restored system appears to
mimic well the hydrology of the downstream wooded swamp areas.
Hydrographs for all five wetland monitoring stations are presented in Appendix C.
Table 8. Hydrologic Monitoring Results
Duke Swam Restoration Site: Project No. D06065-A

Well ID Most Consecutive
Days Hydrology has
Been Met'
Cumulative Days
Meeting Criteriaz
Number of Instances
Meeting Criteria3
AW1 144.5 62.3% 194(83.6%) 2
AW2 137.5 59.3% 174(75.0%) 6
AW3 205.5 88.6% 205.5 88.6% 1
AW4 205.5 88.6% 205.5 88.6% 1
AW5 205.5 88.6% 205.5 88.6% 1
Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less
than 12 inches form the soil surface.
2 Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less than 12
inches from the soil surface.
3 Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to less than
12 inches from the soil surface.
3.4.4 Wetland Problem Areas
During Year 1 of monitoring, the Site did not experience any significant wetland restoration-
related problems. However, one stream/wetland related repair was completed. The Site
experienced bank and floodplain settling on the lower portion of UTIa between stations
46+00 and 49+00. Details of this repair are stated in Section 3.2.6. The restored wetlands in
this repaired area are expected to recover rapidly during the Year 2 growing season. Future
site visits will ensure that this wetland area is monitored closely.
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A
December 2008, Monitoring Year I DRAFr
21
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
' Vegetation Monitoring - The Year 1 vegetation monitoring indicated an average survivability of
320 stems per acre. Data from Year 1 monitoring of the 12 vegetation plots showed a range of 0
to 680 stems per acre. Based on the Year 1 vegetation monitoring results, the Site would not
meet the success criteria of 320 stems per acre at the end of monitoring Year 3. Therefore, the
Site is scheduled to be re-planted in winter of 2008/2009. The re-planting will be limited to the
floodplain area below the terrace of UT I a.
Stream Monitoring - The total length of stream channel restored on the Site was 5,441 LF. This
entire length was inspected during Year-1 of the monitoring period to assess stream performance.
Based on the data collected, all riffles, pools, and other constructed features within the restored
channel are stable and functioning as designed.
During Year 1 monitoring, one stream/wetland related repair was completed. The Site
' experienced bank and floodplain settling on the lower portion of UT1 a between stations 46+00
and 49+00. The area was backfilled with on-site soil to raise the elevation of the floodplain to
post-construction conditions.
' On reach UT1 a, the on-site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least three bankfull flow
events during Year 1 of the post-construction monitoring period. On reaches UT1 b and UT2, all
five of the automated water level gauges documented the occurrence of numerous flooding
events during Year 1 of the post-construction monitoring period. Photographs and videos
recorded the connectivity between reaches UT 1 b and UT2.
' Wetland Monitoring - During 2008, all five monitoring wells recorded hydroperiods of greater
than 8 percent during the growing season. The performance of the on-site wells during the 2008
growing season is attributed to a higher local water table following restoration of the Site.
5.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and tracks are common on the Site. During the Year 1 monitoring season,
' heron, egret, geese, snakes, frogs and crawfish were periodically observed. Many types of birds
were observed on the site throughout the monitoring season.
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A 23
' December 2008, Monitoring Year 1 DRAFr
6.0 REFERENCES
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation. NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
USDA, NC Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Survey of Gates County, North Carolina, 1992.
US Army Corps of Engineers, 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared with cooperation
from US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and the
NC Division of Water Quality.
http: //www. saw.usace. army.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/Documents/Stream.
Duke Swamp Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06065-A
December 2008, Monitoring Year 1 DRAFT
24
FIGURES
r_ Y
1S ?" Project Location l-
N) 997902.96
E) 2697200.58
37 - - - - 1
1.
I 1
S N
CU 03010203 - '

4 /
I` f/Y
Gates County Project
Location
-Ok
m
U
CU 03010205
. 1 h
8000 Regea v PM-Way Sate?NIO
cagy. Nc 275'0 =D06065-A
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
ke Swamp Site - Project No. D06065-A
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
Figure 1. Location of Duke Swamp Stream Restoration Site.
W
W
W
0
N
xz V
V
W
W Q H2
OW
W ??
0 ?
Z U ZN w g yS
0
?y VZ S O~
m m x
a pow Yo< .<
? ® m
yp '0
0
m
g
a O
Z - n
LU O ?
co co O OCV A
L
W
?„ N
z m E
V W o w ?sx
LLJ
£8 OVN =
- U) mere
\ \ ~ • LU J I
CL J
A W
` • } W N W
N \\ ,• LU u <
W W Z
? w
O 24
\\ > a
z Y
IL
44
O
Z
\ 0
W 1 \\ ` \
a M
W W=
,gyp
N w \ I W Z? V H c
v W \ I O W^? U U
W VJ _ n n W
O \ w r [r z J Z F?
O 11 \\ ?i0 W m= } p
44
`?U ~Hw
1 F z W } J
F4 o ? \ \ ?? O W QO (, 4
V z O x 0u
(w Qy ?J Imo' \ g J [?' ° °m
_J Q± u \ \ W
W o w?
qwv w
? A Z
W COD o a
O M \\\ I '?
? a
LL avow ss300v wavd
W
O ~ 00 I:
w
LLI
W y LU
0O w I W W u
? o I I 10 W LL Q Q
FV O? o Z o ' I O Ln N
44 m U)
' I W u u u u u
o
1.4
II O
0
16 0 o ? o
i a
+ ° o
O
? Q N
F U)
`Q J W Q
A = Z jY ~ w O jY
?2 Z W Cy VI? V) V1 W Q_
oQ OU C7 U`U 3oC ?w
wn OJ C) ,wj WJ ZQZQ
Z Q co ?Z W Z W
L. L
/ ? °2 v"?- o w N 5o 5o 5o ? :? r,2
(nC >w JZ J?
> °> Do Do Do Q o
`} Z Z O O N> 1 W N W H W N Z N w
ZU °zO °o <w QjY QQwQjY
? z -<', Q W O'< W ao
1? 7 Z)
Fzoo?Q°Zgwo ?
cif Z w°z,p Ozwa g >a w ?Q N
U H J
?._ ?., ?.. fn LL Q Z FJJ J
= J¢H F? J Z Q
i. y > _ F J W W U w >= In m m m U OLn O O V1 V
1 W Zw Z F-
¦ W ?-HWawOFti?d?cnci> N ? N N
U) C7 v» UInQ¢¢Q Z L
W O
U
LL S = LLI
x a o o J O M
w
(? LL O
\1 ? ¢ m e w N (N w nl a
N [7 (p h OD V
O
O h jJ7
cr•
vAi s ?ia a NE601 • 9 11 w 0--

i
%
de
w
z z
t7 ° m
W
G ¢ ~Ow
O O J?
c Z? Y U
W_ W N h? '
0
Y
a_
U m rv OLL
OZ? J = WF
N?Q ??K (7W

S
k
l ? O
s CQ
3 k

k

s
s

t

Z w
J
U
O N

z
b O
q Ln
F F-
s
lc:7 fit,
m w?
° z "
F: w0
t > 0-
I
h
CUC4
1 N
?
Z
(q I

I S k_ O J Cl)
,.
~ W
_? F Q Z

hU 1 1
I W
U

Cn
Z
\ m O

a o.oz ` O
a ? 11? U
CL ® . i.. '' N z
O

\
v
z
O
U
\
` m ~
ci
z z
w
\ \.

(Do

WJ o
(Do
CL ,J1
WJ

1

a L" '..
>d U
>CL
1 0

1 ? -4p
z
\
\ \ Z
Z O
d
U
\
\ k
1
o Q
2 (D
Z)

\ a.
`` U d Cn
O?
\: m
w
=
0
Z) WW

2 \ \ LL Z0

Z
F-N
Q# U
w
m F-
WW
-

c?> C
9 O

w?. Cl)
m
wa a k

U
m
\ Z Z
k O O

v X
0

G?
CL v?
\ F
k W
Cn LU O: 0
co w
k
\ X WJ
>a Uw
?,
1 d H

O Cn

\ o
W
' _ \ 1
\ LL Z
\

LU
W \ ,,,
co

w
\ om a
v
a."
Z
(9 v
_
Q
W z bo+zi \ \
F-- Q
-0
V
00 C)
F
a n? OON
(r
\ r C)
rn0,
?

A i 000nr
CA(ON
0) C,4
\C7? C0Z WW

Y

O O
O
O
`- O
ca +
O
?
z O

:
w
W 0
Q

X
m H
CO
00 r
uv 00 00 O
m w m
N
v?^ O? W
N00m(O O D
BONN
U J
Of
MZWW LU
m0
LL Z
u6p•£0 HSd 9sv ?Jf18 i5E60I\zi'^9-so\u6,sap\dwvMs a?^Q_iS?§0I\:.,
RC1 /R/71

O
Z
LL
Z
w

W

W
° z
c
CO L
?U)
N W(Q
u o m
0
a Z
O
QOU
G Z ?z Q
U N
0 0 N
a r WO
WN > U
N° ? LU

»>
? `?
¢°w O w Q
?HHH
UU ¢ °
° Z W J
r O !L Q (1) (n !n

f O¢ Z c
i U
) K
V W
r0. Yom F¢ ??
z \
O

C?
LLF-
C9 p

>d ?
ti
a
6x00 aC FW" `n LL
I
Q
U
? O N
z ?
I
/
a

G?
F-W
WD
UU
y
i ; db SS3??b W2ibj

z
O
L
0
z
O
U
Z
O
H
U

U
Z
O
U
W

a

U
a
w
0
z

O

O

z
O
? U
di

O
z

Z
O
a
I J
W
z
z

Q (7
=

U J
<L
0

LLI _

J F-
_
LL

U
(V
W
ry
LL
u6p•y0 HSd 9so-?Jf18?t5£b0t\1Pnq_so\u6isa0\dwvnS

0
w
o
w z
z z
W o
w
G z m~
a ow
a o =?
w W =o
> w
o0
O<? ? w-
>? ?w
12
Ow Yo2 ?<
Z
aim

00 0)
O 1'-
In (?
t`b??
00 CY)
d m N ? ,
U J
I Z w w
0
m
i
CF) I
(0O
007
00
?Q)O MM
N N
a N L
U rn
m O (14 N
00 00
N r7
0c) 00 00
'IT
N
a. N LO L,
U OD ? _
Co rn N?
w
U
d ?0
o?1

w
U

co
LLLI J(D
F- ; ::)
?JC9
w
J

00 r
00 00
v
C
?

? !
Cl)
NLOMO
d M LO
( p
OD 0)
J
a'
a. m 0) 04
J>J
II 1
1£M1 z 04,
Q
a
W
3 u
o
N
a
Q LO
J
w
z
z
_

U
D
J
a
0
w
J =

F-
LL 0

in
N
W
('
D
CD
LL
d-9s?-H?f18-15£6td1\4 i'nq_sc\u6?sa0\dwoMs
07
z
O
F--
0
z
O
U
z
O
F-
U
z
O
U
W
a
F-
U
a
w
0
z
il.
O
U)
O
F-
z
O
U
L11
F-
O
z

BOOZ/B/
r r r rr rr r r rr r r r rr r r r rr rr r r

i i
r? rr rr rr r rr r? r ri r? r r? rr rr r ?r r? rr rr
1
APPENDIX A
1
VEGETATION RAW DATA
VEGETATION
TABLES

n
L

vi
E
N
d
N
C
J
O
(6
(6
C
0
II II
C p?
0 -O
E " x
N ? N
N T N
II ? 0
? II N
c N E
(6 U N
Q p. N
y m E m
m N ^ N
N N Y U E N
j 0 N ID E
O
- N m II
C C
C II - N O
0 U E O N
a N, X II N C II
N
C ? U O
c ?
3 a F " II °- L
L
U
O
U 0 II
o- F N c
Z, (D II m
O
z 0 T " v
E U> E

NI U N
co L N
E
E
U U N y U
0
>

o N
0 w
d U d
"° ? o "- aNi o L
_
w C 0 0 U
O 0
W 0 N 0 N
v j II O a N
= N a 0 T N" O
a) E
O N N Q E 0 E
J O
O O N E N L Q O N
N E
`o
? N a
°oH N
.
3D °?a N N 3LL c
0
U U '-
ow
F J 0 w uUi N 0 0 ?
N 0
NI O Q
N Z Q c N N N N N
a
? 0 0 0 N 0 0
D U
W
1 N
J O
O" ~ U
O O
n
?U
o O O
O
1 Z1
o moirnTaJ
O
C w L
L
L
`
aaa
0
° _
_
0. 3
0 0 m
N 3 3 C C II II II O
N -a n .4 0 _a w Mao NN
O
Q N
Q N O 0 T j j N N
i N ul N j L 9 J U V V
tfj O

N

OD O

?? OD i II N N

N N J N N d N N N
j 00
?
fD

O
tD O

N
N OI 1?

N C d
U 'o = z
z O N J 3 Y
C U N II II m m
W O ,N N O D U
>> O
Q_ U1
E N
m
OQ ), t\ .- fn
'
a O
r2
2 .n 0 a C C E U1 N X 3- C
3

O Co N
N E d
0 O W
1 =3
Q a U1 N ..
U U L L O 3 3 O 0 0 ip
E E (n
0
U W 3
Y
}
U.
5
E
p N U U
U1
N N

!
Y LL O
Z 0 0 m
J D
0 0
m m
0 W W J LL LL J Q (
J
0 J W L
0 W U
u Vl
Gl =
O F

m
m :: F
w a
in w a
N c s U)
0 U) a
Y c o
°'
c
O o Y r ?
e) W Q

°'

a L

?a
m
d a O E T
O U) a •..0
z E a?" 3 m

m 14
E
m a. m V m
-° r p a.° a (n IL E
H ='"
T>; d
c d a p
m as
'

Q
a
a a

d
udi umi
n
N a s
a m m m a w w "
d
K m
H

U U p
o °

z m x Q w
a
m a c a m m
a a a o a v
U a° m R m;
'
`0 -Wi v
° v 0° E ?• a
Y a; +°:°.E o
cn« 1!
E O °'w°'a+mm'cE
0 ?o vv u o?a..a`a»oooo, a a` aoa A12 q

Table A.2. Veqetation Viqor by Species
Duke Swamp Restoration Site: Project No. D06065-A
Species 4 3 2 1 0 Missing Unknown
Betula ni ra 3 4 4 2 1
Celtis laevigata 1 2
Fraxinus penns Ivanica 1 1
N ssa s Ivatica 5 12
Quercus I rata 7 2 1
Quercus michauxii 3
Quercus phellos 1 10 ,
Taxodium distichum 4 7 8
Platanus occidentalis 2 7 6 2
Unknown 1 18 1
TOT: 10 9 33 48 6 19 1
Table A.3. Vegetation Damage by Species
Duke Swamp Restoration Site: Project No. D06065-A
0y
Ot?

V ?
y 3
?y ? ?F
rw 0
U? ?
a a
2
a ?
? o
Betula ni ra 14 13 1
Celtis laevigata 3 3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2 2
N ssa s Ivatica 17 17
Platanus occidentalis 17 17
Quercus lyrata 10 9 1
Quercus michauxii 3 3
Quercus phellos 11 11
Taxodium distichum 19 19
Unknown 20 3 1 16
TOT: 10 116 971 18,

1
1
1
1
Iable A.4. Vegetation Damage by Plot
Duke Swamp Restoration Site: Proiect No. D06065-A
Q+y
Off`
T
V
0
O°? a?F do co
boa Jc /
1
1
1
1
DS-B-0011
i able m.a. rianieu stems Dy riot ana species
Duke Swamp Restoration Site: Project No. D06043-A
yQ
Betula nigra
Celtis laevigata
Fraxinus pennsylvani
Nyssa sylvatica
Platanus occidentalis
Quercus lyrata
Quercus michauxii
Quercus phellos
Taxodium distichum
Unknown
10
y Z' .1 (• ?• (• ( .4. • (• (• y. V
F 00 `00 00 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00
ati? ^ l IN I A IN I "N
o Ory 00 O? Oy Oo O^ 00 00 n my
O O O O O O O O O O O
cwt' Fy O O O O O O O O O O O
?,? `o ? O O O O O O O O O O O
?O > P O o a o0 QO n0 ??O ?O ^O ^O ^O

U;

r N N

`' T
c
ti M
m
N
l\
(\
O
M
O,
00

N - C)
O

O l?
l? N C? ?c O
M \O
O O ?c

O N
o v? O, ?,O O
M

0o
N
N
r
N O
00 O
un
00

M O
N 00
00

a ?p ?}• in O N

n N 0000 r-

?
M
N
d'
O O
O 00
00
O

6.

n
V?
-
N
r
N O
O 00
y ?o
b0 O
0
O
i A O r-
Q fV N M N O
yz
• u
aui .°'
O
?
O
00
s
u
.
R y
Lzl ?'
L ?
y? C Q
L Z

o ..
U °
?
?
:?
?
s
L
R

3 v S ? ? ?? Y ? r ? ? a. R c\C

ER- A H ? V ? ??' rY Ol Ql Ql h ? ? ? ?
VEGETATION
PHOTOGRAPHS
A ,
figT41 :?ji t R r v -?11C
? ,?i1?7i?jtf ` ? 9?,'j{?7.? +,; ? 7 ? ? y. _ ? "iaa"??' i't' Icat, .• ?
rn'•_l:'??i a?l's? ?' l+-S?w,?9? t ,a??'7t a'1`? e?*
t R? r, i ?i'< n + ?i t .
Stein , r,? ` R 4 a?,t 1 Et ?t i a ?•t F ?? t.? x
Vegetation Plot 1-Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 1
{fig p r•? '!f,K y `" '.::`d. IA? :.. _? j47'.a,_gv^ z
olw.
+"t
,:; ?
;' inky Yd?? ?",y 4A `?,?:?" ? a "' 1 ,•
i r r Jim ?1 a <. ?? L
Vegetation Plot 2
jj{' a w?.?5 4%'.h
Iv +? t n
?s?•wr,?.:.+. a.'x.. iraY iie..'Ii>? s :StRi3.••.
iyF. 4''/ a tl' a yA f ,y?. a p f "ft, It n y
"'0, All
n..? ???. ept' L .,tea. `? i>?r ',..u?4P 'x+" - Y t+?R.?'? y? d •"+•i r yet
tap
Vegetation Plot 3-Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 2-Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 4-Herbaceous
if
3-
,..
y M e J4d' a .! ? r J
Vegetation Plot 5- Herbaceous
n ?SFrde??t? ,? ?
Vegetation Plot 4
of ??X ?C?1• f e ( :!
?Lk ? I

-L
46
s
i

R
* r5y ` ,
-
ra "

SORGo i ll
Vegetation Plot 5
?p)r a ? ? b S" A,Y r{t ?} In
vv Ali
,? ,,? Rye ,' r •,-.?,".yZ
410
Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation Plot 6- Herbaceous

? F ?
d
??
",?
y? q. #
a ? ?t t+ M "'? t R
t? ! i •? 4{St
y ..? i. ..}5
t
Y Ar_

c ? 3Y }' ? q:t ?r*j• r t i? ?x tt .Ij? .:} ? 2va,F, y ?? tY 'q 1:.
L "rl

Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 8-Herbaceous

7
7
5 ?

i
y 1
J

5 Y i

7 q i;

Vegetation Plot 8
74
;:.
i
k.t
ti ?r
p`i°? im 5r ? ? yY?ti`+1?.,@y yu' 1?Y?ya?? s? a {y a•e
?i;?';3*z?' . q`i;Y, 'e ?,,;u j ?? • -,?„ ,?' ?`"!? r"L?r`h?"'YR S ?E#sx?`c?J??.
Vegetation Plot 9-Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 7- Herbaceous
????: ??. ?. • .;c ' "?? Key
?yi :>Fd G'. s r'z(a!I 2. / W+ ff t+ v
f ? f ? ?t a
x . A ti c+! _.( yt _ ?* ' fir!
f p krl?? 1 E? ~
Not ..:.i g .` nw
L.X i
Ow v v."ti 6 4Q t k r Y .m
Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation Plot 11-Herbaceous
f .ay7c ? -
1 '? J
µ
t, a?f:,y ??yyS?s.ia ??ir? - ... sty-•A'
V Arm A y ? '_
-mot ?? . -W E,?ty,, j t
d+ ?f t ,.
Vegetation Plot I 1
pi,
?i?2` Ft'.• i#' ) tt s A 1i:3? H'f+?•C?~l?. .hti!??
+ ^? I S• ?± as ? R •e•f
S. t ? J
w ds ? e
ley
Y . yv ! ? F
' ?{Or• t ? if °?f?5 l

Vegetation Plot 12-Herbaceous
Vegetation Plot 12
Vegetation Plot 10-Herbacious
APPENDIX B
GEOMORPHIC
RAW DATA

I

STREAM TABLES
1
Table B.I. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Duke Swamp Restoration Site: Project No. D06065-A
Performance Percentage
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
A. Riffles 100% 100%
B. Pools 100% 100%
C. Thalweg 100% 100%
D. Meanders 100% 100%
E. Bed General 100% 100%
F. Bank Condition 100% 90%
G. Wads 100% 100%
rn
N ? ? N ? ? (O r
? N 'n rn O N O r W O ? I N rn to O O O
N ?? O ? N N? r0 ? i I i i , i r I O N U N .- O
°
a
c? o ??.?cno I I I I l i

o
M
N
C
? I I ? rn N N. O ?
d
"' O
O
y rn til ? N n V O? ? ? y
r ?
p ? n
i r
? r N
r
j N U N ? 0
0 ?
N
O
0
°
O
? v m m

N
Q N
t0
? L
a
? `-
?r ?? ?c? o cn m n rn °' NU° coo
nrr o`n cn
?m??iNVO
n
n NC°°
0 ?
?
r
? ?

?
4. w
K O aD °. ? OJ O V ,
?°?•-Nrv??•- v?rnM ?
i
l
a r
? ? r ?
'
Z' w
m
E

d
u

m
c
m`O?me°o?m l i t t ? I
H

E L c
d
( m u
d
? ?m.?on° corn in i i l l i I I I o l l coo m u? o0
d
?
n C m O M V? tp ¢1 r, i ?
N W ? O
v
y
m

E E
m
3 w

a o

c
rn °N o° (V nN I I I I
Q7 ? N _
? r N N d° rn r ? I
I
I I
I I

r d ? ?? ?
? ?
? r ?
N ?- Y
D ?
d C

tR a
R >
d w . . . i . , . . , . . . . . .

m
3
c
N
d °
d I
r r

m
m I I? I I I??? I ? I?? I I 1 1 11 1 ??? 1? 1
I I I I 1 11 I I I I

N
? `. 0 0 0 _? O t' ? N C
o ?? ? w ?n E LNo "? j
m m m
w J U
s
"O d= 1 aT V D 7 Ol? Or d 0?.? V U rT m O N
?
_
O O Q
'T Q° O
J n a
o ? J
d
N
E m
m o? m Q ? r S j CD U m 3
°° ma c mU ? °-
`
d o
w
?
o
'O ? LL° ? N N m C°?? ?? a s d? u U L m?? m
m d c m m m E N c U m °? m
° y D
o m
f
d '
°
a
w U
r? ?
?
o
LL a
?
i
m E
°
n
U a
w o. ? ?"m
m
c t 3 a
vi o
E: ? r w w
'o m E a

d L
O ? d !n C
d
E C C d ? O
d d - a c
E z o
?
a c
o a a rn ¢
}

v ?
}
o ?
? o M
N CL
O
U N
}

? N
?
00
?
v

? N
O M
N m M ? M v W
N M
U)
} LO
}

co
}
r
}
O
_ O
-
Q
N U N M U U7 M

O
?

0 N
O
N
} N
O
N
}
O
Z U ? U ?

i?
d

?
ro
m
?

O
v?
O
r?
N
N

?
°i

?
m
co
m
co
10
co

?

'Q
` ?
?
M
N N
N a O
N ? M N V m
N N
a
a
w
r }
w
I
L)
N
N v
}
( v
}
LL .O Q
d f0 U M U Q M
f0 "'

LO
m
H N
O
U
N u1
O
U
N
ay 7

E

m

-

m

o
N

v

N

?

m n

M
o

°

m

M

o

m

o

N

o m

v
d
N
N
N
V
N
M
cn N

-
a
C
v
v

U N M
U N
M
G N N
E
N ti N
cn
d
Y
U }
?
U }
?
} V o N M M t?
M r O O
W W
? .- A N N ?(] O N ? m ? M N O N d.

L L L (p U! E E
N L L B L (p J1 E E
N O N O
So oQpQ ac rnE °n °v° ?p aQpQ ac a E m ??
m E (v Z
U- m c m o 2 a
? ?
m m m o r 2
.
N L O
O. C Y a O
a a m m N L O O a
-? O_ C Y a 7
-_o uLL a m m
LL
m N m O C m LL (D
N m O C m
E W E co
N LL W_
O O m O O

CL U r m
a C) r
m co
c
o v ?
o
U) m w

d w
E C
d in
E
rq D cn
STREAM DATA
AND PHOTOGRAPHS
0 u-
Co U)
Q
O - --- -- - _ .. - - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - ----- o
ti LO
M
0 O
LO
O ?
O
O
LO
M
s
V) ti O
LO
d _ M
.? ..
O
L t ss _ C
CL O.2
' LO ++
O r
_ N N
A-4
' 1O^
.? . YJ
v
_ N
J _•
Q O V,^
- - I
.s r
3
cn -
O
V/
N O 00 C0 N O
N N N T- T- r- V1,
U014BA013
Permanent Cross-section 1, Station 13+30
(Year 1 Data - Collected August 2008)
al ??.?,tl x? 9 V
k R
S? i]
7fa? ?
-1112
Looking at the Left Bank
9 '
1?t W
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W!D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev W-fpa
Riffle E 24.5 17.01 1.44 2.27 11.8 1 5.8 19.75 19.75
Duke Swamp Cross-section 1
24
23
22 ....--- - ............... .................... .... a
21
r.
,
c 20
°
'--
> 19
m
W 18
17
Year 1 0 Bankfull
16 - - - Floodprone As-Built
15

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 2, Station 17+69
(Year 1 Data - Collected August 2008)
NT h"
t s
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Duke Swamp Cross-section 2
24
23
22
21
c 20
> 19
m
W 18
17
16
15
0
----------- -------------------------------- -------- o
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section 3, Station 20+27
(Year 1 Data - Collected August 2008)
b: - d ::. ? 9 711
xz?y x NNN
Looking at the Left Bank
at the Right Bank
WIN-
'' - W "

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
W-f a
Riffle E 30.5 18.07 1.69 2.57 10.69 1 5.5 19.71 19.74
24
23
22
21
c 20
> 19
w 18
17-
16-
15 0
Duke Swamp Cross-section 3
....................................... a
- - Year 1 c, - Bankfull
o - Floodprone As-Built
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section 4, Station 26+81
(Year 1 Data - Collected August 2008)
7 -
r
'+';S he t r ! E
Looking at the Left Bank

Looking at the Right Bank

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
W-f a
Pool 46 25.1 1.91 3.61 13.12 1 4.4 19.63
.
1963
Duke Swamp Cross-section 4
24
23 ----------------------------o
22
21
20
> 19
m
w 18

17 > Year 1 Bankfull
16 o - - Floodprone As-Built

15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Stat7on (ft)80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Permanent Cross-section 5, Station 31+47
(Year 1 Data - Collected August 2008)
a NMI
? / rJ1
iy,?.t?I°F'a?...
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Duke Swamp Cross-section 5
24
1 23
21
c 20
> 19-
m
17- -+- -
18-
W ?--Year1 o Bankfull
16 L_-_-FIoodProne 0 As-Built
15-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section 6, Station 37+13
(Year 1 Data - Collected August 2008)

ha ll
t
Ila

r

Zb
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Pool 40.9 1 29.3 1.39 1 2.78 1 21.01 1 1.2 4 i 18.74 i 19.2
Duke Swamp Cross-section 6
24
23
22
o---------------------•------------- ------------------ .--------......-o
21
c 20
> 19
m
w 18
17 ' - Year 1 Bankfull
i
16 ° Floodprone As-Built
15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section 7, Station 42+05
(Year 1 Data - Collected August 2008)
'tr
L4
Looking at the Left Bank
Kittle I cc 1 37.1 1 26.95 1 1.38 1 2.66 1 19.56 1 1 4.6 19.09 19.12
Duke Swamp Cross-section 7
24
23
22
21
c 20
19
w 18-
17 ,\ - Year 1 o Bankfull
16 0 - - Floodprone As-Built
15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Station (ft)

Photo Point 6
Photo Point 1
Photo Point 2
Photo Point 3
Photo Point 4
Photo Point 5
f ? jg' y
! o` i
POX k WN 7777
Photo Point 7

Photo Point 8
Photo Point 10
Photo Point 9
Photo Point 12
Photo Point 11

Photo Point 13
C)
C)
N
N m L
Lf)
N N N N
0) 0) 0) 0
7 3 7 0 N
)
7

O
04 04
m m m (
(D.0 0 CD (. 6 m
9
0 CD C
a .2

a- "0N "0N 'a
O F- O F- O F- O
O O O O -
?
"a
F- O
O C m

H 00 >
N co

O

LL LL LL LL
LL : L
W N
i

N
H co

D O
O

'a N
(D
O
ie++
co

co
.
;
Y/ .
wx"
00
O
N_

co
O
N m

C3
co
C
L co
r

r
O
N
co
Q (O

T co
O
CL I O
N

E O
'

m U
)
V/ O

rn
? I v

co
0

' O
N

=??. ?„ M
OD
O

N ?2 O O p U
N N c-
N
NO 14BIOH aae}rng jejeM
APPENDIX C
WETLAND
RAW DATA
E
1

1
1

WETLAND
DATA
1
1
t
1

1

1
t

1
I
co
0
0
N
co
a
co
O
? O
N
CF)
O
r
co
O
O
N
O
co

Go
c
o O
p
?+ 0 N
f0
H N
d ?

C. co
O

3V O
a
to C ?'

Y ?

U
?
7 O
O
O
N
? N

O N
?- of
O
Q
CL
? r-
o
3 ? N

Y a
N r
? r
O
O
N
LO

O
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O ?
p
O
CO O O O O O O
) N N C ?
7

[1
1
1

1

1

1
t

co
0
O
N
Go
N
r
co
O
O
N
O

• O
r
co
O
O
N
O
co

a co
o
2 N

H N cD
d ?
cm
C. 3
0
o

3V N
N
V) c

A
7
N 00
O
?
C O
N
a
o
?v N
3
Q O
CL N

t
co
N_
'
Y
N r
N

O
O
N

O
O O O O O O O r
O
O O O O O O O O ?
M N N c o
1
co
0
0
N
co
co
N
r
00
O
O
N
O
O
r
O
O
O
N
I ?
co

a 00
i
r _ O
N

H N CO
d ?

CL 00
O

3? N

03

00
CD
CD
N
C N
3
`O
N
C1
O

CL
0
N N
U) U
N C
r
j N
? r
F-
O
O
N

O
O O O O O O O r
`O
O O O O O O O O
M N .- r N c
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Co
O
O
N
O
O
r
O
O
O
N S
a ?

o
?
o
L
0
?
+
+
N
Nd ?
~
Im
CL ao
0
0
3 a N
vi c

3 ? U

7
N
a
c
3
O
j O
O
>
O O
Q N
CL
E Cl)
3
? U
O C
j N
? r
ti
O
O
N
LO

O O O O O O O O p
O O O O O O O O
M N r r N C?
1
i
i
i

o
O

N
CD

i
I O

• s
i

co
O
? N
N
Q ?

L ++

L
C
co
t9
3 'C I O
`V

Y ?
N
( U
N
i a
c
7 00
? O
O N

cn
Q
G. 0 r
3 ?
CO U
N ._
j N
0 ?

i 1
1

O
O
N
to

O O
O O O O O O r
p
O? cn N O O O O O
N M `"'
WETLAND
PHOTOGRAPHS
. t C? . *a?1?1 17rIq! V
t
r sn ,t _ j 3 ?'•, t ," ? y' ? k -
? ; Ass. A'a. z
o.P
41 ; ivy i
# ?r F °
Auto Well 1-East Auto Well 1-North

Y T, r , 3 S 3iiT!:
' 3
''
R •,?. S
,i' {e 1' ?fi? .3
a'1SkR

7
Nil k' r itt 2 ??? r}R ? r

? } ?.? ry ?
S
i
?
Y
-`' ? ,o i sj t ?
?
1 .? 1 i.
., r ?'?e?r ??' ? 1 r
•
.
?
t
Auto Well 1-South
Auto Well 2-North
Auto Well l-West
Auto Well 2-East
ti rr SE! Y
+?+! 'Ws+?; , alp o, !` p t ',IJr* ^ii rffrt ?f
r
10-
:?It?tb ?s •71 `•??,??, .? ??el.?d._.?? -.r' ,v'i4,`" ..3>H'...???
Auto Well 2-South
Auto Well 3-South
i
N y.•'
t .
'fit ,ic^S ?; i ? ??y i ? ? "1 s ?
Auto Well 2-West
Auto Well 3-East
Auto Well 3-North
Auto Well 3-West
Rr r' _??.?+r.?rl?•9??;ic+M.?? w'in' ?.
Auto Well 4-East
\k{`tit4,
LYE _ }t ?? I' >{^ 1
.a
??iy? ?yr(?"??1?`u ,i{t 1. t'L$?? h a.y ?.r?':C^ ,?yy,.?.w?;
Auto Well 4-North

?
-
41

y

? a

Auto Well 4-West
Auto Well 5-East
{
r - V. '. .fin r t
M 4
-Sir
IWI
Auto Well 5-North
Auto Well 4-South
' r 4 ; y e
?S
Flood Gauge I-South
Flood Gauge 1-West
Auto Well J-Joutn
Auto Well 5-West
Flood Gauge I-East
Flood Gauge I-North

Flood Gauge 2-North
Flood Gauge 2-East
Flood Gauge 2-South
Flood Gauge 2-West
Flood Gauge 3-East
Flood Gauge 3-North

at ._ ?+
s 7° j a'. _ "
r

Flood Gauge 3-South
Flood Gauge 4-East

il
r r•
i
..
,? L f?Fy y? .

c Y ? - c ?attr's<:
J

v "

4

Flood Gauge 4-South

Tl^ i s r
/ Y yy
¢ 7 1t

5 ? -4

Flood Gauge 3-West
Flood Gauge 4-North
Flood Gauge 4-West

Flood Gauge 5-West
Flood Gauge 5-East
Flood Gauge 5-North
Flood Gauge 5-South