HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031003 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_2009021210-10)
Daniels Farm #1
Wetland Restoration Site
Franklin County, North Carolina
Tar-Pam 03020101
Contract # AW03005
`r
r..
?E?fr
ER
Monitoring Report
Year 5
Submitted to:
North Carolina
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Submitted by:
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
AND CONSTRUCTION, INC.
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
KCI Environmental Technologies & Construction, Inc.
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27A-aQ
December 2008 " N
ENHANCEMENTPFZpCj?AM
Fifth Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm 41 Wetland Restoration Project
0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Daniels Farm Wetland Restoration Site is located on the Clyde Daniels Farm, south-southeast of Louisburg in
Franklin County, North Carolina. The restoration of 31.72 acres of non-riverine wetlands was completed in March
2004.
This monitoring report presents the data and findings from 2008 following the fifth monitoring year. Included in
this report are analyses of both hydrologic and vegetation monitoring results as well as local climatic conditions
throughout the growing season. Monitoring activities included sampling vegetation survivability at nine locations,
monitoring groundwater elevations at eight locations and documenting general site conditions at five permanent
photograph points within the wetland restoration area. In addition, daily precipitation was recorded at the site.
These data were evaluated and verified using climatic data for Louisburg, North Carolina. Field investigations
were conducted in June and November 2008. Supporting data and site photographs are included in the report
appendices.
The 31.72-acre wetland restoration site was initially planted at a density of 436 trees per acre. Supplemental
planting occurred during the winter of 2004-2005. Nine vegetation monitoring plots were established throughout
the planting areas instead of the eight originally discussed in the as-built report. The additional plot was established
to monitor the survival and growth of the bald cypress and water tupelo area. The 2008 vegetation monitoring of
the planted areas revealed an average density of 618 trees per acre, which is well above the minimum requirement
of 260 trees per acre needed to meet the success criteria. After five years, the average density for the Low
Elevation Seep species (Zone 1) was 540 trees per acre and the Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest species (Zone
2) had a density of 640 trees per acre.
During the 2008 monitoring year, wetland hydrology was achieved at all eight wells on the site. Groundwater was
within 12 inches of the soil surface in excess of the success criteria of 12 consecutive days (5% of the growing
season) at each well. In fact, the water table was within 12 inches of the soil surface continually for greater than
12.5% of the growing season at seven wells.
The daily rainfall data depicted on the gauge data graphs were obtained from the on-site precipitation gauge. The
precipitation gauge was installed on the site in 2003 prior to project implementation. Daily rainfall data from the
project site were compared to historic precipitation data for Louisburg, North Carolina in order to determine
whether the monitoring year experienced below average, average, or above average rainfall. This analysis showed
that 2008 was an average year.
Soils in the restoration portion of the site were determined to be Roanoke and Toisnot. Since these soils are already
considered hydric, no success criteria or monitoring is required.
Site photographs were taken from five permanent photograph points established along the property boundary.
Photograph documentation facilitates the qualitative evaluation of the conditions or changes in the restored wetland.
The photo point locations were selected in order to document representative site conditions.
0
Fifth Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm 41 Wetland Restoration Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 3
3.0 Maintenance/Management Actions ................................................................................. 3
4.0 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 3
Tables
Table 1. Vegetation Monitoring Results ......................................................................................1
Table 2. Vegetation History ..........................................................................................................1
Table 3. 2008 Hydrologic Monitoring Results ............................................................................2
Table 4. Hydroperiod History ......................................................................................................2
0 Appendices
Appendix A - Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
Appendix B - Hydrologic Monitoring and Hydroperiod
Appendix C - Permanent Photo Documentation Points
•
Fifth Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm #1 Wetland Restoration Project
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Vegetation
The 31.72-acre wetland restoration site was originally planted at a density of 436 trees per acre. Supplemental
planting occurred during the winter of 2004-2005. Originally there were eight vegetation monitoring plots
established throughout the planting areas covering two vegetative communities, a Low-Elevation Seep and the
Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest. However, a ninth plot was established in 2004 to monitor the bald cypress
and water tupelo planted in the Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest community. The 2008 vegetation monitoring
of the planted areas revealed an average density of 618 trees per acre, which is well above the minimum
requirement of 260 trees per acre (Appendix A). After five years, the average density for the Low Elevation Seep
species (Zone 1) was 540 trees per acre and the Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest species (Zone 2) had 640 trees
per acre. A total of 6.5 trees per vegetation monitoring plot are needed to meet the 260 trees per acre minimum
requirement and the average number of trees per plot in 2008 was 15.4.
Table 1: Ve etation Monitoring Results
•
x
R
O
b!)
y R i"? ?' it
N R c. = r
°. r°'. O s i
3 L U
a C
a
3 D R
3 V
a G!
o iv
H
N C'. y
A?
c
1 1 3 7 1 2 13 16 520
L 8 3 6 4 1 14 17 560
Zone 1 Average 540
2 2 1 5 2 6 2 1 17 22 680
3 3 4 3 5 1 16 19 640
4 1 5 3 2 2 13 14 520
5 3 5 3 5 3 19 21 760
6 4 4 1 4 4 1 2 20 22 800
7 10 3 3 16 20 640
9 3 7 1 11 11 440
Zone 2 Average 640
Total Average 618
Table 2: Vegetation History (Trees/Acre)
Plot # Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 360 520 520 520 520
2 360 720 680 680 680
3 320 640 680* 640 640
4 320 480 520* 520 520
5 320 760 800* 800 760
6 520 760 800* 800 800
7 560 560 640* 640 640
8 520 560 560 560 560
9 360 440 440 440 440
More trees/acre recorded in Year 3 because of either a resprout from a tree
that was previously counted as dead or a missed tree from previous monitoring.
Fifth Year Monitoring Report Daniels Farm #1 Wetland Restoration Project
2.1 Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring in 2008 found that most of the trees are tall enough that the site's dense herbaceous
vegetation is not having a detrimental effect on them. Overall the trees are healthy and growing well throughout the
wetland.
2.2 Hydrology
Wetland restoration on the site focused on the removal of hydrologic alterations and included filling the primary
ditches and grassed waterways, plugging the lateral ditches, removing ditch spoil to restore natural seepage areas,
placing water diversion features to redistribute the surface hydrology, installing restrictive berms to reduce runoff
and enhance infiltration, and recreating microtopography across the site to enhance surface water retention and
storage. Based on the hydrological results, this site has met and exceeded the groundwater criteria outlined in the
wetland restoration plan. Ditch plugging, filling and the other hydrologic restoration methods have resulted in
increased short-term surface and subsurface water storage and subsequent increase in the duration and elevation of
the seasonally high water table.
2.3 Soils
Soils in the restoration portion of the site were determined to be Roanoke and Toisnot, both hydric soils on the state
and federal hydric soils lists. NRCS verified the limits of hydric soils and confirmed their status as Prior Converted
wetland. As the soils are already considered hydric, no success criteria or monitoring are required.
3.0 MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
No maintenance/management actions were necessary in 2008.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Findings from this monitoring year indicate that the project is meeting the success criteria set for the site. The
criterion for the survival of the planted species is 260 stems/acre at the end of five years of monitoring. The 2008
vegetation monitoring of the planted vegetation revealed an average density of 618 trees per acre, which is above
the minimum requirement of 260 trees per acre. Non-target species do not constitute more than 20 percent of the
woody vegetation based on permanent monitoring plots. For the 2008 monitoring year, seven gauges were
continually saturated for more than 12.5% of the growing season and one was continually saturated for 8%-12.5%
of the growing season, which exceeds the hydrologic success criteria of at least 5% continuous saturation during the
growing season.
•
3
•
•
Appendix A
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Daniels Plot: 1 Date: 6/3/2008
Plot Map
•
C?: 5m
Photo Flag
Point
ID
Species
Height (m) Collar
Diameter
cm Comments (insect damage,
disease, browsing)
1 Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 0.8 0.7 health
2 Willow Oak (Quercus hellos) 1.2 1.5 health
3 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.8 0.7 health
4 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) dead
5 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 1.1 1.2 health
6 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii) 1.0 1.3 health
7 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii 2.3 3.2 health
8 Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii) 1.3 1.8 health
9 Willow Oak (Quercus hellos) 1.3 1.6 health
10 Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.8 0.8 res rout from base
11 Willow Oak (Quercus hellos) dead
12 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii) 0.4 0.6 top died back
13 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 1.1 0.8 resprout from base
14 Cherr bark Oak Quercus pagoda) 1.6 1.7 health
15 Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) dead
16 Willow Oak Quercus hellos) 1.0 0.9 health
• g
x15
• 13
• 7 • 14
8•
12
• 10
X 11
6 •
5 •
• 2 • 3 16• 4
• 1
Species Percent of Total
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii )
Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 23%
Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia )
Density:
Total Number of 13
Trees
Survivabilitv:
Total Number of 13
Trees
Number of New Recruits : 0
4th Year
Monitoring
0.025 acres = 5520 trees / acre
16 trees x 100 = 81 % survivability
Vmow
•
5th Year
Monitoring
Note : Flag located AZ. 72', 16 feet from monitoring well
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
s
r
Site: Daniels
5m
Plot: 2 Date: 6/3/2008
Plot Map
9• x8
7•
• 20
X22 21 •
• 19 18
4• 5x 6
170
• 15 • 16
• 14
100
013 •12 3x •11 20
1 •
Photo Flag
Point
ID
Species
Height (m) Collar
Diameter
cm Comments (insect damage,
disease, browsing)
1 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 1.7 2.1 health
2 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 1.8 3.4 health
3 Swam Black Gum (N ssa s Ivatica) dead
4 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 23 18 health
5 Swam Black Gum (N ssa s Ivatica dead
6 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) dead
7 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia) 2.1 2.6 health
8 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) dead
9 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia 0.8 0.7 health
10 Green Ash (Fraxinus penns Ivanica) 2.3 3.3 health
11 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii) 1.8 2.0 health
12 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii) 1.9 2.7 health
13 Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 1.8 1.6 health
14 Overcu Oak (Quercus 1 rata 1.9 3.3 health
15 Overcu Oak (Quercus I rata 2.4 4.0 health
16 Green Ash (Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 1.8 2.9 health
17 Overcup Oak (Quercus 1 rata) 2.0 4.4 health
18 Overcu Oak (Quercus lyrata) 2.2 3.1 grape vine growing around the tree
19 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 1.0 0.6 res rout from the base
20 Overcup Oak (Quercus l rata) 1.9 4.3 stressed
21 Overcu Oak (Quercus I rata) 2.3 3.7 health
22 Overcup Oak (Quercus 1 rata) dead
Species Percent of Total
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 29%
Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 12%
Swamp Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) 0%
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 12%
Overcu Oak (Quercus 1 rata) 35%
Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 6%
Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 6%
Density:
Total Number of ,? 7 /
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 17 /
Trees
Number of New Recruits : 0
4th Year
Monitoring
°„
AOL
110 W,
r ?
7
Fyh ,
i f wy
0.025 acres
22 trees x
= 680 trees / acre
100 = 77,3 % survivability
•
•
Sth Year
Monitoring
Note : Flag located AZ. 104°, 43 feet from monitoring well
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
E
0
Flag
5M
Photo
Point
ID
Species
Height (m) Collar
Diameter
cm Comments (insect damage,
disease, browsing)
1 Water Tupelo (N ssa s Ivatica var. biflora) dead
2 Water Tu elo (N ssa s Ivatica var. biflora) 1.1 1.4 health
3 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii) 1.7 2.8 health
4 Water Tupelo (N ssa s Ivatica var. biflora) dead
5 Water Tupelo N ssa s Ivatica var. biflora) 0.8 1.0 no leaves
6 Water Tupelo (N ssa s Ivatica var. biflora) 0.9 1.6 health
7 Water Tupelo N ssa s Ivatica var. biflora) dead
8 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.6 0.5 res rout
9 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata 2.2 3.4 health
10 Green Ash (Fraxinus penns Ivanica) 2.4 4.1 health
11 Overcu Oak (Quercus l rata) 2.0 3.5 health
12 Green Ash (Fraxinus penns Ivanica) 2.5 4.4 health
13 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 2.1 2.8 health
14 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii) 1.6 1.3 health
15 Green Ash (Fraxinus enns Ivanica 2.0 4.6 health
16 Cher bark Oak (Quercus pa oda) 0.7 0.4 res rout
17 Green Ash (Fraxinus penns Ivanica) 1.6 2.9 health
18 Water Tupelo (N ssa s Ivatica var. biflora) 1.3 1.5 no leaves
19 Green Ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica) 2.3 4.6 health
Site: Daniels Plot: 3 Date: 6/312008
Plot Map
• 19
X
•16 4
3•
• 18 • 10
8
5 • 12
2•
17
•15
6•
•9
1x
• 13 • 11
14• 7X
Species
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii )
Water Tupelo (N ssa s Ivatica var. biflora
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata )
Cher bark Oak Quercus pagoda)
Density:
Total Number of 16
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 16
Trees
Number of New Recruits
Note : Flag located AZ. 220°, 63 feet from monitoring well
4th Year Sth Year
Monitoring Monitoring
•
R ?y
?.T 1A
`-P ,?4 st T Rs
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Daniels Plot: 4 Date: 6/3/2008
Plot Map
O?i-rl
Photo Flag
Point
ID
Species
Height (m) Collar
Diameter
cm Comments (insect damage,
disease, browsing)
1 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 1.5 1.5 health
2 Water Tupelo N ssa s Ivatica var. biflora 1.0 0.7 res rout
3 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 0.1 1.8 res rout
4 Willow Oak Quercus hellos 2.1 2.7 health
5 Water Tupelo N ssa s Ivatica var. biflora 1.5 2.0 health
6 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 1.2 1.2 health
7 Water Tupelo (N ssa s Ivatica var. biflora 1.2 2.6 health
8 Water Tupelo N ssa s Ivatica var. biflora dead
9 Overcu Oak Quercus / rata 1.6 1.8 health
10 Overcu Oak Quercus / rata 1.6 2.3 health
11 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 1.2 0.9 res rout from the base
12 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 1.1 0.8 res rout
13 Cher bark Oak Quercus pagoda) 1.8 1.6 health
14 Cher bark Oak Quercus pagoda) 0.8 0.5 res rout
4•
• 10
3 0 79
ell
140
8X
9 6-
20
0 12
1 • 501
13• 1
Species Percent of Total
Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 38%
Willow Oak (Quercus hellos) 8%
Water Tupelo N ssa s lvatica var. biflora 23%
Overcup Oak (Quercus l rata 15%
Cher bark Oak Quercus pagoda) 15%
Density:
Total Number of 13
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 13
Trees
Number of New Recruits : 0
Note : Flag located AZ. 45°, 99' feet from monitoring well
0.025 acres
14 trees x
LC
r :
V
x ;3gh.< f ar
4th Year
Monitoring
5th Year
Monitoring
= 5520 trees / acre
100 = 93 % survivability
T 1.
s ° 14
11
•
C,
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
r
Site: Daniels
5m
Photo Flag
Point
ID
Species
Height (m) Collar
Diameter
cm Comments (insect damage,
disease, browsing)
1 Swam Black Gum N ssa s Ivatica dead
2 Swam Black Gum (N ssa s Ivatica 0.8 1.4 health
3 Swam Black Gum N ssa s Ivatica 0.5 0.4 res rout
4 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 0.6 0.5 res rout
5 Swam Black Gum N ssa s Ivatica 0.3 0.3 res rout
6 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 0.4 0.4 res rout from base
7 Swam Black Gum N ssa s Ivatica 0.6 1.2 health
8 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 1.6 1.8 health
9 Green Ash Fraxinus enns lvanica 2.0 4.1 health
10 Green Ash Fraxinus enns (vanica 1.9 2.9 health
11 Green Ash Fraxinus enns lvanica 2.0 2.2 health
12 Cher bark Oak Quercus pagoda) 1.1 1.9 health
13 Swam Black Gum N ssa s Ivatica 0.5 0.4 res rout
14 Green Ash Fraxinus enns lvanica 1.4 2.1 health
15 Overcu Oak Quercus l rata dead
16 Cher bark Oak Quercus pagoda) 0.9 1.1 health
17 Green Ash Fraxinus enns lvanica 1.8 2.5 health
18 Cher bark Oak Quercus pagoda) 0.3 0.3 res rout from root
19 Overcu Oak Quercus l rata 0.3 0.3 res rout
20 Overcu Oak Quercus l rata 1.4 1.6 health
21 Overcu Oak Quercus l rata 1.3 1.5 health
Plot: 5 Date: 6/312008
Plot Map
7!
6! 80
18*
017 0 16
!19 !14 !20
15
0 5 !13
!12
!11
4! !9
!10
2!
1x
021
Species
Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii
Swam Black Gum (Nyssa s lvatica )
Overcu Oak Quercus l rata
Green Ash (Fraxinus enns lvanica
Cher bark Oak Quercus pagoda)
Density:
Total Number of ,? 9
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of ,? 9
Trees
Number of New Recruits
Note : Flag located AZ. 38°, 27 feet from monitoring well
4th Year 5th Year
Monitoring Monitoring
M
0
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Daniels Plot: 6 Date: 6/3/2008
Plot Map
0
0? 5m
Photo Flag
Point
ID
Species
Height (m) Collar
Diameter
cm Comments (insect damage,
disease, browsing)
1 Willow Oak (Quercus hellos) 1.1 1.8 health
2 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 0.8 1.1 health
3 ,Willow Oak (Quercus hellos) 1.3 1.8 health
4 Swamp Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) 0.5 0.9 health
5 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii 1.1 1.1 bug damage
6 Swamp Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) 0.8 1.0 health
7 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 2.5 2.9 health
8 Willow Oak (Quercus hellos) 3.6 4.8 health
9 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 2.5 3.3 health
10 Swamp Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) 09 21 health
11 Swamp Black Gum (Nyssa s Ivatica dead
12 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) dead
13 Swamp Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) 1.9 3.2 health
14 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 1.4 1.2 health
15 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 2.0 27 health
16 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 2.6 3.9 health
17 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 3.3 4.5 health
18 Overcu Oak (Quercus lyrata) 2.5 6.4 health
19 Overcu Oak (Quercus 1 rata) 1.9 3.1 health
20 Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 1.3 1.6 health
21 Cherr bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.7 0.8 health
22 Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata 1.0 1.1 health
150
0 14 11 160
12 130
• 19 17
018
100 g
•7
22 •20 80
05 --
4 0
0 21
6 •
1 • 20
3•
Species Percent of Total
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 20%
Willow Oak (Quercus hellos) 20%
Swamp Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) 20%
Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 10%
Overcup Oak (Quercus 1 rata) 20%
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 5%
Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 5%
Density:
Total Number of 20 /
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 20
Trees
Number of New Recruits : 0
Note : Flag located AZ. 174°, 150 feet from monitoring wel
0.025 acres 800 trees / acre
22 trees x 100 91 % survivability
•
ID
4th Year
Monitoring
5th Year
Monitoring
0
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Daniels Plot:
Plot Map
•
5m
Photo Flag
Point
ID
Species
Height (m) Collar
Diameter
cm Comments (insect damage,
disease, browsing)
1 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 1.9 2.7 health
2 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii) 1.9 3.2 health
3 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 0.1 1.6 health
4 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) dead
5 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 1.7 2.7 health
6 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 1.6 2.2 health
7 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 1.0 1.3 health
8 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 1.7 2.5 health
9 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) dead
10 Swamp Black Gum (N ssa s Ivatica) dead
11 Swam Black Gum (N ssa s Ivatica) dead
12 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 1.4 1.7 health
13 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 1.6 2.1 health
14 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 1.0 1.8 health
15 Cherr bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 1.1 1.1 health
16 Overcu Oak (Quercus l rata) 1.5 2.4 health
17 Cherr bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 1.5 2.5 health
18 Cherr bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 0.3 0.4 health
19 Overcu Oak (Quercus l rata) 1.9 3.0 health
20 Overcu Oak (Quercus l rata 0.7 0.7 health
Date: 6/3/2008
• 18
14 0
6
017
50 •16
4x 7 0
30
19• 8•
20 11 • 20
0
12
130
9x • 15
1•
10x
Species Percent of Total
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 63%
Cher bark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 19%
Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 19%
Density:
Total Number of 16
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 16
Trees
Number of New Recruits : 0
Note : Flag located AZ. 12°, 42 feet from monitoring well
0.025 acres
640 trees / acre
20 trees x
100 80 % survivability
a *jb
I L-,rl -
4th Year 5th Year
Monitoring Monitoring
•
•
0
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
•
•
Site: Daniels Plot:
14•
16
5
• •
lie
4•
10
•
3 6•
12•
•
2
9x
1 •
• 15
13x
7• 17•
•
8
w
Flag
Plot Map
Date: 6/3/2008
Photo
Point
ID
Species
Height (m) Collar
Diameter
cm Comments (insect damage,
disease, browsing)
1 Willow Oak Quercus phellos) 1.0 1.2 health
2 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 2.0 3.5 health
3 Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tuli ifera) dead
4 Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tuli ifera) 1.2 1.4 health
5 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia 2.4 4.2 health
6 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 2.1 2.8 health
7 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii 2.6 2.6 health
8 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 2.5 3.9 health
9 Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tuli ifera) dead
10 Swam Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii) 1.4 1.3 health
11 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 3.1 5.0 health
12 Swam Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 1.8 2.9 health
13 Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tuli ifera dead
14 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia) 2.2 2.8 health
15 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia 2.1 2.0 health
16 Willow Oak (Quercus hellos) 1.8 2.1 health
17 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 2.5 2.6 health
Species Percent of Total
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 43%
Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 21%
Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 29%
Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 7%
Density:
Total Number of 14 /
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 14 /
Trees
Number of New Recruits : 0
f Note : Flag located AZ. 328°, 27 feet from monitoring well
I
17
4th Year
Monitoring
0.025 acres .560 trees / acre
17 trees x 100 82,4 % survivability
1 0 r I
Air,
t !5th Year
Monitoring
•
Ob
11
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Daniels Plot: 9 Date: 61312008
Plot Map
0
•
5m
C?: -N
Photo Flag
Point
ID
Species
Height (m) Collar
Diameter
cm Comments (insect damage,
disease, browsing)
1 Water Tupelo N ssa s lvatica var. biflora 1.3 2.6 health
2 Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 1.9 4.1 health
3 Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 1.4 3.6 health
4 Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 1.3 3.1 health
5 Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 2.0 4.4 health
6 Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 1.8 4.4 health
7 Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 1.5 4.2 health
8 Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 1.5 3.0 health
9 Water Tupelo N ssa s lvatica var. biflora 0.9 1.8 health
10 Overcu Oak Quercus l rata 1.9 2.5 health
11 Water Tupelo N ssa s lvatica var. biflora 0.9 1.9 browsed
60 79 8• 9 •
10
4
5 0 110
2 3 4 1
10
64%
Density:
Total Number of 11 /
Trees
Survivability:
Total Number of 11 /
Trees
Number of New Recruits : 0
Note : Flag located AZ. 72°, 16 feet from monitoring well
+efi a ?;x: is i
0.025 acres = 440 trees / acre
11 trees x 100 = 1 00 % survivability
4th Year 5th Year
Monitoring Monitoring
•
is
0
•
Appendix B
Hydrologic Monitoring and Hydroperiod
0
•
0
? 0
r
t
L
0
L
A
rn
0
c?
tD
E
L
m
u_
N
m
0 12/30/2008
12/2/2008
11/4/2008
10/7/2008
9/9/2008
8/12/2008
7/15/2008
m
ea
0
6/17/2008
5/20/2008
4/22/2008
c
O
m
a?
w
(n
c
O
tB
N
U)
m
c
0
C?
0
E
J
?a
C
ry
1
•
3/25/2008
2/26/2008
1/29/2008
1 /1 /2008
0') LO co LO r- LO (D LO LO LO
06 0) (6 m L6 0)
rn rn rn
(41) u014ena13
(u!) Ile}uleb
LO LO Lq V?
M co N N O
t
ca
L
L
N
d
81
t4
E
L
N
d
O
12/30/2008
12/2/2008
11/4/2008
10/7/2008
C
O
9/9/2008
w
d?
8/12/2008
C
O
O
7/15/2008 v)
r C3)
p to
L
6/17/2008 0
C
J
5/20/2008
cu
4/22/2008 co
1
3/25/2008
2/26/2008
1/29/2008
1/l/2008
rn LO 00 LD r U') CO LO to to
00 00 r 00 co 00 L6 00 v
00 00 00 00 00
(g) u01lena13
E
is
0
(ul) IlejuleN
U? LO LO LO
co m N N -. - O
O
12/30/2008
12/2/2008
11/4/2008
10/7/2008
?C:
O
0
t
Q
L
co
O
L
M
d
7
t4
C7
E
L
U-
N
D
m
9/9/2008
w
co
ICI
8/12/2008
c
O
U)
(6
N
7/15/2008 cn
d ?
O
6/17/2008
O
E
J
5/20/2008
4/22/2008
1
3/25/2008
2/26/2008
1/29/2008
1 /1 /2008
m LO co LO r- LO (0 LO
co c6 00 r-? CC) co 00
"'
00 co 6 L
(11) UOIIBA013
(ul) lleluleb
Lq U? Lq U?
M M N N O
t
Q.
L
0
L
2
d
ca
C?
E
L
LL
N
d
ca
O
12/30/2008
12/2/2008
11/4/2008
10/7/2008
C
0
c?
9/9/2008 'm
w
8/12/2008
C
0
co
co
7/15/2008 cn
m c
ea
0 0
6/17/2008 CD
0
i?
C
5/20/2008 J
m
4/22/2008 m
re,
1
3/25/2008
2/26/2008
1/29/2008
1/l/2008
Un co LO r- LO cm LO LO LO v
00
C6 0 00 00 ? co 00 co co
(11) UOIIBA013
is
0
C
(ul) JJBJUIBN
Lq LO LO LO
co co N N r O
O
12/30/2008
12/2/2008
11/4/2008
10/7/2008
0
t
Q
m
L
cm
0
L
Lo
0
cv
C?
E
L
m
U.
0
c
m
0
c
O
9/9/2008 m
>?
w
8/12/2008
C
O
O
(II
7/15/2008 if)
G1 °'
0 O
6/17/2008
0
c
C_
5/20/2008 J
4/22/2008 v
i'
3/25/2008
2/26/2008
1/29/2008
LO ti LO co u, LO
00 00 (b 00 L6 00
•
00 (11) UOIIBA013
1 /1 /2008
v LO
00 C6
00 00
(ul) Ilejuleb
L U? Lq
M M N N O
t
CL
L
tm
O
L
ca
d
cm
ca
E
L
u_
N
d
t4
•
o
12/30/2008
12/2/2008
11/4/2008
10/7/2008
-c l
O
i?
9/9/2008
w
8/12/2008
c
O
N
(0
O
7/15/2008 c)
O 0
6/17/2008 0
E
J
5/20/2008
c
4/22/2008
1
3/25/2008
2/26/2008
1/29/2008
1/l/2008
LO r- to (0 LO LO lC) v U7 Cl) LO
f-? 00 (b 00 6 00 ? 00 C`i 00 CV
co co - co co co co
(:q) UOIIBA813
•
(u!) IlejuleN
LO LO LO LO
C7 Cl) N N O
O
12/30/2008
12/2/2008
11/4/2008
•
t
Q
L
co
O
L
ti
3
ev
E
L
m
u_
m
m
0
10/7/2008
C
O
m
9/9/2008
w
8/12/2008
C
O
U)
aa)
7/15/2008 I Cl)
0 I C
o
6/17/2008
0
N
E
I J
5/20/2008
c
4/22/2008 'Fa I
I'
3/25/2008
2/26/2008
1/29/2008
C?
I /1 /2008
LO 0) U') 0 t-- LO co co co
0) 6 co C6 co 00 (b co
0) co 0
r
(11) UOIIBA013
(ul) Ilejuleb
LO LO
M M N N r O
t
Q.
L
L
00
d
et=
C?
E
L
U-
N
d
0
O
12/30/2008
12/2/2008
11/4/2008
10/7/2008
c
O
9/9/2008
w
d)
8/12/2008
c
O
O
(D
O
7/15/2008 cn
a
a? c
O 0
6/17/2008 CD
O
U)
E
J
5/20/2008
r-
c
4/22/2008 ?
1
3/25/2008
2/26/2008
1/29/2008
1 /1 /2008
?n v LO m LO N ?n - LO
ri rn N O' o
rn rn rn rn rn
(4) u01jen813
•
•
•
(ul) IlejuleN
Lo LO
Cl) M N N O
•
•
•
0
0
0
N
ti
O
0
N
t ?
Q
V
2 >,
v CCG
? G
av
o Z
ti
o ?
M ?
N
Q. 0
O J
a
N
7aj
ca
80-0aa
80-AON
80-100
80-daS
80-6ny
80-Inf
80-u n r
80-AeW
80-ady
80-aeW
80-ga:-l
80-uer m
l?
LO-0aa o
LO-AON
LO-100
LO-daS
LO-6ny
LO-Inf
LO-unr
LO-AeW
LO-ady
L 0-aeW
LO-qaj
W-uer
c
c0
L
a?
i?
(D
L
CD
10
0
co
c
co
En
U)
m
J
0
0
co
c'
0
0
N
?l
c
0
0
N
DjI
rn co r? (0 LO V' m N o
NO Ile;uleN
•
0
0
•
•
Appendix C
Permanent Photo Documentation Points
n
•
?71
•
Photo Location
View looking toward Vegetation Plot 48. 6/4/08 - MY05
Photo Location 2: View looking toward Vegetation Plot #1. 6/4/08 - MY05
•
i, A
w??+? . -
ap ?d r ? ?? " •? ?.n? j ° v?; 3- +? `« ? t " a,. X41
't
'ya
#
16 ?x . {r
r i?' 6
>
9
fit ,rE f? J?}A
= H` ITT
Photo Location 3: View looking toward Vegetation Plot #4. 6/4/08 - MY05
is
Photo Location 4: VlcNv Iooking, toward Vc,-,ctation Plot ;?:5. 6 4 08 - MY05
•
d` Q
1 F ?j? 4
•
wr'r Sri p. ` ° '?` ?,? .. . i• .?+
N .wo^ 4 . ? s } r ? Mw
ti
}
Photo Location ?. View looking toward Vegetation Plot #6. Ihe upland area shoxvn to the al?
eft of
the yellow flag is non-wetland. 6/4/08 - MY05
0
•
•
E