20050377 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report Final_20090324

BISHOP SITE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
2007 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1) (FINAL)
Anson County
EEP Project No. D05010S
Design Firm: EcoScience Corporation
April 2008
Prepared for: NCDENR/ ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Prepared by: ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Qc?c??onilp
MAR 3 1 2009
WA - WATER QMrf
WETW= AM SM MW M MM

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 3
2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING ..................................................................................................... 3
2.2 PROJECT STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................... 3
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 7
3.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS ......................................................... 13
3.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................................13
3.1.1 VEGETATION PLOT DATA ..........................................................................................13
3.1.2 VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS ...............................................................................13
3.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................13
3.2.1 STREAM MORPHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ...........................................................13
3.2.2 STREAM PROBLEM AREAS ........................................................................................13
3.3 WETLAND ASSESSMENT .....................................................................................................17
3.3.1 GROUNDWATER GAUGE DATA ................................................................................17
4.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View Sheet Index .......................................................................................... 9
Figures 2A-C Monitoring Plan Views ............................................................................................................ 10-12
Figures 3A-C Integrated Problem Area Plan Views ....................................................................................... 14-16
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure ..................................................................................................... 5
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History .................................................................................... 7
Table 3. Project Contacts ........................................................................................................................ 7
Table 4. Project Background .................................................................................................................. 8
Table A-1. Vegetation Metadata ................................................................................................................. A-2
Table A-2. Vegetation Vigor by Species .................................................................................................... A-3
Table A-3. Vegetation Damage by Speces ................................................................................................. A-3
Table A-4 Vegetation Damage by Plot ...................................................................................................... A-4
Table A-5 Stem Count by Plot and Species ............................................................................................... A-5
Table A-6 Vegetation Problem Areas ........................................................................................................ A-6
Table B-1 Stream Problem Areas .............................................................................................................. B-2
Table B-2 Verification of Bankfull Events ............................................................................................... B-8
Table B-3a-d Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment ......................................................... B-8
Table B-4a-c Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ....................................................................... B-10
Table B-5a-d Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary ................................................................... B-13
Table B-6a-b Visual Morphological Stability Assessment ..........................................:................................. B-17
Table B-7 Benchmark Locations and Relative Elevations .......................................................................: B-46
Table B-8 GPSd Cross-Section Pin Locations .......................................................................................... B-46
Bishop Site Year 1 Monitoring (FINAL) ii EcoScience Corporation
EEP Project No. D05010S April 2008
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: VEGETATION RAW DATA
Vegetation Survey Data Tables
Vegetation Problem Area Table and Photos
Vegetation Plot Photos
APPENDIX B: STREAM GEOMORPHIC RAW DATA
Stream Problem Area Table
Stream Problem Area Photos
Permanent Station Photos
Stream Geomorphic Raw Data and Assessment Tables
Cross-Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Longitudinal Profile Plots and Raw Data Tables
Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
Benchmark and Cross-Section Pin Location Tables
APPENDIX C: WETLAND DATA
Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Bishop Site Year I Monitoring (FINAL) EcoScience Corporation
EEP Project No. D05010S April 2008
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EcoScience Corporation (ESC) was retained by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) to provide stream and wetland restoration/enhancement design services for the Bishop Site Stream
and Wetland Restoration (hereafter referred to as the Site). The Site, which is in the Yadkin River Basin
(Cataloguing Units 03040104 and 03040105), is located north of Wadesboro in Anson County, North
Carolina (Figure 1). It is just northwest (upstream) of the Rocky River's confluence with the Pee Dee
River. Three separate construction areas, each confined within a North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT)-owned conservation easement, comprise the approximate 200-acre Site: Camp
Branch (Site A, 94.9 acres), Dula Thoroughfare (Site B, 70.8 acres), and the Unnamed Tributary (UT) to
Dula Thoroughfare (Site C, 33.7 acres).
The following report summarizes first year (Year 1) monitoring activities at the Site. Site construction
began in May 2006 and was completed in February 2007 when the Site was planted (grading activities
were completed in October 2006). As-built surveys for the Site were performed in May 2007. First year
monitoring was conducted in October 2007. In order to be considered successful, the Site must achieve
vegetative, groundwater, and stream channel success criteria for a minimum of five years (or until success
criteria are achieved).
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring for Year 1 was performed based on the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.0 [Lee et al. 2006]). Vegetation success criteria for Site
vegetation is based on a minimum survival of 260 stems per acre of planted species at the end of
monitoring Year 5. Based on the first year surveys, the average count of the surviving planted species
across the Site is 850 stems per acre (1047 stems per acre at Camp Branch, 842 stems per acre at Dula
Thoroughfare, and 310 stems per acre at UT to Dula Thoroughfare). Although planted stem survivability
exceeds the required average of 260 stems/acre, planted bare root survivability at UT to Dula
Thoroughfare was observed to significantly less than that observed at the other two Site restoration areas
(Camp Branch and Dula Thoroughfare). Thus, supplemental plantings may be warranted within planted
areas at UT to Dula Thoroughfare.
Stream Monitoring
As stated in the project's Mitigation Report (EEP 2007), success criteria for on-Site stream reaches will
include 1) successful classification of the reach as a functioning system (Rosgen 1996), and 2) channel
stability indicative of a stable stream system. Longitudinal profile and cross-sectional surveys (including
modified Wolman pebble counts at each) were conducted along Site stream reaches at their locations as
specified in the Site monitoring plan. Crest gauges were also installed to monitor for the occurrence of
bankfull events.
Stream channel stability within each of the three Site restoration areas was observed to be good to
excellent. Based on observations since grading activities were completed, Camp Branch (Site A)
continues to narrow its width-to-depth ratio towards values characteristic of E-type streams (it was
designed as a low width-to-depth ratio C channel with the intention of a gradual geomorphic shift towards
an E channel).
Bishop Site Year 1 Monitoring (FINAL) I EcoScience Corporation
EEP Project No. D05010S April 2008
Due to exceptional drought conditions throughout the first project monitoring year, none of the stream
reaches held any water at the time of monitoring activities. Furthermore, crest gauges did not indicate the
occurrence of any bankfull events for this monitoring year (it should be noted that at least three bankfull
events occurred immediately following Site grading activities before the installation of Site crest gauges).
Wetland Hydrology Monitoring
Wetland groundwater monitoring gauges were installed within the proposed wetland restoration areas
adjacent to Dula Thoroughfare. A total of three gauges were installed: two remain in their original
locations and one was relocated to better reflect representative groundwater levels within the excavated
floodplain. Data from the gauges indicate that hydrologic success criteria was achieved in the first year
of project monitoring despite exceptional drought conditions across much of the State (including Anson
County).
Bishop Site Year I Monitoring (FINAL) 2 EcoScience Corporation
EEP Project No. D05010S April 2008
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
The Site is located north of Wadesboro in Anson County, NC, just upstream of the confluence of the
Rocky and Yadkin Rivers (Figure 1, Appendix A). In order to access the Site, from Wadesboro, take
North Carolina Highway 52 (NC 52) north. Approximately 1.3 miles south of NC 52's crossing over the
Rocky River, turn east onto Carpenter Road (a gravel road). Follow Carpenter Road to the east. Gated
access points to the Site (one for Camp Branch, one for Dula Thoroughfare and UT to Dula
Thoroughfare) abut Carpenter Road from the east.
2.2 PROJECT STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES
Prior to restoration activities, land use at the Site was primarily agricultural. Many Site drainage features
and wetland areas were dredged, straightened, and filled in some locations to accommodate row crop
cultivation and other agrarian activities. Stream channel instability and loss of wetland functions resulted
within impacted areas.
Primary Site restoration goals included the restoration of stable dimension, pattern, and profile for
impacted on-Site stream reaches including Camp Branch, the UT to Camp Branch, Dula Thoroughfare,
and the UT to Dula Thoroughfare. A second primary project goal was the restoration of riparian wetlands
adjacent to Dula Thoroughfare.
Secondary Site restoration goals included stream channel enhancement and preservation as well as
wetland enhancement and preservation. These goals were achieved via site planting with bare root
seedlings to recreate pre-disturbance vegetative communities within their appropriate landscape contexts.
At Camp Branch (Site A), specific Site restoration goals included:
• Priority II stream restoration (including all attendant benefits outlined in Rosgen 1996) via
excavation of approximately 1,767 linear feet of a designed E/C-type stream of the main Camp
Branch channel on new location, including adjacent floodplain excavation to achieve an
entrenchment ratio characteristic of E/C-type streams;
• Priority I stream restoration (including all attendant benefits outlined in Rosgen 1996) of
approximately 403 linear feet and Priority II restoration of approximately 143 linear feet of a
designed E/C-type stream of a UT to Camp Branch, including floodplain excavation along the UT
upstream of Camp Branch to achieve a stable confluence;
• Level II stream enhancement of approximately 945 linear feet of Camp Branch upstream of its
confluence with the UT via riparian plantings adjacent to the Camp Branch stream banks; and
• Re-establishment of the characteristic, pre-disturbance Piedmont Bottomland Forest (Schafale
and Weakley 1990) community adjacent to restoration reaches using bare root seedling plantings.
At Dula Thoroughfare (Site B), specific Site restoration goals included:
• Priority II stream restoration via excavation of approximately 2,730 linear feet of a designed E-
type stream of Dula Thoroughfare (including an associated tributary), including adjacent
floodplain excavation to achieve and entrenchment ratio characteristic of E-type streams;
Bishop Site Year 1 Monitoring (FINAL) 3 EcoScience Corporation
EEP Project No. D05010S April 2008
• Restoration of approximately 3.1 acres of riverine wetlands adjacent to Dula Thoroughfare via
floodplain excavation in previously identified hydric soil areas, thereby re-establishing
jurisdictional wetland hydrology;
• Aquatic habitat creation via excavation of vernal pools within floodplain cut areas; and
• Re-establishment of the characteristic, pre-disturbance Piedmont Bottomland Forest (Schafale
and Weakley 1990) community adjacent to restoration reaches using bare root seedling plantings.
At UT to Dula Thoroughare (Site C), specific Site restoration goals included:
• Level I enhancement of approximately 1,871 linear feet of stream via backfill of straightened and
ditched portions of the existing watercourse, thereby re-establishing characteristic stream
dimension and pattern by reintroducing flow into adjacent relic channel areas;
• Level 11 enhancement of approximately 480 linear feet of stream via riparian plantings adjacent to
the UT to Dula Thoroughfare stream banks; and
• Re-vegetation of open areas adjacent to the UT to Dula Thoroughfare via plantings of
characteristic, pre-disturbance community types described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) using
bare root seedling plantings.
Prior to restoration activities, each of the on-Site drainage features listed above had been impacted to
accommodate agricultural land usage (primarily row crop cultivation). In the classic scenario, stream
channels are traditionally relocated to the toe of the adjacent valley slope, straightened, and dredged in an
attempt to decrease flooding and increase the size of the cultivatable areas within the floodplain. Field
evidence suggests this was the case with Camp Branch, while Dula Thoroughfare and the UT to Dula
Thoroughfare were straightened and ditched along their existing locations. The straightening and ditching
of Dula Thoroughfare likely drained adjacent riverine wetlands with the exception of those along the
fringe of the channel.
Bishop Site Year 1 Monitoring (FINAL) 4 EcoScience Corporation
EEP Project No. D05010S April 2008
Table 1: Project Components
Bisho Site Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No. D05010S
Project Pre-
Component or Existing Restoration Footage or Buffer
Reach ID Feet/Acres' Level Approach Acreage Stationing Acres Comment
Total includes
27 LF gap in
Reach l 1,500 If R P2 1,767 if 0+00-17+94 N/A
easement at
channel ford
Enhancement
Reach 2 945 If E2 N/A 945 if N/A N/A reaches not
stationed
Total includes
Reach 3 220 if R P1 403 If 0+00-4+33 N/A 30 LF gap in
(total) easement at
channel ford
Reach 4 See above R P2 143 if 4+33-5+76 N/A
Reach 5 1,840 If R P2 2,025 If 0+00-20+25 N/A
Reach 6 540 If R P2 705 if 0+00-7+05 N/A
Enhancement
Reach 7 1,871 if E1 N/A 1,871 If N/A N/A reaches not
stationed
Enhancement
Reach 8 480 If E2 N/A 4801f N/A N/A reaches not
stationed
Stream 12,918 If P N/A 12,918 If N/A N/A
Preservation
Riparian Wetland N/A R N/A 3.1 ac N/A N/A
Restoration
Riparian Wetland 1.0 ac WE N/A 1.0 ac N/A N/A
Enhancement
Riparian Wetland 7.5 ac P N/A 7.5 ac N/A N/A
Preservation
Component Summations
Wetland Ac
Restoration
Level
Stream (If) Riparian Non-
Riparian
Upland (Ac)
Buffer (Ac)
BMP
Restoration 5,043 3.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Enhancement N/A 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Enhancement) 1,871 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Enhancement II 1,425 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Creation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Preservation 12,918 7.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
HQ Preservation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Totals 21,257 11.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
'Values are approximate
*N/A - Not applicable
Bishop Site Year 1 Monitoring (FINAL) 5 EcoScience Corporation
EEP Project No. D05010S April 2008

%

''
sz

-
0
1

'
CONSERVATION -
_
EASEMENT
1 LAT 35.152
LONG 80.095
. )o

szart3
:
-
1 ; ?

(kda r Hill,.
Q

' ^osTON COUNTY
i W ? Ak?PM E'OUN
R ,
v

0.5 0 0.5 A r
MILES Y
a G"Pd3r
T<2)
Ansnnvilla<
t?re,?? -? ios,
VPOIFtOrr '
a
A `I
:skt, O
tare ?_. ;?? Murvcr _r
h1r rv
7r s
1 A: ,
L ,.
Fa is
YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER BASIN
(CU 03040105 8, 13040104)
D- Br: FIGURE
SITE LOCATION DGJ
?.= c' BY:
--? EEP BISHOP SITE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION JDC
EcoScience ;;,?Cl }) Dare
Corporation EEP Project No. D05010S JAN 2008
??M. x,rm cmu.
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ESC PaOJECr
04-212.00
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Bishop Site Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No. D05010S

Activity Report Data Collection
Complete Actual Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan August 2004 September 2004
Final Design (90%) March 2005 June 2005
Construction N/A* February 2007
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area N/A Throughout construction
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/se ments N/A October 2006
Bare Root Seedling Installation N/A February 2007
Mitigation Plan June 2007 October 2007
Final Report June 2007 October 2007
Year 1 Vegetation Monitoring October 2007 October 2007
Year 1 Stream Monitoring October 2007 October 2007
Year 1 Wetland Monitoring December 2007 December 2007
*N/A - Not applicable
Table 3. Project Contacts
Bishop Site Stream and Wetland Restoration / EEP Project No. D05010S
Designer Jim Cooper (Designer)
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
EcoScience Corporation Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone]
Construction Contractor Tommy Vaughn and Spencer Walker (Foremen)
P.O. Box 796
Vaughn Contruction, Inc. Wadesboro, NC 28170
[phone]
Planting Contractor Jason Kiker (Consulting Forester)
P.O. Box 933
Kiker Forestry and Realty Wadesboro, NC 28170
[phone]
Seeding Contactor
NA
NA*
Seed Mix Sources NA
Nursery Stock Suppliers International Paper Supertree Nursery
Monitoring Performers 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
EcoScience Corporation [phone]
Stream Monitoring POC Jim Cooper
Vegetation Monitoring POC Jens Geratz
Wetland Monitoring POC Justin Wright
*NA - Not available
Bishop Site Year 1 Monitoring (FINAL) 7 EcoScience Corporation
EEP Project No. D05010S April 2008
Table 4. Project Background
Bishop Site Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No. D05010S
Project Count Anson
Drainage Areas:
Camp Branch 2.9 square miles
Dula Thoroughfare 0.36 square miles
UT to Dula Thoroughfare 0.23 square miles
Impervious cover estimate (%) <1 percent for all streams
Stream Orders (per USGS):
Camp Branch 2nd
Dula Thoroughfare 1 S`
UT to Dula Thoroughfare I St
Ph sio ra hic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion (Griffith and Omernik) Triassic Basins
Rosgen Classifications of As-built:
Camp Branch C4
UT to Camp Branch E/C4
Dula Thoroughfare E5
UT to Dula Thoroughfare EID5
Cowardin Classification Streams: R3USUR3US2
Wetlands: PFO1
Badin Channery Silt Loam (BaB, BaC)
Badin-Goldston Complex (BgD)
McQueen (MrB)
Dominant soil types Shellbluff (ShA)
Tetotum (ToA)
Chewacla (ChA)
Reference Site ID N/A* (reference areas established on-Site)
USGS HUCs for Project and Reference 03040104 (Dula Thoroughfare, UT to Dula Thoroughfare)
03040105 (Camp Branch)
NCDWQ Sub-basins for Project and Reference 03-07-10 (Dula Thoroughfare, UT to Dula Thoroughfare)
03-07-14 (Camp Branch)
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference C (all Site waterways)
An portion of an project segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d No
listed segment?
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor N/A
Percent of project easement fenced No fencing along easement
*N/A - Not applicable
Bishop Site Year 1 Monitoring (FINAL) 8 'EcoScience Corporation
EEP Project No. D05010S April 2008
W G> Z X o
UO ?0 er-? z z
WZ a m _
CyJ fC ! '' aNaOQQ oo? ? ; w
dwZ J< ?U p>
w ~aw l ? F. o? ZQw o o N ? ? -
? L. .. w=
wv m" 3? a Zo Ea=
az N
s - s
M O N
a O W V
v
W o 0
O 0
?!1
z
z
W
W

z z z z
m

Z
p

z
o

z
z
p
z
Z
p Q U U

p z z
o
^ a a
^ >

w
w O

w Z

a
x

n

w

F- x x
Z Z w
w w O O O

?=
a o a s w w w s
a z
a z
a z
J

in ... ?n ? vl ? In ?J.. In 3 3 3

a
.,
2
;a o
N H
ar
z
w arw
x w E
y to w
Z (n
O
u w
+ x
W
z
K +" i
%m
. a
a ,
s u /s
s /
V' -P i
W
O
O
00
O
0
00
V
N?
a a
IX
.gym
xn 2
t ? O
0? ar N/i 7
W
F Z
=
x CO
J N Z y
7 O
U W w
a p i
f
V' t s
t O
Q H
`Siff. , w L
N W ? S
z v,
oa ,
U W {
t
4
I
mot. 1
1'.
h
r
MOtl kjlNg(py?
_ ....... _._.. W Z o r z C7 =
U O H? °° o zo z Z-
0- 1, °?' N J aw°aa °a oa3 mw N Q
W O N Q H O z F F- J W co t u u
ar N~ WN oo= Z?> (L v o N
w aZO
m a a
a W m m s
m T cc orN ~
Y O O
Z O
a a z M
m > o
o ?
a z
o °
z o a C \?
W f Z o
0 a ? o
W o 0
V?
M
W
L\
\1
n
CIE ?us ;ice yw "
,, $ y z N
i
/.... O.Q
V W
1 m
M
:CIE
7
N
Z
O
a =
U V O
O
Z
C7
O Z
O m
w J U O
O O Q ?
? m O Z Y
N a
o a ?
z z =
U ? V O V
Z
a ? a m
? Z V U
O in
N ? N ? w
,II 0 ? ?
A ?._.._.._.? W Z o 'z _ 0 °
a -
U O F O $ z Z LL
?t q'p d y? zF ?? W xm W M
(D LLI
LLI IL o U F J w -j W
WL')Cn of za> oRo No - N
3?n N? o 0
W
W O _.. - m w a Z O = o
a
a az W
a ? a
z
y Z O
Z O U /
m Q ? Z C
D
O to ?
N O
Q ? ? d Z Z
Z o o Q ?
w Z z z d
p a J a ° 0
w o 0
-41
?l <
F ? v cJ
31?
J
?wvvv'vvv 10 w s
J ® Z H
w
O IWi
M
O
mTCO avx p
°

L) 0
+?+ ....._._..__

! lL Z o r z

~? p0 v ZO
Z F- O Q?

Z =LLU

= o

F G
??
!% Q z
' ? j
I aaWpaa ?oQ
WO?QF O z oQ3
°(Aw
1_-CL 07F-
d>
-?
o
? u v
_u
N
0 &
W V

-

L i
- ....,. xy 3F- _0,
N N
m w zz o
z Z
??(n
O
F 7 =..
1-
l
i
l zn
7
V
M
z
0
a
U ?
O
J d d
Z Z
Z O
O q
w ?
U
? Z O
O
N f
Z Z
U O d
q Q O
U O
2
in > a

Y
Z W
m U
z
o a
x
w
p 0 ?
Z o J
W Q a N
W w Y O
N 3 0
W

M

m:

O
mjelCi OYN O

3.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
3.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
3.1.1 VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Vegetation plot locations are displayed on Figures 2A-C. Vegetation monitoring was conducted using the
CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.0 (Lee et al. 2006). The taxonomic standard used
for species identifications was Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas
(Weakley 2007). All plot data tables and photos are included in Appendix A.
Despite exceptional drought conditions in Anson County throughout most of the first year of project
monitoring (2007), the total average density of planted stems per acre across the Site is 850 stems/acre.
The average planted stem density at Camp Branch was 1087 stems/acre, 842 stems/acre at Dula
Thoroughfare, and 310 stems/acre at the UT to Dula Thoroughfare. ESC believes that the lower
survivability of planted stems at UT to Dula Thoroughfare may be attributable to dry soil conditions
exacerbated by the steep valley slopes characteristic of this portion of the Site.
3.1.2 VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS
Vegetation problem areas are displayed on Figures 3A-C. Table A-6 (Vegetation Problem Areas) and
vegetation problem area photos are included in Appendix A.
3.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT
Longitudinal profiles were surveyed along the entire restored lengths of Camp Branch and UT to Camp
Branch (Figure 2A). Stream channel cross-sections were surveyed along each of the restored stream
reaches on-Site (Figures 2A-C).
3.2.1 STREAM MORPHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
All tables summarizing stream channel morphological parameters, including longitudinal profile and
cross-sectional survey data as well as visual assessment tables, are included in Appendix B. Please note
that since passive enhancement was undertaken along UT to Dula Thoroughfare (Reach 7), a baseline
morphology and hydraulic summary table was not prepared for this reach.
3.2.2 STREAM PROBLEM AREAS
Stream channel problem areas are displayed on Figures 3A-C. Stream channel problem area photos and
Table B-1 (Stream Problem Areas) are included in Appendix B.
Generally, stream channel bed and bank stability was observed to be good to excellent across the Site in
all restoration and enhancement reaches. It should be noted that although stream banks were generally
stable, drought conditions likely inhibited herbaceous vegetation growth along stream banks, which
greatly buffets stability. Very few areas of bank erosion were observed. Some channel bar formation has
occurred within the upper reaches of Camp Branch (Reach 1, Figure 3A). ESC believes this is the result
of the abrupt change in hydrodynamics as the Camp Branch floodplain substantially widens at the
beginning of the restored reach, thereby lessening stream power. Thus, ESC does not believe this to be a
stream problem area.
Bishop Site Year 1 Monitoring (FINAL) 13 EcoScience Corporation
EEP Project No. D05010S April 2008
U O W z o i z a W z
H Q W Z Q a ,
.U O z W O a F 0 z o CD W LU Z m W o V
Q M
p m ,?` N N W N
3 o 2 1- 0 J o
up d W dz? za Q
WU m w a aZ -a u
??co arN ?
y O O y
Z c? O
Q Q Z M
m ? o
O N O
o a z
z
w m z a
O' a a o O
W ° O
J ~ o_f p
cn 3
Q '.. ? ? LAS ? n
40
a
Z
p
X ^ H
fS.l? U `d + y W
Z (n
a
c l.
LSE _ GE
x \`?`
x q,.
313
u ? ? r'F

o °o

c i a
o r z Q W
LLI
U O o
C'p
II a f ? o? o z-'
U) w OQQ o 0?

W
LUZ J w 3 a
w
Qa W a=m
W' j W a
w _ >
mar
O - E p
W=?-aui °Z= Wma ?0
v
o ? _ - M
C) A
W()
w
i mN 3w d Qo
w Z W zad =
c ~ m m
ti a

Y
Z z
O
Z O - CJ
Q
m
a Q Z
?
m ? O
p ? ? O
U d
2
p
? d Z Z
O
z o o a
W
O m
¢ z
J z
¢ a
o a
0
w ° p
J 0
N 3 3 E

1 c:1 ! \J
N
e
???co arN
r
w
O 4
Ml7
0
P M
CAF
31?
bl?
J L? -
n ? f-
x\ W
N W
0a
u w
r
d
43,
`^ l 317
N 3
z
o ? a
a ¢
V c? ~o
o Q
? p
Z U W
O ? Z w ¢
V ~ m - ? w
w ? Z O Q
Y Z w O
K O
? w S Z U Z
V U 3 z O O
Z N
z a a
¢ ¢ ? m V
? ? O N w ? w
N N (? w > v
Lto-
w Z orz Ow Q? z -o--
p wa'3
a s
w ? ?
? ? ` hQ zF ?? Haw =3 LL
v? z wawZ-10: ?a m ?? °c)w V
€ v w o
W p 2 m? 3w z0 Z?? °x
U z a
F-
ILI
\ + Y Z
? Z W
m
U
?) Z
Q Q
W
? O
/ Z o
W z
(D Q o
V ? N 3
N ?)
Q
Q F-
m =
w v C
z w
J =!y OW
1
J
d m
1 C
c^
??7
N
Z
O Q K
d ?
Q _ V O
O a ? O~ d N
? a a a s v a \
z U
? z z_ ~ z 0 iQi Q ? z
p ? a
Q O Q O Q Q 2
VI Z Z w W O 10
N O O K z
N K J d U
O z
U O O V Z U ? Z J N U
N O N d O z J z
w w J O
< ? H N H N ?-
Q O U U Q U m
? O U? (, ? W U V j U w
> .?
nom
p
?g? CB avN o1
3.3 WETLAND ASSESSMENT
3.3.1 GROUNDWATER GAUGE DATA
Wetland restoration areas and groundwater monitoring gauge locations are displayed on Figure 2C.
Monitoring gauge hydrographs and associated data tables are included in Appendix C.
A total of three groundwater monitoring gauges were installed within the lower (downstream) portions of
Dula Thoroughfare (Figure 213). The two upstream-most gauges (Gauges 2 and 3) have remained in their
original locations throughout the monitoring period. Gauge 1 was moved in summer to better represent
local groundwater conditions. According to the County Soil Survey (NRCS 2000), the Anson County
growing season is 250 days long, extending from March 15 to November 19 (based on guidance provided
in the United States Army Corps of Engineers' 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines). Gauges 2 and 3
recorded groundwater levels within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for periods of 41 and 42
consecutive days, respectively, exceeding the 31.25 consecutive days that corresponds to 12.5 percent of
the growing season. Thus, wetland hydrologic success was achieved in the first year of project
monitoring.
4.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wenthworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (http://cvs.bio.unc/edu/methods.htm)
Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas (Working Draft
of 1 I January 2007). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC.
Bishop Site Year 1 Monitoring (FINAL) 17 EcoScience Corporation
EEP Project No. D05010S April 2008
Click on the Desired Link Below
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C