HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021259 Ver 1_Complete File_20070123RECEIVED
JAN 2 3 2007
Year Four Monitoring Report
for
DeeD Creek Miti
UMOREGUUIVAY MW OFFICE
12- ns?
ati on Bank
Yadkin County, North Carolina lS&EC Project No. 6170 Rfg@[§BW[9 D
Prepared for MAR 5 7001
American Wetlands & Natural Resources Exchange Corporation T
January 2007
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: (919) 846-5900 • Fax: (919) 846-9467
www.SandEC.com
t 3o I o2rd ajui(i
Srv?i l/1/? ?o? U%T? t (? 1 o?olnll
?a 1 ? ?????? ? 3t:??D2l ??3f???J(%7` M?? ?(7 W ? J? LS.?
In aITS aill OUTinp pauTUlgo
ag of spaau Iulll u0Tluuuo3uT IeuorlTppu Xuu IsTI of .TO uoTluuuo3uT 3o maTna.z 03T33o aTll fuunp
puno3 sum i-egl uorluuuo3uT Iuu:podUTT `IuuoTITppu XU-9 apTno.zd of posn ag ketu molag aouds oql
:uloTg opunbV •£
:uOllu1020A 'Z
:IuoTsxtld' I
Xpolpo swoons
aauQ
:uo3F 1, Sa.Tns-eoW oApoouoD
:palaldUToD uoporulsuoD
milonjlsuoo 3o IeIS
,?ouonba.z3 puu sluomminba.T 2uuolTuoW
JUa /TIIuoUT saTlTnTjOV 3o saluQ
uoilunzasazd luoWl _ UR
-
so
d
o
X
-
o2ua.TOv Z auoZ
aouaaov I auoZ ) p
m
l
IT.IOTu
IOAaI
UOllUa.ID (
(olguoTlddu Ile olom) Iuopu o adSl,
?7 :alTs uo luosazd rll2ua1 uzua.Tls palu2TITW
:uoTlu!3TITUT .To3 poimbaz TII2uaI wuajlS
oN saw ZUOTlu2TljW .Ta33ng 7 =(ul2ual UMOJIs) U01Iu21I1W 3o IuOD
oN saw ?algulTunu uuld U01Iu21I1W panoiddV
:uTSUg zanT2l
:SlunoD
:(uOTWOUlssulO ZjAA,) ureazls paUMU ISOMION
:(anTlu.I.Tuu) loofoid 3o uoTluoo7
:2uljolruoul 3o (S)Xeg l? :(aiguo?Iddu
UZ loafozd
T
u2
l
3T) ao3 polonzlsuoO uo
TIT
:sl.Todoi 2UTJOI!UOUT 30 (S)aluQ
oN soX Zalls uo possa.Tppu suazu UulgoJd
oN soX ?sl.Todaz uT pogli apl sua.Tu wolgoad
ON sa ZoMe Tunu svodaa 2uuolTuoW $ 'IT alunT.zd dgg
(aup olo.TT loafoad uoTI7?TITW
?r :joq-LunN loofozd oAkQ
:auzuN loafozd
aO
aTna21 t-+30 I
.UOTluuzao3ul 13,
- :maTAON plaid 3o Ow(l
:Xoua2V s,jolunlung
:Iuasazd SaTOUafu/slunpTnTpuT .zaglp
:maTnaZl QOTgjo JO 0113(l
:(S)OUTUu s,jolunlung
I-Z UOTSJOA 13uJQ :LOOZ `T Srelugad
XITluna .zalurn 3o UOTSTnIQ DN
algal, UOTluUZ.IO3UI :suoTlunlung aITS UOTIu21ITW U UQJIS 13uzQ
b 3o Z o2ud l3b,.iQ
ola `uoilmuoj jjolno aingo `uoi1t,r2ru joput,auz W- ilsumop `smq
Iauu*ego-pruz -f -o) sogouai u cans olquisun jo aouapina aptnoad jugj saznwoj uTeoi s Suu ogljosoa
suaxu popuod ?7 j7-.zaat,m 2urmold :st,g Iugl uot,ar uor172zOIS01 0qj Jo 02t,ju00z0d
sax Z2*mluq L agl ui.zo poq w7awls oqj uo 2urAAOJ2 UOTIU1023n Jo aouapina AUV
ON sax Zsuoi?uomoods uuld of Xlajuwixorddu you&sap juarpt,.z2 put, Al!sonurs IuuU arlj sI
ON c-'s-37u' Zsuorluool loonoo au) Xlalt,uzrxozddt, ui slood put, soUjp arv
:saanlnaA ureaalS
`i
rE?-(1107 001
:saanjoruls orjuuzalgwd furpzu2aa salou puu uorIdrzosap aprnozd
4(•oja `uoilisodop `uorsoaa •2•a) alquis saanjoruls oqj azV
'tslq saw Zuuld oqj uo umogs azagm ,ilajuwTxojddu paluool soinjonrls aul ark
om (•ola `jugaa/m olonuoo `sail pt,oclrt,a :opnlour sluualt,ur olgt,idooot,un).
Zluualuur olquidooou jo opuur saanjoruls oql ojV
ON saA G ZXpoauoo pollt,lsui sarnjoruls oqj ojV
airs uo luosoid saanjonals jo sodSZ Ilu jsi-I
u? c? ' :saanlanajS
:SjjjjgnlS xungmvajjS
(VI V'/l SS00 M-17
y iquis 2uipau2aa salou put, otldrzosap aptnozd ou 3I
?kc0?1 ' ON saA zalquIS sNuuquruaxIS ark
MIA alTS urozT palroaar uluQ 'II
Vegetation: Dominant plant species TPA/% cover
Approved Success Criteria: 1
2.
Vegetation planted on site?: e No 3.
According to the approved plan? No 4.
Vegetation growing successfully? es No 5.
Date of Latest planting:
Ave trees er acre (buffe
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e. . buffer width, ov all health of
vegetation, etc.) 2S Q ?S ` a ?`
Specific vegetapon plots or yte locations wun iitue to no wuuuy vcgcLUUU11.
LO14CV- ` zA N MjU2C)l? !? ?l
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with large areas of bare ground:
Site total % or estimated acreage of unvegetated areas: ra/ Plcc ,77( c v?( )?
1'v SU ?,
<S' %IJ
Observations on invasive species ( e, % cover, etc.) I-?U S'U'C(L(4 -?G3/tN
/!? kxoo1 1? M UL i 14, O'S 7- - /?cIr GJ 0
General comments on vegetatio';;;4?-P- plant survival, mayor concerns, etc:
Nd IV ,E S CA-A- SAC M o? 6VVL. 2( 1
eV Z?A ?60J 7L? Z 'h IS t fYa2Y-Y -b6VivS-,, 2`?^ APZA AJV
u'?)
- 1('l rr 151ft-A). e
SyC41111W1c MMIAIA?
8Cz
Aquatic Biota:
Is aquatic life present in the channel?
Yes o
Description of taxa observed, incl. quantities of individuals and general distribution of biota.
A'Vec CA 5Z'
%N411V sTpnz - >e+ K t y??rr 6O 1 I>??
vPtt SuL- eiadby Ma'/e15' /1/-1 VA>"J...
List any remaining aquatic biota issues to addres*. erosion , discharges or toxicants, etc):
U
Draft page 3 of 4
Mitigation Success:
Compared to the mitigation plan, the site is:
List specific re so s for any lack of
,. MD) r0 MoAM-
partially successful not successful
3. 40@2!;?a ¢
5
Notes: Attach site maps showing problem areas and/or important stream features.
Attach digital photographs of representative sites with photo locations shown-on site map.
1 Use the definitions in the joint state/federal stream mitigation guidelines to determine the
correct type of mitigation used for this project.
Draft page 4 of 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This monitoring report has been prepared by Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
(S&EC) in order to present and evaluate site monitoring data for the period January 1st,
2006 through December 15th, 2006, for the Deep Creek Wetlands & Stream Mitigation
Bank in Yadkin County, North Carolina. This report includes the following:
Project History
Mitigation Components
Hydrologic Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring
Benthic Monitoring
Credit Ledger
Site Maintenance
Appendix A - Site Figures
Appendix B - MBRT Response
Appendix C - Hydrologic Data
Appendix D - Site Photos
Appendix E - Benthic Data
1.2 Project History
The Deep Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank is a Private-Commercial Bank, which will be
operated as a Debit Bank and will offer wetland and stream impact credits, solely for
wetland and stream impacts by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) in the upper Yadkin River basin (Cataloging Unit # 03040101). A perpetual
conservation easement on the site has been conveyed to Piedmont Land Conservancy.
The mitigation effort involves approximately 46.41 acres of restored and created
wetlands, and 5,733 linear fPPt Qf stream r oration within a larger tract of
approximately 70.745 acres.
' Construction took place during the period January 21 st, 2003 to April 14th, 2003, and was
performed by North State Environmental, Inc., of Winston-Salem, NC. During April 3-4,
2003 the site was planted to bottomland hardwood seedlings by Carolina Silvics of
Edenton, NC, a forestry consulting firm.
The intent of the mitigation effort is to develop a Palustrine Forested Wetland
(Cowardin), further classified as Bottomland Hardwood.Forest Wetland (NCDEHNR
1996 Field Guide Report No. 96-01). This is being done by restoring wetland hydrology
to the hydric soil, developing wetland hydrology in the near-hydric areas, and planting
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Wetland species.
Restoration of wetland hydrology to the hydric soil (restoration) area of the site was
accomplished by reversing the effect of the existing drainage system and restoring the
stream channels through the site, thereby returning near-original wetland hydrology to the
restoration portion of the site. Wetland hydrologic conditions were created on site, within
select areas by lowering the land surface and raising the elevation of the seasonal water
table. Stream restoration was performed by filling ditches to grade and modifying the
dimension, pattern, and profile of the channelized streams to restore natural stream
morphology.
1.3 Mitigation Components
The following table lists the actual acreage and potential credits, which were developed
as a result of implementation of the mitigation plan.
Wetland Restoration (1:1) 30.40 acres 30.40 credits
Wetland Creation (3:1) 16.01 acres 5.34 credits
Total 46.41 acres 35.74 credits
Stream Restoration 5,733 linear feet
1.4 Response to MBRT Comments
' After completion and submittal of Year 3 Monitoring Report, a letter was received from
the MBRT summarizing comments and concerns in response to the Report. These
comments and concerns addressed several areas, to include site hydrology, site
' vegetation, biological monitoring, and stream stability. A response was complied to
address those concerns. This response is included as Appendix B and is summarized
below:
While gauges D3 and D9 did not meet hydrologic success criteria for 2005, two gauges
have been installed to replace these gauges. The replacement gauges (D3A and D9A)
' exceeded success criteria in 2005 and continue to in 2006.
1
14 2
Concerns were raised regarding the inclusion of volunteers in stem counts for 2005.
These volunteers were removed from stem counts, and were not included in the counts.
Planted stem densities without the inclusion of the volunteers remained above acceptable
levels.
Benthic sampling results have shown steady increases in water quality through 2005, as
was indicated by more intolerant species being collected in the stream. All post-
construction sampling events have occurred each spring, as advised by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ). Pre-construction baseline samples, due to construction schedules,
were not taken at the time suggested by some MBRT Members. In order to collect the
most comparative data of the post-restoration condition, sampling will continue each
spring.
The stability of the stream, as shown by an apparent deepening of the thalweg in select
locations, has also been addressed in Appendix B. While the cross-sections and
longitudinal profiles appear to show a deepening thalweg, when the bankfull dimensions
of the channel are analyzed, the changes appear to be natural channel adjustment and are
not of concern at this time.
2.0 MONITORING
This section includes information concerning; 1) hydrologic monitoring, 2) vegetative
monitoring and 3) benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring.
2.1 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hydrologic monitoring data (shallow groundwater levels) for the 2006 monitoring year
indicates that the site is successfully experiencing conditions consistent with local
jurisdictional wetlands as all twelve gauges met hydrology. Data collected for the
monitoring period are presented in graphical format in attachments to this report
(Appendix C).
Data collected on this and other sites over the past several years indicates that the most
likely times of the year in which soil saturation occurs in wetlands is during the winter
and early spring months. The growing season in this area normally begins in late March.
Rainfall patterns during the preceding winter and early spring months are the most
critical of the year relative to successful wetland hydrology for that year. Typically, once
the growing season enters late spring through summer, shallow groundwater levels begin
to fall and also fluctuate rapidly due to high evapotranspiration rates and summer rainfall
patterns. Fall is normally the driest portion of the year.
To achieve wetland hydrology, it is desired that saturation occurs to within 12 inches of
' the ground surface for approximately 18 or more consecutive days during the growing
season, which is the equivalent of roughly 8.5% of the growing season. This duration is
selected as the mean and generally desired percentage, however, an individual gauge is
hin the range of 5 to 12% of the growing season or
' deemed success FP
approximatel 0 Despite the drier rmal conditions, (1
9.61" of rainfall during the growing season as
compared to normal rainfall of 27.61" from the State Climate Office Yadkinville Gauge)
' data from twelve (12) of the twelve (12) ground monitoring gauges at the Deep Creek site
clearly met the hydrologic monitoring requirement. These gauges (D1, D2, DA, &oD
thr D9A and D 10 through D 12) indicated saturation levels that ranged fr ' to 106 cone utive days within the growing season. This represents stronger and ydrologic success during the fourth year of monitoring.
' As in Years One through Three, the site has continued to perform successfully
during Year Four (2006) of monitoring with respect to hydrologic success.
' 2.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Success criteria for vegetation are based on the average number of live stems per acre
' across the site as described in the Success Criteria portion of the Mitigation Plan. As
described in the Mitigation Plan, a mean density of 260 stems per acre is required at the
end of the five-year monitoring period. Additionally, it was desired that no single planted
' species comprise greater than twenty percent (20%) of the surviving stems at the end of
the monitoring period.
Twelve (12) sample plots are located across the site adjacent to the groundwater
monitoring devices. For simplification of records the sample plots are numbered the
same as the monitoring gauges. Each plot is a square, 10 meters (32.8 feet) on each side
(100 square meters, or approximately 1075 square feet). The locations of sample
vegetation plots are identified on the As-built Plans.
The following table indicates the total number of live stems in each sample plot as of
May 18, 2006:
Plot Numbers Dl D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10-1 D 11 D1_2] T
Total Woody Stems 16 6 15 6 23 14 4 13 10 15 12 6 140
The average stems per sample plot is 11.67 stems. The sample plot median is 12.5 stems.
A review of the sample plots (averaging 11.67 stems per plot) reveals a current (2006 -
Year Four) site survival density of approximately 473 stems per acre. Plot
photographs are attached as Appendix D.
Species diversity is described in the following table:
Plot Number
??v1?u5r5
PIAvozYONs
b l-1
e?? AMPt?-:
pOs?Y)
6DI.
Sycamore
River
Birch _ 2 - - 5 - - - 2 2 3 1 15 11%
Green Ash 2 - 5 2 2 4 - 2 1 - - 3 21 15%
Box-elder 1 - 4 - - 2 - 2 - - - - 9 6%
Oak,
Ch bark - - - - - - - - - - - . - 0 0%
Oak,
Water - - - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - - 3 2%
wit, - 1 3 - - - - - - 1 1 1 7 5%
Black Gum _ - 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 3 2%
Yellow
Poplar - - - - 0 0%
wn 4 - - - - 3 - - - - - - 7 5%
Winged
Elm - - - - %
Red Maple - - - - 1 - - - 1 - 6 - 8 6%
Silky
Dogwood - - - _ _ _ 1 - - - - - 1 1 %
Loblolly
Pine - - - - - - 0 0%
Totals 16 6 15 6 23 14 4 13 10 15 12 6 140 100%
' There are fourteen (14) different woody species represented within the twelve (12)
sample plots. Other than American Sycamore, no single species comprises more than
20% of the total stand.
' Stem count will most likely vary in future years. There can be both an increase in total
stem count as well as species diversity. There may some decrease in the number of stems
' due to mortality, but there is likelihood that there will be an increase. The increase could
come about because at the time the stem counts were made some of the trees were small
and still competing with other vegetation, thus making it difficult to determine if all
' stems were counted early in the monitoring period.
In summary, the vegetative component of the mitigation effort meets total stem and
' diversity criteria in Year Four (2006) and can be expected throughout the five-year
monitoring period.
2.3 Benthic Monitoring
The Year Four macroinvertebrate survey was completed on May 18, 2006, by S&EC.
This sampling event replicated a baseline benthos survey was performed by S&EC in
February 6, 2003, before construction commenced. This sampling event was conducted
according to protocol specified by the NCDENR-DWQ Standard Operating Procedures
for Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Samples were taxonomically identified by EcoAnalysts
of Moscow, ID. Results of the Year Four sampling event are shown in the following
table and attached as Appendix E.
The Year Four monitoring shows an increase in two metrics and a decrease in two
metrics. We have seen increases in the total number of organisms as well as the total
' number of taxa. EPT taxa richness and abundance have both seen decreases. This
indicates a shift away from less tolerant organisms, which are represented by the EPT
' (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) families. We believe this shift is primarily
due to the negative impacts several beaver impoundments have had on the stream channel
water quality. These beaver impoundments slow water flow and inundate riffles, where
' most EPT taxa thrive. Without running water, these organisms cannot obtain the levels
of oxygen necessary, so they are forced to migrate to a more suitable area in the stream.
' The Average EPT taxa richness has decreased from 14 species to 8. However, Year 4
EPT taxa richness is still greater than was found in pre-construction monitoring. This
slightly lowers the classification of the stream from Good-Fair to Fair. Significant effort
' was exerted this year to remove beavers and their dams from the site. It is expected that
as beavers continue to be trapped and removed from the system, we will continue to see 1?,,, p j?
increased numbers of EPT taxa. ?q / o- -
The following results summary is provided:
Pre Year 3 Year 4
2003 2005 2006
Total No. Of Organisms 35 81 91
Total No. Of Taxa 9 31 33
EPT Taxa Richness 1 14 8
EPT Abundance 2 50 27
NC Biotic Index 7.23 5.37 6.6
jl? ?Tkvlq?
Overall, in Year Four we see an increase in the total number of organisms. This is
coupled with an increase in the number of different species in all stations, with the
exception of Station 3, which was directly upstream of the largest beaver dam (since
removed). The richness and abundance of EPT taxa showed decreases in all sampling
stations. This shift back towards more tolerant species is indicative of changes in water
quality due to the impounding of a large portion of the stream due to beaver activity.
Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
Pre 3 4 Pre 3 4 Pre 3 4 Pre 3 4
2003 2005 2006 2003 2005 2006 2003 2005 2006 2003 2005 2006
TOTAL NO. OF 20 84 102 45 62 93 25 123 93 48 53 75
ORGANISMS
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 7 29 41 9 30 36 8 40 30 10 25 26
EPT TAXA 1 18 10 1 17 6 1 20 6 1 9 8
RICHNESS
EPT ABUNDANCE 1 52 21 1 47 30 3 88 28 1 26 28
NC BIOTIC INDEX 7.85 4.86 5.4 7.91 4.85 6.5 6.67 4.62 7.2 6.5 7.13 7.1
Based on the benthic data collected to date, the site continues to show indications of
a more diverse benthic population. As the stream returns to its state prior to the
' introduction of beaver impoundments, we expect to see improvement in overall
water quality again.
2.4 Future Monitoring
' Physical stream channel monitoring (cross-sections and longitudinal profiles), as outlined
in the approved mitigation plan, is to be performed every other year for five consecutive
years starting one year after the completion of construction. Physical stream monitoring
' will be conducted again in Year Five (2007). Benthic Monitoring was initiated in Year
Three (2005) and will continue until Year Five (2007), for three consecutive years.
' 2.5 Monitoring Success - Year Four (2006)
Based on vegetation data collected within the sample plots, existing groundwater
' gauge and rainfall data, the site has met the success criteria as set forth in the
Mitigation Banking Instrument for Year Four (2006).
' 2.5 Credit Ledger
The Credit/Debit Ledger that follows indicates the number of credits that were granted
for Deep Creek Wetlands Mitigation Bank. The ledger also indicates the number of
credits that have been released to mitigate for wetland and stream impacts, subject to
permit approval by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Forty-five percent (45%) of both
wetlands and stream have been released. The releases were based on the approval of the
Banking Easement and the recording of a perpetual conservation easement, of which
have been accomplished.
By meeting the success criteria as documented in this report, an additional fifteen percent
(15%) should be released.
LEDGER
DEEP CREEK STREAM & WETLANDS MITIGATION BANK
0
CREDIT TYPE
WETLANDS STREAM
Restoration Creation Total Total Feet
TOTAL APPROVED CREDITS FOR PROJECT 30.40 5.34 35.74 5,733.00
APPROVED C REDITS
Date Issued Released Credits Percent
10/9/2003 Easement Recorded 15.0 4.56 0.80 5.36 859.95
8/6/2004 1 st Year Monitoring 10 3.04 0.53 3.57 573.30
9/19/2005 2nd Year Monitoring 10 3.04 0.53 3.57 573.30
8/3/2006 3rd Year Monitoring 10 3.04 0.53 3.57 573.00
C
0
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total 45.0 13.68 2.39 16.07 2579.85
UNUSED CRE DIT BALANCE DEFICIT
Date 8/3/2006 13.68 2.39 16.07 2,579.9
3.0 SITE MAINTENANCE
This section includes information concerning repairs made onsite in response to
comments provided by the MBRT in August of 2006.
In December 2006, repairs were made to the stream channel in two areas, as
recommended by the MBRT. Upstream of the culverted crossing, an outer bend that had
suffered some erosion was stabilized with coir matting and over-planted with livestakes.
Downstream of the culverted crossing, an outer bend had similarly eroded. This bend
was regraded, stabilized with coir matting, and over-planted with livestakes. All work
was performed by North State Environmental; Inc. of Winston Salem, NC (the original
construction contractor). Those areas will be closely monitored over the upcoming
monitoring year.
As referenced earlier in the Report, beaver activity continues at certain locations in the
stream. American Wetlands has a multi-year agreement with a local beaver trapper to
remove as many beaver as possible and clear the channels of dam material. Several
beaver have been trapped and removed throughout the year. The trapping will continue
throughout 2007. Dam debris has also been removed several times during the year. At
the present time, all existing dams have been breached and the new debris will be
removed as soon as the ground is dry enough to enter with a small piece of mechanized
equipment.
Appendix A
Fite, Sec/Jabs4-Pk/6170j0VAs-9.4,t Ora-in0s/1)CEP CREEK
r' y M
O
z
O
z
Ct?
-C
5XC°6 S? ??j?
tr: Y ?y _
rn
?s
\N
-U1
0
AS-BUILT DRAWINGS
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: (919) 846-5900 • Fax: (919) 846-9467
u".SandEC.com
DEEP CREEK G 70.01
WETLAND MITIGATION BANK F? ?T
YADKIN CO., NC AMERICAN'AU'LAND5 I" = 150'
Q?
MONITORING SYSTEMS i OF i
Appendix B
' Hydrology Monitoring
While 2005 was a relatively dry year, overall site hydrology was successful, with the
exception of two gauges, D3 and D9. Hydrologic success criteria for the site are based
on soil saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface for 18 or more consecutive days
' (8.5%) during the growing season. It should be noted that guidance specifies that this
period of consecutive saturation should be between 5% and 12% of the growing season
for an area to be considered a jurisdictional. wetland. The prescribed 8.5% value
' represents the mean value of percentage of the growing season experiencing consecutive
saturation.
Groundwater Monitoring
Gauge D3 has consistently varied from observed conditions across the remainder of the
site. Due to its close proximity to the restored channel, it is our opinion that the reading
depth of this gauge may have intersected a subsoil layer of higher permeability (typical of
fluvial deposits) which is sub-draining groundwater from the annular space around the
gauge. Due to this anomaly, in 2005 an additional gauge (Gauge D3A) was installed
adjacent to D3 in order to collect additional data so that a more accurate assessment could
be made of hydrology in the area. In 2005, Gauge D3A met success criteria while Gauge
D3 did not. Data collected in 2006 have also shown D3A to be meeting success criteria
while D3 does not. Visual observations of the area surrounding these gauges indicate
similar surface conditions to those seen elsewhere on site where hydrology success
criteria were met.
C Gauge D9 also seems to be a statistical anomaly, as it met success criteria in 2003, but
did not in 2004 and 2005. Since there have been no changes on the site or in the vicinity
of the gauge that would have caused this, an additional gauge was installed in 2006
adjacent to D9 (D9A). Data collected from 2006 has shown gauge D9A is currently
meeting hydrology, while D9 is not.
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation onsite in 2005 was successful with a mean live stem density of 566 stems per
acre. While numerous volunteers were found in several of the plots, once those
volunteers were removed from stem counts, densities remain higher than the desired
success criteria, of 290 stems per acre expected in Year Three of Monitoring. While the
removal of the volunteer species shows marginal success in several plots, (D2, D4, D7,
and D12 of 242, 242, 202, and 242 stems per acre respectively), the mean density over
the entire site is well above required success criteria with 495 stems per acre. Recent
data collected for the 2006 (Year 4) Monitoring Year show similar trends. While several
individual plots show marginal success, over the entire site, densities are well above the
260 stems per acre minimum (see attached vegetation summary tables).
t Biological Monitoring
' The Year Three benthic survey was completed on April 11, 2005, by S&EC. This
sampling event replicated a baseline benthos survey which was performed by S&EC in
February 6, 2003, before construction commenced. While it would have been ideal to
' continue sampling in February, based on correspondence with Dave Penrose (during his
tenure at the Division of Water Quality), S&EC adjusted the sampling date to the Spring
of all subsequent monitoring years. If construction scheduling would have allowed, the
' pre-construction sampling would have occurred in April/May, not February for the most
representative results. In order to collect the most comparative data of the post-
restoration condition, sampling was performed during the Spring. Sampling for Year
' Four (2006) occurred in May 2006. While lab results have not been received, we expect
to see similar improvement in 2006 as was seen in 2005. The third and final benthic
sampling (Year 5) will be performed in the Spring of 2007. Results from this sampling
' event will be incorporated into the Year Five Monitoring Report.
Data collected in 2005 shows an increase in water quality, as more intolerant species,
' which require higher water quality, are being seen in the stream. The Year Three
monitoring has shown an increase in all four metrics reported, including EPT Taxa
Richness. The Average EPT Taxa Richness has increased from 1 species to 16. This
' raises the classification of the stream from Poor to Good-Fair. It is expected that as the
system progresses, we will continue to see increased numbers of EPT taxa.
' While a general increase in organisms is not always a positive indicator, a shift towards
more intolerant species has been observed, as is shown in the NC Biotic Index.
Tolerance Values range from 0 for organisms very intolerant of organic wastes to 10 for
' organisms very tolerant of organic wastes. As this index decreased (from 7.23 to 5.37),
we are seeing more organisms that require higher quality waters in the system.
' Stream Stability Monitoring
' As noted in your comments 5 of the collected stream cross-sections show the thalweg
deepening. Based on our experience with similar restoration projects this is a normal
stream adjustment, and in the case of this stream, it does not affect the bankfull
' dimensions of the channel. By comparing the as-built cross-sections and the Year 3
cross-sections (using the same bankfull elevation for both years) it is seen that the mean
bankf ill depths have not experienced a significant deviation from the as-built conditions
' (see attached table "Deep Creek Cross-Section Summary"). The cross-sectional areas
and bankfull widths are also generally consistent illustrating that the channel does have a
stable and appropriate dimension. And while there has been some deposition in pools,
' this is a natural occurrence until such a time as a bankfull flow scours the pool to its
maximum depth. These cross-sections in addition to the longitudinal profile also show
that there is no consistent depth of scour or headcut within the restoration reach. Areas of
' scour and deposition are isolated and innocuous, and can be attributed to normal stream
adjustments and processes.
' Riffle 8 and Pool 8 cross-sections are not maintaining their as-built dimension. These
cross-sections are in an area currently experiencing accelerated local scour, and this area
' is scheduled to be re-graded and planted. We visited the site on April 25, 2006 as part of
our Year 4 site evaluation. During this visit we observed site conditions including select
areas of localized bank erosion. These areas are scheduled to be re-graded stabilized
' using temporary seeding measures and erosion control matting, and re-planted. These
isolated sections of repair will be closely monitored for success over the upcoming
monitoring year.
I
Deep Creek Cross-Section Summary
Pool 1
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 18.9 22.6 18.7
Dba 1.7 1.2 1.5
Abkf 31.2 27.4 27.7
Riffle 1
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 12.3 12.4 13.1
Dba 1.3 1.3 1.3
Aba 16.4 16.3 17.1
Pool 2
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 20.7 33.8 28.3
Dba 1.5 1 1.2
Aba 31.5 32.2 34.6
Riffle 2
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 14.7 14.9 20.1
Dba 1 0.9 0.9
Aba 14.2 13.8 17.5
Pool 3
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 17.8 16.9 17.8
Dba 1.3 1.3 1.4
Aba 23.2 22.7 24.3
Riffle 3
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 30.4 30.3 31.4
Dba 0.6 0.6 0.5
Aba 17.6 17.7 17
Pool 4
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 19.9 16.9 21.7
Dba 1.5 1.7 1.5
Aba 30 29.4 32.4
Riffle 4
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 13.5 14.3 16.1
Dba 1.2 1.2 1.2
Aba 16.4 16.8 19.5
Pool 5
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 17.6 17.5 19.5
Dba 1.6 1.7 1.7
Abkf 28.4 29.3 32.1
Riffle 5
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 13.1 13.5 16.6
Dba 1.5 1.4 1.3
Aba 19.4 18.6 21.2
Pool 6
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 18.9 21.2 17.4
Dba 2.1 1.8 1.5
Aba 40.2 37.4 25.2
Riffle 6
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 17.8 21.5 20.8
Dba 1.3 1.1 1.2
Aba 22.7 23.2 24.7
Pool 7
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 17.2 23.8 22.1
Dba 2.4 2 2.1
Aba 40.8 47.1 45.9
Riffle 7
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 22.9 24.4 24.4
Dba 1.1 1.1 1.1
Aba 24.2 27.9 27.9
Pool 8
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 21.5 22.2 26.1
Dba 2.2 2.7 2.8
Aba 46.9 59.2 73
Riffle 8
Asbuilt Year 1 Year 3
Wba 17.6 17.7 19.7
Dba 1.6 1.7 2
Aba 28.8 30.6 38.5
Appendix C
11
u
U1
O
1-Jan-06
8-Jan-06
15-Jan-06
22-Jan-06
29-Jan-06
5-Feb-06
12-Feb-06
19-Feb-06
0
N' 26-Feb-06
5-Mar-06
v
12-Mar-06
W
0, 19-Mar-06
® O 26-Mar-06
CA) ?
D .
p
2-Apr-06
?
T 9-Apr-06
4?6 (D 16-Apr-06
l
T
23-Apr-06
0
30-Apr-06
7-May-06
14-May-06
21-May-06
28-May-06
4-Jun-06
11-Jun-06
18-Jun-06
25-Jun-06
Depth to Water, inches
(below ground surface)
W N ? ? N W
O O O O O O O O
s?>
w
IJI
i
i
i
:r !
FY
re
x-
X
i
m
O
?v
rr
O CD
t0
n
t0
m
v ?
MIL
0
O 0
rMIL
O CL
C.
L
rMIL
N rMIL
O ?m
Op
O
rr
O
m
O
O
O
Depth to Water, inches
(below ground surface)
U1 ? W N ? -N W
O O O O O O O O O
1-Jul-06
8-Jul-06
15-J u 1-06
22-Jul-06
29-Jul-06
5-Aug-06
12-Aug-06
19-Aug-06
Q 26-Aug-06
N,I
2-Sep-06
Q 9-Sep-06
O? 16-Sep-06
23-Sep-06
O
W ?
D O' 30-Sep-06
7-Oct-06
Q
M 14-Oct-06
0
} p' 21-Oct-06
28-Oct-06
c?
1 4-Nov-06
Q 11-Nov-06
18-Nov-06
25-Nov-06
2-Dec-06
9-Dec-06
16-Dec-06
23-Dec-06
30-Dec-06
O
-v
O. CD
CD
CO
0
?D
v Cp
x
rqL
2)
0
O (D
rmIL
U
m CL
L
r.¦ f
N ?.
O (,Q
O
rMIL
O O
CD ?
n
?D 17¦1
r.r
O
O
Depth to Water, inches
(below ground surface)
U? W N ? ? N CO
O O O O O O O O O
O
O
00
1-Jan-06
8-Jan-06
15-Jan-06
22-Jan-06
29-Jan-06
5-Feb-06
12-Feb-06
19-Feb-06
26-Feb-06
5-Mar-06
v
12-Mar-06
CO O
%
19-Mar-06
O 26-Mar-06
0 ?
.
p
2-Apr-06
MON
to
9-Apr-06
0 0 16-Apr-06
MIT
I Q 23-Apr-06
'
30-Apr-06
7-May-06
14-May-06
21-May-06
28-May-06
4-Jun-06
11-Jun-06
18-Jun-06
25-Jun-06
f
y
Ii
i h)6 l
JMW
i
9
O
?v
rMIL
O CD
G)
?D
v ?
r*L
0
o ?
m
O CL
m
C.
L
E
N rMIL
O ?m
Op
O
rr
O
C.
CD
N
Q?
O
O
f
O
0
U?
O
1-Jul-06
8-Jul-06
15-Jul-06
22-Jul-06
29-Jul-06
5-Aug-06
12-Aug-06
19-Aug-06
26-Aug-06
Depth to Water, inches
(below ground surface)
W N L -..%, IIQ CO
O O O O O O O O
O
-? v
O CD
M
CQ
00
a
M
M
v CD
rMIL
Appendix E
I
Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 IN Station 4
Pre Year 3 Year 4 Year 6 Pre Year 3 Year 4 Year 6 Pre Year 3 Year 4 Year 6 Pre Year 3 Year 4 Year 6
7
Sivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaedidae FC
Plsidium sp. 6.48 FC
Sphsedum sp.
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Lymnaeidae Sc
Fossena sp. Sc
Physidae
Physe sp.
Physella sp. 8.84 CG
ANNELIDA
Oligxhaeta CG
Haplutaxida
Enchytraidae 9.84 CO
Lumbricidae CG
Tubificidae w.h.c. 7.11 CG
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.11 CO
Tubificidae
Aulodhlus
UmnodMus
Naididae
Nais
Stylar/a
Lumbriculida
Lumbdculidae 7.03 CG
Eclipidrilus sp. CO
ARTHROPODA
Cmsta a
Amphipoda
Synurella
Cladocera
Daphnidae
Cehodaphma sp.
I-pod
a
AseNidae SH
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 CG
Insects
Ephemeroptera -
Amelefidae CG
Ameletus lineatus 2.4 CG
Baefidae CO
Acerpenna macdunnought
Baetis sp. CG
Callibaetis sp. 9.8 CO
Cenhoptilum sp. 8.8 CO
Diphetor hagem 1.8
Paracloeodes minutus
Plauddus sp. co
Caenidae co
Caenis latipennis
Caenis sp. 7.4 CO
Ephemerellidae Sc
Eurylophella sp. 4.3 Sc
Eurylophella dohs 4.3
Heptageniidae Sc
MaccaBerhum (Stenonema) modes 6.6 SC
Slenacron imterpunctatum
Stenonema sp.
Leptophlebiidae CG
leptophlebia sp. 6.2 CG
Paraleptophlebia sp.
Odonata
Aeshnidaa
Boyeda vinosa
Calopterygidae P
Ca/opteryx sp. 7.8 P
Coenagdonidae P
Argia sp. 8.2 P
Cordulegasbidae - P
Cordulegaster mawlata
Cordulegester sp. 6.7 P
Corduliidae P
Gomphidae P
Gomphus sp. 6.8 P
Ophiogomphus sp. 6.6 P
Progomphus obscures 8.2 P
Plecoptera
Nemouddae SH
Amphinemura sp. 3.3 SH
Peridae P
Perlesta sp.
Pedesta placlda sp. gp. 4.7 P
Pedodidae P
Isoperla sp.
Hemiptera
Genidae P
Aquanussp. P
Trepobates sp. P
Megaloptera
Corydaiidae
Nigroma serriCOmis
Sialidae
Sialis SP.
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae PC
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 FC
Diplectrwa modesta 22 FC
Hydropsyche hetteni gp. 7.8 FC
Philopotamidae FC
Chiman aternma 2.8 FC
Lepidostomafidae SH
Lepidostoma sp. 0.9 FC
Limnephilidae SH
Ironoquia sp. -
Pywopsychesp. 2.8 SH
Phryganeidae SH
Plilostomis sp. SH
Rhyacophilidae P
Rhyacophtle fenestrata4edra p
Uenoidae
Neophylax sp. 2.2 SC
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus basalis SC
Helichus sp. 4.6 SC
Dyescidae p
Coptotomus sp. 9.3
Hydatiws sp.
Neopoms sp.
Elmidae CG
Ancyronyx variegata
Dubimphia sp.
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 SC
mwmychus glabratus
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 SC
Gydnidae P
Dineutus sp. 5.6 P
Gynnussp. 6.2 P
Haliplidae
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 SH
Hydrophilidae P
Hydrobius sp. p
Sperohopsis tesselatus 6.1 CG
Staphylinidae P
Diptera
Chironomidee
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 P
Ablabesmyia sp.
Apsectrotanypus johnwni 0.1
Mi" sp.
Chironomus sp.
Cladotanytarws sp. 4.1 FC
Clinotanypus pinguis 8.7 P
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 p
Cncotopus bicinctus 8.5 CO
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 P
Cryptotendipes sp.
Endochirwomus sp. SH
Wrotendipes pedellus gp. 6.5 CG
Natamia sp.
Odontomesa sp.
Parakietfenells sp.
Pamcladopelma sp. 5.5 CG
Pammetn'ocnemus sp. CG
Paratanytarsus sp.
Paratendipes sp. 5.1 CO
Phaenopsectra sp.
Polypedilum aviwps
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 SH
Polypedilum flawm (convictum) 4.9 SH
Polypedilum halterale 7.3 SH
Polypedilum illinoense 9 SH
Polypedilum soalaenum
Potthastia longimana gr.
Procladius sp.
Rheotanytamus exiguus gr.
Stictochironomus sp.
Tanytersus sp. 6.8 FC
Thienemanniella sp.
Thienemannimyia gr, sp.
Tvetenia bavanca gr.
Xylotopus Par
Zavreha sp. 6.3 CO
Zavrelimyia sp.
Ceratopogoninae
Soma sp.
Ceratopogonidae
Probezzia sp.
Dixidae CO
Dlxa sp. 2.6 CO
Dixella sp. CO
Forcipomyiinae
Atrichopogon sp.
Simuflidae FC
Simulium sp. 6 FC
Tabanidae PI
Chrysops sp. 6.7 PI
Hybomitra sp.
Tabanus sp. 9.22 PI
Ttpulidae SH
Dicranota sp.
Hexatoma sp. 4.3 P
Ormosia sp. CO
Pseudolimnophila sp. 7.2 P
?. .. S`., ._...:. yQ
TOTAL NO.OF ORGANISMS
TOTAL 20 84 1u[ U I ' i oey3 u Lo 1[s as bo os 75
NO.OF TAXA 7 29 41 0 30 36 0 C 8 40 30t 10 25 26
EPT TAXA RICHNESS 1 15 10 0 1 15 6 0 ?. ' 1 17 6 0 1 8 8
EPTABUNDANCE 1 45 21 0 1 45 30 0 3 85 28 0 1 25 28
NC BIOTIC INDEX 7.85 4.86 5.4 .' 7.91 4.85 6.5 6.67 4.62 7.2 6.5 7.13 7.1
0
0
0
?• lV
11
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES SAMPLING
RESULTS - SECOND CREEK SITE
Sample Stream Channel Range of Biotic General Description
ID :Morphology Bed Tolerance Index
Substrate Values Value
Upper Riffle Silt t Sand 2.5 - 9.1 6.93 - 12 taxa collected.
- Most of the specimens collected are
tolerant to extremely tolerant.
- Less tolerant species collected
included: Allocapnia sp., Lvpe
diversa and Dixa sp.
Middle Riffle Silt 4.0-9.9 8.90 - 5 taxa collected.
- Most of the specimens collected are
tolerant to extremely tolerant species.
- No less tolerant species were
collected.
Lower Riffle Silt 4.0-9.7 5.82 - I I taxa collected.
- Most of the specimens collected are
tolerant to moderately intolerant
species.
- One tolerant species was collected:
Parametriocnemus sp.
Source: Tby Louis BrrRcr Group. Inc. 2007.
TABLE 16
MACROINVERTEBRATE CO NIMUNITY SUMMARY
Site i Homestead Second Greek
Year 2002 20042005 2006 2002 2004 12005 2006 `
Biotic Index 8.75 1 7.55 7.61 8.57 8.41 1 7.56 7.23 7.22
Number of Taxa 16 34 38 9 17 I 34 42 28
Source: The Louis Bnv,crGroup, Inc. 3007.
Should you have any comments or questions or require further information, please do not
hesitate to call me at (973) 765-1992.
Sincerely,
THE LOUIS BERGER GROtJP, INC.
Ed Safnfttns
Manager, Wetland Resources
enclosure
cc: MBRT and EEPlNCDOT with Enclosure (list attached)
tfiucv?nim?c?rtebrute.Idcle?t?ltrm
Page 3
John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27669-1617
Tel (919) 733-9646
Marla Chambers
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
12275 Swift Road
Oakboro, NC 28129
701/485-2384
Bruce Rider
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service
2727-C Old Concord Road
Salisbury, NC 28146
704/637-1604
Rebecca Fox
US Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, NC 28789
Tel: (.828) 497-3531
:tlarella Buncick
US Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1038
Tel: (828) 258-3939 ext 237
Beth Harmon
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Tel: (919) 715-1929
llucrormc?rrchrute rldde?ultrna Pca,gre 4
w
SENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES. Y ADKIN Riti ER BASIN. ROW'.LN COUNTY NC. LOUIS BERGER GP, 12%8x.15
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Homestead Creak Second Crook
Up Middle Down Up Middle Down
MOLLUSCA
Gastropoda 1
Basommatophora j
Lymnaeidae SC j
Pseudosuccinee columella 7.7 SC f ,.
Physidae
Physalla sp. 18 CG 2
Planorbidae -6 SC !
Gyraulus parvus 6 SC !. 1
Planorbefla sp. 6.8 1
ARTHROPODA I
Arachnoidea i
Acariformes 5.5 I
Crustacea I
Ostracoda 1
Copepoda 10
Cladocera
Daphnidae
Ceriodaphnia sp. 60
Isopoda
A sellidae SH
Caacidolea sp. 9.1 CG .. 12
Amphipoda CG
Cranaonyrlidae
Crangonyc sp. 7.9 CG 16
Decapoda
Cambandae 7.5
Procambarus so 7 SH E 1
Insecta
Ephemeroptera I
CG
Baetidae
Baetis irrlercaaos 7 CG 2
Heptagentidae SC
Maecaffortium (Stenonerna) sp . SC 1
Leptophiebildae CG
Leptoph!ehia sp. 6.2 CG 6 6
Odonata
Libellulidae P
Pachydiplax longipennrs 9.9 1
Plecoptera
Capniidae SH
A!locapnta sp. 2S SH 2
Trlchoptera
Limnephilidae
lronoquia so. - 1
Psycharnpidae CG
Lype diverse 4,1 SC 1
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae P 1 4
Agabus sp. 8.9 P i 7
Hydrophilidae P
Tropisternus sp. 9.7 P i 1
Diptera
Chironorniciae
C!inotanypus sp.
P
1
Corynoneura sp. 6 CG 1
Microtendipes pedelhis gp 5,5 CG 1
Orthoclachus sp. CG .1
Parachironomus sp. 9.4 CG 3
Pararneftiocnerruis sta. 3.7 CG 11
Phaenopsectra puni;Ppes gp. 1
Rheocricotopus eminellobus 4
Tanylarsus sp. 6.8 FC I
Dixidae CG
Dixa sp. 2.6 CG 2
Tipulidae SH '
Omosia sp. 63 CG 1
Tiputa sp. 7.3 SH 1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 18 41 11 31 6 101
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 3 4 5 12 5 11
EPTINDEX 0 1 0 6 D D
NCBI 8.88 8.12 8.71 6.93 8.90 5.92
T.V. = Tolefance Value
F.F.G. = Functional Feeding Group
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 1 benthic monitoring results 3!7!2007
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
Louis Berger Wetland Mitigation
Bank -Year 3 Monitoring Report
Rowan County, North Carolina
Submitted to:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Prepared by:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Cary, North Carolina
January 2007
[D]
THE Louis Berger Group, INC.
' 1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250, Cary, North Carolina 27511
Tel 919 467 3885 Fax 919 467 9458
' January 9, 2007
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Project Manager
' Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
' Re: The Louis Berger Wetland Bank
Action ID. 200220840
' Monitoring Report: Year 3 (JR-5035)
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) is pleased to submit the above-mentioned Monitoring Report for Year
3. We have distributed copies directly to all MBRT members. We look forward to seeing you at our scheduled
site visit on March 1, 2007.
Should you have any comments or questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call me at
973/765-1992.
Sincerely,
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC.
' Edwar 'amanns
Manager, Wetland Resources
enclosure
cc: MBRT and EEP/NCDOT with Enclosure (list attached)
u
John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
' Raleigh, NC 27669-1617
Tel (919) 733-9646
Marla Chambers
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
4614 Wilgrove-Mint Hill Rd., Suite M
Charlotte, NC 28227
704/485-2384
Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Wetlands Section
3112 Avondale Court
Raleigh, NC 27613
919/847-4482
Marella Buncick
' US Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1038
Tel: (828) 258-3939 ext 237
Beth Harmon
' NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Tel: (919) 715-1929
f TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ I
2.0 MONITORING METHODOLOGY .............................................................. .. 3
2.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Groundwater ............................................................................. 3
2.2.2 Surface Water r . . 4
2.3 Stream Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 4
' 2.3.1 Physical Parameters .............................................
2.3.2 Benthic Invertebrates .................................................................... . 4
. 4
2.3.3 Riparian Vegetation ..................................................................... . 5
3.0 MONITORING RESULTS .................................................................................... . 6
3.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................... .6
' 3.2 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................. 13
3.2.1 Groundwater .............................................................................. 13
3.2.2 Surface Water ............................................................................ 14
3.3 Stream Monitoring .................................................................................................................
3.3.1 Physical Parameters ..................................................................... 17
17
3.3.1.1 Channel Geometry .......................................................... 17
3.3.1.2 Longitudinal Profile ........................................................
3.3.1.3 Channel Bed Materials ..................................................... 24
31
3.3.2 Benthic Invertebrates Sampling Results . . 31
4.0 MAINTENANCE & MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ........................................................33
5.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................34
6.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................35
11
TOC Page i
n
1
i
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF FIGURES Page
Figure 1 Homestead Site Location Map ................................................................... I
Figure 2 Second Creek Site Location Map ............................................................... . 2
Figure 3 Vegetation Plot Results - Homestead Site .................................................... 10
Figure 4 Vegetation Plot Results - Second Creek Site ................................................ 11
Figure 5 Precipitation Data and 30' and 70`h Percentile Graph ...................................... 15
Figure 6 Stream Gauge Data - Homestead Site ......................................................... 16
Figure 7 Stream Gauge Data - Second Creek Site ...................................................... 16
Figure 8a-8b Channel Geometry - Homestead Site .......................................................... 18
Figure 8c - 8d Channel Geometry - Homestead Site ......................................................... 19
Figure 8e Channel Geometry - Homestead Site ....................................................... 20
Figure 9a - 9b Channel Geometry - Second Creek Site ...................................................... 21
Figure 9a - 9b Channel Geometry - Second Creek Site ...................................................... 21
Figure 9c - 9d Channel Geometry - Second Creek Site ...................................................... 22
Figure 9e - 9f Channel Geometry - Second Creek Site ...................................................... 23
Figure 10a Longitudinal Profile of the Stream at the Homestead Site: 2004 - 2006 Comparison
(Station 0 to 1,000 ft.) ............................................................................26
Figure 10b Longitudinal Profile of the Stream at the Homestead Site: 2004 - 2006 Comparison
(Station 1,000 to 2,500 ft.) ..................................................................... 27
Figure lla Longitudinal Profile of the Stream at the Second Creek Site: 2004 - 2006
Comparison (Station 0 to 1,000 ft.) ........................................................... 28
Figure 1lb Longitudinal Profile of the Stream at the Second Creek Site: 2004 - 2006
Comparison (Station 1,000 to 2,000 ft.) ...................................................... 29
Figure llc Longitudinal Profile of the Stream at the Second Creek Site: 2004 - 2006
Comparison (Station 2,000 to 3,100 ft.) ...................................................... 30
TOC Page
1
Ll
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Circular Plot Monitoring in the Riparian Buffer Area at the Homestead
Site ................................................................................................... 7
Table 2 Summary of Circular Plot Monitoring in the Riparian Buffer Area at the Second
Creek Site ................................................................................................................. 7
Table 3 Summary of Circular Plot Transect Monitoring within the Wetland Area at the
Homestead Site ......................................................................................................... 8
Table 4 Summary of Circular Plot Transect Monitoring within the Wetland Area at the
Second Creek Site ..................................................................................................... 9
Table 5 A Density Comparison of Planted and Volunteer Species .......................................... 12
Table 6 Herbaceous Cover ................................................................................................... 12
Table 7 Groundwater Data for the Homestead Site and the Second Creek Site ....................... 13
Table 8 Comparison of Thalweg Elevation at the Homestead Site Between 2004 and 2006..... 17
Table 9 Comparison of Thalweg Elevation at the Second Creek Site Between 2004 and 2006 17
Table 10 Stream Cross Sectional Characteristics at the Homestead Site ................................... 25
Table 11 Stream Cross Sectional Characteristics at the Second Creek Site ............................... 25
Table 12 Homestead Channel Bed Material Survey Results ..................................................... 31
Table 13 Second Creek Channel Bed Material Survey Rersults ............................................... 31
Table 17 Summary of Mitigation Components, Year 3 Monitoring Results, and the Required
Actions for Stream Mitigation .................................................................................. 32
APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Photographs
Appendix B Plan Sheets
Appendix C Groundwater Well Data
TOC Page iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document presents the methods and results of the third year (2006) monitoring program for the
Louis Berger Wetland Bank, located in Rowan County, North Carolina. The monitoring program was
' conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Louis Berger Wetland Bank Mitigation Banking
Instrument approved and signed by the participating regulatory agencies on November 19, 2003.
The bank consists of two sites, the Homestead Site and the Second Creek Site. Both sites are located in
northwestern Rowan County, North Carolina, within the Yadkin River Basin. The Homestead Site is
located just east of the town of Cleveland. The site is 35 acres in size, and is located on the southern
floodplain of Third Creek.
' The Second Creek Site is located just west of the town of Salisbury. The site is 49 acres in size, and is
located on the northern floodplain of Second Creek, approximately six miles west of the confluence of
Second Creek with the South Yadkin River.
' The location of each site is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
r-,
I
I'
I
Page
n
tc
n
A ?
Q) 11 \M1
-7 6x
Project Area
1 N
?!? W E
J s
J
r?.°
+` ?--
r ]hull. "
j
0
?- j , ' t
0 625 1,250 2,500
Feet
Source:
Base Map: USGS Topographic Maps.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Homestead Site
Site Location Map
Location: Rowan County, NC
Date: January 2007
IRS- 1513 Walnut Street Suite 250
Cary, North Carolina Figure
0 625 1,250 2,500
Feet
Source:
Base Map: USGS Topographic Maps.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Second Creek Site
Site Location Map
Location: Rowan County, NC
Date: January 2007
1513 Walnut Street Suite 250
Cary, North Carolina Figure
2
11
2.0 MONITORING METHODOLOGY
The third year monitoring methodology detailed in this section was employed in accordance with the
Mitigation Banking Instrument, Exhibit A.4, Monitoring and Maintenance Plan. Monitoring performed
at the Homestead and Second Creek Sites of the Louis Berger Wetland Bank included an assessment of
vegetation establishment, wetland hydrology, physical and biological stream conditions, and benthic
sampling.
Five photo stations were established and monumented at the Homestead Site and five photo stations
were established and monumented the Second Creek Site, capturing a full representation of each site.
Photographs of each site are taken at these stations annually and compared to previous years.
Photographs taken at the photo stations in Year 3 are provided in Appendix A.
Plan views of the monitoring station locations at the Homestead and Second Creek Sites are provided in
Appendix B. The cross section locations, groundwater gauge locations, stream gauge locations,
vegetation monitoring plot locations, and photo station locations are depicted on these plans.
2.1 VEGETATION
A stratified random sampling procedure was used to quantify woody stem density estimates and visual
estimates of percent cover of herbaceous species across both sites. Nine (9) transects consisting of 31
randomly selected circular plots were sampled at the Homestead Site and nine (9) transects consisting
of 36 randomly selected circular plots were sampled at the Second Creek Site. The plot center points
were set along transects. The total number of trees and shrubs species were counted and recorded and
the percent cover of herbaceous species was estimated within each circular plot. In consultation with
the MBRT, the radius of each circular plot was increased from 10 feet to 20 feet to increase the sample
area.
The data collected was analyzed to determine an estimate of the woody stem density within each site.
This estimate was then compared to the performance standard for the first three years of 320 woody
stem species per acre. The fourth year of monitoring requires 288 woody stem species per acre to meet
the performance criteria. This data will serve as a baseline for the next two years of vegetation
monitoring and management that will determine whether the final year will yield the 260 woody stem
species per acre required by the Mitigation Banking Instrument.
2.2 HYDROLOGY
2.2.1 Groundwater
The groundwater hydrology of the Homestead Site and the Second Creek Site were monitored during
the growing season in accordance with the Mitigation Banking Instrument through the use of shallow
monitoring wells with automatic data loggers. Groundwater data was collected from five monitoring
wells at the Homestead Site and six monitoring wells at the Second Creek Site. The data collected was
analyzed and evaluated against the performance criteria to determine whether or not wetland hydrology
was successfully established. The groundwater data is presented Appendix C. The performance criteria
defined for both sites required that the first 12 inches below' ground surface demonstrate continuous
saturation for at least 5 to 12.5 percent of the growing season, which translates to between 11 and 29
days under normal weather conditions in Rowan County. The locations of the monitoring wells at the
Homestead Site and the Second Creek Site are depicted on the plan sheets located in Appendix B.
Page 3
1
1
Louis Berger Wetland Bank Year 2 Monitoring Report
2.2.2 Surface Water
The surface water hydrology at the Homestead Site and at the Second Creek Site was monitored using
stream gauges with automatic data loggers. One stream gauge was installed on each stream. The gauges
were established to compare the surface water level in the streams to the design bankfull stage. The
performance criteria prescribed in the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE, 2003) requires that at
least two bankfull events are documented during the five year monitoring period. If less than two
bankfull events occur during the first five years, the annual monitoring will be required to continue
until the second bankfull event is documented. The two documented bankfull events must occur during
separate monitoring years.
2.3 STREAM MONITORING
Stream monitoring consisted of surveying the dimension, profile, and channel bed material of the
stream, conducting a benthic survey, and assessing the riparian vegetation adjacent to the streams. The
monitoring conducted in Year 1 served as a baseline for comparison to the succeeding four years of
monitoring. A comparison of Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 data is presented in the results section of this
report.
2.3.1 Physical Parameters
Stream channel stability was assessed using Rosgen methodologies for measuring fluvial
geomorphology. The dimension and profile of the stream were measured to determine the level of
lateral migration and channel aggradation or degradation. The distribution of channel materials was
also determined using the Wolman (1954) method.
The Monitoring and Maintenance Plan requires that five monumented cross sections are established and
surveyed at the Homestead Site and six monumented cross sections are established and surveyed at the
Second Creek Site to monitor vertical bed stability. The cross section locations at the Homestead Site
and the Second Creek Site are depicted on the plan sheets located in Appendix B.
Field measurements of channel geometry included surveying cross sections at representative locations
to adequately capture the range of channel form. At the Homestead Site, monumented cross sections
were established at three riffles and two pools. At the Second Creek Site, monumented cross sections
were established at four riffles and two at pools. Elevations were surveyed at regular intervals along
each cross section to capture channel geometry, including all major slope breaks and bankfull
elevations.
Lateral channel stability was assessed using bank pins and toe pins at the cross sections. In Year 1,
rebar, four-foot in length, was installed horizontally into bank on the outside of bends or on either side
of straight channels. The rebar was driven into the banks leaving only two inches of the pin exposed.
The length of exposed rebar is measured annually to determine the rates, magnitude, and direction of
lateral adjustments.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed at the Homestead Site and the Second Creek Site to capture the bed
slope and determine the level of aggradation or degradation. The bed elevation along the thalweg was
surveyed as well as the bankfull elevation.
2.3.2 Benthic Invertebrates
Qualitative benthic invertebrate collection was based upon the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols published by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) (NCDWQ, 2006).
The protocol recommends the Qual-4 collection method for small streams which have catchments of
one square mile or less (first or second order streams). The collection method requires one kick net
sample, one sweep net sample (using a D-frame net), one leaf-pack sample, and visual collection of
samples.
Page 4
1 Louis Berger Wetland Bank Year 2 Monitoring Report
' The benthic survey was performed on December 9, 2006. The temperature was below freezing the
night before, there was ice in the pool sections but no ice within riffle sections. At each sample
location, the kick net was placed at the downstream end of the sample location. Where flow was
minimal, flow was manually created by physically kicking up sediments from the substrate. The sweep
net sample was taken at the edge of the bank under vegetation, and captured the upper sediment layer
beneath the bank. There were no supporting tree roots to target for collection with the sweep net, as
there are few riparian trees of significant size present at the two restoration sites. Submerged grass and
' recently fallen leaves were inspected for the leaf pack samples.
Once samples were taken, larger debris was rinsed, inspected and ultimately discarded. The remaining
' sample was picked by removing all macroinvertebrates (with a limit of ten per taxa) from the remaining
sample. Collected samples were sent to a NCDWQ certified laboratory for sorting and identification.
Three samples were collected at the Homestead Site. The first sample (HS-01) was taken in a riffle
downstream from Cross Section 2. The second sample (HS-02) was taken in a run. The third sample
(HS-03) was collected downstream of Cross Section 6 in a riffle. The sample locations are depicted on
the plan sheets in Appendix B.
' Three samples were collected at the Second Creek Site. The first sample (SC-01) was collected not far
from the stream gauge in an upstream section within a riffle. The second sample (SC-02) was taken
from a riffle in the mid-section of the stream. The third sample was collected in the downstream section
in a riffle. The sample locations are depicted on the plan sheets in Appendix B.
The benthic sample locations are provided on the plan views in Appendix B.
' 2.3.3 Riparian Vegetation
The riparian vegetation monitoring was performed at each cross section. Two circular plots with a 10-
foot radius were used, one on each stream bank. A total of ten circular plots were sampled at the
Homestead Site and twelve circular plots were sampled at the Second Creek Site. The total number of
woody stem species were counted and recorded and the percent cover of herbaceous species was
estimated within each circular plot. The data collected was analyzed to determine the overall woody
stem density within the riparian zone.
Page 5
1
' 3.0 MONITORING RESULTS
3.1 VEGETATION
Riparian Buffer woody stem density averaged 2,733 stems per acre at the Homestead Site and 983
' stems per acre at the Second Creek Site. Both sites surpass the target density of 320 stems per acre.
Riparian vegetation plots were collected where cross sectional end points served as plot center points.
Tables 1 and 2 show the results of the Riparian Buffer Area sampling.
' The circular plot transect analysis resulted in an average woody stem density of 1,142 woody stems per
acre within the Homestead Wetland Area and 1,810 woody stems per acre at the Second Creek
Wetland Area, both of which are significantly above the target density of 320 woody stems per acre
t established in the performance standards. Tables 3 and 4 show the Wetland Area sampling results. A
plan view of the Homestead Site and the Second Creek Site illustrating the plot results is provided in
Figures 3 and 4.
' Tables 1 and 3 provide a summary of the species observed at the Homestead Site, the frequency at
which they occur and the percent composition for both the Riparian Buffer Area and the Wetland Area,
respectively. The dominant tree species, by percent composition, for the Homestead Site are Quercus
lyrata in both the Riparian Buffer and the Wetland Area. During last year's monitoring, the majority
of the planted oak stems were mis-identified as Q. pagoda. This year the monitoring took place while
the majority of stems possessed leaves, which made for correct identification. This accounts for the
shift in community structure in this year's data. The dominant shrub in both zones is Comus amomum.
' Tables 2 and 4 provide a summary of the species observed at the Second Creek Site, the frequency at
which they occur, and the percent composition for both the Riparian Buffer Area and the Wetland
Area, respectively. The dominant tree species for the Second Creek Site are Quercus lyrata in the
' Riparian Buffer and Fraxinus pensylvanica in the Wetland Area. The dominant shrub in the both areas
is C. amomum. During last year's monitoring the majority of the planted oak stems were mis-
identified as Q. pagoda. This year the monitoring took place while the majority of stems possessed
leaves, which made for correct identification. This accounts for the shift in community structure in this
year's data. Native elm (Ulmus spp.) recruits, primarily winged with some American and slippery,
comprised a small percentage of the community but occur with a frequency similar to planted species.
' Several of the species observed during the vegetation monitoring were not part of the as-built planting.
For example, Salix nigra is a volunteer species and is readily establishing at the Homestead Site as well
as the Second Creek Site. Other observed volunteers include Acer rubrum, Acer negundo, Liquidambar
styraciflua, Populus deltoides, Sambuscus canadensis, and Ulmus. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
' was planted on both sites and also occurs as a volunteer. No distinction was made between planted and
volunteer individuals of green ash during data gathering and all individuals were counted as planted in
Table 5. The estimated densities, based on percent composition, of planted species throughout both the
' Riparian Buffer Areas and the Wetland Areas at both sites is shown in Table 5. Several of the woody
stems that were in the as-built plantings but did not appear or occurred sparingly within the circular
plots in the Year 2 monitoring appeared during the Year 3 monitoring effort such as Carpinus
caroliniana, Clethra alnifolia and Corpus stolonifera.
I?
1
Page 6
Louis Berger Wetland Bank Year 3 Monitoring Report
' TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF CIRCULAR PLOT MONITORING IN THE RIPARIAN BUFFER AREA AT
THE HOMESTEAD SITE
1
Plots T
t
l F Percent
Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 o
a requency Composition
Acer rubrum 6 4 1 6 17 0.4 8.6
Alnus serrulata 2 4 1 1 8 0.4 4.1
Betula ni ra 3 3 0.1 1.5
Cornus amomum 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 15 0.7 7.6
Fraxinus enns lvanica 1 1 2 1 5 0.4 2.5
Li uidambar st raci ua 2 2 0.1 1.0
Platanus occidentalis 1 4 1 6 0.3 3.1
Po ulus deltoodes 1 1 0.1 0.5
uercusl rata 2 5 7 13 7 8 12 2 9 4 69 1 35.0
uercus michaxii 3 1 4 0.2 2.0
uercus pagoda 1 2 11 3 2 1 6 26 0.7 13.2
uercus hellos 3 1 3 7 0.3 3.6
Salix ni ra 23 2 6 31 0.3 15.7
Viburnum nudum 1 2 3 0.3 1.5
Total 31 29 17 34 15 14 14 7 14 22 197
Density per acre b lot 4,301 4,023 2,358 4,717 2,081 1,942 1,942 971 1,942 3,052 Average Density = 2,733 (stem/acre)
' TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF CIRCULAR PLOT MONITORING IN THE RIPARIAN BUFFER AREA AT
THE SECOND CREEK SITE
n
1
J
7
i
Plots
l
T
t F Percent
Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 o
a requency Composition
Acer negundo 1 I 2 0.2 2.4
Alnus serrulatta l 1 2 0.2 2.4
Betula nigra 1 1 0.1 1.2
Cornus amomum 1 l 2 1 5 0.3 5.9
Diospyros virginiana 1 1 0.1 1.2
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica 1 1 2 2 2 2 10 0.5 11.8
Liquidambar
styraciflua 3 1 2 1 1 1 9 0.5 10.6
Platanus occidentalis I 1 0.1 1.2
Populus deltiodes 1 1 0.1 1.2
Quercus laurifolia 1 1 0.1 1.2
Quercus lyrata 5 1 l 1 2 3 1 14 0.6 16.5
Quercus michaxii 2 3 1 6 0.3 7.1
Quercuspagoda 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 13 0.6 t5.3
Quercus phellos 1 2 1 2 6 0.3 7.1
Salix nigra 1 1 5 l 2 10 0.4 11.8
Sambucus canadensis 1 1 2 0.2 2.4
Ulmus alata I 1 0.1 1.2
Total # of stems 9 11 8 7 7 6 4 10 6 5 6 6 85
Density per acre by
plot 1,249 1,526 1,110 971 971 832 555 1,387 832 694 832 832 Average Density = 983 (stem/acre)
7
m m = m = m w m = m m w ¦¦f w = m w
e
o ? m
y A y
O
7 W
r+ W
O N
?O N
00 N
J N
O? N
t/i N
A N
W N
N N
w+ N
O ?+
G ?+
w r+
-a ?+
O\ h+
D r
A r+
W ?+
N ?+
?+ ?+
O
00
J
D\
A
W
N
..
w O ?' w ?' y N y Acer negundo
A O A
° W .-. a\ O N W N N J -- N N '"' cNi,
Acer rubrum
a
"p N
00 W W ? N N N N
Alnus
o serrulata
N NNi r u N
Betula nigra
0 o Cephalanthus
w
00 o
O. ? -- w
occidentalis
0 o Clethera
00
?c U ... N N
alnifolia
?A ° N N W W U 00 -- W A J?1 N A
U
N
W
N
W
N
c.n Corms
amomum
0 0
ornus
w ti, stolonifera
0 o Diospyros
° N N
o w virginiana
o -? Fraxinus
O N N '-. W N W -' W A N N .A -- rn 4
pennsylvanica
o Liquidambar
styraciflua
0 o Liriodendron
°o
C,
r
J?
tulipifera
N O ^,
°` w N oo Platanus
oo occidentalis
Populus
deltiodes
0 o Quercus
o
°w N N
laurifolia
a o
p0 r
00
U
A
W
N
D\
00
W
~O
P
--
W
rn
N
U
rn
^'
J
A
W
W
ON
J Quercus
w -? layrata
N O N N W U ,A N Quercus
michaxii
"'
o C
w
° w -- w N w a cn N v, oo Quercus
pagoda
N O
N , w N cn w w
Quercus
° G
O palustris
c N w w w -- w N - r> .P Quercus
phellos
00 00 N 10 oo a - 4P ? Salix nigra
o Sambucus
A
00 o
w canadensis
0 0 riburnum
00 v' r w nudum
0 0
o
-
Ulmus alata
o w
a
O
O
P ?p O
?O J O?
O N
N O W
- .p
W N
J U \p N
?O U
rn J
N W
00 '-.
Oo w .p
N N
00 --
DD W
?. ?1
.., N
O N
H N A
N
G7
A
3
H
r
H
N C?
0o
O
A
o,
C
C
VA
O
J
w
O
w
U
N
A
A
O
A '+
C7
N
U
N
W
W
00
w
J
LO
W
U
N
O
?
U
A O
?
U v N
p
J
Q
W
O
W
N A
O N U O U ... U - v O, -• U O
^'
P1 u
_
N ? n
A
CA
O
n
ISM
n
C"
O
H
H
CrJ
n
O
H
0
I`1to
x
z
H
x
r
H
x
0
C/1
H
tv
rA
H
t0
Q
w
a
O
O ?
fD
n'j O
.t
'
'
= fl
n
C
m CD ?
y
A
O
p
W
O\
W
N
W
A
W
W
W
N
W
r
W
O
N
?O
N
OD
N
J
N
O\
N
fh
N
A
N
W
N
N
N
?+
N
O
?+
,O
?+
00
?+
J
r+
O,
?+
N
r
A
r+
W
h+
N
r
?+
?.
O
?
?
J
?
?
A
W
N
r+
J
N
O
p?
4P
N
to
N
.P
?1
J
N
-
(A
^•
W
?1
O
?•
A
r•
?
_
O
N
A Acer negundo
?n
o
? J O W N N N T W ..r N W ? W ? N N -- N A ? N ? --• W W ? ? J W W
00 J
Acer rubrum
`y o
N
...
?.
N
--
N
W
N
N
Alnus
serrulata
0
U
o
Betula nigra
0
w
°
Clethera
`O 00 N alnifolia
w
0
J
v,
fT
-?
w
N
?
--
N
w
W
N
N
N
4
-
Lh
--
N
?
Vi
N
•--
N
N
D,
N
Corpus
00
amomum
0
o
o Cornus
v, _ stolonifera
0
0 c _ Diospyros
virginiana
A C A
(A
W
A
kA
a, W N
w
00
oo
N
Frazinus
pennsylvanica
00
00 w
N
-
N
10
00
LA
v
o
w
L,
w
o,
w
N
N
"D
Liquidambar
0, styraci lua
0 0
Liriodendron
tulipifera
N O
w N N to N N N Platanus
occidentalis
0 '
0 c N , Populus
deltoides
.-
o
o
60
_
,O
w
•-•
W
C
,`_,
?
N
?
(n
.P
?
oo
?c
is
N
N
?
?
N
N
O,
N
oo
N
IJ
N
a`
?.
w i
a Quercus lyrata
N
(A
LCD
j
4:-
000
LA
W
w
fT
ON
QUerCUS
michaxii
.r o
°
Vl
00
00
N
A
•--•
00
Vi
N
N
-?
N
--
N
J
W
N
QlleI•CUS
pagoda
0
c 0
?
Quercus
o palustris
? o
w
w
o
a
-
w
w
--
--
N
Quercus
phellos
w
N o
N
.....
Do
A
?
.._.
N
?O
N
?.
....
..r
.p
U
to
w
N
-•
00 00 1 F Salix nigra
0
0 c Sambucus
W _
canadensis
N
O
v ? N O, --• N N N ? --• ,D W to to W W W
Ulmus sp.
0
i-j
°
Viburnum
.A
nudum
00 W to to W W J W A N W A ,O O, N P -? O, N N N w O, ? O, w 0, .P A 00 ,O A CA (A fT A L
O .-. N J W A ? ,O •--• O, J O, In W O, w O ,D N W ,o W O Vi N o, N A N CT w
y
0
> A
^
fD ?? ? N ?.
O .--.
] ?.
00 ?.
to ?.
N A N
to ?.
... ?.
ZA ?. ?.
O .-•
U W
w tJ
N ? --•
A ? N ? --•
? •? N
W A N .._. N ?. --• N W `..
U ? ?.
? N =
SO _? v
v
?] ?
C,
O
N
M J
-
w
N O
O
-t
,D
O,
ao C,
J
,O N
to
0o
W O
O p
,
W
J?
,D 00
oo
?
? O
00 to
O, P
(.A ,O
00 --•
00
N w
O p
A w
CA
v
O d to 00 w 'A w U -? ,p to LA to VI w 00 .A to 41 N 00 ,c .A O O (T - ,O LA w -? J
n
kz-l
J i
s
h_
Q
Llf i
?C
n
M
ro
O
y
y
rA
7y
7a
r1-
y
O
r
z
y
x
r
y
cn
CrJ
O
n
1^?
H
t0
A
W
M M M w m om m Mm Mm M M M M M M M M
O ? ? r
w w
8
M
Z
N N N N D
0000
O O O O
C7) UI C3
N O N N
? ?,Q
CD CD CD CD
Q O C) Q
O O O O
O O O O
rt
? O ? O
a. cD a cD
CD CD
W N N
N O N O
O O O
rt rt
(D M
m 3 CD 3
3 3
Zo (B
o ?Q
?(;(D
N (D
_ 89v
Z x
a
._.
III ? 'A 'A
X 7 co /
1\ / I o 1 /
I `
?
ro
ru
fol" r
s II r- M
?I I I ,, ?.. ov/
\v v'• ?.
f
............
?
N L
o
/ 0\ v \ -
CARD FlLE: R:?L4m?NC WI?Ytltin RivC NOM9DRWG?5EC0tID CPEIXvgybb 200SW.1w9 PLdfiED DOIIP!
0 ? 11 'Fri
m
z
N N N
O O O
O O O
O? (P CIS
.Q ?p 0
CD CD CD
Q O O
O p O
D D D
-0 ? -D
O p O
cf) CO
O O
(DD n CD
N C? N
O N O
O
cn cn
CD CO (D
3 6 3
u) 3
w
Q 1-1Q
C) n
Q
CD O N
O
G?
x
8 ?
a
?,
? ,.'• ?°
Q ro
I `
?
o
}. -.
?
?
-
,
Louis Berger Wetland Bank Year 3 Monitoring Report
3.3 STREAM MONITORING
3.3.1 Physical Parameters
3.3.1.1 Channel Geometry
1
Five monumented cross sections were surveyed at the Homestead Site and six monumented cross
sections were surveyed at the Second Creek Site to monitor vertical bed stability. Illustrations of the
cross sections are presented in Figures 8a through 8e for the Homestead Site and Figures 9a through 9c
for the Second Creek Site. In general, the channel geometry remained stable. The slight variations
were detected, such as the pools deepened and widened slightly while the riffles on average widened
slightly at the Homestead Site and narrowed slightly at the Second Creek Site.
To quantifiably assess if the channel experienced degradation or aggradation, the measured thalweg
elevation at each cross section was compared. As represented in Table 8, the thalweg elevation at the
Homestead Site varied slightly from 2005 to 2006. The largest variations occurred at cross section 1
where the thalweg elevation dropped to a closer elevation as measured in 2004 and cross section 2
where the thalweg elevation increased approximately 0.25 feet. Overall, the thalweg elevation at the
Homestead Site remained essentially unchanged, with an average change of approximately 0.03 feet.
The average change in thalweg elevation at the Second Creek Site is negligible resulting in an average
difference of 0.005 feet (Table 9). Due to the unconsolidated channel substrate (silt and sand) at the
site, the slight variation in thalweg elevations can be attributed to the varied placement of the survey
rod on the unconsolidated channel bottom as the surveys were being conducted.
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF THALWEG ELEVATION AT THE HOMESTEAD SITE
BETWEEN 2004 AND 2006
Thalwe Elevation Difference in Elevation
Cross
Section 2004
ft. NGVD 2005
ft. NGVD 2006
ft. NGVD (2005-2004)
ft. (2005-2006)
ft.
1 674.25 674.69 674.44 0.44 -0.25
2 674.45 674.57 674.67 0.12 0.1
3 674.26 674.31 674.37 0.05 0.06
4 673.39 673.47 673.72 0.08 0.25
5 672.64 672.59 672.60 -0.05 0.01
Average difference = 0.13 0.03
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OF THALWEG ELEVATION AT THE SECOND CREEK SITE
BETWEEN 2004 AND 2006
1
1
Thalwe Elevation Difference in Elevation
Cross
Section 2004
ft. NGVD 2005
ft. NGVD 2006
ft. NGVD (2005-2004)
ft. (2005-2006)
ft.
1 650.88 650.76 650.88 -0.12 0.12
2 649.03 649.14 649.01 0.11 -0.13
3 649.77 649.67 649.75 -0.1 0.08
4 647.55 647.90 647.69 0.35 -0.21
5 649.07 648.90 649.11 -0.17 0.21
6 648.67 648.75 648.65 0.08 -0.1
Average difference = 0.03 -0.005
Page 17
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Louis Berger Wetland Bank Year 3 Monitoring Report
Figure 8a-8b Channel Geometry - Homestead Site
Homestead
Cross Section 1
678 r
677
676
c
0
m
w 675
674
G
673
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width from River Left to Right (ft.)
Channel Geometry - 2004 ¦- Channel Geometry - 2005 Channel Geometry - 2006
-?-Bankfull Bank Pins
Homestead
Cross Section 2
679 ,- - -- - - -,
678
677
C
0
w 676
675
674
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width from River Left to Right (ft.)
-?- Channel Geometry - 2004 +E- Channel Geometry - 2005 - Channel Geometry - 2006
?- Bankfull Bank Pins
Page 18
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Louis Berger Wetland Bank Year 3 Monitoring Report
Figure 8c - 8d Channel Geometry - Homestead Site
Homestead
Cross Section 3
678
677
676
c
0
w 675
674
673
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width from River Left to Right (ft.)
- Channel Geometry - 2004 ?- Channel Geometry - 2005 -- Channel Geometry - 2006
--o-- Bankfull Bank Pins
Homestead
Cross Section 4
677
40
676
75
c
0
ca
w674
673
672
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width from River Left to Right (ft.)
Channel Geometry - 2004 ¦- Channel Geometry - 2005 Channel Geometry - 2006
-?-Bankfull Bank Pins
40
Page 19
0
4.
C
0
y
i
1
w
O
O
O
r-i
O
CW
I x
O
O
N
N
U
7
o ?
rn ?
ca
.I.
O
APPENDIX A
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
.orris Berner Wetland Bank Year 3 -l[oniioring Report
Appendix .I
+??f w
4T
ti acs
i'P-'
E
3,A7
e*
€ w »
r
}
a *? s ,
?'9z ` .? ? ? ? •,} i of
4. ii to r d 1 f. i
;@
W'IA
P* *44
SUe FO...F: ` ° v i ys?. ?a .b =~.._ dr?k= ?Z:y'
Photo 2: Homestead Cross Section 1, facing downstream.
Page A-l
Homestead Photographs
Louis Berner Wedand Bank Year i Monitoring Report
?,4 %v
Aa
Photo 4: Homestead Cross section 1
the right bank.
Page A-2
Photo 3: Homestead Cross Section 1, facing the left bank.
1
1
d<i r lVetland Bank Year 3 Monitoring Repoa't
A pendix ,A
pl?
r * t
- r.1d!'C'.fi„ - :'t.:??;?_n y?1',.. 7 " ? i?.`', r ?Z `} 'ic..'1??_Tjs { yi Y'a
%
IN,
4 ?a"?wAy'?b X31 ?Zi 4V'?
Photo 5: Homestead Cross Section
?1 I
II
1
f
I.e+eennnn????'222.s??."."""
10
?
,,.?C X. '_ m.}? :` re r
?7J (? 7s?(, jJ kJ 'AFC ? ?: •.? 4):.f I Y;j Yp "- ,? yPl ?.? ..?
t.???
E 4311 i L b .''.? iu 'bi'P•• 1a( .[j y ?1"i.` ! T t
`i4-m-7 7 r Yi' k_ r P ?? y?q1
Photo 6: Homestead Cross Section 2, facing downstream.
Page A-3
1
1
I?
I,I
i
I- IVLiland Bunk Year 3 Monirorin', Report
Appendix .4
y?
• ? ':_ 4 '`???zb.,'?:i .?Yfi. $<: 4'
';
r??p - 101'`, _ ji tE
i F xa .
'hj
,d?ifrYr?ae: ? ? r ?,?;• ? ? p
T S Irk 't • , ,?r? a y+ ? ?:, ,
fl
rY????Y ?4?h 1, . , ?_ ?? ? f y ?l.dY ,, t j?K ? 'Sl; ? 1 ?.t" D n .s ? ? a'? 2 t Y ??,?
P +? { f ,N y,•typ•?sr3.? ?fe? ?,.ra.?{'?e' i/ yy. ?'?- .
-v fix, a='?? ?, -,p, 4 ??"^ 3?`?ra'ikt..,?,LD.?YE??? '?''n''?Y.r? a-
A Ryye 9• µ ? `, >io 3?;?.? #i ??)?k ?,.
Jc'
Photo 8: Homestead Cross Section 2, facing the right bank.
Page A-4
Photo 7: Homestead Cross Section 2, facing the left bank.
JE.. x
407
;p ? rD e _
it
Y.
1
1
'I
i
I
II1I
r?1PM ,. 'i. i - i 4 r 1
Homestead Cross Section 3, facing upstream.
f
D
r r cc 1 S pp '.
74,
IN,
Photo 10: Homestead Cross Section 3, facing downstream.
Page A-5
Wedand Bank Year 3 Monito'inL Report
Annendix d
far
h F
MVI
5MI
? yr 3 J? s Ts ft jl?; y `
t+-
a
Photo I t: Homestead Cross Section facinu the left bank.
Photo 12: Homestead Cross Section 3,
they ; , . ?
.
? r
the
bank.
x
-`
Paige .A-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
s.
0
o U
0
(-ui) uopmj!dtaa id
°O
O O
3
0
0 0
--------------
w
v
0
Qr
0
T
'C
--- ---------
0 ------------- ------------------------
c},
o n
?
o
i
°o ° o ° °O, ° °O
N -+ -+ O O 01 O?
((19ANI T) u0118Aal:1
31-Dec-06
17-Dec-06 A
3-Dec-06 z
19-Nov-06
5-Nov-06
22-Oct-06
8-Oct-06
24-Sep-06 c
10-Sep-06 0
27-Aug-06
w a
13-Aug-06 I
30-Jul-06
16-Jul-06
2-Jul-06 A
18-Jun-06 z
w
4-Jun-06
Z 1-May-06 >
7-May-06 z
23-Apr-06 o
9-Apr-06
3
0
26-Mar-06
? A
12-Mar-06
26-Feb-06 0 0
12-Feb-06
29-Jan-06 W W
15-Jan-06
1-Jan-06
O O
o
00 00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
0
o U
0
u
(•ut) uoi???[diaaad
c? N N ? '-. O
0
0
O
31-Dec-06
17-Dec-06
3-Dec-06
19-Nov-06
5-Nov-06
22-Oct-06
8-Oct-06
24-Sep-06
10-Sep-06
27-Aug-06
13-Aug-06
30-Jul-06
16-Jul-06
2-Jul-06
18-Jun-06
4-Jun-06
21-May-06
7-May-06
23-Apr-06
9-Apr-06
26-Mar-06
12-Mar-06
26-Feb-06
12-Feb-06
29-Jan-06
15-Jan-06
1-Jan-06
0
0
A
z
w
u
w
0
o "
C7 0
? u
w a
z
L7 ?
z?A
?. o
u ?
o
C7
0 0
W W
I
o a; 00
((19AN IJ) uoilenal:l