20031035 Ver 1_Complete File_20060928

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. BOX 1000
?. Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
IN REPLY REFER TO September 25, 2006
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2006-40886-152
Mr. Thom Rinker
Environmental Banc and Exchange, L.L.C.
Southeast Regional Manager
2530 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200
Durham, North Carolina 27713
Dear Mr. Rinker:
1??f r-91==
U
S r °: ; : &A 2006
DE NR
D?l- AillyIt)I'tr??i,ei; e,rv'dGH
This correspondence is in reference to the Marston Wetland and Stream Mitigation Site you
are developing located on the north side of NC 41, approximately twelve miles west of Trenton,
in Jones County, North Carolina. The purpose of this letter is to confirm the initial release of
credits and the subsequent status of mitigation credits available from this Bank.
Pursuant to the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) entitled, Neu-Con Umbrella Wetland
Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank, dated March 8, 2001, fifteen percent (15%) of the
Bank's total restoration credits shall be available for sale immediately upon completion of all of
the following:
a. Execution of the MBI by the Sponsor, the Corps, and other agencies eligible for
membership in the MBRT who chose to execute the agreement.
b. Approval of the final mitigation plan.
c. Delivery of the financial assurance described in section III, part F, paragraph 1 of the
MBI.
d. Recordation of the preservation mechanism described in section III, part G of the MBI,
as well as a title opinion covering the property acceptable to the Corps.
Additionally, based upon review of the monitoring reports and an onsite inspection conducted
August 15, 2006, we have determined that the success criteria for the site as a whole have been
met for years one and two. However, based on our review of the monitoring reports and our
August 15, 2006 site inspection, we have concerns with the M3 area of the site. Planted trees in

-2-
a 1.5 to 2 acre area have been out-competed by Lespedeza. Immediate and aggressive remedial
action is recommended to alleviate the Lespedeza invasiveness and bring this area back into
compliance with the vegetation success criterion. If it is determined that this area continues to
fall below the success threshold, future credit releases may reflect this deficiency.
By copy of this correspondence, we confirm that you have satisfied the above requirements
for initial release; year 1 and 2 release and 14.7 wetland credits constituting 35% of the Bank's
total restoration/enhancement credits are now for sale. Additionally, 2,246 linear feet of stream
credits constituting 35% of the Bank's total restoration credits are now available for sale.
Additionally, pursuant to the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) entitled, Neu-Con
Umbrella Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Bank, dated March 8, 2001, for
preservation acreage, the projected credit total shall be available for sale and debiting, provided
the restoration requirements have been met and the following minimum requirements have been
satisfied with regard to the Bank:
a. The Banking Instrument is executed and the Site Specific Mitigation Plan has
been approved by the MBRT.
b. Credits are established consistent with Section I.F.3 of the MBI and the Site
Specific Mitigation Plan.
c. A conservation easement is placed on the Bank Site or approved phase of a
Bank Site that generates the preservation credits.
d. Appropriate financial assurances of a type and amount acceptable to the Corps
and the MBRT have been established, only if such preservation acreage is used in conjunction
with restoration, creation or enhancement acreage and such financial assurance is necessary for
the restoration, creation and enhancement acreage.
By copy of this correspondence, we confirm that you have satisfied the above requirements
and 26 credits (preservation) are available for use provided they follow the guidelines established
in Section I.F.4 of the MBI. These guidelines require that for every one-acre of wetland impacts
authorized by a Section 404 permit, two credits will be debited from the Bank., One of those ;
credits must be a restoration credit and the remaining credit may be made up.of any combination
of restoration, enhancement, creation or preservation credits, as selected by the sponsor and
approved by the Corps during its permit process.
2

-3-
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact
me at the Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone] ext 31.
Sincerely,
William Wescott, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
Copies Furnished:
Ms. Kathy Matthews
3112 Avondale Court
Raleigh, North Carolina 27613
Mr. Gary Jordan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
3
01`
-4-
Mr. Travis Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Mr. George Kelly
Environmental Banc & Exchange, L.L.C.
10055 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 130
Owings Mills, Maryland 21117-4860
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
NEU-CON UMBRELLA
WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION BANK
MARSTON WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION SITE
Annual Monitoring Report for 2005 (Year 2)
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Managers, Bankers, and Traders of Environmental Rights
"we (wvest i V'u the eV'V r0o'V1.eVut."
C?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................1
2.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................2
2.3 Project History ................................................................................................................. . 2
3.0 HYDROLOGY ...................................................................................................................4
3.1 Success Criteria ................................................................................................................ 4
3.2 Description of Hydrologic Monitoring Efforts ................................................................ 4
3.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring ................................................................................. 11
3.3.1 Site Data .................................................................................................................. 11
3.3.2 Climatic Data .......................................................................................................... 14
3.4 Hydrologic Conclusions ................................................................................................. 15
4.0 VEGETATION ................................................................................................................ 16
4.1 Success Criteria .............................................................................................................. 16
4.2 Description of Species and Monitoring Protocol ........................................................... 16
4.3 Results of Vegetative Monitoring .................................................................................. 16
4.4 Vegetation Observations ................................................................................................ 17
4.5 Vegetative Conclusions .................................................................................................. 18
5.0 STREAM MONITORING .............................................................................................. 19
5.1 Success Criteria .............................................................................................................. 19
5.2 Description of Stream Monitoring ................................................................................. 19
5.3 Results of Stream Monitoring ........................................................................................ 20
5.3.1 Stream Benthic Macroinvertebrates ........................................................................ 21
5.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 23
6.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 24
7.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................... 25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Marston Wetland and Stream Mitigation Site ......................................... 3
Figure 2. As-Built Figures for the Marston Mitigation Site .............................................. 5-10
Figure 3. 2005 Groundwater Gauge Data Graph .....................................................................13
Figure 4. Historic Rainfall vs. Observed Rainfall ....................................................................15
Figure 5. Location of Lespediza Occurrence ..........................................................................18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2005 ...................................................................11
Table 2. Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall (Inches) ................. 14
Table 3. Tree Species Planted in the Marston Wetland Restoration Area ...............................16
Table 4. 2005 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Species Composition ............................................17
Table 5. Volunteer Tree Species Identified within the Wetland Restoration Area ..................17
Table 6. Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data for the Marston Site .......................... 22
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. Well Data
APPENDIX B. Photo Log
APPENDIX C. Stream Monitoring Data
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2005 (YEAR 2)
Marston Mitigation Site
1.0 SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2005 growing season on the
Marston Mitigation Site. Construction of the site, including planting of trees, was completed in
March 2004. The 2005 data represent results from Year 2 of hydrologic and vegetation
monitoring for both wetlands and streams.
The design for the Marston property involved the restoration of a Coastal Plain small stream
swamp as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The Coastal Plain small stream swamp
communities exist as the floodplains of small blackwater streams in which separate fluvial
features and associated vegetation are too small or poorly developed to distinguish. After
construction, it was determined that 6,416 feet of stream and 37.7 acres of wetland hydrology
were restored. An additional 8.6 acres of wetlands were enhanced on the northern end of the
project.
This Annual Report presents the data from six hydrologic monitoring stations, eight vegetation
monitoring stations, and stream monitoring, as required by the approved Mitigation Plan for the
site. Three of the hydrologic stations are equipped with manual groundwater gauges and three
stations are equipped with automated gauges and a manual calibration gauge. Additionally, the
gauges are used as points from which photographs are taken over time.
Weather station data from the Trenton and Kinston Weather Stations were used in conjunction
with a manual rain gauge located on the site to document precipitation amounts. The manual
gauge is used to validate observations made at the automated station. For the 2005 growing
season, lower than average rainfall totals were documented on the mitigation site.
In 2005, all six hydrology monitoring gauges met the hydrologic success criteria, based on field
observations. Based on these results, it was concluded that the site is performing as designed and
is mimicking conditions documented on the wetland reference site.
Eight monitoring plots 0.1 acre in size were used to predict survivability of the woody vegetation
planted on site. The vegetation monitoring indicated survival rates between 260 and 610 stems
per acre. Due to extensive beaver herbivory, supplemental trees were planted within highly
localized areas near Plots 1 through 3, concurrent with the management of beavers on the site
and adjacent properties. The site is on track for meeting the initial vegetation survival criteria of
320 stems per acre surviving after the third growing season with the exception of a small
localized occurrence of Lespedeza that has out-competed trees in Plot 3. Pending approval by
the MBRT, the 1.5 to 2 acre area will be managed to minimize the Lespedeza and a supplemental
planting will occur.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Project Description
Located in Jones County, the Marston Mitigation Site encompasses approximately 176 acres. It
is located approximately twelve miles west of the town of Trenton, North Carolina (Figure 1).
This project provides compensatory mitigation for stream and wetland impacts associated within
the resident hydrologic unit. The Marston site is designed to restore a Coastal Plain small stream,
swamp as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The Coastal Plain small stream swamp
communities exist as the floodplains of small blackwater streams in which separate fluvial
features and associated vegetation are too small or poorly developed to distinguish. Construction
at the site was completed in February 2004, with 58 acres of vegetation planted by March 2004.
Groundwater, surface water, and rain gauges were functional beginning March 15, 2004. The
2005 monitoring season represents Year 2 of monitoring for the site.
2.2 Purpose
Monitoring of the Marston Site is required to demonstrate successful mitigation based on the
criteria found in the Mitigation Plan, the Neu-Con Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Bank Instrument, and through a comparison to reference site conditions. Hydrologic, vegetation,
and stream monitoring are conducted on an annual basis. Success criteria must be met for five
consecutive years. This Annual Monitoring Report details the results of the monitoring efforts
for 2005 (Year 2) at the Marston Mitigation Site.
2.3 Project History
June 2001
November 2003
December 2003
February 2004
March 2004
March 2004
November 2004
November 2005
November 2006 (scheduled)
Pre-restoration Monitoring Wells Installed
Construction Began
Approved Mitigation Plan
Construction Completed
Planting Completed
Post-Construction Monitoring Wells Installed
1 st Annual Monitoring Report
2nd Annual Monitoring Report
3rd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2007 (scheduled) 4th Annual Monitoring Report
November 2008 (scheduled) 5th Annual Monitoring Report
2
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC 27312
FJONES CO
Figurel: Site Location for Marston Mitigation Site
LOW CO
0 1.5 3 6 9Miles
Figure 1. Location of Marston Wetland and Stream Mitigation Site.
3
3.0 HYDROLOGY
3.1 Success Criteria
As stated in the approved Mitigation Plan, the hydrologic success criterion for the site is to
restore the water table at the site so that it will remain within 12 inches of the soil surface for at
least 7 percent of the growing season continuously (approximately 17 days). The day counts are
based on the growing season for Jones County, which is 232 days long, beginning on March 20
and ending November 7, as calculated from National Weather Service Wetlands Determination
Tables (WETS) for Jones County. As specified in the approved Mitigation Plan, data are
collected from three automated and three manual groundwater gauges.
The Mitigation Plan further specified that in order for the hydrologic data to be considered
successful, it must demonstrate wetland conditions are present in normal or dryer than normal
conditions. During the 2005 growing season, lower than normal rainfall amounts were
documented on the restoration site. Monitoring data from the reference site demonstrate positive
correlations between the restoration site and the natural hydrology of the target system.
3.2 Description of Hydrologic Monitoring Efforts
Three manual groundwater gauges, three automated Infinities groundwater gauges, and one rain
gauge were installed prior to the beginning of the first growing season (Figure 2). Groundwater
gauges, both manual and automated, were installed to a minimum depth of at least 40 inches
below the ground surface. The monitoring protocol for the site specifies that automated
monitoring stations will be downloaded and checked for malfunctions on a monthly basis.
During monthly site visits, manual groundwater gauges are read and rainfall totals are collected
from the on-site rain gauge. During the 2005 growing season, all three automated loggers
performed well and no periods of missing data were encountered.
4
'PROJECT. 070 AIARSTON
°I _N o o _
OrEj
r I ?"
m 0 r / n o ( I Ie
56
ni to
n -cn O o o a m n
? D -I IN _ - to
? 6 -M IN -,
mCm
G) F CO I to
-j_
O O D D D Dim I°
.9 cn N N
a
00
CA m C C C y r? `
m 00,/
y rt`?
::E ::E vov zz --I
m m m m fm /1 I = \. Off`--?
-? m z
Ii ?5 z z z 1
Ii zz
(A ;a X
Z m m n n n W T?nJ
A D r N Z 2
m --I r^ r m C C7 ,?
?p Z Z Z Ocn
ZZ -Oi Gl (D
> = = S ?0
0
X? II II II C+
00 II II J J a Oo
10 z
Ol OO OD h
? w
V V T T T
v m m m a
D -i -mi
m D
Ny {i' mm
G) D Z
4 _ X O
' m cn
OD
+ "40
OP
bpd Vj p?
Z co
y yh
om h b y ~
m ?C z , i?
2 Fa,
r `•
Amy ?<
C) Z%j
m n (A'j N, \\ ?\ Z Cl)
y
\..
p t \? \ c o Z
try 00
z0
56
x =
?' m \
b mmW
zn -?
z \',ai SOD
-' mom
I? floyl
dm
NW=<
m e>NH C? v D ?m \ ?. -. z iv o a
D r:`, .d
v n (p N \
(n \\\\
y \
c? J ? 1 ....1 j CJ ? a
00 LV
fQ W -Cs J r z
O+D
y y ! ?' `i
3 D Q x t?
:y: rt ./ "'?r( Zo zs
p
to
I Kk? ??
y^ '' im
I'
I
Z
UP•!
O x ,N
NP!
s :r;
.?

lo,
\ ,r

1b, ?i

O .T7 G !ri , i N

t
at i
`.

:j z
81
rru; !

m
r:
k O
56,E ., •?
w X
stn a61
?'n? cj' \ \ \'
\
l
Dm
N n
-

\
? /

I,,,
ip 0
N0
Z

};iiv:
IV

O
Z
OD
?A
O '
N 0 ? ?
z ?j
m
? I

O

MATCHUNE- -SHEET N i UJ
? o h
y
m b
O
N
O n
O
y
jmm-
ADD Cm
000~
Z/1
?f Z/1 (?
ZKOy
0<20
m DZy
OKOm
,m
1
m
;
co
?m
00
y2Z
C>O
m
aDM
0

c?p1\150
op
n
T y
T Z
00
M`
?i
n
X
a Fn
m rn
?0
T
0
0
?7
' n8
,Zoo
Q om
MI R
?g
?g

a D -
r'h 1 ?
W

CDC C
g
'y
?o O
Q
cr
z
lV 0 A

O
Q
mod
k o A
ps n
y Z
? O
n?
m
~N9
O
m
MATCHLINE SHEET

M>z
0 z ?
0
O
a ?? ?

z
C
Z00
N
m
cNn a
O
z?N
a

O ,S
z, z X

1 G).
N 9
O
D y r -<gp ¢
m l <mm m
p
N o?m
0 9Z
m
O in? A 3z?
OO
?ZZ _
m° Q

~

r?

G)
C
o ?o
m

W?,c
o

? m
yDm Y?Ki•'
N
I O Orp ?
m?

I O , 8

+
I g
D o
? ?
'W ?

3
(D (D
m o
o
o m
m
m
0
? m
gv a z ? o

Z m
CD O

O
R, o
m
0
O
O
O
ti
h
y
4J
Zgo?
o<C°
y?47y
F- O M
<ym
~D
POm
uOc
00
zl?z
00
C-n
Cp
O?p

?W
CDC m O m
/, rh O y m

m
° CL
Q
?
2 O
o
n
s?m ?
? ? 0
rF ? ? Z m
F
n

fg
ao
cn

=

J z

N
?r
Y

?l
i
?
IM

2 i

' C Q

T

sa ` o \ S?
o ?\
I
i
-3
0
tl 60
=r
k o p
s
n z
m
LO q
0

lV v m m
F
a
Qz$
=3 m
m ?2
nm
a y
=
Ng o
=a

c
?. r
:?•" w O Z N X
66+00
1' \
i
z
0 .\ \
n
Y
? ' a \ \
` \ \ ` , ..may !/\\/ Y//??/ cP
?\/? \ „/\/\/
' \\?\\?\\//\/\ /\\
?r
`.`?" \ yA/V OVA/??Aj?A?????? } ?, ` ?\? ' ? '• ?
\/ ?\AjVAjV?j\?V?i "'\ j \/A,' •
\?\?\j \S N
N%
/VA?
VA/VA//VA/?A;A\ \VA/ O
?\ /A//Ay/?//A A/ /?: n
o m o \, A\ \A ?/ // \ Q y ?a
?x/?///-// /
x i v,/,%,V rvy??yvivv v v
\i\?/\//?\? /\!i\//\/ o
A ?,vvvviyvivv?/yy/yy/
?? /// /
z \/i\\?//\/
V/VA
D a -ice A
D A \/\ \/\/?
'NN
OD ?4
Q r)
\\ VA? h'1
/x// y ?\
xx j
AA
\/\/\\/\
n \i\\/?\\?\\\/\\/
vv?yv?v?/ ? vvivy vv ? ?'? yv ,?
v/v/?i y y/v yy /?;
vv/ y/yv/w y/ X/ X
i
ER I
00
f z
l
0
C) 0 o D
J ?yb b\J iI Z? R) C W CD m O
n a ~O y x y,\n - O -N o y n
j
ti x i? ?\ fry Q ? i '` Z
m I O
a
rt O G m ry o
?• x
.? as ?7 .? ,\ \\ ?'•`\•s gz rt C 2 ~
co
y ws?
I W
I ,g
3.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
3.3.1 Site Data
The following hydroperiod statistics were calculated for each monitoring station during
the growing season: 1) most consecutive days that the water table was within twelve
inches of the surface; 2) cumulative number of days that the water table was within
twelve inches of the soil surface; and 3) number of times that the water table rose to
within twelve inches of the soil surface. The results of these calculations are presented in
Table 1. Figure 3 provides a chart of the water depth for each of the monitoring gauges
on the site. Precipitation is shown across the top of the graph. This graph demonstrates
the reaction at each monitoring location of the groundwater level to specific rainfall
events. Raw hydrograph data collected from the monitoring gauges is provided in
Appendix A (on CD).
The site was designed to function as a riparian wetland system with associated wet flats.
Hydrology in the riparian areas is driven primarily by groundwater discharge and
overbank flooding, while precipitation is the primary hydrologic influence in wet flat
areas. Monitoring data indicate that the site is functioning as designed, with varying
degrees of wetness and saturation across the site. All gauges have exceeded the 7 percent
hydrologic success criteria. Actual hydroperiods experienced across the site during 2005
ranged from 15 to 39 percent of the growing season, which is consistent with the
expected conditions for this type of wetland ecosystem.
Table 1. Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2005 (Year 2).
Monitoring Most Consecutive Days Cumulative Days Number of Instances
Station Meeting Criterial Meeting Criteria2 Meeting CriterW
Al 42(18%) 122(53%) 11
A2 91 (39%) 145(63%) 6
A3 35(15%) 130(56%) 11
M1 -42(18%) -122(53%) -11
M2 -42(18%) -122(53%) -11
M3 -35(15%) -130 (560/6) -11
Notes:
Percentage indicates percent of the growing season.
1. Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a
water table less than 12 inches from the soil surface.
2. Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water
table less than 12 inches from the soil surface.
3. Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table
rose to less than 12 inches from the soil surface.
4. Groundwater gauge A-Ml and A-M2 are manual gauges. Hydrologic parameters are
estimated based on data from gauge Al; however wetter conditions were documented at both
M1 and M2 as compared to Al.
5. Groundwater gauge M3 is a manual gauge. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on
data from gauge A3, however slightly dryer conditions were documented at M3 during certain
times of the year than A3.
11
The model simulations performed during the design phase of the project indicated that
the entire site would range from slightly higher than the minimum wetland criteria of 5
percent to more saturated areas that would exceed 12.5 percent. As the data collected for
2005 indicate, the site is performing as described in the Mitigation Plan, with varying
degrees of wetness documented and the entire site exceeding the stated criteria of 7
percent.
The approved Mitigation Plan provides that if the rainfall data for any given year during
the monitoring period is not normal, the reference wetland data can be accessed to
determine if there is a positive correlation between the performance of the restoration site
and the natural hydrology of the reference site. Though the hydrology criteria were met
during the 2005 growing season, rainfall totals were below normal, the reference data are
provided below for comparison.
Data from the reference site are compared to restoration site data in Figure 3. Data from
the reference wetland groundwater gauge show a positive correlation with the automated
groundwater gauges located on the restoration site. The automated gauges from the
restoration site and the reference wetland demonstrate the similarity of the hydrologic
response to rainfall events. Although the sites are located relatively close to each other, a
difference in the timing and magnitude of rainfall events is clear from the hydrograph
data. Total rainfall amounts during the monitoring period at the Webb Reference Site
and the mitigation site were very similar.
12
O

N
M
O
LO
O
O
r
C
O
N
. O
co
N

LO

co C co
Q ?
10 C N
s s

U) .0

R
?
o
M
Q N

C C co
O
O O
N CO
• O O
N N

Q 04 o
C C

0 0
00
t0 N
O O

I •
LO
0
rn
O N d ' C L) O O O O O O O O O
N - - N M V
LO co I O
- O
(ui) lle; uie?j ?
('ui) 19na-l aajeM
?'
Cd
A
bA
cla
L7
(5
to
O
O
N
M
oro

M
3.3.2 Climatic Data
Table 2 is a comparison of the 2005 monthly rainfall to historical precipitation data
(collected from 1971 to 2000) for Jones County. Historic data presented were collected
from an automated weather station in Trenton. Data were not available for the entire
growing season for the Trenton rain gauge. Missing data were supplemented with data
from a rain gauge in Kinston, NC. During the period that rainfall measurements were
collected on-site (March 10 through September 6), the rainfall total from the Trenton and
Kinston gauges (24.05 inches) correlates well with data collected from the onsite manual
rain gauge (21 inches). In general, monthly rainfall amounts for the area were 4.8 inches
lower then the long-term average for the growing season. For the period from January
thru September 2005 total rainfall was approximately 10 inches less than the long-term
average. Monthly rainfall for October was missing data between the October third and
twenty-third. Data for November and December 2005 were not available at the time this
report was compiled.
Table 2. Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall (Inches).
Observed Precipitation (P),
inches
Month Average 30% 70% Month P
October 3.34 1.69 4.79 October 2004 3.87
November 2.93 2.17 3.74 November 2004 4.06
December 3.64 2.34 4.43 December 2004 3.67
January 4.77 3.74 5.72 January 2005 2.47
February 3.57 2.24 4.14 February 2005 2.54
March 4.41 3.27 5.06 March 2005 3.19
April 3.47 1.91 4.45 April 2005 3.7
May 4.12 2.87 4.82 May 2005 5.22
June 4.89 3.4 5.9 June 2005 4.11*
July 6.22 4.55 7.41 July2005 6.21 *
August 6.12 4.28 7.08 August 2005 1.61*
September 5.51 2.99 6.74 September 2005 4.12*
October 3.34 1.69 4.79 October 20051 1.94*
November 2.93 2.17 3.74 November 2005 N/A
December 3.64 2.34 4.43 December 2005 N/A
Notes:
1. Precipitation data not available for the period between October 3rd and October 20th.
* Precipitation data not available for Trenton gauge. Data from Kinston rain gauge.
14
Marston Mitigation Site
Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
s

7

N
)
6

5

c
0
4
fl 3-
'*
, ?
'
?
Z
3

2
--W-
)
?? Z7
L
IL
1

0

n/ N N N N N
N N
N
N
41
0 N N _N
.
-
0-Historic 30 percentile -*- Historic 70 percentile
F Observed 2005
Figure 4. Historic Rainfall vs. Observed Rainfall.
3.4 Hydrologic Conclusions
Data collected from all the groundwater monitoring gauges on Marston Mitigation Site indicate
that approved hydrologic success criteria have been met during the 2005 growing season for all
of the six stations. The site is performing as designed and predicted, with varying degrees of
saturation across the site. In general, the site exhibits flashy hydrographs that are typical of the
soils and hydrology of the targeted wetland system, since similar trends have been documented
on the reference site.
15
4.0 VEGETATION
4.1 Success Criteria
The interim measure of vegetative success identified in the approved Mitigation Plan will be the
survival of at least 320 3-year-old trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period.
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 5-year-old trees per acre at the
end of the monitoring period. Up to 20 percent of the site species composition may be
comprised of invaders. Remedial action may be required should these (i.e. loblolly pine, red
maple, sweet gum, etc.) present a problem and exceed 20 percent of the total count.
Construction of the site, planting of bare root trees, and spreading of the permanent seed mixture
was completed in March 2004.
4.2 Description of Species and Monitoring Protocol
Table 3. Tree Species Planted in the Marston Wetland Restoration Area.
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
1 Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo OBL
2 Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum FAC
3 Quercus lyrata Swamp White Oak OBL
4 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW-
5 Quercus phellos Coastal Willow Oak FACW-
6 Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress OBL
The following monitoring protocol was designed to predict vegetative survivability. Eight plots
were established on the Marston Mitigation Site, to monitor approximately 2 percent of the site.
The vegetation monitoring plots were designed to be 0.1 acre in size, or 66' x 66' dimensionally.
The plots were randomly located and randomly oriented within the wetland restoration area.
Plot construction involved using metal fence posts at each of the four corners to clearly and
permanently establish the area that was to be sampled. Then ropes were hung connecting all four
corners to help in determining if trees close to the plot boundary were inside or outside of the
plot. Trees immediately on the boundary, and trees just outside of the boundary that appear to
have greater than 50 percent of their canopy inside the boundary were counted as inside the plot.
A piece of white PVC pipe ten feet tall was placed over the metal post on one corner to facilitate
visual location of site throughout the five-year monitoring period.
All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged to mark them as the planted stems (vs. any
colonizers) and to help in locating them in the future. Each stem was then tagged with a
permanent, numbered aluminum tag.
4.3 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
Table 4 presents stem counts for each of the monitoring stations. Each planted tree species is
identified across the top row and each plot is identified down the left column. The numbers on
the top row correlate to the ID column given in Table 3. Trees are flagged in the field on a
quarterly basis before the flags degrade. Flags are utilized because they will not interfere with
the growth of the tree. Volunteers are also flagged during this process.
16
Table 4. 2005 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Species Composition.
Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Stem/ac
M1 0 6 0 10 23 22 61 610
M2 0 46 5 1 3 4 59 590
M3 0 16 6 0 2 2 26 260
M4 25 0 1 1 3 24 54 540
M5 0 10 12 10 2 1 35 350
M6 0 3 5 11 14 2 35 350
M7 0 3 9 25 5 0 42 420
M8 12 0 1 6 2 22 43 430
Average Stems/Acre: 444
Due to extensive beaver herbivory, supplementary trees were planted prior to the start of the
2005 growing season within highly localized areas near Plots 1 through 3. These supplemental
plantings are concurrent with the management of beavers on the site and adjacent properties and
will ensure that the site achieves the long-term targeted plant community. Active management
of the beaver population has resulted in the taking of three individuals and the removal of the
dam. Management of the site and adjacent populations will continue until it is determined that
they no longer pose a threat to survivability. The site will be monitored quarterly to document
beaver activity.
Volunteer species will also be monitored throughout the five year monitoring period. Table 5
shows the most commonly found woody volunteer species. Volunteer woody species were
observed in almost all of the vegetation plots, but were deemed too small to tally. If these trees
persist into next growing season they will be flagged and added to the overall stems per acre
assessment of the site. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) is the most common volunteer,
though Red Maple (Acer rubrum) and Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) were also observed.
Table 5. Volunteer Tree Species Identified within the Wetland Restoration Area.
ID Species Common Name FAC Status
A Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum FAC+
B Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC
C Diospyros virginiana Persimmon FAC
4.4 Vegetation Observations
After construction of the mitigation site a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia wild
rye (Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea)
was broadcast on the site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre. These species are present on the site.
Hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation is also occurring on site. Rush (Juncus effusus), spike-rush
(Eleocharis obtusa), climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens), tearthumb (Polygonum
sagittatum), Boxseed (Ludwigia sp.), and sedge (Carex sp.), all hydrophytic herbaceous plants,
are observed across the site particularly in areas of periodic inundation. The presence of these
herbaceous wetland plants helps to confirm the presence of wetland hydrology on the site.
17
There are weedy species occurring on the site, though few seem to be impacting the woody or
herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. Kudzu was noted around the perimeter of the site near Plots
7 and 8; management of these outlying areas will be conducted in the spring. The following map
shows the approximate area around Plot 3 that has been invaded by Lespedeza and will be treated
for improvement. Management will include mowing that isolated area, followed by a tree
replanting prior to the start of the 2006 growing season, and an application in the spring of Oust,
a pre-emergent. Other than the aforementioned area, the other species are weedy annuals and
pose very little threat to survivability on site. Commonly seen weedy vegetation includes
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), wild dill (Foeniculum vulgare), and morning glory (Ipomoea
sp.). The kudzu and any other threatening weedy vegetation found in the future will be
monitored and documented in the quarterly reports.
/ {1 >
! { a
l ? 4
.L
S # vL
1
t f
A
?t
{ {'ma'r o i' CeP`r11?At (?:)

,x
r

i
?

Marston Site
Lespedeza Area
Plot 3

Celli

? J

},y'
?y
J
! fi
.
r •
.-
k.,
r
...
i

:Qpf, t4;loteah, Inc. ??r i i -?'
Figure 5. Location of Lespediza Occurrence.
4.5 Vegetative Conclusions
The site was planted in non-riverine hardwoods and Coastal Plain swamp species in March 2004.
There were eight 0.1 acre vegetation monitoring plots established throughout the planting areas.
We feel that the overall site is on trajectory for meeting the minimum success interim criteria of
320 trees per acre by year three and the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by year five.
Supplemental planting and active beaver management have increased stem counts in areas that
were previously depleted.
18
5.0 STREAM MONITORING
5.1 Success Criteria
As stated in the approved Mitigation Plan, the stream restoration success criteria for the site
include the following:
• Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year
monitoring period.
• Cross-Sections: There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. Cross-sections shall
be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all monitored cross-sections
should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for "E" or "C" type channels.
• Longitudinal Profiles: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable, e.g. they are not aggrading or degrading. Bedforms observed should be
consistent with those observed in "B" and "C" type channels.
• Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of
erosion control measures.
• Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates within the restored
stream channel shall be conducted for the first three years of post-restoration monitoring.
The Year 2 sample will be collected one full year after the completion of construction.
Results for Year 1,2 and 3 will appear in report Years 2, 3, and 4. No success criteria are
applied to the sampling data that will be collected.
5.2 Description of Stream Monitoring
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted
following construction completion on the Marston Site:
Bankfull Events: A crest gauge was installed on the site to document bankfull events. The gauge
is checked each month, and records the highest out-of-bank flow event that occurred during the
past month. The gauge is located near stream station 60+50 (see Figure 2d).
Cross-Sections: Two permanent cross-sections were installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream
restoration work, with one (1) of the locations being a riffle cross-section and one (1) location
being a pool cross-section. A total of 13 permanent cross-sections were established across the
mitigation site. Each cross-section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish
the exact transect used. Permanent cross-section pins were surveyed and located relative to a
common benchmark to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross-section
surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner
berm, edge of water, and thalweg. Riffle cross-sections are classified using the Rosgen stream
classification system. Permanent cross-sections for 2005 (Year 2) were surveyed in January
2005.
Longitudinal Profiles: A complete longitudinal profile will be completed in Years 1, 3, and 5.
The profile will be conducted for a length of restored channel at least 3,000 feet in length.
Measurements will include thalweg, water surface, inner berm, bankfull, and top of low bank.
Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature, e.g. riffle, run, pool, and
19
glide, and the max pool depth. A common benchmark will be used each year to facilitate
comparison of year-to-year data. The longitudinal survey for 2004 (Year 1) was conducted
during March 2004. The longitudinal survey for Year 3 will be conducted in 2006.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs are used to visually document restoration success. Nine
reference photo stations have been established across the Marston Site. Reference stations are
marked with wooden stakes and GPS coordinates have been determined for each location.
Reference photos are taken at least once per year. Reference photos are taken at each permanent
cross-section from both streambanks. The survey tape is centered in the photographs of the bank,
and the water line is located in the lower edge of the frame with as much of the bank as possible
included in each photo. Structure photos of each grade control structure are also taken. A photo
log of the Marston site is included as Appendix B.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Benthic macroinvertebrate data will be collected from the reference
reach (Beaverdam Branch) and within the project reach. Pre-restoration data were collected on
March 8, 2002, prior to initiation of stream restoration practices. Year 1 post-restoration
sampling was done on January 17, 2005. Sampling will be conducted each year between January
and March, since the stream in the past has experienced periods of very low flow during summer
months. Sample collection will follow protocols described in the standard operating procedures
of the Biological Assessment Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality. The Qual-4 collection
method will be used for the collection of macroinvertebrate samples, and a NC certified
laboratory will perform the identification of the macroinvertebrate samples. The metrics to be
calculated will include total and EPT taxa richness, EPT abundance and biotic index values.
5.3 Results of Stream Monitoring
Bankfull events on the site were documented during several site visits through the use of the
onsite crest gauge and visual evidence of out-of-bank flow. The largest stream flow for Year 2
documented by the crest gauge on the site was a flow that occurred during the month of
September and was approximately 2 feet above the bankfull stage. Another bankfull event was
documented earlier in the year during the month of June and was approximately 1 feet above the
bankfull stage at the crest gauge. Based on observations of ponded water, debris lines, and
deposited sediment on the floodplain, the bankfull event spread over much of the restored
wetland areas adjacent to the stream.
Year 2 cross-section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during Januar and
compared to baseline data collected in March 2004. Longitudinal profile information was not
scheduled to occur for Year 2 but will be documented in monitoring Year 3 (2006). Permanent
cross-sections document the stream dimension at thirteen locations (seven riffles and six pools,
see Appendix C). The cross-sections show that there has been very little adjustment to stream
dimension since construction. Several of the pool cross-sections indicate the development of
point bar features, which is expected. All monitored cross-sections fell within the quantitative
parameters defined for "E" or "C" type channels.
In-stream structures installed within the restored stream included constructed riffles, log vanes,
log weirs, and root wads. Visual observations of structures throughout the past growing season
have indicated that nearly all structures are functioning as designed. Log vanes placed in
meander pool areas have provided scour to keep pools deep and provide cover for fish. Log
weirs placed in riffle areas have maintained riffle elevations and provided a downstream scour
20
hole which provides habitat. Root wads placed on the outside of meander bends have provided
bank stability and in-stream cover for fish and other aquatic organisms. Two constructed riffles
were installed on the lower end of the project to step the restored stream down to the elevation of
the existing channel at the outlet of the project.
Photographs were taken throughout the monitoring season to document the evolution of the
restored stream channel (see Appendix B). Herbaceous vegetation is dense along the restored
stream, making it difficult to take photographs of the stream channel itself. Pools have
maintained a variety of depths and habitat qualities, depending on the location and type of scour
features (logs, root wads, transplants, etc.).
5.3.1 Stream Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected from two sites on January 17, 2005.
Site 1 is located in the downstream section of the restoration reach, while Site 2 is located
on Beaverdam Branch in Jones County. Site 2 was also used as an eco-reference site
during the pre-construction survey (March 2002. A site upstream of the restoration
reach could not be used due to insu ficient flow. The sampling methodology followed
the Qual-4 protocol listed in the NCDWQ's Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. A summary of the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling results is
presented in Table 6, with complete results presented in Appendix C. J
The components of the benthic macroinvertebrate community that are commonly used to
evaluate water quality are the EPT taxa. The EPT taxa include specimens belonging to
the insect orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies) and Trichoptera
(caddisflies). These groups are generally the least tolerant to water pollution and
therefore are very useful indicators of water quality. Therefore, the presence of
substantial numbers of EPT taxa and individuals is considered indicative of relatively
undisturbed "higher quality" streams. EPT metrics commonly used include EPT taxa
richness, EPT biotic index, and EPT abundance which are shown in Table 6.
21
&L4.CAL- 01
Table 6. Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data for the Marston Site C Qv?
Metrics Site 1 Site 1 Site 2 Site 2
Project Reach Project Reach Beaverdam Beaverdam
3/8/2002 1/17/2005 Branch Branch
3/14/2002 1/17/2005
Total Taxa Richness 26 20 32 16
EPT Taxa Richness 1 3 9 1
Total Biotic Index 6.87 7.53 5.93 7.26
EPT Biotic Index 9.8 6.02 4.14 6.2
EPT Abundance 1 14 33 1
NCDWQ Habitat

Assessment 39 75 89 89
The benthic macroinvertebrate community of Site 1 showed slight improvement from
2002 in EPT taxa richness, increasing from one very pollution-tolerant EPT to three less
pollution tolerant EPT taxa. EPT abundance at Site 1 has also increased from 1 in 2002
to 14 in 2005.
Beaverdam Branch, sampled on January 17, 2005, apparently has undergone a significant
water quality decline since 2002 based on the low species diversity results in 2005.
However, physical habitat remains intact and not declining (habitat assessment score of
89), suggesting that water chemistry at that site has been negatively affected. Scattered
debris of old trash bags observed in the channel also helps support this conclusion.
After construction, the project reach has an open canopy, thus limiting potential input of
coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM) to the aquatic system. Inputs of CPOM
provide a critical resource base for the benthic macroinvertebrate community, especially
in a low-order stream such as the project reach. In response to the lack of CPOM, few
shredder organisms (only Tipula sp., a cranefly larva) were found in the project reach in
2005.
Establishing a well-forested riparian buffer along the restoration reach would provide
shading, reduce photosynthetic rate of algae and macrophytes, reduce siltation and
e sedimentation, and provide additional habitat and organic matter to aquatic organisms.
As a result, recruitment of additional species, especially shredders, should occur.
h? Recruitment of additional intolerant species will most likely come from a nearby
watershed and not from upstream. An increasing trend of the total and EPT taxa richness
should occur over a period of years following stream restoration. The trend results will
rely heavily upon the successful establishment of the riparian vegetation and in-stream
habitat improvements.
S46,
22
5.4 Conclusions
The total length of stream channel restored on the site was 6,416 feet. Based on the data
collected, the restored channel is stable and providing the functions intended. Riffle and pool
features remained stable during Year 2 monitoring observations. Benthic Macroinvertebrate
samples showed improvement one year after construction. It is expected that stability and in-
stream habitat of the system will only improve in the coming years as permanent vegetation
becomes more established.
23
6.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• Year 2 hydrologic monitoring has shown that the minimum wetland hydrology criteria have
been achieved. All six hydrologic monitoring gauges documented that the targeted success
criteria were achieved.
• Despite two bankfull flows during the second growing season, the restored stream channel
has remained stable and is providing the intended habitat and hydrologic functions.
• Based on vegetation monitoring, the average number of stems per acre on site are 444. This
included supplemental plantings due to herbivory. Beaver management will ensure that the
site meets its tree survival criteria.
• Management of Kudzu around vegetation plots 7 and 8 as well as the site perimeter will
occur in the spring of 2006. Management of Lespedeza and replanting in and around plot 3
will be conducted prior to the start of the 2006 growing season.
• Monitoring of vegetation and groundwater and surface water levels will continue.
24
7.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common on the Marston site. During certain times
of the year, frogs have been very prevalent across the site. Turtles, fish, and Great Blue Herons
have also been periodically observed.
25
APPENDICES
(APPENDIX MATERIALS ARE INCLUDED ON ENCLOSED CD)
Q[I @ R od19 p
DEC 0 1 2004
Neu-Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Banltr,. _ WATERQUALITY It, WETLANDS Ar 0 STORMWATER BRANCH
Marston Wetland and Stream Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2004 (Year 1)
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Managers, Bankers, and Traders of Environmental Rights
"we IVk'Vest Cw the ev',v'rOo'Mevk't."
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 2
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................2
1.2 PURPOSE .....................................................................................................................................2
1.3 PROJECT HISTORY ....................................................................................................................2
2. HYDROLOGY ..................................................................................................4
2.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................4
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING EFFORTS ...............................................4
2.3.1 Site Data ....................................................................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Climatic Data ................................................................................................................ 12
2.4 HYDROLOGIC CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................14
3. VEGETATION .................................................................................................15
3.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................................................15
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND MONITORING PROTOCAL ..........................................15
3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATIVE MONITORING .........................................................................16
3.4 VEGETATION CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................17
4. STREAM MONITORING ...............................................................................18
4.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................................................18
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF STREAM MONITORING .........................................................................18
4.3 RESULTS OF STREAM MONITORING ..................................................................................19
4.4 CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................21
5. REFERENCE SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................... 22
6. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS .......................24
7. WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS .......................................................................24
8. VEGETATION OBSERVATIONS ................................................................ 24
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF THE MARSTON MITIGATION SITE ............................................3
FIGURE 2. AS-BUILT FIGURES FOR THE MARSTON MITIGATION SITE ..........................5
FIGURE 3. 2004 GROUNDWATER GAUGE DATA GRAPH ..................................................13
FIGURE 4. RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL SEGMENT APRIL OF 2004, SHOWING
ALONG THE STREAM CHANNEL ........................................................................21
FIGURE 5. COMPARISON OF REFERENCE SITE DATA TO RESTORATION SITE
DATA .........................................................................................................................23
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS FOR 2004 (YEAR 1) ......................... 11
TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF HISTORIC AVERAGE RAINFALL TO OBSERVED
RAINFALL (INCHES) ............................................................................................. 12
TABLE 3. TREE SPECIES PLANTED IN THE MARSTON WETLAND
RESTORATION AREA ........................................................................................... 15
TABLE 4. 2004 VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT SPECIES COMPOSITION .............. 16
TABLE 5. VOLUNTEER TREE SPECIES IDENTIFIED WITHIN IN THE WETLAND
RESTORATION AREA ........................................................................................... 17
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. HYDROGRAPH DATA
APPENDIX B. PHOTO LOG
APPENDIX C. STREAM MONITORING DATA
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2004 (Year 1)
Marston Mitigation Site
SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2004 growing season on the
Marston Mitigation Site. Construction of the site, including planting of trees, was completed in
March 2004. The 2004 data represent results from the first year of hydrologic and vegetation
monitoring for both wetlands and streams.
The design for the Marston property involved the restoration of a Coastal Plain small stream
swamp as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The Coastal Plain small stream swamp
communities exist as the floodplains of small blackwater streams in which separate fluvial
features and associated vegetation are too small or poorly developed to distinguish. After
construction, it was determined that 6,416 feet of stream and 37.7 acres of wetland hydrology
were restored. An additional 8.6 acres of wetlands were enhanced on the northern end of the
project.
This Annual Report presents the data from six hydrologic monitoring stations, eight vegetation
monitoring stations, and stream monitoring, as required by the approved Mitigation Plan for the
site. Three of the hydrologic stations are equipped with manual groundwater gauges and three
stations are equipped with automated gauges and a manual calibration gauge. Additionally, the
gauges are used as points from which photographs are taken over time.
Weather station data from the Trenton and Kinston Weather Stations were used in conjunction
with a manual rain gauge located on the site to document precipitation amounts. The manual
gauge is used to validate observations made at the automated station. For the 2004 growing
season, slightly lower than average rainfall totals were documented on the mitigation site.
In 2004, all six hydrology monitoring gauges have met the hydrologic success criteria based on
field observations. One manual gage had several readings significantly below the other gages
onsite however this gage is believed to have exhibited hydroperiods greater than 7% of the
growing season, and correlated well with data collected from the gauge located on the reference
site and with the associated wetland systems that are targeted. Based on these results, it was
concluded that the site is performing as designed and is mimicking conditions documented on the
wetland reference site.
Eight monitoring plots 0.1 acre in size were used to predict survivability of the woody vegetation
planted on site. The vegetation monitoring indicated an average survivability of over 330 stems
per acre even though there are isolated pockets of extensive beaver herbivory. This average
survivability would increase to 410 stems per acre absent the depleted areas. We will conduct
supplemental planting within the depleted areas concurrent with the management of beavers on
the site and adjacent properties. Overall, the site is on track for meeting the initial vegetation
survival criteria of 320 stems per acre surviving after the third growing season.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Located in Jones County, the entire Marston Mitigation Site encompasses approximately 176
acres. It is located approximately twelve miles west of the town of Trenton, North Carolina
(Figure 1). This project provides compensatory mitigation for stream and wetland impacts
associated within the resident hydrologic unit. The Marston site is designed to restore a Coastal
Plain small stream swamp as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The Coastal Plain
small stream swamp communities exist as the floodplains of small blackwater streams in which
separate fluvial features and associated vegetation are too small or poorly developed to
distinguish. Construction was completed in February 2004, with 58 acres of planting being
completed in March 2004. Groundwater, surface water, and rain gauges were functional
beginning March 15, 2004. The 2004 monitoring season represents the first year of monitoring
for the site.
1.2 PURPOSE
Monitoring of the Marston Site is required to demonstrate successful mitigation based on the
criteria found in the Mitigation Plan, the Neu-Con Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Bank Instrument, and through a comparison to reference site conditions. Hydrologic, vegetation,
and stream monitoring are conducted on an annual basis. Success criteria must be met for five
consecutive years. This Annual Report details the results of the monitoring efforts for 2004
(Year 1) at the Marston Mitigation Site.
1.3 PROJECT HISTORY
June 2001 Pre-restoration Monitoring Wells Installed
November 2003 1 Construction Began
December 2003 Approved Mitigation Plan
February 2004 Construction Completed
March 2004 1 Planting Completed
March 2004 Post-Construction Monitoring Wells Installed
November 2004 1st Annual Monitoring Report
November 2005 (scheduled)
November 2006 (scheduled)
November 2007 (scheduled)
November 2008 (scheduled)
2nd Annual Monitoring Report
3rd Annual Monitoring Report
4th Annual Monitoring Report
5th Annual Monitoring Report
2
•,;?
f
WET LAN D
REFERENCE
SITE
as . `.?•?
41 t
00 PROJECT SITE
258 1 ?._ -
41 s 58
„?•,.;:?,. STREAM
-•?. REFERENCE
-?• .,`'.?""•-•` REACH
•t• 17
a:, •,? .
hl ft
'?"T!! Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
ltd - ' 220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC 27312
JONES CO
Figurel: Site Location for Marston Mitigation Site
ONSLOW CO
0 1.5 3 6 9Miles
Figure 1. Location of Marston Wetland and Stream Mitigation Site
3
2. HYDROLOGY
2.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA
As stated in the approved Mitigation Plan, the hydrologic success criteria for the site is to restore
the water table at the site so that it will remain within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 7%
of the growing season continuously (approximately 17 days). The day counts are based on the
growing season for Jones County, which is 232 days long, beginning on March 20 and ending
November 7, as calculated from National Weather Service Wetlands Determination Tables
(WETS) for Jones County. As specified in the approved Mitigation Plan, data are collected from
three automated and three manual groundwater gauges.
The Mitigation Plan further specified that in order for the hydrologic data to be considered
successful it must demonstrate wetland conditions are present in normal or dryer than normal
conditions. During the 2004 growing season, slightly lower than normal rainfall amounts were
documented on the restoration site. Monitoring data from the reference site demonstrate positive
correlations between the restoration site and the natural hydrology of the target system.
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING EFFORTS
Three manual groundwater gauges, three automated Infinities groundwater gauges, and one rain
gauge were installed prior to the beginning of the first growing season (Figure 2). Groundwater
gauges, both manual and automated, were installed to a minimum depth of at least 40 inches
below the ground surface. The monitoring protocol for the site specifies that automated
monitoring stations will be downloaded and checked for malfunctions on a monthly basis.
During monthly site visits, manual groundwater gauges are read and rainfall totals are collected
from the on-site rain gauge. During the 2004 growing season, all three automated loggers
performed well and no periods of missing data were incurred.
4
PROJECT: 070 AL4RSTON
O rr r N
O O r O O `? Ol N .a Z i$.? •
m
m
r g
m n
= 5 ::: 0 bd
N
n' O o o n :: m
UQ
L D trJ
° ° o° mt93;? y
mmm ?£
O O D D D >1-am # (? •.. PIP,
3,00 m da m OR
NN CCC zm
m m r?
C7 v ?r? m
n o
f m m m = 25i ray,
N N N 0
m z
ZZZbb -mi Ia
m X Y Y r.
UQ
?-mN-i ? 2 S y 03M
A'+
n-
o0,
mo 11zz
0. ch
00
q 0
II n ? .NPp z O
o. W OD Z
V V m m m '?+ O
MEq M O (ia'
tmnm W? H
'o
Ail
o b ? ?O 83 b `1 n
z co
. s
v om
zc:
omn FO
m a
?a oD m mm ?y'A.
{n s c?v y?
c i = ,47,?'T! r0
cZ
z CA
O C c Z C?
0 0
Og y
n ? z
b ?
A
n b Zzm
moo
2
m z -?
C
$Z FIN
1 r- .13.2
m? O?+
s zOP - :,
W-0 ?D z
_ cn
ND
-4 cn _.
? 1 ? ,A VII
!Q ??
O ? pia CW _
, t D tn+ N
.: y S
?°I Q O a ? `"cn?
r
b ?

V m
U)
[Jt
C v,
1
CF w U,
!1J O
U

h0

rya o?

5?
V: j
i7i y
$ 133 M

y9 mD
?
` N ,„ 0
O
?

9 /?
I
Z V
n
v, C O
Z
0
O o

h O
o
G(G ? a O

S

C??O a

y
A, •

lpo
%cl M) .Sm
S? a
of
`nry
69
c?1
c?
;n
n
h
C?
rn
N
r
fv
U
z ,
Z 0

58 ;J (A
0
sp
ss
? ? >
-
mrz ?Z
CE
0

S s Z 4
j5

zm
$ 0
o

m
2s R
s 5 59
q 59

q lol? 0,
1'? V ? O1 • V,...

.9S A ?
9q

SE
`
J 4
6 e
s
r 5?
??5 sa,' a ° M
o o
m°
n
'o`O
O `S
m
'4 5

? Q
a '< n 'Y
°
c)
dill,
c

p

?,4

MATCHLiNE SHEET 3 0
m
Nmmsa
r?
T
lle n ?• r« ap
o \' x
oo
G7N
<Az
r (D C
M (D
T b ANE ' ? ? ?

J On
o
•N•I?ap
-1, a
Z r
^ _I
m Q °

ZA
one

4i

h?
h?

<n
l(>
q?
g ?
n
L]
U?
y mm>2
$ o
r
A
ME
Qt 1.00
0
N O Acj

4
V ~, O
O
MATCHLINE SHEET y

Sr
t? ? N
4nn
2B-W 5
yq
VC7 nC ? 7
?y G r' .
t
10 r w
r
N
m
28"0

2$-W
w

s4 a m

?'
y x
'? I' 9S Es -
i
?g
r
m r - ..
t' ?w
5T
oQ
V N 47 10
S5 N
"?'
Y
n O
m
r .. ?s ?+ mh
v)
l7?
1

Z
c
`^
6h -•i

Z J
O m
O ? r N

2
c)
>

Z m
?

? v
Q
LI
D
N
zs m -c
.ss

bb

0
v> b
co
Dm
ttO j 9y
W Z ?n
?
L5
r
?o ?tlv L
m

.

y?+*

W175 ?'
Wo, ti

Im
' m
N Z

?

n
d

A ?
a "'?,
t $D f11
S

s

53 n
5a

n `C('
M
N
CF
S,,
? s> fem.--.

MATCHLINE SHEET 4

?O T o

=03 0

@ n

a €
°o?g
0 5
cQ :
v?Nq _

i
NIATCHLINE SHEET 3
N
e 4 i .. d
S p
d
m x C?c
119
sa tax 'mod
O m C)
1+ a > A
q '1
+o
o , p Nz
W
s cy S?,_ F?
N 52
z v
51
ti?
52 45 q
25 S? ?? ZN
Is', ?L
cn •y
?? v ns ti ?S
wl` µ ci,?y I+3 C)
m0, o -yitA o
ps Dm
Z g•? U r n Zm 'y
n w ?,C
.? O AZ
N ? Q SOD
Q
'S' rQp;?y
r Dm 612
00
O " H G Z 3a'M y? r 56
z g J t?l
In < ?k m 53 1,5
m s2
O 4S
O ? ON\yg\X?
0
0 " mZS sy s,3
Cl) U) t4 51
54
y
000 >m
o Dm
zzz 5
N p %rv '+ 52
f f ?p
OD V7 aq0
C. OD N i;
8
7-
0
Vi
fir' Ss O 0b
S3 A9 ?t 9Cf
ti
F 50
g\l? ?s
t
? o m
5=' ? ? day\0 ?? 6b ?
b ?y
O
m
y
5
A Z ?,??5
h0 ? ? r
b, CO
90
Vy v_ 1
Ly V /?'?
fS .L
u 1
IS SO
YS
?N
U?
O
r
H
Wm
G)
Z=
? N
TO JDJ
C:J
OZ
? O
t
.p
°o
V- -n

O ,
,
y At
At
r
m b ?m

*Z
ago

~, a
C?m
O p
o c
c
(D ?

>
r=?
>? O
>

7?p v
cn N CL

j::Q2 C
Iw O `
? .

g? O
v?
?
y

s
12,
s
0J
LU
U

n Pi
lo
IpO

14,10.
N;
, y
kll'
?

??5 Ta , siF
as 1
O
-? 'rn g

?
9
B7 a , o
p-' z

mx Ch

s
sto

> ,p z
" N
W
ell ?
5b eb ?y..?

' w m
N

r^.
a

e$c, ?a sv
?b 0 Sa
V 5r
AI
e 1'n

? ?4 r
?d
O ? rt1 v eFo
n 0 A
w a,
Sq
V m ?
o c,
try
?s
a ? 6d 3
m ? N C1
`m ? c fi
o .?s
e?
sr :a(?i'4?„ ? ?a?
bey m '?.
a
OIAV
iii ?J Qy p
Cis
6v
•?
s? n
MM
Z
v m m
o ©-=
n o
h~ V -4
zil 0Z
?v
Z .i
v9 } A,
V?
HUI
o? a CiP T ?LZ
?J e o
EAS
in _ y E
b zg? o- ? ? ?O
? hh o<36? N m O ?, (D E
X
v? o aH v ?a ??
O '-« N $
m g @
x N
4 ; 31
a a v
V V
_ n
to o a
x
? a a
h
C
s
6
h . ? s
?
( \ f
r
,r
?t
J
,f
I
i
OvA b b?b? ¢zib?
too
O y ?
x ?°? x y
RiN
lk
16
(CP-
LP

a
h
y
C?
77
?v
J`
.
?-•? 1

aD -n

fill
SgN? o

2.3 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
2.3.1 Site Data
The following hydroperiod statistics were calculated for each monitoring station during the
growing season: 1) most consecutive days that the water table was within twelve inches of the
surface; 2) cumulative number of days that the water table was within twelve inches of the soil
surface; and 3) number of times that the water table rose to within twelve inches of the soil
surface. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 1. Figure 3 provides a chart of
the water depth for each of the monitoring gauges on the site. Precipitation is shown across the
top of the graph. This graph demonstrates the reaction at each monitoring location of the
groundwater level to specific rainfall events. Raw hydrograph data collected from the monitoring
gauges is provided in Appendix A.
The site was designed to function as a riparian wetland system with associated wet flats.
Hydrology in the riparian areas is driven primarily by groundwater discharge and overbank
flooding, whereas precipitation is the primary hydrologic influence in the wet flat areas.
Monitoring has thus far demonstrated that the site is functioning as designed, with varying
degrees of wetness and saturation across the site. All gauges have exceeded the 7% hydrologic
success criteria. Actual hydroperiods experienced across the site during 2004 ranged from 11%
to 12% of the growing season, which is consistent with the expected conditions of this type of
wetland ecosystem.
Table 1. Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2004 (Year 1).
Percentage indicates percent of the growing season.
Monitoring
Station Most Consecutive Days
Meeting Criteria' Cumulative Days
Meeting Criteria2 Number of Instances
Meeting Criteria3
Al 26(11%) 121(52%) 17
A2 25.5(11%) 126.5(55%) 17
A3 28(12%) 146(63%) 16
M1 >28 (12%) >146 (63%) <16
M2 >28 (12%) >146 (63%) <16
M3 -26(11%) -121(52%) -16
' Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table
less than 12 inches from the soil surface.
a Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less than
12 inches from the soil surface.
3 Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to less
than 12 inches from the soil surface.
a Groundwater gauges M1 and M2 are manual gauges. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data
from gauge A3, however wetter conditions were documented at both M1 and. M2 as compared to A3.
5 Groundwater gauge M3 is a manual gauge. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from
gauge Al, however slightly dryer conditions were documented at M3 during certain rimes of the year as
compared to A3.
11
The model simulations performed during the design phase of the project indicated that the entire
site would range from slightly higher than the minimum wetland criteria of 5% to more saturated
areas that would exceed 12.5%. As the data collected for 2004 indicate, the site is performing as
described in the Mitigation Plan, with varying degrees of wetness documented and the entire site
exceeding the stated criteria of 7%.
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Table 2 is a comparison of the 2004 monthly rainfall to historical precipitation (collected from
1971 to 2000) for Jones County. Historic data presented were collected from an automated
weather station in Trenton. Data were not available for the entire growing season for the Trenton
rain gage. Missing data were supplemented with data from a rain gage in Kinston, NC. For the
period of record in which rainfall measurements were collected on-site (March 15 through
October 6), the rainfall total from the Trenton and Kinston gauges (35.83 inches) correlates well
with data collected from the onsite manual rain gauge (34.99 inches). In general, monthly rainfall
amounts for the area were higher than normal for February, April, May, and June, and lower
than average in January, March, July, and September. This comparison gives an indication of
how 2004 compares to historical data in terms of average rainfall. For the 2004 period of record
shown, total rainfall was approximately 0.2 inches less than the long-term average. Monthly
rainfall for October, November, and December 2004 were not available at the time this report
was compiled.
Table 2. Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall (Inches).
Month Average 30% 70% Observed 2004
Precipitation
January 4.77 3.74 5.72 1.43
February 3.57 2.24 4.14 4.70
March 4.41 3.27 5.06 1.28
April 3.47 1.91 4.45 4.78
May 4.12 2.87 4.82 4.89
June 4.89 3.40 5.90 6.82
July 6.22 4.55 7.41 5.02 *
August 6.12 4.28 7.08 8.59 *
September 5.51 2.99 6.74 3.14 *
October 3.34 1.69 4.79 N/A
November 2.93 2.17 3.74 N/A
December 3.64 2.34 4.43 N/A
* Precipitation data not available for Trenton gage. Data from Kinston rain gage.
12
0
d
C
L

O N d CO
(u!) IleJui6a
•
M
Q 2
C: r-
O O

cu m
O O

N N

04

O O

N ?
O O
N N

7
cA •

0 0

E2 2
0 0
N U'
i
a a
i

I •

v
0
LO
N
O
0
co
0
0
O
2
ca
?Y
0
n
0
0
0
N
V'
O
0
rn
0
O O O O O O O O O O M
N N M d (O ti O

Ai
T0
V
R!
C?
A
a?
nn
a
cd
V
d'
O
O
N
M
it
bA
?I
2.4 HYDROLOGIC CONCLUSIONS
Data collected from all the groundwater monitoring gauges on Marston Mitigation Site indicate
that approved hydrologic success criteria have been met during the 2004 growing season for all
of the six stations. Hydrologic criteria were met in the latter part of the growing season. Due to
the relatively low rainfall patterns of the spring months, the water table on the site did not
rebound until periods of heavy rains occurred during August and September. The site is
performing as designed and predicted, with varying degrees of saturation across the site. The site
in general exhibits flashy hydrographs that appear to be indicative of the soils and hydrology of
the targeted wetland system, since similar trends have been documented on the reference site
(see Section 5).
14
3. VEGETATION
3.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA
The interim measure of vegetative success identified in the approved Mitigation Plan will be the
survival of at least 320 3-year old trees per acre at the end of year 3 of the monitoring period.
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 5-year old trees per acre at the
end of the monitoring period. Up to 20% of the site species composition may be comprised of
invaders. Remedial action may be required should these (i.e. loblolly pine, red maple, sweet
gum, etc.) present a problem and exceed 20% composition.
Construction of the site, planting of bare root trees, and spreading of the permanent seed mixture
was completed in March 2004.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND MONITORING PROTOCAL
Table 3. Tree species planted in the Marston Wetland Restoration Area.
ID Common Name Scientific Name FAC Status
1 Nyssa bi ora Swamp Tupelo OBL
2 Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum FAC
3 Quercus lyrata Swamp White Oak OBL
4 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW-
5 Quercus phellos Coastal Willow Oak FACW-
6 Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress OBL
The following monitoring protocol was designed to predict vegetative survivability. Eight plots
were established on the Marston Mitigation Site, to monitor approximately 2% of the site. The
vegetation monitoring plots were designed to be 0.1 acre in size, or 66' x 66' dimensionally. The
plots were randomly located and randomly oriented within the wetland restoration area.
Plot construction involved using metal fence posts at each of the four corners to clearly and
permanently establish the area that was to be sampled. Then ropes were hung connecting all four
corners to help in determining if trees close to the plot boundary were inside or outside of the
plot. Trees immediately on the boundary, and trees just outside of the boundary that appear to
have greater than 50% of their canopy inside the boundary were counted inside the plot. A piece
of white PVC pipe ten feet tall was placed over the metal post on one corner to facilitate visual
location of site throughout the five-year monitoring period.
All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged to mark them as the planted stems (vs. any
colonizers) and to help in locating them in the future. Each stem was then tagged with a
permanent numbered aluminum tag.
15
3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATIVE MONITORING
Table 4 presents stem counts for each of the monitoring stations. Each planted tree species is
identified across the top row and each plot is identified down the left column. The numbers on
the top row correlate to the ID column given in Table 3. Trees are flagged in the field on a
quarterly basis before the flags degrade. Flags are utilized because they will not interfere with
the growth of the tree. Volunteers are also flagged during this process.
Table 4. 2003 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Species Composition.
Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Stem/ac
Wl 0 1 2 2 2 0 7 70
W2 0 0 13 1 1 0 15 150
W3 0 12 11 0 8 0 31 310
W4 26 0 1 0 0 20 47 470
W5 0 11 12 12 5 1 41 410
W6 0 2 3 13 13 0 31 310
W7 0 5 11 26 7 0 49 490
W8 18 0 1 5 1 22 47 470
Average Stems/Acre: 335
High mortality in plots 1 and 2 are directly related to beaver activity near the plots. Plots 3 and 4
have experienced only minor mortality. Plots 1 and 2 are in close proximity to the stream and
have exaggerated mortality when viewed in context to the site. Numerous stems have been
chewed and the tree subsequently eaten by the beaver. Active management of the beaver
population has resulted in the taking of three individuals and the removal of the dam.
Management of the site and adjacent populations will continue until it is determined that they no
longer pose a threat to survivability. Supplemental planting will ensure that the site achieves the
long-term targeted plant community. The site will continue to be monitored quarterly to
document beaver activity.
Volunteer species will also be monitored throughout the five year monitoring period. Below is a
table of the most commonly found woody volunteer species.
Volunteer woody species were observed in most all of the vegetation plots, but were deemed too
small to tally. If these trees persist into next growing season they will be flagged and added to
the overall stems per acre assessment of the site. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) is the
most common volunteer, though Red Maple (Acer rubrum) and Persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana) were also observed.
16
Table 5. Volunteer Tree Species Identified within in the Wetland Restoration Area.
ID Species Common Name FAC Status
A Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum FAC+
B Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC
C Diospyros virginiana Persimmon FAC
3.4 VEGETATION CONCLUSIONS
The site was planted in non-riverine hardwoods and coastal plain swamp species in March 2004.
There were eight 0.1 acre vegetation monitoring plots established throughout the planting areas.
We feel that the overall site is on trajectory for meeting the minimum success interim criteria of
320 trees per acre by year three and the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by year five.
Supplemental planting and active beaver management will increase stem counts in areas that
have been depleted.
17
4. STREAM MONITORING
4.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA
As stated in the approved Mitigation Plan, the stream restoration success criteria for the site
include the following:
• Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five year
monitoring period.
• Cross Sections: There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. Cross-sections
shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all monitored cross-
sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for "B" or "C" type
channels.
• Longitudinal Profiles: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features
are remaining stable, e.g. they are not aggrading or degrading. Bedforms observed should
be consistent with those observed in "E" and "C" type channels.
• Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness
of erosion control measures.
• Benthic Macroinvertebrate and Fish Sampling: Sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates
and fish within the restored stream channel shall be conducted for the first three years of
post-restoration monitoring. No success criteria are applied to the sampling data which
will be collected.
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF STREAM MONITORING
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted
following construction completion on the Marston Site:
Bankfull Events: A crest gauge was installed on the site to document bankfull events. The gauge
is checked each month, and records the highest out-of-bank flow event that occurred during the
past month. The gauge is located near stream station 60+50 (see Figure 2d).
Cross Sections: Two permanent cross-sections were installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream
restoration work, with one (1) of the locations being a riffle cross-section and one (1) location
being a pool cross-section. A total of 13 permanent cross sections were established across the
mitigation site. Each cross section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish
the exact transect used. Permanent cross section pins were surveyed and located relative to a
common benchmark to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross section
surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner
18
berm, edge of water, and thalweg. Riffle cross sections are classified using the Rosgen stream
classification system. Permanent cross sections for 2004 (year 1) were surveyed in March 2004.
Longitudinal Profiles: A complete longitudinal profile will be completed in years one, three, and
five. The profile will be conducted for a length of restored channel at least 3,000 feet in length.
Measurements will include thalweg, water surface, inner berm, bankfull, and top of low bank.
Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature, e.g. riffle, run, pool, and
glide, and the max pool depth. A common benchmark will be used each year to facilitate
comparison of year-to-year data. The longitudinal survey for 2004 (year 1) was conducted during
March 2004.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs are used to visually document restoration success. Nine
reference photo stations have been established across the Marston Site. Reference stations are
marked with wooden stakes and GPS coordinates have been determined for each location.
Reference photos are taken at least once per year. Reference photos are taken at each permanent
cross section from both streambanks. The survey tape is centered in the photographs of the bank,
and the water line is located in the lower edge of the frame with as much of the bank as possible
included in each photo. Structure photos of each grade control structure are also taken.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish Sampling: Benthic macroinvertebrate and fish sampling
data will be collected from the reference reach (upstream of project reach) and within the project
reach. Pre-restoration data were collected on March 8, 2002, prior to initiation of stream
restoration practices. Post-restoration sampling will begin one year after construction activities
have been completed, and annually thereafter for a total of three years. Sampling will be
conducted each year between November and February, since the stream in the past has
experienced periods of very low flow during summer months. Sample collection will follow
protocols described in the standard operating procedures of the Biological Assessment Unit of
the NC Division of Water Quality. The Qual-4 collection method will be used for the collection
of macroinvertebrate samples, and a NC certified laboratory will perform the identification of the
macroinvertebrate samples. The metrics to be calculated will include total and EPT taxa richness,
EPT abundance and biotic index values.
4.3 RESULTS OF STREAM MONITORING
Bankfull events on the site were documented during several site visits through the use of the
onsite crest gauge and visual evidence of out-of-bank flow. The largest stream flow documented
by the crest gauge on the site was a flow that occurred during the month of August and was
approximately 2 feet above the bankfull stage at the crest gauge. Based on observations of
ponded water, debris lines, and deposited sediment on the floodplain, the bankfull event spread
overmuch of the restored wetland areas adjacent to the stream.
Year 1 monitoring data for stream stability were collected during March 2004 to set a baseline
for stream monitoring to occur in subsequent years. The longitudinal profile information
documents the elevations and locations of streambed features and instream grade control
structures (see Appendix C). The longitudinal profile also documents that the overall design
stream slope was achieved in the completed stream. Permanent cross-sections document the
19
stream dimension at thirteen locations (seven riffles and six pools, see Appendix Q. The cross-
sections show that the constructed stream was built to the design dimensions and ratios indicated
in the plans.
Instream structures installed within the restored stream included constructed riffles, log vanes,
log weirs, and root wads. Visual observations of structures throughout the past growing season
have indicated that nearly all structures are functioning as designed. Log vanes placed in
meander pool areas have provided scour to keep pools deep and provide cover for fish. Log
weirs placed in riffle areas have maintained riffle elevations and provided a downstream scour
hole which provides habitat. Some areas of localized instability have been noticed; however
these areas appear to be stabilizing over time as vegetation becomes established. Some
adjustment to stream dimension is expected immediately following construction. Root wads
placed on the outside of meander bends have provided bank stability and instream cover for fish
and other aquatic organisms. Two constructed riffles were installed on the lower end of the
project to step the restored stream down to the elevation of the existing channel at the outlet of
the project.
Although fish and macroinvertebrate sampling are scheduled to occur in the January 2005, fish
have been observed within the restored stream channel during the past year. Frogs have also been
very prevalent around the stream channel at various times throughout the year.
Photographs have been taken throughout the monitored season to document the evolution of the
restored stream channel (see Appendix B). Due to drier than normal conditions, low stream flows
were observed during the early part of the growing season. Early in the growing season, beavers
built a dam in one location of the main reach near station 22+00. The dam was removed and a
management plan was started to trap the beavers and remove them from the site. Efforts are on-
going to remove the beavers. The beaver activity and the removal of the dam have not affected
stream stability.
20
4.4 CONCLUSIONS
The total length of stream channel restored on the site was 6,416 feet. Based on the data
collected thus far, the restored channel is stable and is providing the functions intended (Figure
4). Stable riffle and pool features developed quickly after construction and it is expected that
stability of the system will only improve in the coming years as permanent vegetation becomes
more established.
Figure 4. Restored stream channel segment April of 2004, showing bankfull flow along
the stream channel. The inset picture was taken in March 2004, less than one
month after the completion of construction, and is shown for comparison.
21
5. REFERENCE SITE CONDITIONS
The approved Mitigation Plan provides that if the rainfall data for any given year during the
monitoring period is not normal, the reference wetland data can be accessed to determine if there
is a positive correlation between the performance of the restoration site and the natural hydrology
of the reference site. Though rainfall totals for 2004 were near normal, the reference data are
provided below for comparison.
Data from the reference site are compared to restoration site data in Figure 5. Data from the
reference wetland groundwater gauge show a positive correlation with the automated
groundwater gauges located on the restoration site. The automated gauges from restoration site
and the reference wetland demonstrate the similarity of the hydrologic response to rainfall
events. Although the sites are located relatively close to each other, a difference in the timing and
magnitude of rainfall events is clear from the hydrograph data. Total rainfall amounts during the
monitoring period at the Webb Reference Site and the mitigation site were very similar.
22
0
d
Q
N
L
2
O N It co
(UI) llejulea
•
r
C
O

O
N
N

N
U
M
Q N
• N
O ?
-

? N
t
6 Q'
L
O ?
N ?
N
>
N M
Q ?
C C
O O
•

O O

N
Q ?
C C
O O
rl
O O
N U)
N N

I •

0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
N r . N Cl)
1ana-l aa;eM
0
LO
N
CD
C.
V
0
0
co
0
d
(U
D
d'
n
0
0
00
N
d'
0
d
0
rn
0
0 0 0 o ci
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
V' LO CO f?
t1i
?.I
w
6. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• First year hydrologic monitoring has shown that the minimum wetland hydrology criteria
have been achieved. All six hydrologic monitoring gauges documented that the targeted
success criteria were achieved.
• Despite several bankfull flows during the first growing season, the restored stream
channel has remained stable and is providing the intended habitat and hydrologic
functions. Only several small areas of instability have been observed, and it is believed
that these areas will stabilize themselves in the next growing season as vegetation
continues to colonize and mature on the site.
• Vegetation monitoring efforts have calculated the average number of stems per acre on
site to be 335. This included isolated zones of reduced stem counts resulting from
herbivory, supplemental planting and beaver management will ensure that the site meets
its tree survival criteria. Some mortality is always expected during this first year because
trees simply cannot survive the transplanting process and site equilibration.
• Since the first growing season is often the hardest to survive, we feel that vegetation
survivability, absent herbivory, should remain satisfactorily on site and vegetative
success criteria will be met.
• Monitoring of vegetation and groundwater and surface water levels will continue.
7. WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common on the Marston site. During certain times
of the year, frogs have been very prevalent across the site. Turtles, fish, and Great Blue Herons
have also been periodically observed on site.
8. VEGETATION OBSERVATIONS
After construction of the mitigation site a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia wild
rye (Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea)
was broadcast on the site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre. These species are present on the site.
Hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation is also occurring on site. Rush (Juncus effusus), spike-rush
(Eleocharis obtusa), climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens), tearthumb (Polygonum
sagittatum), Boxseed (Ludwigia sp.), and sedge (Carex sp.), all hydrophytic herbaceous plants,
are observed across the site particularly in areas of periodic inundation. The presence of these
herbaceous wetland plants helps to confirm the presence of wetland hydrology on the site.
There are quite a few weedy species occurring on the site, though none seem to be posing any
problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. The majority of the weedy
species are annuals and believed to pose very little threat to survivability in site. Commonly
seen weedy vegetation includes ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), wild dill (Foeniculum
vulgare), and Morning Glory (Ipomoea sp.). Any threatening weedy vegetation found in the
future will be documented and discussed in quarterly reports.
24
APPENDICES
(APPENDIX MATERIALS ARE INCLUDED ON ENCLOSED CD)

O
W ATF9
pG
=.i
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
March 12, 2007
Mr. Norton Webster
Environmental Banc & Exchange
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Re: Neu-Con Wetland/Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Marston Wetland and Stream Mitigation Site
Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
Jones County, NC
NCDWQ# 03-1035
Dear. Mr. Webster:
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Oversight and Express Review Permitting Unit has reviewed
the Year 3 Monitoring Report for the above-referenced site. Our comments on the report are as follows:
Stream Restoration
• The profile data graph shows only data from the current monitoring year. Data from the as-built
and previous monitoring years must be included to allow for a comparison of data and to allow
identification of trends.
Many of the cross-sections show a decrease in cross-sectional area compared with the year 1
data.. This may be a natural adjustment, or may represent instability. This will need to be
monitored closely in future monitoring events.
Wetland Restoration
• The analytical method for measuring hydrology appears to be robust enough to determine the
wetland hydroperiods. However, please explain the rationale for using this method (matching
manual gauges with automatic gauges, interpolating, calculating & applying correction factors)
rather than use of automatic gauges at all monitoring stations.
• Based on the data from groundwater gauges, it appears that the wetland hydrology criteria were
met during 2006. It looks like the reference gauge malfunctioned during the growing season.
The reference data that were collected showed much drier conditions than the Marston gauges. It
will be important to repair the reference gauge and draw comparisons between the sites during
future monitoring years.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands
None Carolina
Naturally
it
Mr. Webster
Environmental Banc & Exchange
Neu-Con Bank - Marston Site Yr. 3 Monitoring Report
Page 2
• Please provide vegetation data from all monitoring years so that trends over time can be
assessed.
According to the report, vegetation success criteria are currently being met. However, based on
Table 5 and the photos, some of the vegetation plots may be losing diversity. For example, Plot
M7 contains four species of trees, with swamp chestnut oak comprising over 25% of the tree
species in this plot. In M2 black gum comprises approx. 75% of the trees. It is not clear to what
extent the diversity in the plots extends to larger areas of the site.
Overall, the site appears to be making satisfactory progress. The issues noted above should be carefully
monitored, and mitigative action should be taken as necessary. We look forward to receiving the above-
requested information. .
In addition, as part of DWQ's process of inventorying mitigation sites and assessing sites for compliance
with mitigation requirements, we may contact you to schedule a site visit at some point during the
growing season.
Please feel free to contact Eric Kulz or Tammy Hill at [phone] if you have any questions
regarding this project or our comments.
Sincerely,
Ly'--e-4 A?4
Cyndi B. Karoly, Program Manager
401 Oversight and Express Review Program
cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz)
Central Files
Kyle Barnes - DWQ Washington Regional Office
Kathy Matthews - USEPA
William Wescott - USACE, Washington Regulatory Field Office
Travis Wilson - NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan - US Fish and Wildlife Service
Ron Sechler - National Marine Fisheries Service
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
None Carolina
N tura!!y
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/1 0% Post Consumer Paper
mo3 io35
Environmental Bdnc & Exchange
Capital • Experience • Expertise
January 23, 2007
Mr. William Wescott
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. BOX 100
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Subject: Neu-Con Wetland Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Marston Site
2006 Monitoring Report
Dear William:
Enclosed for review by the NC MBRT is the 2006 Monitoring Report for our
Marston wetland and stream mitigation site. As documented by the data presented in this
Report, the Marston site has achieved the specified hydrologic, stream and vegetative
success criteria for the third successive year.
Please let me know if you require any additional information.
Sincerely,
Norton Webster
Project Manager
cc: Thomas Rinker
Ely Perry
Beth Harmon - NC EEP
Guy Pearce - NC EEP
Kathy Mathew - US EPA
Gary Jordan - US Fish and Wildlife Service
Ron Sechler - National Marine Fisheries Service
Cyndi Karoly - NC DWQ
Travis Wilson -NC Wildlife Resources Commission
10055 Red Run Boulevard
Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD 21117
p 410.356.5159
p 888.781.7075
f 410.356.5822
909 Capability Drive
Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
p 919.829.9909
f 919.829.9913
1005 A Street
Suite 313
San Rafael, CA 94901
p 415.462.0163
f 415.454.8012
www.ebxusa.com
Adaptive Management Report
Neu-Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank
Marston Mitigation Site
Jones County, North Carolina
March 1, 2007
Project Summary
The Marston wetland and stream mitigation site of the Neu-Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank is
located approximately twelve miles west of the town of Trenton, North Carolina in Jones
County and encompasses approximately 176 acres. The Marston site was designed to restore a
"coastal plain small stream swamp" as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Site work
was completed in February 2004, and 58 acres of vegetation was planted in March 2004.
Groundwater, surface water, and rain gauges were functional beginning March 15, 2004. The
project contains 6,416 feet of stream restoration and 37.7 acres of wetland restoration with an
additional 8.6 acres of wetland enhancement. It is projected that the site will produce 6,416
SMU's and 66 WMU's.
2006 Monitoring Report Summary
The 2006 monitoring season represents Year 3 of monitoring for the site. In 2006, all
hydrology monitoring gauges met the hydrologic success criteria, based on field observations.
The Webb reference RDS monitoring well was replaced in early February with an Infinity
gauge to avoid errors that have been attributed to defects in RDS gauges. The restored stream
channel has remained stable and is providing the intended habitat and hydrologic functions.
All monitored cross-sections and profiles for 2006 showed very little adjustment in stream
dimension. The vegetation monitoring indicated survival rates between 320 and 660 stems per
acre. The site met the initial vegetation survival criteria of 320 stems per acre surviving after
the third growing season and is on track to meeting the fifth growing season criteria of 260
stems per acre. Based on these results, it was concluded that the site is performing as
designed.
Repair and Maintenance Tasks For 2007
Repairs and maintenance activities at the site in 2007 will focus on controlling several invasive
exotic species which include sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) and kudzu (Pueraria
montana.) These invasive species were treated during the construction of the site as well as
during the 2006 growing season.
Kudzu is present in low density around the perimeter of the site near Plots 7 and 8; because of
the nature of this fast growing invasive plant, management of these outlying areas may be
necessary again in 2007. Kudzu will continue to be monitored and will be treated as needed to
control the growth of this invasive.
Treatment for the lespedeza, an invasive with a large root structure, will include mowing during
the 2007 growing season the isolated area near Plot 3 and any other areas that may need it. Also,
an application of Oust, a pre-emergent, will be made in February 2007. In addition, Transline
will be applied in March 2007. During the late fall and winter 2006/2007, water was impounded
in the affected area. This temporary flooding technique will be used again in winter 2007/2008
to change the soil saturation and deter the re-growth of the lespedeza in this area. The
impoundment technique is not used during the growing season due to the potential effect to the
groundwater hydrology in the wetland areas.
There are weedy species occurring on the site, though few seem to be posing any widespread
problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. Other species present are weedy
annuals and pose very little threat to survivability of the trees on the site. Commonly occurring
weeds include ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), wild dill (Foeniculum vulgare), and morning
glory (Ipomoea sp.). Also, there continues to be an active vole population but the damage to
the planted stems is minimal. Many stems have sprouted that were damaged by the voles in prior
years.
Adaptive Management Tasks For 2007
No adaptive management actions are planned for 2007 as the Marston site continues to meet all
hydrologic, vegetative and stream success criteria.
Reference:
Schafale, M.P., and A.S.Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation. NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 2006. Marston Mitigation Project, Year 3 Monitoring Report. Raleigh,
NC.
Marston Mitigation Project
Jones County, North Carolina
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Prepared for
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Prepared by
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
3101 John Humphries Wynd
Raleigh, NC 27612
[phone]
And
Ecosystem & Land Trust Monitoring
Sparta, NC
January 2007
Qr?6?a??D
JAN 2 8 Z0A7
Of 'TWA QUXOTY

0

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1
2.0 INTR ODUCTION ................................................................................................. ..1
2.1 Project Description ................................................................................... ..1
2.2 Project Purpose ......................................................................................... ..4
2.3 Project History and Schedule .................................................................... ..4
3.0 HYDROLOGY ...................................................................................................... ..4
3.1 Hydrology Success Criteria ....................................................................... ..4
3.2 Description of Hydrology Monitoring ....................................................... ..4
3.3 Results of Hydrology Monitoring ............................................................... ..6
3.4 Hydrology Conclusions ............................................................................. 10
4.0 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Vegetation Success Criteria ....................................................................... 10
4.2 Description of Species and Vegetation Monitoring .................................... 11
4.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring .............................................................. 11
4.4 General Vegetation Observations .............................................................. 12
4.5 Vegetation Conclusions ............................................................................ 12
5.0 STREAM MONITORING ...................................................................................... 13
5.1 Stream Success Criteria ............................................................................. 13
5.2 Description of Stream Monitoring ............................................................. 13
5.3 Results of Stream Monitoring .................................................................... 14
5.4 Stream Benthic Macroinvertebrates ........................................................... 14
6.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...............................................................................................2
Figure 2. USGS Quadrangle ......................................................................................3
Figure 3. Site Plan ......................................................................................................5
Figure 4. 2006 Groundwater Gauge Hydrographs .....................................................7
Figure 5. 2006 Precipitation ......................................................................................9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Project History ............................................................................................4
Table 2. Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2006 (Year 2) .........................................8
Table 3. Jones County Normal Rainfall and 2006 Observed Rainfall ....................... 10
Table 4. Planted Tree Species .................................................................................11
Table 5. 2006 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Species Composition .............................11
Table 6. Volunteer Tree Species .............................................................................12
APPENDICES
Appendix A As-Built Survey
Appendix B 2006 Profile and Cross Sections
Appendix C 2006 Gauge Data
Appendix D 2006 Site Photos
Marston Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 3)
1.0 SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2006 growing season on the Marston
• Mitigation Site. Construction of the site, including planting of trees, was completed in March 2004.
The 2006 data represent results from Year 3 of hydrologic and vegetation monitoring for both
wetlands and streams.
The design for the Marston property involved the restoration of a Coastal Plain small stream swamp
• as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). After construction, it was determined that 6,416 feet
of stream and 37.7 acres of wetland hydrology were restored. An additional 8.6 acres of wetlands
were enhanced on the northern end of the project. The As-Built survey is included as Appendix A.
This Annual Report presents the data from six hydrologic monitoring stations, eight vegetation
monitoring stations, and stream monitoring, as required by the approved Mitigation Plan for the site.
Three of the hydrologic stations are equipped with manual groundwater gauges and three stations
are equipped with automated gauges and a manual calibration gauge. Additionally, the gauges are
used as points from which photographs are taken over time.
Weather station data from the Trenton Weather Station were used in conjunction with a manual rain
• gauge located on the site to document precipitation amounts. The manual gauge is used to validate
observations made at the automated station. For the 2006 growing season rainfall was within
normal limits. Early growing season rainfall (March) was below normal limits; however, the
remainder of the growing season was within or slightly outside of normal limits.
In 2006, all six hydrology monitoring gauges met the hydrologic success criteria, based on field
observations. Based on these results, it was concluded that the site is performing as designed.
• This Annual Report documents vegetation survival based on eight vegetation-monitoring plots, as
specified in the approved mitigation plan for the Marston site. Eight monitoring plots 1/10th of an acre
in size were used to predict survivability of the woody vegetation planted on site.
The vegetation monitoring indicated survival rates between 320 and 660 stems per acre. The site
meets the initial vegetation survival criteria of 320 stems per acre surviving after the third growing
season. Our area of concern on this site is the Lespedeza in Plot 3 that has grown back since spring.
Continued mowing and spraying herbicide on the 2-3 acre area will help actively manage this invasive
species.
• The restored stream channel has remained stable and is providing the intended habitat and hydrologic
functions. All monitored cross-sections and profile for 2006 show very little adjustment in stream
dimension.
• 2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Project Description
• Located in Jones County, the Marston Mitigation Site encompasses approximately 176 acres. It is
located approximately twelve miles west of the town of Trenton, North Carolina (Figure 1 and Figure
2). This project provides compensatory mitigation for stream and wetland impacts associated within
_? oos?e
J`
J? Ut ? ??\\?`a??r
J v? ?G tit
Ut
p Ut

s
ut
Poplar Bra ch Project Site
Ut
Ut
Trent River
(D
? State Ht
?t
G s N
o
. Ut
Iz Ut /
U , J
Ut S -o W
Ut Ut r
_
2
3 Ur
'. Battle
II
Marston
Vicinity Map
Legend
Jones County
Streams
0 0.5 1 2 Roads Jones County
NTS
Miles Marston Site
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

i
V
J
f

%

'
A

.r.- -.-
\
1
.
? i
• '
"
\
??'
`,ter' `
,:\
.?
. jl.•4? . ?
r i?
`
??
• 7
r
.i, ? ,r
0 ( f
?? tfF ? ? ;
??
E r/,
` . t? ? f? \ t r `"?? ?`
r - ,
C
l J ,
..
?
?\
t 3 I
} / Project Site Jr ! m
r

A-L
14

lip
40

Lam Ink

l
do Ors
tax

,..1 ?`---'.?,r I e

?
? : Ut

1
r ""- 'mt
?• • •
,-., , g.
r
\ j

\
anks Rd
S.
J .?
t r" f r •

Figure 2
?
Y Marston
_?t Legend
Jones County
USGS Map Streams
0 5001,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Roads
Feet Marston Project Site

Marston Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 3)
the resident hydrologic unit. The Marston site is designed to restore a Coastal Plain small stream
swamp as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The Coastal Plain small stream swamp
communities exist as the floodplains of small blackwater streams in which separate fluvial features and
associated vegetation are too small or poorly developed to distinguish. Construction at the site was
• completed in February 2004, with 58 acres of vegetation planted by March 2004. Groundwater,
surface water, and rain gauges were functional beginning March 15, 2004. The 2006 monitoring
season represents Year 3 of monitoring for the site.
2.2 Purpose
Monitoring of the Marston Site is required to demonstrate successful mitigation based on the criteria
found in the Mitigation Plan, the Neu-Con Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank Instrument,
and through a comparison to reference site conditions. Hydrologic, vegetation, and stream monitoring
are conducted on an annual basis. Success criteria must be met for five consecutive years. This Annual
Monitoring Report details the results of the monitoring efforts for 2006 (Year 3) at the Marston
Mitigation Site.

2.3 Project History
Table 1. Project History
Proj ect History
December 2003 Approved Mitigation Plan
March 2004 Construction Completed
March 2004 Post-restoration Monitoring Begins
November 2004 1 st Annual Monitoring Report
November 2005 2nd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2006 3rd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2007 (scheduled) 4th Annual Monitoring Report
November 2008 (scheduled) 5th Annual Monitoring Report
• 3.0 HYDROLOGY
3.1 Hydrology Success Criteria
As stated in the approved Mitigation Plan, the hydrologic success criterion for the site is to restore the
• water table at the site so that it will remain within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 7 percent of
the growing season continuously (approximately 17 days). The day counts are based on the growing
season for Jones County, which is 232 days long, beginning on March 20 and ending November 7, as
• calculated from National Weather Service Wetlands Determination Tables (WETS) for Jones County.
As specified in the approved Mitigation Plan, data are collected from three automated and three
manual groundwater gauges.
The Mitigation Plan further specified that in order for the hydrologic data to be considered successful,
it must demonstrate wetland conditions are present in normal or dryer than normal conditions.
• 3.2 Description of Hydrology Monitoring Efforts
Three manual groundwater gauges, three automated Infinities groundwater gauges, and one rain
gauge were installed prior to the beginning of the first growing season (Figure 3). Groundwater
gauges, both manual and automated, were installed to a minimum depth of at least 40 inches below
• the ground surface. The monitoring protocol for the site specifies that automated monitoring stations
will be downloaded and checked for malfunctions on a monthly basis. During monthly site visits,
4
••••• •• • •• • ••

i Y.
? t
i
X
? m

0
O

N
O T
I
n
D
m

ti V/ )
O

O

r 1
\ V
O
N
O
O / n
V `1
K
C
G
FT?
000 D
'T
^ V l \ / z
CD J
O
TO
V
(T1
N
O
0
Marston Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 3)
• manual groundwater gauges are read and rainfall totals are collected from the on-site rain gauge.
During the 2006 growing season, all three automated loggers performed well and no periods of
missing data were encountered.
Automatic groundwater gauges record water table elevations twice daily at 08:00 and 20:00. Infinities
gauges employ pressure sensors that record water elevation above the bottom of the sensor (with
atmospheric pressure compensation). Immediately adjacent to each automatic gauge is a manual
calibration gauge. The calibration water table depth is recorded at monthly downloads. To determine
wetland hydroperiods the automatically recorded data are compared to the calibration data to
determine a standard correction factor between the calibration gauge and the automatic gauge for each
location. The standard correction factor is applied to correct daily readings. The corrected daily
readings are used to determine wetland hydroperiods.
Water table depths are recorded monthly in manual groundwater gauges. To calculate wetland
• hydroperiods interpolations are made between monthly readings by correlating twice daily automatic
gauge readings. Each manual gauge is correlated to an automatic gauge based on proximity, landscape
position, and the relationship of their groundwater depth readings (i.e. if their readings are separated by
a consistent value). Once the appropriate automatic gauge has been selected a correction factor is
calculated for each monthly gauge reading. A daily rate of change between monthly correction factors
is calculated to determine the daily correction factor. The daily correction factor is then applied to the
automatic gauge readings to calculate an estimated daily water table depth for the manual gauge.
• These daily readings are used to determine wetland hydroperiods.
Wetland hydroperiods are calculated from twice daily water table depth elevations. A hydroperiod is
calculated if the water table is equal to or less than -12 inches below ground surface for at least 24
hours. If a gauge falls below -12 inches for two consecutive readings (24 hours) then the hydroperiod
ends at the last reading within -12 inches. If a gauge falls below -12 inches for only one reading then
maintains a reading above -12 inches for a minimum of 24 hours then the hydroperiod is calculated
• continuously. This methodology accounts for minor technical malfunctions experienced by the
automatic gauges.
3.3 Results of Hydrology Monitoring
Site Data
The following hydroperiod statistics were calculated for each monitoring station during the growing
• season: 1) most consecutive days that the water table was within twelve inches of the surface; 2)
cumulative number of days that the water table was within twelve inches of the soil surface; and 3)
number of times that the water table rose to within twelve inches of the soil surface. The results of
these calculations are presented in Table 2. Figure 4 provides a chart of the water depth for each of the
monitoring gauges on the site. Precipitation is shown across the top of the graph. This graph
demonstrates the reaction at each monitoring location of the groundwater level to specific rainfall
events. Raw hydrograph data collected from the monitoring gauges is provided in Appendix C.
The site was designed to function as a riparian wetland system with associated wet flats. Hydrology in
the riparian areas is driven primarily by groundwater discharge and overbank flooding, while
• precipitation is the primary hydrologic influence in wet flat areas. Monitoring data indicate that the site
is functioning as designed, with varying degrees of wetness and saturation across the site. All gauges
have exceeded the 7 percent hydrologic success criterion. Actual hydroperiods experienced across the
site during 2006 ranged from 13 percent to 30 percent of the growing season.
6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O
I'
a?
d N
cc
N.
G1 N 3
U. O O
L. I-
a
N
L
ti
i O
W
c
O
C7 -
U) O
cc
(sayaul) uollelldloaad
L M

N
T
0
Ila
z
¦
O
m
U
c
N
N

i a
co

?a
Cl)
Q
N
? O
i N
Q
J
? a
LL
q n
O
M
a.
C
co
0
0
c
1
rO r N N M
(sayoul) U0I4en013 aa;empunoaE)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Marston Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 3)
Table 2. Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2006 (Year 2)
2006 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 20-Mar through 7-Nov, 232 days)
Consecutive Cumulative

Gauge

Days Percent of

growing
Season

Days Percent of

growing
Season
Occurrences
AW1 32 14 132 57 14
AW2 67 29 181 78 10
AW3 35 15 190 82 12
M W 1 30 13 --- --- 12
MW2 69 30 --- --- 12
MW3 29 13 --- --- 8
• Model simulations performed during the design phase of the project indicated that the entire site
would range from slightly higher than the minimum wetland criteria of 5 percent to more saturated
• areas that would exceed 12.5 percent. As the data collected for 2006 indicate, the site is performing as
• described in the Mitigation Plan, with varying degrees of wetness documented and the entire site
exceeding the stated criteria of 7 percent.
!
•
•
!
•
•
!
•
•
•
!
•
•
•
•
•
•
!
•
Reference Data
The approved Mitigation Plan provides that if the rainfall data for any given year during the monitoring
period is not normal, the reference wetland data can be accessed to determine if there is a positive
correlation between the performance of the restoration site and the natural hydrology of the reference
site.
Data from the Webb reference wetland groundwater gauge failed to exhibit a wetland hydroperiod
during the 2006 growing season (Figure 4). Appendix C contains the groundwater gauge data.
Climate Data
Figure 5 and Table 3 are comparisons of the 2006 monthly rainfall to historical precipitation for Jones
County. Observed precipitation data were collected from an automated weather station in Trenton and
an on-site manual rain gauge. For the 2006 growing season on-site rainfall measurements correlate well
with the Trenton gauge data. The Trenton monthly rainfall amounts were lower than normal for the
months of January through March, May, July, and August; within normal limits for April, June, and
October; and exceeded normal limits in September and November. Monthly rainfall for data for
December 2006 were not available at the time this report was compiled.
8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

cz
- - c
cu

J
Cl)
_ O
Cl)
cz
N
c O
4?

U) U)

ca
a
>,
m Cl) 7

('3 G O 0-

H
CL
a?

N c

C
C

MMMMMM9 CZ
U
1
? .r
M

-
f
?f LL

r
T O O
r Co I- CD LO M N r O
(S043ul) uoi;e;id!Daad
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Marston Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 3)
Table 3. Jones Countv Normal Rainfall and 2006 Observed Rainfall

h
M

A Normal Limits
Trenton
ont verage
30 Percent
70 Percent
Precipitation
January 4.77 3.74 5.72 3.08
February 3.57 2.24 4.14 1.15
March 4.41 3.27 5.06 1.61
April 3.47 1.91 4.45 3.45
May 4.12 2.87 4.82 2.14
June 4.89 3.4 5.9 5.59
July 6.22 4.55 7.41 2.08
August 6.12 4.28 7.08 4.19
September 5.51 2.99 6.74 9.77
October 3.34 1.69 4.79 2.02
November 2.93 2.17 3.74 16.46
December 3.64 2.34 4.43 NA
3.4 Hydrology Conclusions
Data collected from all the groundwater monitoring gauges on Marston Mitigation Site indicate that all
six hydrology monitoring stations recorded hydroperiods of at least seven percent of the growing
season.
Rainfall data indicates that the 2006 growing season was generally within normal limits for the growing
season. March however was unusually dry. This is the first month of the growing season and is
historically the period when the water table is closest to the surface for the longest continuous period.
Based on the positive results from the monitoring gauges and the low rainfall totals, it was concluded
that the site is performing as designed.
4.0 VEGETATION
4.1 Vegetation Success Criteria
The interim measure of vegetative success for the Marston Mitigation Plan will be survival of at least
320 3-year old planted trees per acre at the end of year 3 of the monitoring period. The final
vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 5-year old planted trees per acre at the end of
year five of the monitoring period.
Up to 20 percent of the site species composition may be comprised of volunteers. Remedial action
may be required should these (i.e. loblolly pine, red maple, sweet gum, etc.) present a problem and
exceed 20 percent composition.
10

Marston Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 3)
4.2 Description of Species and Vegetation Monitoring
Table 4 describes the tree species planted in the wetland restoration area:
Table 4. Planted Tree Soecies
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
1 Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo OBL
2 Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum FAC
3 Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak OBL
4 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW-
5 Quercus phellos Coastal Willow Oak FACW-
6 Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress OBL
Eight plots were established on the Marston Mitigation Site, to monitor approximately 2 percent of the
site. The vegetation monitoring plots were designed to be 1/10th of an acre in size. The plots were
randomly located and randomly oriented within the wetland restoration area.
All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged with orange flagging and marked with a 3 foot tall
piece of half inch PVC to mark them as the planted stems and to help in locating them in the future.
Each stem is tagged with a numbered aluminum tag, though some tags have been damaged by
rodents.
4.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring
The following tables present stem counts for each of the monitoring stations. Each planted tree species
is identified across the top row, and each plot is identified down the left column. The numbers on the
top row correlate to the ID column of the previous table. Trees are flagged in the field on a quarterly
basis before the flags degrade. Flags are utilized because they will not interfere with the growth of the
tree. Volunteers are also flagged during this process.
Table 5. 2006 Veaetation Monitorina Plot Species Composition
Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total 2006
Stem/ac Planted
Stem/ac
M1 0 5 3 12 25 21 66 660 680
M2 0 43 6 1 2 4 56 560 610
M3 0 16 31 0 4 1 52 520 690
M4 24 0 0 1 4 25 54 540 550
M5 0 11 13 9 2 1 36 360 600
M6 0 2 3 11 14 2 32 320 590
M7 0 3 8 25 5 0 41 410 670
M8 14 0 1 4 2 22 43 430 630
Average Stems/Acre: 475
Range of Stems/Acre: 320-660
Volunteer species will also be monitored throughout the five year monitoring period. Below is a table
of the most commonly found woody volunteer species.
Volunteer woody species were observed in most all of the vegetation plots, but were deemed too small
11

Marston Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 3)
to tally. If these trees persist into next growing season, they will be flagged and added to the overall
stems per acre assessment of the site. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) is the most common
volunteer, though Red Maple (Acer rubrum) and Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) were also
observed.
The following tree species were identified as volunteers within in the Wetland Restoration Area:
Table 6. Volunteer Tree Species
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
A Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum FAC+
B Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC
C Diospyros virginiana Persimmon FAC
4.4 General Vegetation Observations
Hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation is abundant onsite. Rush (Juncus effusus), spike-rush (Eleochads
obtusa), climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens), tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), boxseed
(Ludwigia sp.), cat-tails (Typha sp.), and sedge (Carex sp.), all hydrophytic herbaceous plants, were
observed across the site, particularly in areas of periodic inundation. The presence of these
herbaceous wetland plants helps to confirm the presence of wetland hydrology on the site.
There are weedy species occurring on the site, though few seem to be posing any wide spread
problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. Kudzu is present in low density
around the perimeter of the site near Plots 7 and 8; but because the nature of this fast growing invasive
plant management of these outlying areas may be necessary again in the future. The area around Plot 3
that was invaded by Lespedeza will continue to be treated for improvement. Management will include
mowing that isolated area and an application in the spring of Oust, a pre-emergent. In the late fall and
early spring, a temporary flooding technique will be used to change the soil saturation and deter the re-
growth of the Lespedeza in this area.
Other than the aforementioned area, the other species are weedy annuals and pose very little threat to
survivability on site. Commonly seen weeds include ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), wild dill
(Foeniculum vulgare), and morning glory (Ipomoea sp.). The kudzu, lespedeza, and any other
threatening invasive vegetation will be monitored and documented in the triannual reports.
4.5 Vegetation Conclusions
The site was planted in nonriverine hardwoods and coastal plain swamp species in March 2004. There
were eight 1/10th acre vegetation-monitoring plots established throughout the planting areas. The site
meets the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of year three and is on
tract to meet the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of year five. Active management
• will continued to be required within the small area of Lespedeza growth to achieve the final success
criteria.

12
0

Marston Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 3)
5.0 STREAM MONITORING
5.1 Success Criteria
As stated in the approved Mitigation Plan, the stream restoration success criteria for the site
include the following:
• Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year
monitoring period.
• Cross-Sections: There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. Cross-sections shall be
classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all monitored cross-sections
should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for "E" or "C" type channels.
• • Longitudinal Profiles: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable, e.g. they are not aggrading or degrading. Bedforms observed should be
consistent with those observed in "E" and "C" type channels.
• Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
• aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of
erosion control measures.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Sampling of benthic macroi nve rteb rates within the restored
stream channel shall be conducted for the first three years of post-restoration monitoring.
The Year 3 sample will be collected one full year after the completion of construction.
Results for Year 1,2 and 3 will appear in report Years 2, 3, and 4.

5.2 Description of Stream Monitoring
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted
following construction completion on the Marston Site:
Bankfull Events: A crest gauge was installed on the site to document bankfull events. The gauge is
checked each month, and records the highest out-of-bank flow event that occurred during the past
month. The gauge is located near stream station 60+50 (Figure 3).
Cross-Sections: Two permanent cross-sections were installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration
work, with one (1) of the locations being a riffle cross-section and one (1) location being a pool cross-
section. A total of 13 permanent cross-sections were established across the mitigation site. Each cross-
section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used.
Permanent cross-section pins were surveyed and located relative to a common benchmark to facilitate
easy comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross-section surveys include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. Riffle cross-
sections are classified using the Rosgen stream classification system. Permanent cross-sections for
2006 (Year 3) were surveyed in January 2006.
Longitudinal Profiles: A longitudinal profile will be completed in Years 1, 3, and 5. The profile will
be conducted for a length of restored channel at least 3,000 feet in length. Measurements will
include thalweg, water surface, inner berm, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these
measurements will be taken at the head of each feature, e.g. riffle, run, pool, and glide, and the max
pool depth. A common benchmark will be used each year to facilitate comparison of year-to-year
data.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs are used to visually document restoration success. Nine
reference photo stations have been established across the Marston Site. Reference stations are marked
13
Marston Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 3)
• with wooden stakes and GPS coordinates have been determined for each location. Reference photos
are taken at least once per year. Reference photos are taken at each permanent cross-section from both
streambanks. The survey tape is centered in the photographs of the bank, and the water line is located
in the lower edge of the frame with as much of the bank as possible included in each photo. Structure
photos of each grade control structure are also taken. A photo log of the Marston site is included as
Appendix D.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Benthic macroi nve rteb rate data will be collected from the reference reach
(Beaverdam Branch) and within the project reach. Year 2 post-restoration sampling was done in early
2006. Sample collection will follow protocols described in the standard operating procedures of the
Biological Assessment Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality. The Qual-4 collection method will be
used for the collection of macroinvertebrate samples. The metrics to be calculated will include total
and EPT taxa richness, EPT abundance and biotic index values.
5.3 Results of Stream Monitoring
Seven bankfull events on the site were documented during site visits through the use of the onsite
crest gauge and visual evidence of out-of-bank flow. The largest stream flow for Year 3 documented
by the crest gauge on the site was a flow that occurred during October and was 1.7 feet above the
bankfull stage. Based on observations of ponded water, debris lines, and deposited sediment on the
floodplain, the bankfull event spread over much of the restored wetland areas adjacent to the stream.
• Year 3 cross-section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during September 2006 and
compared to baseline data collected in March 2004 (Appendix B). A longitudinal profile survey was
conducted along the restoration reach from STA 28+17 (XS 2) to STA 60+74 (XS 11). The longitudinal
• profile information documents the elevations and locations of streambed features and in-stream grade
control structures (Appendix B). The profile and cross-sections show that there has been very little
adjustment to stream profile or dimension since construction. All monitored cross-sections fell within
the quantitative parameters defined for "E" or "C" type channels.
In-stream structures installed within the restored stream included constructed riffles, log vanes, log
weirs, and root wads. Visual observations of structures throughout the past growing season have
• indicated that nearly all structures are functioning as designed. Two constructed riffles were installed
on the lower end of the project to step the restored stream down to the elevation of the existing
channel at the outlet of the project. Small localized areas of erosion were present but do not present
a problem to stream stability. All potential problem areas are minor and localized. No corrective
. actions are recommended at this time as the channel appears to be moving toward stability.
Photographs were taken throughout the monitoring season to document the evolution of the restored
• stream channel (see Appendix D). Herbaceous vegetation is dense along the restored stream, making
it difficult to take photographs of the stream channel itself. Pools have maintained a variety of depths
and habitat qualities, depending on the location and type of scour features (logs, root wads,
transplants, etc.). During monthly site visits a consistent stream flow was observed, along with
• submerged aquatic vegetation and abundant fish in the channel.
5.4 Stream Benthic Macroinvertebrates
• Year 3 benthic macroinvertebrate sampling will be conducted in January 2007 and reported in the
2007 (Year 4) Monitoring Report.

14
Marston Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 3)
• 6.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• Hydrologic monitoring has shown that the specified wetland hydrology has been achieved
throughout the site. All six monitoring gauges recorded consecutive hydroperiods for at
• least seven percent of the growing season.
• The restored stream channel has remained stable and is providing the intended habitat and
hydrologic functions. All monitored cross-sections and profile for 2006 show very little
adjustment in stream dimension.

The average number of stems per acre on site is 475. This included the isolated zones of
replanting that occurred at the beginning of 2006. Management of the weedy vegetation in
areas with similar conditions as Plot 3 will be necessary to maintain the trajectory for
success.
• There are other small pockets of lespedeza that will be treated throughout the site to
avoid a repeat of the actions needed around Plot 3. The Kudzu treatment performed
throughout this year seems to have successfully suppressed this invasive plant.
Monitoring of its presence will be continued. There continues to be an active vole
• population but the damage to the planted stems is minimal. Many stems had sprouted from
the vole cut planted stems that were observed earlier in the spring.
• Monitoring of vegetation, stream stability, and hydrology will continue through 2008.
15

n
u
E
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX A
As-Built Survey
90099000 0000000*00009* 090090 0000
C)
0
z
PR OJE c
S N -Ul
O - 0

?
S ? ? Z

A
-?
N
O CIO)
f')
Q
O

O O
N N N
j 00 C w ca C C
N m
C
ovv
G) 0 C)
Z Z Z Z Z
m A D
Z m ^' C1 C) (7
li S? ? S S y
• n
r C
m ?
ii ZZ
cz) Z Z
? -I Z = = S
D
m ? II ii II ?
II II p v a
10
Ii OD w
v v T T 'n
m m m
14 II ?
"D
ii H m
ob
?j° h b
trj 0
o a zZ a O
C.)
r-o
C)
m 3- y
'my vD Z
{ y ;v b C)
Si
Jn
z
0
yH
.Y
A
n
°zS
3 N
5 ?
im
Z
V
?r
n
m
v
m
m
fn
z
i >
>O
I ?
C
? fl O C, tD
? O -+
3 Q d N
Q
N N Q

M
I
T.• 070
A4ARSTON
b
m?
z ?y
a
z?
M
?n b
Z
n S "y
r 9? A
mo=o
aPo?
a?NN
.bb
V
n
H

m N ? 2
v
O
• m
m
ip:-j
< r
ACm
G)
U
Pmn
o -?
ZZ
m
Zm
Cl)
S N
m
m
® I I??
\

l lu

0
h
C')
O
O
n

4C IN JIo

g
0
W :fl
8 tC+f
m C
K ?
?C ?

50-
ZZ, o

k m
p
A
z

x o

0

CO) s
n

27 P
Y

" ml
N S
Z
O
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
v

MATCHLINE SHEET 4
Hm?nz
O
mm
i <
? N ? ti y y
p
N ~
zDC
C o<pC

D?
h ow
ya
O K 0 A
m
m
?1 o m
?7
O O
4zz
oac)
co?

i o ono

I o ;
z C O D ?? o
Z7 ? m
O
O O b AA m
n ? o
A C/)

5
Ypad tQ

Sys o
m?N
S

_' ? 07 z;off
0 M,
nr ° r OFa
D? H P?Zm
I m c
i b m?
*A

J
"17

k
m
~CN
`
J O in?°
O°
aFz

m?

O °
I --
!
0

l`
v n °o
?=a
?g
0
2
C ?
(Q Q Z
-h
?p a G
2
n
?
m

a o
cn m

co p_
-A -1
0

f
(
r Dv
? o? z wx
z'SxrtS am \\
N
cp
t
Y
Cb , .
I
rLLA
t
z
C
r
r
;I
W
U
1
?J
' i
h?
i
i •
I
N c
p
<
m
G
C
000

N I.
yy?
-_l

r) °
W W
ND O
Z °-{0.

r
m
1Zm
C m
F T
? ? NCO
X00
Ho
my?$
O ??o
0
Igry ti 1
,..........
1'.
i.
i"
m

Tom'
So

?. 0
t'; v

o
V7 4

m

en X
D m
Vn
Np
fo z
o,
-? w

,i
•••••••••••••••••
?oljJ??t\
i l i ,•, I, i
? I ill ? ? t
1 S t`,`l???t w
j
t ! I
1?,, tt ?, ? 1 t

I
S3
\
6?
j't I
i\

o
z
1 ri...
cn ?;.

m
moo' i 'L`?
M?
x
0
z
M
m?
z
z?
n
ng
Sm?N
?s

1/
?y „ o
/ice 1"'1• T ? a

(D a Y zz

N O z
e
co
y
Ct1 CJ
p
APPENDIX B
2006 Profile and
Cross Section Data
O
O
L-
CD
O
N
C
O
N
R
a
a?
I?
3
c?
c
J
U
LL
co
rr,
x
N
O
C
O
O
0-
0
a?
U
a?
c
0
U
N
X
LL
m
J
O
N
M
70
N
I-
0
0
LO
co
O
O
O
co
O
O
LO
N
O
O
O
N
O
U
C
RS
O
N
c
c
ro
o U
O
Lf)
0
O
O
O
O
LO
O
O O CU (- co LO 't (M N
O O O O O O O O O
(4) uOIJeAa13
O
U
O
Cf)
N
O
LO
co
U
LO

O
v
O
M
O
Lo Il}
N T
z
O r
N >_a (0
> ?I
co
r ?
NI
1IT}
O
O
O O LO co U?
O O O 0 O ri
O O O O
(u) uOIJenal:?
O
LO
Y
C
fd
m
T
t
E
fd
C
Y
O
O
J
s
s ?
?,?• ? tai h,L '6,x?r p , . ? ,

„ d ;3a ? Y

CO

t
s
Mu,:
ca
z 3,` c

i

N
C-
0
U
N
U)
N
0
O
U
O
O
O
V
N
}
I
O L
co Co
> Q
C7
M
a?
Ili
O 1
N
O
r
O
LO O LO O LO W ? rl- LO O
O O? C? O cd m r-? O (O O
O rn m m 6)
(1}) uoijenaJ?]
A?
Y
Y1F''
co
C
O
U
O
U)
U)
O
U

0
M
0
LO
L
0 /
4-
O ?
M>
O
N
_C
J
Z
M
L
lr
I
0
"_0 O
LO W LO ? LO (0 Lr) LO
()4) UOIJen813
Y
C
IC
m
T
.C
M
C
Y
O
O
J

c
O
U
N
Cf)
N
O
U
LO
,It
0
LO
Cl)
O
L
Cl)
N
I?7?
I
N
L
O
(N
M
N
L
0
LO
0
00 LO rl- LO (D LO LO LO It
? ti rn? rn? rn? rn
rn 0) m 0')
(11) uoileAGID
Cl)
Y
C
fC
C13
a?
L

Fe

fC

C
Y
O
O
J
U7
c
O
U
N
U)
U)

O
U
IV
O

;q .
Y
C
f0
m
w
N
J
m
C
Y
O
O
J
O
,It
O
co

O
lf) }
N

Y

O ?
N ? ?

> f
c7
c?

U)
O
!- In (0 In LO In It
O m L6 O 4 m
O)
(4) u01jen913
C)
Lf)
LO
0
,It
Y
c
m
T
t
C
Y
O
O
J

C
O
U
N
CO
O
U
LO
co
m
a?
}
0 1
M T
w
Y
L
L L
N >? Co
O_
w
co
O
N (6
O
}

O
Y
C
m
m
w
N
J
t9
C
Y
O
O
J
LO
O
LO rl- LO CO LO LO LO V LO
? ? 0') O7
(}j) U01J2n213
C)
LO
Cl)
r-
C
O
U
O
U)
V)
O
U
0
Y
C
fC
m
T
4 -
CD
J
C
Y
O
O
J
LO
O
Cl) L
(6
O
I ?
In Y
N -Q
? I I I
L
>O_ M
Q
O
N
Cl)
c6
a?
}
LO
0
LO Ln O LO O) LO Co U)
0 0 o 6 rn06
0 o rn 0)
rn
(4) uOi)eAG13
Y
C
fC
m
T
t
LM
a?
C
Y
O
O
J

00
c
O
U
QJ
U)
U)
N
O
U
LO
O
V
LO
M
CD N
ch ?
Y
N
m
? Q
O
N
O
Ln
9
a
. c
0
c'7 U? N O Lq O Lq M U7 W
O N O ? O 6j O ? O
0 0 o a? o?
(u) u01jena13
O
It
Y
C
fC
m
LL
Y
O
O
J
O
C
O
U
O
U)
V)
N
O
U
Y
C
co
T
w
N
J
Q)
C
Y
O
O
J
LO
v
LO
Cl)
L
O
4-
Y
Lf)
N
Q
L
O C
N E,
N'
Z
co
O
LO
O
LO N Lo Ll? O LO O Lo
N OD O ?D O O 06
O O O O m
(4) uO[Jen91?
0
Y
C
f6
co
r
L
a?
fC
C
Y
O
O
J
O
C
O
U
N
U)
O
U
0

Y
C
fC
m
w
d
J
f0
C
Y
O
O
J
LO
LO
Cl)
O r
M
(6
N
7}
I
w-
N ?
L
O Cu
O
N
M
O
}
LO
o
N O m co !- CO
O O O O m m m
(4) UOI}2n213

4

?r

a?

r r;:
V i
v
t
f
\

Y
C
f9
m
L
f9
C
Y
O
O
J
Y
fC
m
d
J
N
al
C
Y
O
O
J
C
O
U
a>
U)
N
O
U
LO
,'I-
C)
LO
M
O
M
LO
N
L_
O
N
O
Ln
O
LO O LO M LO ao ? ?
0 6 o 6 m oo m r? m
c) - C3) 0)
rn
(14) u01lenaII-I

r
(E
17}
I
Y
L
c6
Q,
C
0- I
J
a?
Z_I
M
(9
N
IlT}
I
O
LO
i•?^ fem. t ,, ?? A. k

i ?

r.

co

I
A
)C
V

,, ?

S so
0

N
O
U
O
co
O
U
I I
O
LO
M

O

O 1
co
T

.Q

LO
N ? Co
>
w
M
O
N ?p
O

L2 I
O

I. - I _..O
LO O LO O LO N LO rl- LO CO
O O O 00 m t-- O CO 07
O O d7 07 O
(4) uoilenaI-q
Lr)
r Cl)
I?
_ O
M
i
it
N
M
O
U
O
O
O
U
N
(6
O O
N }
j

L 7
I
Y

LO
Q

M
N
O
t - LO
- -1 - O
L Lq 0 LO M LO 00 to
O? CD O :6 O j m ? O
o O 0 m m O)
(11) UOileneI:l
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX C
2006 Gauge Data
0

r1
U

Marston 2006 Monitoring Data
Water Level (inches)
Date Time AW1 AW2 AW3 MWi MW2 MW3
01-Jan-2006 08:00:00
01-Jan-2006 20:00:00
02-Jan-2006 08:00:00
02-Jan-2006 20:00:00
03-Jan-2006 08:00:00
03-Jan-2006 20:00:00
04-Jan-2006 08:00:00
04-Jan-2006 20:00:00
05-Jan-2006 08:00:00
05-Jan-2006 20:00:00
06-Jan-2006 08:00:00
06-Jan-2006 20:00:00
07-Jan-2006 08:00:00
07-Jan-2006 20:00:00
08-Jan-2006 08:00:00
08-Jan-2006 20:00:00
09-Jan-2006 08:00:00
09-Jan-2006 20:00:00
10-Jan-2006 08:00:00
10-Jan-2006 20:00:00
11-Jan-2006 08:00:00
11-Jan-2006 20:00:00
12-Jan-2006 08:00:00
12-Jan-2006 20:00:00
13-Jan-2006 08:00:00
13-Jan-2006 20:00:00
14-Jan-2006 08:00:00
14-Jan-2006 20:00:00
15-Jan-2006 08:00:00
15-Jan-2006 20:00:00
16-Jan-2006 08:00:00
16-Jan-2006 20:00:00
17-Jan-2006 08:00:00
17-Jan-2006 20:00:00
18-Jan-2006 08:00:00
18-Jan-2006 20:00:00
19-Jan-2006 08:00:00
19-Jan-2006 20:00:00
20-Jan-2006 08:00:00
20-Jan-2006 20:00:00
21-Jan-2006 08:00:00
21-Jan-2006 20:00:00
22-Jan-2006 08:00:00
22-Jan-2006 20:00:00
23-Jan-2006 08:00:00
23-Jan-2006 20:00:00
24-Jan-2006 08:00:00
24-Jan-2006 20:00:00
25-Jan-2006 08:00:00
25-Jan-2006 20:00:00
26-Jan-2006 08:00:00
26-Jan-2006 20:00:00
27-Jan-2006 08:00:00
27-Jan-2006 20:00:00
28-Jan-2006 08:00:00
28-Jan-2006 20:00:00
29-Jan-2006 08:00:00
29-Jan-2006 20:00:00
30-Jan-2006 08:00:00
30-Jan-2006 20:00:00
31-Jan-2006 08:00:00
uy?
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data
Water Level (inches)
Date Time AW1 AW2 AW3 MWi MW2 MW3
31-Jan-2006 20:00:00
01-Feb-2006 08:00:00
01-Feb-2006 20:00:00
02-Feb-2006 08:00:00
02-Feb-2006 20:00:00
03-Feb-2006 08:00:00
03-Feb-2006 20:00:00
04-Feb-2006 08:00:00
04-Feb-2006 20:00:00
05-Feb-2006 08:00:00
05-Feb-2006 20:00:00
06-Feb-2006 08:00:00
06-Feb-2006 20:00:00
07-Feb-2006 08:00:00
07-Feb-2006 20:00:00
08-Feb-2006 08:00:00
08-Feb-2006 20:00:00
09-Feb-2006 08:00:00
09-Feb-2006 20:00:00
10-Feb-2006 08:00:00
10-Feb-2006 20:00:00
11-Feb-2006 08:00:00
11-Feb-2006 20:00:00
12-Feb-2006 08:00:00
12-Feb-2006 20:00:00
13-Feb-2006 08:00:00
13-Feb-2006 20:00:00
14-Feb-2006 08:00:00
14-Feb-2006 20:00:00
15-Feb-2006 08:00:00
15-Feb-2006 20:00:00
16-Feb-2006 08:00:00
16-Feb-2006 20:00:00
17-Feb-2006 08:00:00
17-Feb-2006 20:00:00
18-Feb-2006 08:00:00
18-Feb-2006 20:00:00
19-Feb-2006 08:00:00
19-Feb-2006 20:00:00
20-Feb-2006 08:00:00
20-Feb-2006 20:00:00
21-Feb-2006 08:00:00
21-Feb-2006 20:00:00
22-Feb-2006 08:00:00
22-Feb-2006 20:00:00
23-Feb-2006 08:00:00
23-Feb-2006 20:00:00
24-Feb-2006 08:00:00
24-Feb-2006 20:00:00
25-Feb-2006 08:00:00
25-Feb-2006 20:00:00
26-Feb-2006 08:00:00
26-Feb-2006 20:00:00
27-Feb-2006 08:00:00
27-Feb-2006 20:00:00
28-Feb-2006 08:00:00
28-Feb-2006 20:00:00
01-Mar-2006 08:00:00
01-Mar-2006 20:00:00
02-Mar-2006 08:00:00
02-Mar-2006 20:00:00
uy-

0

Marston 2006 Monitoring Data
Water Level (inches)
Date Time AWi AW2 AW3 MW1 MW2 MW3
03-Mar-2006 08:00:00
03-Mar-2006 20:00:00
04-Mar-2006 08:00:00
04-Mar-2006 20:00:00
05-Mar-2006 08:00:00
05-Mar-2006 20:00:00
06-Mar-2006 08:00:00
06-Mar-2006 20:00:00
07-Mar-2006 08:00:00
07-Mar-2006 20:00:00
08-Mar-2006 08:00:00
08-Mar-2006 20:00:00
09-Mar-2006 08:00:00
09-Mar-2006 20:00:00
10-Mar-2006 08:00:00
10-Mar-2006 20:00:00
11-Mar-2006 08:00:00
11-Mar-2006 20:00:00
12-Mar-2006 08:00:00
12-Mar-2006 20:00:00
13-Mar-2006 08:00:00
13-Mar-2006 20:00:00
14-Mar-2006 08:00:00
14-Mar-2006 20:00:00
15-Mar-2006 08:00:00
15-Mar-2006 20:00:00
16-Mar-2006 08:00:00
16-Mar-2006 20:00:00
17-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -13.7
17-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -14.92
18-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -15.57
18-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -15.87
19-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -16.55
19-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -16.55
20-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -16.83 -14.11
20-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -15.49 -12.2
21-Mar-2006 08:00:00 0.81 -0.96 0.67
21-Mar-2006 20:00:00 0.76 -2.43 0.43
22-Mar-2006 08:00:00 0.32 -4.77 0.22
22-Mar-2006 20:00:00 0.03 -6.06 -0.06
23-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -0.24 -7.02 -0.24
23-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -0.33 -7.2 -0.31
24-Mar-2006 08:00:00 0.54 -2.59 0.47 -2.75 -1 1
24-Mar-2006 20:00:00 0.34 -5.37 0.31
25-Mar-2006 08:00:00 0.11 -6.5 0.21
25-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -0.06 -7.12 0.06
26-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -0.29 -7.58 0
26-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -0.55 -7.97 -0.24
27-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -0.92 -8.16 -0.26
27-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -1.36 -8.36 -0.52
28-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -1.8 -8.34 -0.55
28-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -2.19 -8.36 -0.75
29-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -2.77 -8.56 -0.86
29-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -3.87 -9.1 -1.23
30-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -4.87 -9.09 -1.29
30-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -6.1 -9.32 -1.7
31-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -7.21 -9.13 -1.69
31-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -8.56 -9.34 -2.26
01-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -8.04 -8.64 -1.95
01 Apr-2006 20:00:00 -9.34 -9.22 -2.73
02-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -10.24 -9.13 -2.73
uyv v
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data
Water Level (inches)
Date Time AW1 AW2 AW3 MWi MW2 MW3
02-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -11.65 -9.68 -3.96
03-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -11 -8.94 -3.38
03-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -11.88 -9.43 -5.1
04-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -9.56 -8.8 -3.77
04-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -13.24 -9.92 -6.98
05-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -14.06 -9.63 -6.92
05-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -15.51 -10.42 -10.81
06-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -16.08 -9.99 -10.27
06-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -16.47 -10.53 -13.31
07-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -15.62 -9.72 -11.67
07-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -16.69 -10.53 -15.81
08-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -15.73 -9.8 -13.84
08-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -1.04 -0.92 -0.35
09-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -0.16 -2.66 -0.82
09-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -0.82 -6 -1.38
10-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -1.49 -7.08 -1.45
10-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -3.01 -8.02 -2.27
11-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -4.38 -8.32 -2.39
11-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -7.21 -8.87 -3.99
12-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -8.75 -8.87 -3.94
12-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -10.64 -9.18 -6.03
13-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -11.05 -8.77 -5.73
13-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -12.5 -9.51 -9.6
14-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -12.42 -9.07 -8.95
14-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -13.78 -9.73 -13.53
15-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -13.89 -9.62 -12.52
15-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -15.93 -10.95 -18.6
16-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -16.21 -10.51 -17.28
16-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -17.2 -11.66 -20.91
17-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -17.04 -11.28 -19.52
17-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -14.86 -9.29 -15.3
18-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -15.31 -10.45 -14.61
18-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -16.75 -11.52 -19.07
19-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -17.22 -11.33 -19.16
19-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -18.19 -12.15 -22.39
20-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -18.43 -12.23 -22.01
20-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -19.1 -13.19 -23.99
21-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -19.15 -13.32 -23.36 -18.25 -18.75 -24.5
21-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -19.69 -14.17 -25.06
22-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -19.16 -13.82 -23.9
22-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -9.09 -7.66 -7.75
23-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -0.55 -4.28 -1.76
23-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -1.65 -7.39 -2.94
24-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -3.05 -8.35 -3.08
24-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -5.51 -9.29 -4.65
25-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -6.94 -9.46 -4.62
25-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -9.81 -10.1 -8.02
26-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -12.1 -10.34 -8.41
26-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -12.63 -10.23 -9.51
27-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -0.03 -3.1 -0.63
27-Apr-2006 20:00:00 1.19 -1.73 0.34
28-Apr-2006 08:00:00 0.43 -3.36 -0.09
28-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -0.17 -5.74 -0.62
29-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -0.54 -6.68 -0.7
29-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -1.73 -8.07 -1.18
30-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -2.52 -8.04 -1.24
30-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -5.07 -8.98 -2
01-May-2006 08:00:00 -6.09 -8.9 -2.1
01-May-2006 20:00:00 -8.14 -9.59 -2.89
02-May-2006 08:00:00 -8.93 -9.31 -2.82
02-May-2006 20:00:00 -11.32 -9.91 -4.85
1 UIJ. V T
0
0
i
0
0
•
0
0
0
i

•
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data
Water Level (inches)
Date Time AW1 AW2 AW3 MW1 MW2 MW3
03-May-2006 08:00:00 -11.97 -9.66 -4.79
03-May-2006 20:00:00 -14.47 -10.77 -8.93
04-May-2006 08:00:00 -14.94 -10.63 -8.33
04-May-2006 20:00:00 -16.02 -11.35 -12.64
05-May-2006 08:00:00 -15.99 -10.94 -11.53
05-May-2006 20:00:00 -16.69 -11.48 -14.39
06-May-2006 08:00:00 -7.8 -8.09 -2.52
06-May-2006 20:00:00 -12.03 -10.23 -5.96
07-May-2006 08:00:00 -13.87 -10.54 -6.88
07-May-2006 20:00:00 -10.4 -7.79 -2.09
08-May-2006 08:00:00 0.69 -2.48 0.21
08-May-2006 20:00:00 0.17 -4.4 -0.27
09-May-2006 08:00:00 -0.06 -5.26 -0.34
09-May-2006 20:00:00 -0.46 -6.57 -0.58
10-May-2006 08:00:00 -0.77 -7.14 -0.6
10-May-2006 20:00:00 -1.64 -8.1 -0.92
11-May-2006 08:00:00 -1.82 -7.75 -0.83
11-May-2006 20:00:00 -3.89 -9.11 -1.25
12-May-2006 08:00:00 -4.51 -8.94 -1.44
12-May-2006 20:00:00 -7.83 -10.24 -2.72
13-May-2006 08:00:00 -8.83 -9.9 -2.62
13-May-2006 20:00:00 -11.51 -10.85 -4.69
14-May-2006 08:00:00 -12.03 -10.36 -4.67
14-May-2006 20:00:00 -12.84 -10.86 -6.45
15-May-2006 08:00:00 -13.36 -10.55 -6.42
15-May-2006 20:00:00 -1.03 -3.53 -0.9
16-May-2006 08:00:00 0.42 -3.82 -0.23
16-May-2006 20:00:00 -0.25 -6.83 -0.73
17-May-2006 08:00:00 -0.62 -7.82 -0.76
17-May-2006 20:00:00 -2.09 -9.56 -1.48
18-May-2006 08:00:00 -3.03 -9.76 -1.55 -11.5 -11.5 -21
18-May-2006 20:00:00 -5.73 -10.89 -2.81
19-May-2006 08:00:00 0.78 -3.93 0.17
19-May-2006 20:00:00 -0.26 -7.05 -0.52
20-May-2006 08:00:00 -0.62 -7.91 -0.52
20-May-2006 20:00:00 -1.8 -9.44 -1.08
21-May-2006 08:00:00 -0.74 -8.2 -0.65
21-May-2006 20:00:00 -2.75 -9.98 -1.42
22-May-2006 08:00:00 -4.2 -10.56 -1.68
22-May-2006 20:00:00 -6.75 -11.33 -2.5
23-May-2006 08:00:00 -7.73 -11.13 -2.56
23-May-2006 20:00:00 -10.93 -12.38 -5.14
24-May-2006 08:00:00 -12.09 -12.17 -5.33
24-May-2006 20:00:00 -14.52 -13.29 -9.63
25-May-2006 08:00:00 -14.59 -12.87 -8.64
25-May-2006 20:00:00 -16.26 -14.11 -13.42
26-May-2006 08:00:00 -15.96 -13.82 -12.04
26-May-2006 20:00:00 -16.85 -14.6 -15.13
27-May-2006 08:00:00 -2.96 -8.24 -2.44
27-May-2006 20:00:00 -6.91 -11.32 -6.22
28-May-2006 08:00:00 -8.84 -11.82 -7.01
28-May-2006 20:00:00 -12.6 -12.95 -13.3
29-May-2006 08:00:00 -13.55 -12.98 -12.94
29-May-2006 20:00:00 -15.86 -14.28 -19.28
30-May-2006 08:00:00 -16.14 -13.8 -18.35
30-May-2006 20:00:00 -18.01 -15.24 -22.79
31-May-2006 08:00:00 -17.94 -14.49 -22.59
31-May-2006 20:00:00 -18.98 -15.53 -24.76
01-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -18.77 -14.77 -24.35
01-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -19.79 -15.93 -26.08
02-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -19.37 -15.01 -25.67
uyv v
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data
Water Level (inches)
Date Time AW1 AW2 AW3 MW1 MW2 MW3
02-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -20.41 -16.38 -27.08
03-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -19.83 -15.37 -26.6
03-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -18.9 -14.81 -26.05
04-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -18.59 -14.86 -24.63
04-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -19.97 -16.24 -26.89
05-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -18.78 -14.67 -26.05
05-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -9.74 -9.22 -20.07
06-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -6.13 -9.28 -10.28
06-Jun-2006 20:00:00 0.3 -3.86 -1.46
07-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -0.2 -6.5 -1.67
07-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -0.96 -8.64 -3.02
08-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -1.41 -9.32 -3.33
08-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -2.06 -9.52 -2.59
09-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -1.16 -8.87 -2.59
09-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -2.92 -10.45 -5.25
10-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -3.87 -10.92 -5.49
10-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -6.74 -11.86 -10.58
11-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -2.81 -9.8 -3.52
11-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -6.3 -11.85 -9.02
12-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -0.17 -5.4 -1.6
12-Jun-2006 20:00:00 1.44 -3.77 -0.03
13-Jun-2006 08:00:00 0.48 -5.29 -0.51
13-Jun-2006 20:00:00 0.21 -6.89 -0.49
14-Jun-2006 08:00:00 0.73 -5.64 0.11
14-Jun-2006 20:00:00 1.44 -2.41 0.39
15-Jun-2006 08:00:00 0.73 -3.86 -0.03
15-Jun-2006 20:00:00 0.14 -5.6 -0.43
16-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -0.25 -6.45 -0.56
16-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -1.22 -8.07 -1.06
17-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -1.74 -8.6 -1.12
17-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -3.62 -9.77 -2.06
18-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -4.35 -9.99 -1.99
18-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -6.7 -10.77 -3.16
19-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -7.38 -10.91 -3.11
19-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -10.34 -11.83 -6.51
20-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -8.98 -11.09 -3.27
20-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -12.97 -12.52 -8.21
21-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -13.42 -12.64 -7.7
21-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -14.57 -13.23 -10.25
22-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -15.01 -13.43 -10.16
22-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -16.5 -14.42 -15.15
23-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -16.37 -14.02 -14
23-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -18.02 -15.59 -18.82
24-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -17.91 -15.12 -18.1
24-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -16.16 -14.15 -15.7
25-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -15.49 -13.61 -14.43
25-Jun-2006 20:00:00 2 -0.97 0.58
26-Jun-2006 08:00:00 1.06 -3.46 -0.04
26-Jun-2006 20:00:00 2.8 0.37 1.21
27-Jun-2006 08:00:00 2.2 1.94 0.76
27-Jun-2006 20:00:00 2.67 3.78 0.69
28-Jun-2006 08:00:00 1.84 2.22 0.22
28-Jun-2006 20:00:00 2 1.55 0.52
29-Jun-2006 08:00:00 1.63 0.66 0.28
29-Jun-2006 20:00:00 0.89 -0.74 -0.18
30-Jun-2006 08:00:00 0.4 -1.82 -0.3
30-Jun-2006 20:00:00 4.52 4.28 3.46
01-Jul-2006 08:00:00 2.46 5.53 1.46
01-Jul-2006 20:00:00 1.63 2.18 0
02-Jul-2006 08:00:00 1.07 0.31 -0.15
02-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.03 -1.38 -0.52
. uy-

0

r
E

•
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data
Water Level (inches)
Date Time AW1 AW2 AW3 MW1 MW2 MW3
03-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -0.17 -2.43 -0.66
03-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.52 -1.07 0.88
04-Jul-2006 08:00:00 4.64 11.17 7.35
04-Jul-2006 20:00:00 2.77 6.89 2.54
05-Jul-2006 08:00:00 1.63 2.82 0.37
05-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.84 0.39 -0.16
06-Jul-2006 08:00:00 0.57 -0.9 -0.33
06-Jul-2006 20:00:00 2.02 1.25 1.03
07-Jul-2006 08:00:00 1.37 0.36 0.62
07-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.86 -0.9 0.41
08-Jul-2006 08:00:00 0.54 -1.88 0.31
08-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -0.16 -3.37 -0.17
09-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -0.48 -4.23 -0.4
09-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -1.32 -5.64 -0.83
10-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -1.66 -6.26 -0.88
10-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -3.51 -7.88 -1.48
11-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -4.11 -8.16 -1.51
11-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -6.9 -9.4 -2.41
12-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -7.36 -9.49 -2.39
12-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -10.12 -10.45 -4.18
13-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -10.48 -10.42 -4.15
13-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -13.56 -11.37 -7.94
14-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -13.88 -11.18 -7.46
14-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -16.07 -12.11 -12.27
15-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -15.96 -12.01 -11.44
15-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -7.02 -8.4 -3.26
16-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -3.48 -8.51 -2.05
16-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -7.6 -11.15 -4.48
17-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -9.62 -11.55 -4.82
17-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -13.24 -12.46 -10.66
18-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -14.04 -12.45 -10.43 -32 -18 -15
18-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -16.51 -13.33 -16.76
19-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -16.77 -13.14 -15.72
19-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -18.54 -14.39 -20.57
20-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -18.67 -14.73 -19.79
20-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -19.08 -15.34 -22.25
21-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -19.07 -15.38 -21.97
21-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -20.29 -16.59 -24.59
22-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -20.06 -16.19 -24.3
22-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -21.2 -17.41 -26.29
23-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -20.79 -16.59 -25.93
23-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -11.48 -6.69 -5.39
24-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -9.66 -10.54 -3.95
24-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -2 -5.18 0.66
25-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -1.4 -7.31 -0.22
25-Jul-2006 20:00:00 1.07 -4.56 0.99
26-Jul-2006 08:00:00 0.24 -6.75 0.19
26-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -1.19 -9.28 -0.49
27-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -1.95 -10 -0.59
27-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -0.55 -6.13 -0.35
28-Jul-2006 08:00:00 0.43 -6.98 -0.33
28-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -0.81 -9.93 -0.74
29-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -1.43 -10.42 -0.88
29-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -3.21 -11.58 -1.54
30-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -3.4 -11.45 -1.38
30-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -5.15 -12.2 -2.02
31-Jul-2006 08:00:00 -5.96 -12.21 -2.07
31-Jul-2006 20:00:00 -9.04 -13.25 -4.02
01-Aug 2006 08:00:00 -9.67 -13.15 -3.83
01-Aug 2006 20:00:00 -12.09 -14.09 -7.27
02-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -12.47 -14.23 -7.08
Uyj
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data
Water Level (inches)
Date Time AW1 AW2 AW3 MW1 MW2 MW3
02-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -14.51 -15.37 -10.58
03-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -14.81 -15.29 -10.03
03-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -16.98 -16.74 -14.65
04-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -16.86 -16.14 -13.9
04-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -18.83 -17.85 -18.42
05-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -18.9 -17.24 -18.23
05-Aug-2006 20:00:00 1.28 3.77 2.12
06-Aug-2006 08:00:00 0.49 -3.46 -0.03
06-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -0.89 -6.31 -0.66
07-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -1.4 -7.23 -0.78
07-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -2.91 -8.9 -1.28
08-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -3.49 -9.36 -1.32
08-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -6.51 -10.87 -2.01
09-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -3.5 -9.49 -1.21
09-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -5.77 -10.89 -1.87
1o-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -6.55 -10.96 -1.93
10-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -7.85 -11.6 -2.64
11-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -8.62 -11.61 -2.73
11-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -1.62 -7.57 -0.91
12-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -2.49 -9.37 -1.15
12-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -3.46 -10.58 -1.44
13-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -4.43 -11.12 -1.59
13-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -7.63 -12.22 -2.53
14-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -8.59 -12.15 -2.51
14-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -11.08 -12.92 -4.03
15-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -11.74 -13.03 -3.88
15-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -14.62 -14.07 -7.36
16-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -14.92 -14.01 -7.35
16-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -16.49 -15.16 -11.3
17-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -16.41 -15 -10.76
17-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -17.28 -15.82 -13.86
18-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -17.09 -15.49 -13.28
18-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -17.48 -15.69 -10.36
19-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -17.28 -15.45 -11.26
19-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -18.65 -16.69 -16.64
20-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -18.59 -16.25 -16.27
20-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -19.85 -17.54 -20.12
21-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -19.98 -17.16 -20.16
21-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -19.4 -16.71 -17.39
22-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -14.76 -14.5 -5.15
22-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -3.11 -5.92 -1.18
23-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -2.05 -8.83 -0.62 -3.25 -4 -30
23-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -2.69 -9.82 -0.73
24-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -4.08 -11.1 -0.96
24-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -7.15 -12.55 -1.73
25-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -8.88 -13.06 -1.97
25-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -12.06 -13.97 -3.67
26-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -13.18 -14.16 -3.65
26-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -15.6 -15.39 -6.36
27-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -15.89 -15.31 -6.39
27-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -16.91 -16.19 -10.32
28-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -16.74 -15.77 -10.38
28-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -18.06 -16.92 -15.22
29-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -17.68 -16.28 -14.31
29-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -19.3 -17.83 -18.87
30-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -19.13 -17.13 -18.3
30-Aug-2006 20:00:00 -3.6 -5.08 -0.12
31-Aug-2006 08:00:00 -2.59 -9.39 -0.58
31-Aug-2006 20:00:00 3.59 2.38 4.23
01-Sep-2006 08:00:00 15.35 14.69 9.96
01-Sep-2006 20:00:00 7.23 14.56 10.04
-Z:,- -

C

0

Marston 2006 Monitoring Data
Water Level (inches)
Date Time AW1 AW2 AW3 MW1 MW2 MW3
02-Sep-2006 08:00:00 4.16 14.57 3.04
02-Sep-2006 20:00:00 2.88 14.57 2.6
03-Sep-2006 08:00:00 1.13 12.47 0.96
03-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.97 14.31 -0.13
04-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -0.01 6.8 -0.54
04-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -0.14 9.9 -0.94
05-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -0.14 4.58 -0.53
05-Sep-2006 20:00:00 3.35 10.64 1.96
06-Sep-2006 08:00:00 3.83 11.63 4.07
06-Sep-2006 20:00:00 2.56 11.15 2.14
07-Sep-2006 08:00:00 1.1 7.93 0.71
07-Sep-2006 20:00:00 1.08 11 0.22
08-Sep-2006 08:00:00 0.27 7.18 0.33
08-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.24 7.61 -0.26
09-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -0.97 1.86 -0.49
09-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -0.58 4.56 -0.92
10-Sep-2006 06:00:00 -1.71 -1.29 -0.97
10-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -1.71 0.98 -1.39
11-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -2.63 -4.34 -1.41
11-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -3.49 -1.89 -1.86
12-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -4.97 -6.31 -1.9
12-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -6.42 -4.24 -2.53
13-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -7.39 -8.84 -2.5
13-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -1.34 -3.25 -0.96
14-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -0.06 -2.65 -0.02
14-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.83 -1.68 0.4
15-Sep-2006 08:00:00 0.46 -2.75 0.29
15-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.36 -2.12 -0.26
16-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -1.33 -7.24 -0.34
16-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -0.65 -4 -0.66
17-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -1.44 -6.91 -0.77
17-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -1.55 -4.88 -1.18
18-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -3.42 -10.98 -1.22
18-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -3.3 -6.28 -1.69
19-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -4.28 -10.01 -1.6
19-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -2.49 -2.59 0.38
20-Sep-2006 08:00:00 4.32 7.57 6.86
20-Sep-2006 20:00:00 2.72 7.9 2.82
21-Sep-2006 08:00:00 0.46 7.33 0.82 2 2 -20
21 Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.67 5.82 -0.09
22-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -0.42 0.9 -0.28
22-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0 2.92 -0.57
23-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -0.72 -6.51 -0.68
23-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -0.24 -1 -0.87
24-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -0.48 -1.42 -0.83
24-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -0.82 -0.31 -1.25
25-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -0.84 -0.49 -1.09
25-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -1.01 -1.03 -1.29
26-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -2.43 -9.13 -1.37
26-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -2.44 -2.73 -1.78
27-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -4.13 -11.45 -1.84
27-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -5.1 -4.23 -2.4
28-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -6.78 -12.17 -2.39
28-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -7.65 -4.7 -2.86
29-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -3.67 -8.48 -1.8
29-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -6.27 -5.63 -2.63
30-Sep-2006 08:00:00 -9.38 -12.28 -2.77
30-Sep-2006 20:00:00 -11.13 -6.57 -3.73
01-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -12.42 -12.34 -3.76
01-oct-2006 2070:00 -13.55 -9.36 -5.61
02-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -15 -9.66 -5.79
uy?
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data
Water Level (inches)
Date Time AW1 AW2 AW3 MWi MW2 MW3
02-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -15.25 -8.58 -8.61
03-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -16.45 -13.91 -8.61
03-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -16.19 -10.23 -11.7
04-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -17.05 -13.74 -11.11
04-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -16.56 -8.02 -14.32
05-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -16.8 -15.07 -13.23
05-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -17.04 -10.56 -16.52
06-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -16.85 -15.8 -14.85
06-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -16.66 -8.15 -16.29
07-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -17.28 -9.26 -16.12
07-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -17.82 -8.74 -18.36
08-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -7.52 -2.59 -2.63
08-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -2.15 -2.17 -1.07
09-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -0.01 -0.75 0.12
09-Oct-2006 20:00:00 1.74 2.73 0.88
10-Oct-2006 08:00:00 0.51 0.01 0.39
10-Oct-2006 20:00:00 0.98 -0.05 -0.04
11-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -0.73 -8.3 -0.1
11-Oct-2006 20:00:00 0.38 -1.7 -0.14
12-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -0.73 -6.96 -0.2
12-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -0.61 -3.01 -0.46
13-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -2.15 -7.47 -0.58
13-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -2.01 -4.13 -0.79
14-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -3.93 -10.73 -0.96
14-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -3.89 -7.98 -1.37
15-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -5.98 -9.29 -1.53
15-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -6.33 -8.98 -1.95
16-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -8.54 -9.13 -2.09
16-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -8.46 -9.46 -2.42
17-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -7.83 -9.13 -2.33
17-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -0.56 -3.38 -0.24
18-Oct-2006 08:00:00 0.86 -2.09 0.61
18-Oct-06 20:00:00 1.05 -3.94 0.29
19-Oct-06 08:00:00 0.18 -5.22 0.2 -1.5 -2 -5.5
19-Oct-2006 20:00:00 0.34 -6.23 0.12
20-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -0.12 -6.49 0.06
20-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -0.55 -8.06 -0.31
21-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -2.2 -8.43 -0.42
21-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -1.95 -8.94 -0.73
22-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -2.93 -8.75 -0.77
22-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -0.2 -5.65 -0.06
23-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -1.1 -7.55 -0.17
23-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -1.29 -8.79 -0.38
24-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -3.32 -9.33 -0.55
24-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -3.54 -9.88 -0.95
25-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -5.32 -9.95 -1.08
25-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -6.02 -10.25 -1.47
26-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -7.98 -10.27 -1.56
26-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -8.22 -10.36 -1.91
27-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -8.59 -10.2 -1.99
27-Oct-2006 20:00:00 0.52 -1.02 0.77
28-Oct-2006 08:00:00 2.38 2.2 1.58
28-Oct-2006 20:00:00 1.5 0.19 0.58
29-Oct-2006 08:00:00 0 -0.72 0.35
29-Oct-2006 20:00:00 0.24 -1.6 0.08
30-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -0.77 -2.36 0.03
30-Oct-2006 20:00:00 0.02 -3.28 -0.12
31-Oct-2006 08:00:00 -1.18 -3.95 -0.15
31-Oct-2006 20:00:00 -0.34 -4.72 -0.24
01-Nov-2006 08:00:00 -1.56 -5.18 -0.22
01-Nov-2006 20:00:00 -0.69 -5.81 -0.35
-Zl- . -

0

Marston 2006 Monitoring Data
Water Level (inches)
Date Time AW1 AW2 AW3 MW1 MW2 MW3
02-Nov-2006 08:00:00 -1.79 -6.17 -0.38
02-Nov-2006 20:00:00 -1.53 -6.95 -0.61
03-Nov-2006 08:00:00 -2.75 -7.55 -0.78
03-Nov-2006 20:00:00 -3.01 -7.3 -1.1
04-Nov-2006 08:00:00 -4.35 -9.7 -1.25
04-Nov-2006 20:00:00 -5.03 -7.23 -1.51
05-Nov-2006 08:00:00 -6.33 -10.23 -1.49
05-Nov-2006 20:00:00 -6.54 -7.25 -1.84
06-Nov-2006 08:00:00 -7.77 -12.57 -1.87
06-Nov-2006 20:00:00 -7.53 -4.17 -2.09
07-Nov-2006 08:00:00 -7.29 -14.05 -2.03
07-Nov-2006 20:00:00 3.44 -0.71 2.97
08-Nov-2006 08:00:00 1.73 -3.08 1.12
08-Nov-2006 20:00:00 1.67 6.21 0.78
09-Nov-2006 08:00:00 0.56 1.99 0.67
09-Nov-2006 20:00:00 1.13 4.27 0.39
10-Nov-2006 08:00:00 -0.24 -1.55 0.25
10-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.79 2.5 0.13
11-Nov-2006 08:00:00 -0.43 -3.76 0.14
11-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.49 0.64 0.08
12-Nov-2006 08:00:00 1.42 -1.55 0.7
12-Nov-2006 20:00:00 2.25 6.74 1.43
13-Nov-2006 08:00:00 1.16 0.97 0.82
13-Nov-2006 20:00:00 1.67 6.01 0.67
14-Nov-2006 08:00:00 0.33 0.82 0.56
14-Nov-2006 20:00:00 1.19 3.96 0.38
15-Nov-2006 08:00:00 -0.03 -0.9 0.34
15-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.78 2.51 0.21
16-Nov-2006 08:00:00 1.39 -6.12 0.82
16-Nov-2006 20:00:00 2.85 8.07 1.76
17-Nov-2006 08:00:00 1.24 3.89 0.88
17-Nov-2006 20:00:00 1.37 7.02 0.68
18-Nov-2006 08:00:00 0.57 2.4 0.58
18-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.98 5.25 0.46
19-Nov-2006 08:00:00 0.17 -0.71 0.42
19-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.72 3.42 0.26
20-Nov-2006 08:00:00 0.22 -1.73 0.18
20-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.67 1.78 0.45
21-Nov-2006 08:00:00 2.53 6.37 2.2 1.5 -0.25 3

Page 11
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data

Date Time Webb-Ref CG On-Site RG Trenton RG
01-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -11.8
01-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -12.7
02-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -13.1
02-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -8
03-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -7.1
03-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -8.8 0.73
04-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -9.9
04-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -10.5
05-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -10.8
05-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -11.2
06-Jan-2006 0800:00 -12.2
06-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -13.1
07-Jan-2006 0800:00 -14
07-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -14.6
08-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -15
08-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -15.3
09-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -16.1
09-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -16.1
10-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -16.8
10-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -16.8
11-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -16.6
11-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -16.3
12-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -16.5
12-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -17
13-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -16.8
13-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -16.1
14-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -7.5
14-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -9.2 0.37
15-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -10.5
15-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -12 0.01
16-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -12.7
16-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -12.9
17-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -13.8
17-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -14 0.02
18-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -10.3
18-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -10.5 0.29
19-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -11.6
19-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -12.3 0.19
20-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -13.1
20-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -13.3
21-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -14.2
21-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -11.4
22-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -10.3
22-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -11.2 0.48
23-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -11.2
23-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -4.7
24-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -5.4
24-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -6.7 0.55
25-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -8
25-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -9
26-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -9.9
26-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -10.8
27-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -11.6
27-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -124 3
28-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -12.9
28-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -12.7
29-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -13.1
29-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -12.7
30-Jan-2006 08:00:00 -12.9
30-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -12.7
31-Jan 2006 08:00:00 -6.2
"yo
0

0

9

r?
LJ
U

Marston 2006 Monitoring Data

Date Time Webb-Ref CG On-Site RG Trenton RG
31-Jan-2006 20:00:00 -8 0.44
01-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -8.8
01-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -9.5 0.07
02-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -10.1
02-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -10.3
03-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -10.3
03-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -11.4 0.02
04-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -10.5
04-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -11 0.01
05-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -12.7
05-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -13.8
06-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -14.8
06-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -15.3
07-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -14.2
07-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -13.7 0.16
08-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -14.4
08-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -15
09-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -15.5
09-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -16.1
10-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -16.6
10-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -16.3
11-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -16.3
11-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -12.9 0.04
12-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -12.9
12-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -14.2 0.09
13-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -15.3
13-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -15.9
14-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -16.5
14-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -16.6
15-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -17.4
15-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -17.6
16-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -18.1
16-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -18.1
17-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -18.1
17-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -18.5
18-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -19.1
18-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -19.6
19-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -20.2
19-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -20.2 0.01
20-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -19.8
20-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -19.6 0.01
21-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -19.1
21-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -19.4 0.02
22-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -20
22-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -15.9
23-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -7.1
23-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -7.7 0.52
24-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -9.4
24-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -10.7 0.01
25-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -11.6
25-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -11.8
26-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -12.5
26-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -13.8 0.19
27-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -14.8
27-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -14.6
28-Feb-2006 08:00:00 -15
28-Feb-2006 20:00:00 -15.3
01-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -15.9
01-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -16.8
02-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -17
02-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -17.6
rage _i d
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data

Date Time Webb-Ref CG On-Site RG Trenton RG
03-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -18.7
03-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -19.6
04-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -20.6
04-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -20.9
05-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -21.5
05-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -21.9
06-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -21.7
06-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -21.5
07-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -21.9
07-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -22.4 0.06
08-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -23.2
08-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -23.4
09-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -23.6
09-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -23.8
10-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -23.8
10-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -24.1
11-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -24.5
11-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -25.1 0.01
12-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -25.4
12-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -25.6
13-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -25.6
13-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -26
14-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -26
14-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -26.2
15-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -26.9
15-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -27.7 0.25
16-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -28.4
16-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -28.8
17-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -29
17-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -29.2
18-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -29.4
18-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -29.5
19-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -29.7
19-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -29.7
20-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -29.9
20-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -29.7
21-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -24.1
21-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -14.8 0.83
22-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -15
22-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -16.1 0.03
23-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -17
23-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -17.2
24-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -15.5 0.23
24-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -14 0.3
25-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -14.6
25-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -15.3 0.04
26-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -16.6
26-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -17.4 0.03
27-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -18.5
27-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -19.3
28-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -20
28-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -20.4
29-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -20.8
29-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -21.7
30-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -22.4
30-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -23
31-Mar-2006 08:00:00 -23.6
31-Mar-2006 20:00:00 -23.9 0.06
01-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -24.1
01-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -24.5
02-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -24.7
.-I
L J

•
rayc i-+
0

Marston 2006 Monitoring Data

Date Time Webb-Ref CG On-Site RG Trenton RG
02-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -25.4 0.01
03-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -25.1
03-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -23.8
04-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -22.3
04-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -23 0.42
05-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -23.6
05-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -24.5
06-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -25.2
06-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -25.8
07-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -26
07-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -26.4 0.01
08-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -26.9
08-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -27.3
09-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -26.2
09-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -25.2 1.23
10-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -25.1
10-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -25.6
11-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -25.8
11-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -26.6
12-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -27.1
12-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -28.1
13-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -28.2
13-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -28.6
14-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -28.6
14-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -28.8
15-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -28.8
15-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -28.8
16-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -29
16-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -29
17-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -28.8
17-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -28.8
18-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -28.8
18-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -29 0.18
19-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -29
19-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -29
20-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -29
20-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -29.2
21-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -29 0 0.98
21-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -29
22-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -29
22-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -28.8
23-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -28.6
23-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -29 0.15
24-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -29
24-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -28.8
25-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -28.8
25-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -28.8 0.01
26-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -29
26-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -28.6
27-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -28.4
27-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -23.2 0.62
28-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -23.2
28-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -23.4 0.82
29-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -23.8
29-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -24.5
30-Apr-2006 08:00:00 -25.2
30-Apr-2006 20:00:00 -25.8
01-May-2006 08:00:00 -26.6
01-May-2006 20:00:00 -27.7
02-May-2006 08:00:00 -28.4
02-May-2006 20:00:00 -28.8

Marston 2006 Monitoring Data

Date Time Webb-Ref CG On-Site RG Trenton RG
03-May-2006 08:00:00 -28.8
03-May-2006 20:00:00 -29.2
04-May-2006 08:00:00 -29.4
04-May-2006 20:00:00 -29.4
05-May-2006 08:00:00 -29.4
05-May-2006 20:00:00 -29.2 0.06
06-May-2006 08:00:00 -29
06-May-2006 20:00:00 -29.2 0.25
07-May-2006 08:00:00 -29.2
07-May-2006 20:00:00 -29 0.03
08-May-2006 08:00:00 -16.5
08-May-2006 20:00:00 -16.3 0.48
09-May-2006 08:00:00 -16.5
09-May-2006 20:00:00 -18.1
10-May-2006 08:00:00 -19.1
10-May-2006 20:00:00 -20.4
11-May-2006 08:00:00 -20.8
11-May-2006 20:00:00 -22.3
12-May-2006 08:00:00 -23
12-May-2006 20:00:00 -23.9
13-May-2006 08:00:00 -24.7
13-May-2006 20:00:00 -25.2 0.01
14-May-2006 08:00:00 -25.6
14-May-2006 20:00:00 -25.8
15-May-2006 08:00:00 -26
15-May-2006 20:00:00 -26.2 0.02
16-May-2006 08:00:00 -24.5
16-May-2006 20:00:00 -24.5 0.54
17-May-2006 08:00:00 -24.5
17-May-2006 20:00:00 -24.9
18-May-2006 08:00:00 -25.1 0.15 4.28
18-May-2006 20:00:00 -25.6
19-May-2006 08:00:00 -19.6
19-May-2006 20:00:00 -20.9 0.59
20-May-2006 08:00:00 -21.7
20-May-2006 20:00:00 -22.6 0.01
21-May-2006 08:00:00 -23.4
21-May-2006 20:00:00 -24.3 0.15
22-May-2006 08:00:00 -25.2
22-May-2006 20:00:00 -26.4
23-May-2006 08:00:00 -27.9
23-May-2006 20:00:00 -28.6
24-May-2006 08:00:00 -29.2
24-May-2006 20:00:00 -29.4
25-May-2006 08:00:00 -29.4
25-May-2006 20:00:00 -29.4
26-May-2006 08:00:00 -29.4
26-May-2006 20:00:00 -29.2
27-May-2006 08:00:00 -28.4
27-May-2006 20:00:00 -28.6
28-May-2006 08:00:00 -28.8
28-May-2006 20:00:00 -28.8
29-May-2006 08:00:00 -29
29-May-2006 20:00:00 -29.2
30-May-2006 08:00:00 -29.2
30-May-2006 20:00:00 -29.4
31-May-2006 08:00:00 -29.2
31-May-2006 20:00:00 -29
01-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -29
01-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29.2 0.01
02-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -29
CLyj I u
•
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data

Date Time Webb-Ref CG On-Site RG Trenton RG
02-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29.2
03-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -29
03-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29
04-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -28.4
04-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29.2 0.27
05-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -28.8
05-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29 0.09
06-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -28.4
06-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -28.8 0.01
07-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -28.4
07-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29.2 1.05
08-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -29
08-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29
09-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -28.4
09-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29.2 0.27
10-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -28.8
10-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29.2
11-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -29
11-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29.2
12-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -28.8
12-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -28.8 0.34
13-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -29
13-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -28.8 0.21
14-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -28.6
14-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29 0.05
15-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -28.8
15-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29 0.49
16-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -29
16-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29
17-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -29
17-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29
18-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -29
18-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29
19-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -29
19-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29
20-Jun-2006 08:00:00 -28.8
20-Jun-2006 20:00:00 -29 0.24
21-Jun-2006 08:00:00
21-Jun-2006 20:00:00
22-Jun-2006 08:00:00
22-Jun-2006 20:00:00 0.19
23-Jun-2006 08:00:00
23-Jun-2006 20:00:00
24-Jun-2006 08:00:00
24-Jun-2006 20:00:00
25-Jun-2006 08:00:00
25-Jun-2006 20:00:00 0.03
26-Jun-2006 08:00:00
26-Jun-2006 20:00:00 0.85
27-Jun-2006 08:00:00
27-Jun-2006 20:00:00 0.84
28-Jun-2006 08:00:00
28-Jun-2006 20:00:00 0.57
29-Jun-2006 08:00:00
29-Jun-2006 20:00:00 0.07
30-Jun-2006 08:00:00
30-Jun-2006 20:00:00 0.01
01-Jul-2006 08:00:00
01-Jul-2006 20:00:00
02-Jul-2006 08:00:00
02-Jul-2006 20:00:00
U&c i
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data

Date Time Webb-Ref CG On-Site RG Trenton RG
03-Jul-2006 08:00:00
03-Jul-2006 20:00:00
04-Jul-2006 08:00:00
04-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.7
05-Jul-2006 08:00:00
05-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.04
06-Jul-2006 08:00:00
06-Jul-2006 20:00:00
07-Jul-2006 08:00:00
07-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.31
08-Jul-2006 08:00:00
08-Jul-2006 20:00:00
09-Jul-2006 08:00:00
09-Jul-2006 20:00:00
10-Jul-2006 08:00:00
10-Jul-2006 20:00:00
11-Jul-2006 08:00:00
11-Jul-2006 20:00:00
12-Jul-2006 08:00:00
12-Jul-2006 20:00:00
13-Jul-2006 08:00:00
13-Jul-2006 20:00:00
14-Jul-2006 08:00:00
14-Jul-2006 20:00:00
15-Jul-2006 08:00:00
15-Jul-2006 20:00:00
16-Jul-2006 08:00:00
16-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.05
17-Jul-2006 08:00:00
17-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.08
18-Jul-2006 08:00:00 1.25 8.5
18-Jul-2006 20:00:00
19-Jul-2006 08:00:00
19-Jul-2006 20:00:00
20-Jul-2006 08:00:00
20-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.02
21-Jul-2006 08:00:00
21-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.01
22-Jul-2006 08:00:00
22-Jul-2006 20:00:00
23-Jul-2006 08:00:00
23-Jul-2006 20:00:00
24-Jul-2006 08:00:00
24-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.25
25-Jul-2006 08:00:00
25-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.04
26-Jul-2006 08:00:00
26-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.57
27-Jul-2006 08:00:00
27-Jul-2006 20:00:00
28-Jul-2006 08:00:00
28-Jul-2006 20:00:00
29-Jul-2006 08:00:00
29-Jul-2006 20:00:00
30-Jul-2006 08:00:00
30-Jul-2006 20:00:00 0.01
31-Jul-2006 08:00:00
31-Jul-2006 20:00:00
01-Aug-2006 08:00:00
01-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.06
02-Aug-2006 08:00:00
Qyv

•
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data

Date Time Webb-Ref CG On-Site RG Trenton RG
02-Aug-2006 20:00:00
03-Aug-2006 08:00:00
03-Aug-2006 20:00:00
04-Aug-2006 08:00:00
04-Aug-2006 20:00:00
05-Aug-2006 08:00:00
05-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.01
06-Aug-2006 08:00:00
06-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.29
07-Aug-2006 08:00:00
07-Aug-2006 20:00:00
08-Aug-2006 08:00:00
08-Aug-2006 20:00:00
09-Aug-2006 08:00:00
09-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.03
10-Aug-2006 08:00:00
10-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.03
11-Aug-2006 08:00:00
11-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.06
12-Aug-2006 08:00:00
12-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.19
13-Aug-2006 08:00:00
13-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.01
14-Aug-2006 08:00:00
14-Aug-2006 20:00:00
15-Aug-2006 08:00:00
15-Aug-2006 20:00:00
16-Aug-2006 08:00:00
16-Aug-2006 20:00:00
17-Aug-2006 08:00:00
17-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.1
18-Aug-2006 08:00:00
18-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.03
19-Aug-2006 08:00:00
19-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.09
20-Aug-2006 08:00:00
20-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.03
21-Aug-2006 08:00:00
21-Aug-2006 20:00:00
22-Aug-2006 08:00:00
22-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.45
23-Aug-2006 08:00:00 0.88 6.76
23-Aug-2006 20:00:00 1.29
24-Aug-2006 08:00:00
24-Aug-2006 20:00:00 0.04
25-Aug-2006 08:00:00
25-Aug-2006 20:00:00
26-Aug-2006 08:00:00
26-Aug-2006 20:00:00
27-Aug-2006 08:00:00
27-Aug-2006 20:00:00
28-Aug-2006 08:00:00
28-Aug-2006 20:00:00
29-Aug-2006 08:00:00
29-Aug-2006 20:00:00
30-Aug-2006 08:00:00
30-Aug-2006 20:00:00
31-Aug-2006 08:00:00
20:00:00 1.4
8
nS
E 08:00:00
20:00:00 6.71
i Clyc 1s
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data

Date Time Webb-Ref CG On-Site RG Trenton RG
02-Sep-2006 08:00:00
02-Sep-2006 20:00:00
03-Sep-2006 08:00:00
03-Sep-2006 20:00:00
04-Sep-2006 08:00:00
04-Sep-2006 20:00:00
05-Sep-2006 08:00:00
05-Sep-2006 20:00:00
06-Sep-2006 08:00:00
06-Sep-2006 20:00:00
07-Sep-2006 08:00:00
07-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.04
08-Sep-2006 08:00:00
08-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.04
09-Sep-2006 08:00:00
09-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.02
10-Sep-2006 08:00:00
10-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.04
11-Sep-2006 08:00:00
11-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.01
12-Sep-2006 08:00:00
12-Sep-2006 20:00:00
13-Sep-2006 08:00:00
13-Sep-2006 20:00:00
14-Sep-2006 08:00:00
14-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.32
15-Sep-2006 08:00:00
15-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.25
16-Sep-2006 08:00:00
16-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.06
17-Sep-2006 08:00:00
17-Sep-2006 20:00:00
18-Sep-2006 08:00:00
18-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.02
19-Sep-2006 08:00:00
19-Sep-2006 20:00:00
20-Sep-2006 08:00:00
20-Sep-2006 20:00:00 1.95
21-Sep-2006 08:00:00 1.5 3.57
21-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.1
22-Sep-2006 08:00:00
22-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.01
23-Sep-2006 08:00:00
23-Sep-2006 20:00:00
24-Sep-2006 08:00:00
24-Sep-2006 20:00:00
25-Sep-2006 08:00:00
25-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.06
26-Sep-2006 08:00:00
26-Sep-2006 20:00:00
27-Sep-2006 08:00:00
27-Sep-2006 20:00:00
28-Sep-2006 08:00:00
28-Sep-2006 20:00:00
29-Sep-2006 08:00:00
29-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.12
30-Sep-2006 08:00:00
30-Sep-2006 20:00:00 0.02
01-Oct-2006 08:00:00
01-Oct-2006 20:00:00
02-Oct-2006 08:00:00
i ayc Gv

•
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data

Date Time Webb-Ref CG On-Site RG Trenton RG
02-Oct-2006 20:00:00 0.04
03-Oct-2006 08:00:00
03-Oct-2006 20:00:00 0.05
04-Oct-2006 08:00:00
04-Oct-2006 20:00:00
05-Oct-2006 08:00:00
05-Oct-2006 20:00:00
06-Oct-2006 08:00:00
06-Oct-2006 20:00:00 0.01
07-Oct-2006 08:00:00
07-Oct-2006 20:00:00
08-Oct-2006 08:00:00
08-Oct-2006 20:00:00
09-Oct-2006 08:00:00
09-Oct-2006 20:00:00
10-Oct-2006 08:00:00
10-Oct-2006 20:00:00
11-Oct-2006 08:00:00
11-Oct-2006 20:00:00
12-Oct-2006 08:00:00
12-Oct-2006 20:00:00
13-Oct-2006 08:00:00
13-Oct-2006 20:00:00
14-Oct-2006 08:00:00
14-Oct-2006 20:00:00
15-Oct-2006 08:00:00
15-Oct-2006 20:00:00
16-Oct-2006 08:00:00
16-Oct-2006 20:00:00
17-Oct-2006 08:00:00
17-Oct-2006 20:00:00
18-Oct-2006 08:00:00
18-Oct-06 20:00:00
19-Oct-06 08:00:00 1.7 2.58
19-Oct-2006 20:00:00
20-Oct-2006 08:00:00
20-Oct-2006 20:00:00
21-Oct-2006 08:00:00
21-Oct-2006 20:00:00
22-Oct-2006 08:00:00
22-Oct-2006 20:00:00
23-Oct-2006 08:00:00
23-Oct-2006 20:00:00 0.04
24-Oct-2006 08:00:00
24-Oct-2006 20:00:00
25-Oct-2006 08:00:00
25-Oct-2006 20:00:00
26-Oct-2006 08:00:00
26-Oct-2006 20:00:00
27-Oct-2006 08:00:00
27-Oct-2006 20:00:00
28-Oct-2006 08:00:00
28-Oct-2006 20:00:00 1.6
29-Oct-2006 08:00:00
29-Oct-2006 20:00:00
30-Oct-2006 08:00:00
30-Oct-2006 20:00:00
31-Oct-2006 08:00:00
31-Oct-2006 20:00:00 0.28
01-Nov-2006 08:00:00
01-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.1
raycGI
Marston 2006 Monitoring Data

Date Time Webb-Ref CG On-Site RG Trenton RG
02-Nov-2006 08:00:00
02-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.1
03-Nov-2006 08:00:00
03-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.05
04-Nov-2006 08:00:00
04-Nov-2006 20:00:00
05-Nov-2006 08:00:00
05-Nov-2006 20:00:00
06-Nov-2006 08:00:00
06-Nov-2006 20:00:00
07-Nov-2006 08:00:00
07-Nov-2006 20:00:00 1.59
08-Nov-2006 08:00:00
08-Nov-2006 20:00:00 1.66
09-Nov-2006 08:00:00
09-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.09
10-Nov-2006 08:00:00
10-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.14
11-Nov-2006 08:00:00
11-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.28
12-Nov-2006 08:00:00
12-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.95
13-Nov-2006 08:00:00
13-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.79
14-Nov-2006 08:00:00
14-Nov-2006 20:00:00
15-Nov-2006 08:00:00
15-Nov-2006 20:00:00
16-Nov-2006 08:00:00
16-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.54
17-Nov-2006 08:00:00
17-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.54
18-Nov-2006 08:00:00
18-Nov-2006 20:00:00
19-Nov-2006 08:00:00
19-Nov-2006 20:00:00
20-Nov-2006 08:00:00
20-Nov-2006 20:00:00 0.12
21-Nov-2006 08:00:00 0.58 5.83
1.48

Page 22
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX D
2006 Site Photos
Cypress sapling
Stream @ STA 23+70

Transplants @ STA 46+30

"Nw
A
4

mouth (d STA R?+Rn
zjow,o)?f M4 ??- 1,
Lespedeza at Marston
Y5'
LIMiI ?K?}y1' t4c?G*???Hgj. tq!E???' ?,??ay.{?r;T?-7 ?!'Y' !?! `??, f.?r !1 ? T.
11.'`?4?97t'i.`t1 F`?y,?, ?}???'i? l?y,,?`. `?I???A.I? ii Li `}aGi?, ?` I'' ?F t?,??1? ¢•a i,
N
P*,-, vcF,,,1 ' Ak
Marston Veg Plot #2
Marston Veg Plot #4
Marston Veg Plot #6
t

S v 5
1 1 k * ra/ 1??.? Jn 1 i.
r 1
Y i
lij
Marston Veg Plot #8
Log Vane C STA 28+70
Right Bank @ STA 56+30
Large rocks on log toe @ STA 68+80
Marston Veg Plot #1

=ct4?
A-L
M
/ i f :? xt Y 1+i-'
?1? F4 ?yy S } ? ? 4 hl?? Marston Veg Plot #3

Marston Veg Plot #5
Marston Veg Plot #7