20040929 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 2_20090629

Gregory Mitigation Project
Halifax 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
PO Box 1492
3674 Pine Swamp Road
Sparta, NC 28675
AD

November 2007
?i
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
Table of Contents
1.0 SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Project ..........................................................................................................................2
2.2 Project Purpose ........................................................................................................... 2
3.0 HYDROLOGY ......................................................................................................................2
3.1 Success Criteria ............................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Description of Hydrologic Monitoring efforts ............................................................. 5
3.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring ............................................................................. 13
3.3.1 Site Data ........................................................................................................ 13
3.3.2 Reference Data .............................................................................................. 14
3.3.3 Climate Data ................................................................................................. 14
3.4 Hydrologic Conclusions ............................................................................................ 16
3.4.1 Drought Conditions ....................................................................................... 16
3.4.2 Hydrologic Conclusion ................................................................................. 17
4.0 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................................17
4.1 Vegetation Success Criteria ....................................................................................... 17
4.2 Description of Species and Vegetation Monitoring ................................................... 17
4.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring .............................................................................. 18
4.4 General Vegetation Observations and Conclusions ................................................... 19
4.5 Vegetation Conclusions ............................................................................................. 19
5.0 STREAM MONITORING .................................................................................................. 19
5.1 Success Criteria .......................................................................................................... 19
5.2 Stream Morphology Monitoring Plan ........................................................................ 20
5.3 Stream Morphology Monitoring Results ................................................................... 21
5.3.1 Longitudinal Profile ...................................................................................... 21
5.3.2 Hydrology ..................................................................................................... 22
5.4 Stream Conclusions ................................................................................................... 22
5.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey Results ............................................................... 22
6.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 24
List of Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 USGS Map ....................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 Wetland Hydroperiod ....................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4 2007 Gregory Groundwater Hydrographs ....................................................................... 8
Figure 5 2007 Precipitation Chart ................................................................................................. 15
Figure 6 Drought Conditions Across North Carolina .................................................................... 16
I
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
List of Tables
Table 1 Project History and Schedule ............................................................................................ 2
Table 2 Hydrologic Monitoring Results ....................................................................................... 13
Table 3 Reference Hydrologic Monitoring Results ...................................................................... 14
Table 4 Halifax County Rainfall and 2007 Year Observed Rainfall ............................................ 15
Table 5 Planted Tree Species ....................................................................................................... 18
Table 6 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Species Composition .......................................................... 18
Table 7 Volunteer Tree Species ................................................................................................... 19
Table 8 Stream Problem Areas ..................................................................................................... 21
Table 9 Crest Gauge Data ............................................................................................................. 22
Table 10. Restoration Reach Macroinvertebrate Data September 2007 ....................................... 23
Table 11. Reference Reach Macroinvertebrate Data September 2007 .......................................... 24
APPENDICES
Appendix A As-Built Survey
Appendix B Profile and Cross Section Data
Appendix C Gauge Data
Appendix D 2007 Site Photos
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
1.0 SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2007 growing season on the
Gregory Mitigation Site. Construction of the site, including planting of trees, was completed in
January 2005. The 2007 data represents results from the third year of monitoring for both
wetlands and streams. Restoration of the Gregory site involved the restoration of a "small stream
swamp" with associated "bottomland hardwood" and "cypress swamp" communities as described
by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Restoration of the site involved the restoration of one stable
meandering channel across the hydric farm fields on the site. The channel was designed and
constructed using natural channel design techniques. Restoration also involved raising the local
water table by filling the drainage ditches on-site and scarification of the fields and breaking of
the local plow pan to provide increased surface storage of water. After construction, it was
determined that 6,757 feet of stream and 85.8 acres of wetland hydrology were restored.
Appendix A contains the As-Built survey for the Gregory Site.
This Annual Report presents the data from hydrology monitoring stations, vegetation monitoring
stations, and stream monitoring, as required by the approved Restoration Plan for the site. Three
of the hydrologic stations are equipped with manual groundwater gauges and ten stations are
equipped with automated gauges and a manual calibration gauge.
In 2007, one of 13 hydrology monitoring gauges recorded a hydroperiod of at least 12.5 percent
of the growing season. Of the remaining twelve gauges, two exhibited hydroperiods greater than
11 percent of the growing season. The western gauges (AW1, AW2, AW5, AW8, and AW10)
exhibited conditions drier than expected likely due to topographical differences and the extreme
drought occurring in 2007. Drought conditions affected both the mitigation site and the reference
site, resulting in shorter than normal hydroperiods. It is important to note that the hydrology of
the targeted restored wetland system (Coastal Plain, small stream swamp) is highly variable
across a given site, supporting the ecological and functional diversity that makes these systems so
valuable.
Weather station data from the Enfield 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. Below normal rainfall in the month of March
resulted in reduced hydroperiods during the early part of the growing season, and an increasing
rainfall deficit during the year contributed to continued dryness observed at groundwater gauges.
This Annual Report documents vegetation survivability based on seven vegetation-monitoring
plots, as specified in the approved Restoration Plan for this site. Three monitoring plots 1/10th of
an acre in size and four 25 foot x 100 foot plots were used to predict survivability of the woody
vegetation planted on site. Three of the plots are located adjacent to the newly constructed
streambed to monitor the vegetation adjacent to the stream bank. The vegetation monitoring
indicated a survivability range of 410 stems per acre to 600 stems per acre with an average of 552
stems per acre. Overall, the site has met the initial vegetation survival criteria of 320 stems per
acre surviving after the third growing season as specified in the Restoration Plan for the site.
The restored stream channel has remained stable and is providing the intended habitat and
hydrologic functions. Three bankfull events were recorded during the year. All monitored cross
sections show very little adjustment in stream dimension, and it was concluded that the site
remains on track to achieve the stream success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan for the
s ite.
November 2007
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROJECT
The Gregory wetland and stream restoration site is located near the town of Halifax in Halifax
County, North Carolina (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The site has a past history of agricultural use
consisting primarily of row crop agriculture. Ditches on the site were used to increase subsurface
drainage when the land was under agricultural production. Construction of the site, including
planting of trees, was completed in January 2005. Groundwater, surface water, and rain gauges
were functional beginning February 1, 2005. The 2007 monitoring season represents the third
year of monitoring for the site. Appendix A contains the As-Built Survey for the Gregory Site.
2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE
The Gregory site involved the restoration of a "small stream swamp" with associated "bottomland
hardwood" and "cypress swamp" communities as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Monitoring of the Gregory Site is required to demonstrate successful restoration based on the
criteria found in the Restoration Plan. Hydrologic, vegetation, and stream monitoring are
conducted on an annual basis. This Annual Report details the results of the monitoring efforts for
2007 (Year 3) at the Gregory Mitigation Site. Table 1 details the project history and schedule.
Table 1 Project History and Schedule
Project History
June 2004 Approved Restoration Plan
January 2005 Construction Completed
February 2005 Post-restoration Monitoring Begins
November 2005 1st Annual Monitoring Report
November 2006 2nd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2007 3rd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2008 scheduled 4th Annual Monitoring Report
November 2009 scheduled 5th Annual Monitoring Report
3.0 HYDROLOGY
3.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA
The hydrologic success criteria for this site requires that for each normal year of rainfall within
the monitoring period, the groundwater table remain within 12 inches of the soil surface
continuously for at least 12.5 percent of the growing season (28 consecutive days). The approved
Restoration Plan specifies that data are collected from eight automated and four manual
groundwater gauges. In 2007, data were collected from ten automated and three manual
groundwater gauges to document the hydrologic conditions.
The day counts are based on the growing season for Halifax County. At the time of the
Restoration Plan preparation the NRCS did not publish temperature data in the Wetlands
Determination Tables (WETS) for Halifax County, therefore the growing season was determined
by averaging the beginning and ending dates from two east/west adjacent counties, Warren and
Bertie. NRCS calculates that the Warren County growing season is 219 days, beginning on March
30 and ending November 4. The Bertie County growing season is 231 days, beginning on March
22 and ending November 8. The average of the two growing seasons used for success criteria for
the Gregory site is 225 days, beginning on March 26 and ending November 6.
November 2007
e?4
es
Ra ?yR?
11 /
u?
rn
?a
3
0
ck Rd
q d Gregory Project Site
m
a
I?
O
a?
w
m
a
-o
?a
j S
P, iII
sf
G
m
O
Figure 1. Gregory Site
Halifax County
Vicinity Map Legend
° x Streams
,ed o 0.5 1 Roads
Miles Gregory Site
Dr
L
Ra
r
ik t I . ,? 16
p ,
V
i
i
,t ? ;It 1
j
,J 1 -- e 4 l ? rt
y
rro?nic • ' • Cett1 ti ? , ..?'? .I ? --. , r ? ?
3 _
Gregory Project Site j
i -
l ,
r ?p v. l i ?? J,R
Q
.
1
r.
r - i N t
!' ? ? 1..+'"x..."1 , 1 ? ? i . ? ? ?? r ? ? ? G.``• _
Willia Rd { :- - t \
Reference Site j
el IT
l ?`? ti r y ? ? r
IN %
eN. v t
s
T
Figure 2. Gregory Site
Halifax County
USGS Map 4D Reference-Sites
K Streams
~r * 0 5001,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Roads
Feet Gregory Site
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING EFFORTS
Four manual groundwater gauges, eight automated Infinities groundwater gauges, and two
manual stream crest gauges were installed prior to the beginning of the first growing season
(Figure 3). Manual gauge 11 was replaced with automated gauge 11, and automated gauge 13
was added prior to the 2007 growing season, for a total of ten automated and three manual
gauges. 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 and automated groundwater gauges are read and rainfall
totals are collected from the on-site rain gauge. During the 2007 monitoring year, a malfunction
due to low batteries in the calculators used to collect automated gauge data resulted in data loss
from January 1 to February 18, 2007 for all automated gauges. Gaps in data occur in automated
gauge 12 and reference gauges 2 and 4. It is likely that dry conditions caused these wells to fill
with dried mud resulting in faulty readings. All other gauges worked well throughout the 2007
monitoring season.
Automated Gauges
Automatic groundwater gauges record water table elevations twice daily at 08:00 and 20:00 (8:00
AM and 8:00 PM). Infinities gauges employ pressure sensors that record water elevation above
the bottom of the sensor (with atmospheric pressure compensation). Remote Data Systems
gauges use a capacitive probe to directly measure depth of the water from a "zero" point (ground
surface). 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.
Manual Gauges
Water table depths are recorded monthly in manual groundwater wells. 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. This correction
factor typically varies by several inches on a monthly basis. 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.
Data Interpretation
Wetland hydroperiods are calculated from twice daily water table depth recordings from
automatic gauges. A wetland hydroperiod is defined as when the water table is equal to or less
than 12 inches below ground surface for at least 24 hours. If a water table falls below 12 inches
for two consecutive readings (24 hours), then the wetland hydroperiod ends at the last reading
within 12 inches. If a water table falls below -12 inches for only one reading then maintains a
reading above -12 inches for a minimum of 24 hours then the wetland hydroperiod is calculated
continuously. This methodology accounts for minor technical malfunctions occasionally
experienced by the automatic gauges.
November 2007
Z-x

O
c?

s
n
O
w
0
= N N Ln
v
n in
000
w
a y]
i

e
.4?
?J
} Fcr"
-r, 1 mil-. •? ,
8 ?
s rig P t,
.5
jr
??? ,/ ?r/? r -. {-r• r - Jam; ?? 7 ) v ? I f J J (1 ?? r `= ?? / /? ? \ / ??ae`ty`
i ? '? i----• ? f ) \\? L ? sus •1 ( ? ,...?-??..
^J 'v r
0
l
n c
7 J..P N
3 f, n
,
(sag;)ui) uoi;ujidpa.id
I1.1
C
O
IL
O
bA
i.
0
0
N
•1?1
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
of ao n (d In v cri C i o

1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
i
1
i
c
o
W

N i
O)

1
O

1 1
'?? MICf^
1
1
i
1

1
1
1

!1

1
L to LO N
N M
(sagaul) uoijunaia jajvmpunoa f)
0
z
O
U)
Q
h
O
Q
L
LL
Lo to
3

N
¢
3
fr
w-
c
w

(sauaui) uoijvj!diaa id
a?
aio
s.
a?
e?
3
c
D
O
i,
O
bA
a?
s,
C7
r
0
0
N
bA
w
0
0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0
.- rn QO t.? (D (n v M N O
t
i
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
¦l

y 1

1
y
a?
c
3 1

C7 i
!1
i
i
s
i

(A L?
N M
(sayaul) uoijvAaj:.ia;umpuno iq
0
Z
0
N
Q
0
Lo
N

3
0<0
3
¢
3
¦
w
r
as
Q
b
a?
w
c
w
1
(sapui) uopv;idiaa id
0
0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0
0 ? rn 06 r-? (6 ui v M N O
i
1
E
i
1
1
i
1
it
r.+
3
b
a
O
Er
L7
O
bA
a?
s.
0
0
N
U
0
w
1
1
E
1
i
Ii
1
1
1

o
a
?a
a?
rn E
i

i

O
E

I i
R
LO L? Ln In LO
N M
(sauaul) uoi;VAai:4.iajvmpunoa f)
T
3
o ¢
Z

O
® ¢
N

¦
?I
_o
¢ 3
¢
0
3
2
¢ w
x
0
w~
W
ml- --5
LO
(sagaui) uopujidpa id
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m ao n (D ui v C6
N
? Q
k,
Z
0 3
a
3
0
M
3
¦
Q
w
x
? o
b
w^
c
w
'
LL
ao
e?
L7
a?
e?
3
c
0
rir
O
bA
a?
s.
C7
r
0
0
N
A
a?
i,
0
w

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N M In (O
(sagaul) uoi;unaig ia;un&puno.q)
i

1
1
i
i

1

,
1
1

,

i
1

c 1
O 1
? i

N

i
3 1
o ?
O
,
,
i
1

¦
i

1
,
t
1
1
,

,
1
---- -- -------- --
i
--- -- - ----- - --- ------ ---------
(sayaui) uopq!dpaad
^C
G
O
O
it
O
b?
s.
r`
O
O
N
W
a?
0
to
w
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 N r-? (O (n V M N r O
1
i
1
i
1
0
z
0
a
s
c
0
a
3
w
M
¢
w
M_
3
v
3
w
x
Q
w-
c
W
1
O
O O 0 00 0 O C? 11
(n (D
(sauaul) uoi)enai:l as;eMpuno.11)
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
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
soil 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 4a through 4e provides
graphs of the water depth for each of the monitoring gauges on the site. This graph illustrates the
reaction at each monitoring location of the groundwater level to specific rainfall events. Raw
hydrograph data collected from the monitoring gauges are provided in Appendix C.
As stated in the approved Restoration Plan, to meet the hydrologic success criteria, the
monitoring data must show that for each normal year of rainfall within the monitoring period, the
site has been inundated or saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for a minimum of 12.5
percent of the growing season (28 consecutive days). The Gregory restoration site again
experienced lower than normal rainfall and drought conditions consistent with state-wide trends.
Monitoring has thus far demonstrated that much of the site is being impacted by persistent and
worsening drought conditions. Gauges AW7, MW3, and MW4 were the only gauges that
exceeded the 12.5 percent hydrologic success criteria.. Gauges AW 1, AW2, AW5, AW9, AW 10,
AW 11, AW12, and AW 13 exhibited saturated conditions early in the growing season but not of
great duration. Gauges AW8 and MW6 exhibited the least amount of cumulative saturation. AW8
performed the poorest of all gauges. Throughout the site, the only significant consecutive
hydroperiods occurred in March and April and no significant consecutive hydroperiods have been
recorded since May 2007, except in June at AW5.
Table 2 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
2007 Max H dro eriod (Growing Season 26-Mar through 6-Nov, 225 days)
Consecutive Cumulative

Gauge
Days Percent of growing
Season
Days Percent of growing
Season
Occurrences
AW1 12 5% 17 8% 2
AW2 13 6% 28 12% 5
MW3 38 17% 80 36% 7
MW4 31 14% 43 19% 6
AW5 16 7% 35 16% 5
MW6 2 1% 2 1% 1
AW7 31 14% 47 21% 5
AW8 4 2% 6 3% 3
AW9 8 4% 15 7% 5
AW10 11 5% 23 10% 4
AW11 14 6% 76 34% 4
AW12 14 6% 39 17% 4
AW13 15 7% 35 16% 5
13 November 2007
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
3.3.2 Reference Data
The approved Restoration Plan provides that if the rainfall data for any given year during the
monitoring period is not normal, the reference wetland data can be used to determine if there is a
positive correlation between the performance of the restoration site and the natural hydrology of
the reference site.
Two additional reference automated wells were installed prior to the 2007 growing season. The
same hydroperiod statistics were calculated for each reference monitoring station during the
growing season as were calculated for the site monitoring stations (Table 3). Reference well
RAW2 exceeded the 12.5 percent wetland hydroperiod established as success criteria for the site
due to long consecutive hydroperiods recorded in March and April. Reference wells RAW3 and
RAW4 were below 7 percent wetland hydroperiod and RAW4 exhibited a low cumulative
wetland hydroperiod. The reference wells are located within the floodplain for Marsh Swamp
near the southern end of the restoration site. Beaver activity in Marsh Swamp typically keeps the
floodplain in this area inundated for much of the growing season; however, as an indication of
drought conditions, no wetland hydroperiods were recorded for this area after May 2007.
Table 3 Reference Hydrologic Monitoring Results
2007 Max Hydro period (Growing Season 26-Mar through 6-Nov, 225 days)
Consecutive Cumulative

Gauge
Davs Percent of Growing
Season
Days Percent of Growing
Season'
Occurrences
RAW] 15 7% 36 16% 4
RAW2 34 15% 46 22% 2
RAW3 14 6% 33 15% 4
RAW4 8 4% 12 5% 3
3.3.3 Climate Data
Figure 5 is a comparison of the 2007 monthly rainfall to historical precipitation for Halifax
County (NRCS WETS Tables). Observed precipitation data were collected from an automated
weather station in Enfield and an on-site manual rain gauge. No on-site gauge data was recorded
for Janurary, and February data is the cumulative rainfall for both months. The rainfall total from
the Enfield weather station does not correlate well with data collected from the on-site manual
rain gauge in March, June and August. The on-site gauge recorded much lower rainfall in March
and June and much higher rainfall in August. In February, April, and May, the on-site gauge
recorded slightly higher rainfall totals than the Enfield weather station. Enfield and on-site data
indicates that monthly rainfall amounts for the area were below average for the majority of the
2007 growing season. Rainfall amounts were well below the normal limits in March and
September and at the low end of the normal limits in May, June, July, and August. The
accumulated rainfall deficit increased steadily from -1.62 inches in January to -18.79 inches in
November.
14 November 2007
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
Table 4 Halifax Countv Rainfall and 2007 Year Observed Rainfall
Normal Limits

Month
Average 30
Percent 70
Percent Enfield
Precipitation On-Site
Preci itation Accumulated
Rainfall Deficit
January 4.23 3.20 5.01 2.61 --- -1.62
February 3.47 2.37 4.29 2.47 3.37 -2.62
March 4.22 3.12 4.95 2.72 0.91 -4.12
April 3.16 2.14 3.94 2.22 2.80 -5.06
May 3.94 2.58 4.77 2.59 2.96 -6.41
June 3.62 2.48 4.25 4.47 2.53 -5.56
July 4.25 2.76 5.07 4.03 3.55 -5.78
August 4.26 2.60 5.62 1.45 3.18 -8.59
September 4.58 2.19 5.52 0.25 0.84 -12.92
October 3.33 2.01 4.35 0.00 0.80 -16.25
November 3.04 1.86 3.59 0.50 2.66 -18.79
Total 31.15 21.25 37.90 23.31• 23.60 ---
Figure 5.2007 Precipitation forGregory Site
io
0
Gr wing Se son
e
-2

6
-4
y

? v
5

7 u
-6
Vi
aJ
6
V
v
? -8
A
c
6
L
W -70 O

•a
< R
C4
12
d

a
14

s 16
-
l 8
-1
u 20
-
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
U Enfield Daily Rainfall ---*1--- On-site Raingauge ....... 30th/70th Percentile
--d- Enfield Monthly Rainfall -9--Accunulated Rainfall Deficit

Figure 5 2007 Precipitation Chart
15 November 2007
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
3.4 HYDROLOGIC CONCLUSIONS
3.4.1 Drought Conditions
The entire state of North Carolina experienced increasingly severe drought conditions throughout
2007, with some areas experiencing the lowest average stream flows on record. The first signs of
drought began in February in the western part of the state. By early spring, abnormally dry
conditions had spread across the state, and the western edge of the state began to see "moderate"
drought conditions. From late spring through the summer, conditions steadily worsened. By
August, 98% of North Carolina's land area was designated as being in either "severe", "extreme",
or "exceptional" drought. Additionally, lowest-ever average stream flows were recorded at 13
monitoring stations in August, including 9 in central North Carolina, two in the mountains, and
two on the coastal plain. Nearly the entire state was categorized as experiencing "extreme"
drought in September, with the southwest portion of the state categorized as experiencing
"exceptional" drought. Figure 6 depicts the increasing severity of the drought throughout the
year.
The Gregory restoration site experienced drought conditions consistent with state-wide trends.
Precipitation levels at the Enfield monitoring station, near the Gregory site, fluctuated within the
low end and slightly below the normal range from January to May. Rainfall levels were slightly
above normal in June, and within the normal range in July. The site received 1.45 inches of rain
in August, which is 2.81 inches below average. In September, precipitation levels reached just
0.25 inches which is 4.33 inches below average. The accumulated rainfall deficit-the difference
between the long-term average and the observed monthly precipitation levels, aggregated
monthly-began at -1.62 inches in January and increased to -6.41 inches in May. The deficit
began to recover in June, then increased steadily through the summer, and dropped to -18.79
inches by the end of November. Persistent and worsening drought conditions severely impacted
the wetland hydroperiods at the Gregory restoration site.
Drought Conditions Across North Carolina
1/2/2007 to 9/25/2007
100%
e \
i
?

m
0 So%
is
Q
G 60% ¦E-ptional
u ¦ Extreme
41 M Severe
L
O
O Moderate
.
W 40% ?AbnomallY Dry
13 No Drought
V
d
$
u 20%
v
u
W

?^
??' ?^ X01 ?O? ?^ ?O^ ?? O°^ O?? p0^ ?^ ?^ X01 ?? ?O^ ?O? QOM pot ?1 ?^
\'l'
\'L
\?'
(Y
<L
\'L
'L
\?'
CL
\1'
'L
'Y
L
L
'1'
L
L
'1
?'
a`?
?\?^
d\1p
?\\,?
p\?p
,\`b
?\?
^\,?
`?
`\,?o
b\?
?,L1
?,?
\`,\\
\??(
\,p(
\??(
\lq\
``(
\??\
.
?
1
^
?
?
b
9
q
Week
Figure 6 Drought Conditions Across North Carolina
16 November 2007
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
3.4.2 Hydrologic Conclusion
Data collected from the groundwater monitoring gauges on the Gregory Mitigation Site document
that three of thirteen hydrology monitoring stations (AW7, MW3, and MW4) recorded a
hydroperiod of at least 12.5 percent of the growing season. The remaining gauges recorded
hydroperiods below 8.0 percent of the growing season. The only significant consecutive
hydroperiods occurred in March and April and no significant consecutive hydroperiods were
recorded after May 2007 in the wetland mitigation site or the reference site, except in AW5.
Monitoring demonstrated that both the mitigation and reference sites are being impacted by
persistent and worsening drought conditions.
Rainfall data indicates that March was unusually dry compared to normal rainfall totals. 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. Drought conditions worsened significantly in the
September through November period.
Based on the results from the mitigation site monitoring wells relative to the reference site
monitoring wells and the abnormal drought conditions, it is concluded that most of the site is
performing as designed. As was observed in 2006, the western limit of wetland restoration (AW 1,
AW2, AW5, AW8, and AW 10) was drier than expected. Minor topographical differences
between the elevated western portion and lower eastern portion of the site, combined with
drought, are likely playing a role in short hydroperiods being recorded at these wells.
4.0 VEGETATION
4.1 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
The interim measure of vegetative success for the Gregory Mitigation Plan is the 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 5 of the monitoring period as specified in the Restoration Plan for the site.
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.
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND VEGETATION MONITORING
The following monitoring protocol was designed to predict vegetative survivability. Seven plots
were established on the Gregory Mitigation Site, to monitor approximately 0.65% of the site. The
three stream bank vegetation monitoring plots were designed to be 1/10th of an acre in size, or
50' x 87.5' dimensionally. Four other plots are designed to be 25 feet x 100 feet 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 right on and just outside of the plot boundary that appear to have greater than 50% 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 each plot
throughout the five-year monitoring period.
17 November 2007
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
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 (vs. any colonizers) and to help
in locating them in the future. Each stem was then tagged with a permanent numbered aluminum
tag.
Table 5 Planted Tree Species
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
1 N ssa biflora Swam Tupelo OBL
2 N ssa s lvatica Black um FAC
3 Quercus 1 rata Overcu Oak OBL
4 uercus michauxii Swam Chestnut Oak FACW-
5 uercus hellos Coastal Willow Oak FACW-
6 uercus laurifolia Laurel Oak FACW
7 Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress OBL
8 Fraxinus enns lvanica Green Ash FACW
4.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING
The following tables present stem counts for each monitoring plot. 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. Volunteer species are also flagged during this process.
Table 6 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Species Comnosition
Plot 1 2 4 6 7 8 "Dotal Stems/acre
G1 7 1 10 2 2 1 0 10 33 574
G2 0 7 5 11 2 5 0 4 34 592
G3 0 4 4 2 20 3 0 7 40 697
G4 7 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 30 522
GS-1 0 2 15 0 6 1 0 17 41 410
GS-2 0 3 21 4 12 2 0 5 47 470
GS-3 18 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 60 600
Average Stems/Acre: 552
Range of Stems: 410-600
Few reductions in planted trees species occurred between 2006 and 2007. There was one
significant reduction in bald cypress from seven planted stems in 2006 to one planted stem in
2007 at the G4 plot.
Volunteer species will also be monitored throughout the five-year monitoring period. Below is a
table of the most commonly found woody volunteer species. Few volunteer woody species were
observed in most of the vegetation plots, but were deemed too small to tally. If these trees persist
into the next growing season, they will be flagged and added to the overall stems per acre
18 November 2007
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
assessment of the site. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) is the most common volunteer,
though Red Maple (Ater rubrum) and River Birch (Betula nigra) were also observed.
The following tree species were identified as volunteers within in the Wetland Restoration Area:
Table 7 Volunteer Tree Specie
s
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
A Liquidambar styraciua Sweetgum FAC+
B Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC
C Betula nigra River Birch FACW
4.4 GENERAL VEGETATION OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
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, including rush (Juncus effusus), spike-rush (Eleocharis
obtusa), Boxseed (Ludwigia sp.), and sedge (Carex sp.), 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 weedy species are
annuals and seem to pose very little threat to survivability on site. Commonly seen weedy
vegetation includes ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and wild dill (Foeniculum vulgare). Any
threatening weedy vegetation found in the future will be documented and discussed in quarterly
reports.
4.5 VEGETATION CONCLUSIONS
The site was planted in nonriverine wet hardwoods and coastal plain swamp species in February
2005. There were seven vegetation-monitoring plots established throughout the planting areas.
The site has met the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3
and is on track to meet the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5 as
specified in the Restoration Plan for the site.
5.0 STREAM MONITORING
5.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA
As stated in the approved Mitigation Plan, the stream restoration success criteria for the site
includes 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
19 November 2007
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
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 (see Appendix C).
Benthic Macroinvertebrate: Sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates 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 that will be collected.
5.2 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING PLAN
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted
following construction completion on the Gregory Site:
Bankfull Events: Two crest gauges were installed on the site to document bankfull events. The
gauges are checked each month, and record the highest out-of-bank flow event that occurred
during the previous month. See site plan for gauge locations (Figure 3).
Cross-sections: Two permanent cross-sections were installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream
restoration work, with one of the locations being a riffle cross-section and one location being a
pool cross-section. A total of 14 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 2007 (Year 3) were surveyed in September 2007.
Longitudinal Profiles: A complete longitudinal profile will be completed for each restoration and
enhancement level I reach. The longitudinal survey will take place in Years 1, 3, and 5.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs are used to visually document restoration success.
Reference stations are marked with wooden stakes and Global Positioning Satellite (GPS)
coordinates have been determined for each location. Reference photos are taken at each
permanent cross-section from both stream banks. 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. In-stream structures (e.g., rock vanes, cross vanes, and
constructed riffles) are also photographed. Photo reference stations will be photographed at least
once per year for at least five years following construction.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Benthic macroinvertebrate data will be collected from the reference
reach (upstream of project reach) and within the project reach. Pre-restoration data were
collected on September 15, 2004, prior to initiation of stream restoration practices upstream of the
restoration reach. Post-restoration sampling will begin at least one year after construction
activities have been completed, and annually thereafter for a total of three years. Sampling will
be conducted each year between September and October to be consistent with the pre-
construction sampling. Sample collection follows protocols described in the standard operating
procedures of the Biological Assessment Unit of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). The Qual-4 collection method is used for the collection of macroinvertebrate
samples, and a North Carolina-certified laboratory performs the identification of the
macroinvertebrate samples. The metrics calculated include total and Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa richness, EPT abundance and biotic index values.
20 November 2007
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
5.3 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING RESULTS
Year 3 cross-section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during September 2007
and compared to baseline data collected in February and September 2006. Permanent cross-
sections document the stream dimension at 15 locations (Appendix B). The cross-sections show
that there has been very little adjustment to stream 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
were limited due to stagnant flows. Stagnant flows were the result of abundant vegetation in the
channel, resulting from the persistent drought conditions, and minor aggradation toward the
downstream direction. Log vanes placed in meander pool areas have provided scour to keep pools
deep and provide cover for fish; however many log vanes were hard to find due to channel
vegetation and stagnant flows. Log weirs placed in riffle areas have maintained riffle elevations
in some locations and provided a downstream scour hole that provides habitat. Bank scour
downstream of the log weirs was minimized through the use of notches in the logs that keep the
stream flow centered. Root wads placed on the outside of meander bends have provided bank
stability and in-stream cover for fish and other aquatic organisms. The constructed riffles were all
installed on the upper end of the site where slopes are significantly higher than the lower end.
Some minor piping of water around structures and localized erosion has been observed and will
be monitored over the coming years to determine whether maintenance action is needed. Table 8
provides a summary of areas requiring continued observation.
Table 8 Stream Areas Re uirin Observation
Station Feature Problem Area
Throughout Vegetation in channel, stagnant flow
17+75 Root wad Erosion behind root wad
37+80 RB Bank Failure
42+00 Root Wad Erosion behind root wad
43+50
I Root Wad
Root wad failure
All structural problem areas are minor and localized and no corrective actions are recommended
at this time. Vegetation in the channel includes abundant cattail and other weeds and grasses. This
vegetation is causing stagnant flows and sediment accumulation. Corrective action should be
taken to reduce vegetation in the channel.
Photographs were taken during the monitoring season to document the evolution of the restored
stream channel (Appendix D). The most observable change to the stream during 2007 has been
the rapid growth of native hydrophytic vegetation along the restored stream banks, floodplain,
and in the stream channel.
5.3.1 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile survey was conducted in Year 3 (Appendix B). The previous profile and
cross sections indicated there has been very little adjustment to the stream profile or dimension
since construction.
21 November 2007
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
5.3.2 Hydrology
During 2007, bankfull events on the site were documented during at least four site visits through
the use of the on-site crest gauges and visual evidence of out-of-bank flow. The largest stream
flow documented by the downstream crest gauge (CG2) was a flow that occurred during May and
was approximately 3.4 feet above the bankfull stage at the crest gauge. The largest stream flow
documented by the upstream crest gauge (CG 1) was a flow that occurred during February and
was approximately 0.4 feet above the bankfull stage at the crest gauge. High crest gauge readings
for CG2 are likely the result of beaver activity in the Marsh Swamp downstream of the gauge.
Stream monitoring data is provided in Appendix C.
Table 9 Crest Gauge Data
Month CG1 CG2
Janurar 0.4 0.8
February 0 0
March 0 0.6
April 0 3.4
May 0 0
June 0 0
Jul 0 0
August 0 0
September 0 0
October 0 0
November 0 0.7
5.4 STREAM CONCLUSIONS
Overall the Gregory stream mitigation site is functioning as designed. There are in-channel
vegetation problems that are restricting flow and causing sediment accumulation throughout the
stream, but the vegetation can be treated and eliminated. Other problems are minor and localized.
The profile and cross-section data indicates that little change has occurred since the Gregory
stream was built. Four significant bankfull events occurred in the early part of 2007. Bankfull
events are more prevalent at CG2 likely due to beaver activity in the Marsh Swamp. It was
concluded that the site is on tract to achieve the stream success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan for the site.
5.5 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY RESULTS
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected at one station along the restoration reach in September
2007. Two restoration reach stations were sampled in 2006, however, due to dry conditions in the
channel, only one station was sampled in the downstream portion of the restoration reach in 2007.
Macroinvertebrates were also sampled in the Marsh Swamp reference reach. The North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Qual-4 collection method was utilized. In addition to
benthic sampling, NCDWQ habitat assessment forms were completed at each monitoring station.
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were preserved in alcohol and later identified to the lowest
possible taxonomic level by an aquatic ecologist. Table 10 lists the taxa encountered, relative
abundance, and tolerance values for the restoration reach. Table 11 lists the taxa collected in the
reference reach. The NCDWQ Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates
(2006) assigns tolerance values for common macroinvertebrates in North Carolina. Tolerance
22 November 2007
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
values range from 0 to 10 with low scores indicating species that are intolerant to pollution,
excess sediments, or other disturbances.
Overall, the majority of taxa collected at the Gregory site and reference reach are tolerant species.
Species in the reference and restoration reaches indicate no flow or stagnant flow conditions.
Species collected in the restoration reach were much smaller in size than those collected in the
reference reach. The size difference is likely due to intermittent flow conditions experienced at
the restoration reach due to the extreme drought in the summer of 2007. Elliptio complanata, a
fairly common mussel species complex in the Roanoke Basin, is abundant in the reference reach.
Several E. complanata shells were found at the downstream end of the restoration reach where it
enters the Marsh Swamp and this mussel species may be migrating into the restoration reach.
Restoration Reach
The restoration reach received a habitat score of 74 out 100 possible points. Caenis spp. was the
only EPT taxa collected. This mayfly, with a tolerance rating of 7.4, is one of the most tolerant
ephemeroptera species. Caenis spp is typically found in stagnant flow conditions. It was difficult
to locate significant flow at riffles or ripples in the channel and kicknet samples had to be taken in
slow moving water. The majority of macroinvertebrates collected were tolerant and immature
indicating that the drought may be causing a significant benthic disturbance in this reach (Table
10).
Reference Reach
The reference reach received a habitat score of 89 out of 100 possible points. Flow was sparse in
the reference reach due to the drought, making it difficult to conduct good kicknet samples. The
macroinvertebrates collected were mature, indicating the presence of water throughout the
summer drought. The unnamed tributary reference reach in Marsh Swamp drains considerably
more area than the restoration reach and more in channel hydrology was observed there. Several
mussel species were abundant in the reference reach (Table 11). The majority of taxa collected
are species indicative of stagnant flow, swamp-stream conditions.
Table 10. Restoration Reach Macroinvertebrate Data September 2007
Order Family Genus Species Tolerance Value No.
Odonata Libellulidae Erythemis simplicicollis 9.7 1
Odonata Libellulidae Pachydiplax longipennis 9.9 3
Odonata Caliopterygidae Caliopteryx spp 7.8 3
Odonata Coanagrionidae Enalagma spp 8.9 19
Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis spp 7.4 5
Hemiptera Corixidae 9 1
Dintera Culcidae Anopheles spp 8.6 9
Total Number of Organisms 41
Total Number of Taxa 7
Total Number of EPT 5
23 November 2007
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2007 (Year 3)
Table 11. Reference Reach Macroinvertebrate Data September 2007.
Order Family Genus Species Tolerance Value No.
Unionoida Unionidae Elli do com lanata N/A Abundant

Unionoida
Unionidae Elliptio spp. Lance elliptio
complex
N/A
Abundant
Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula s N/A Abundant
Gastra oda Vivi aridae Cam eloma decisum 6.5 6
Odonata Macromiidae Macromia s 6.2 1
Odonata Corduliidae Tetra oneuria s 8.6 5
Odonata Gom hidae Gom hus s 5.8 5
Odonata Libellulidae Pach di lax lon i ennis 9.9 2
Odonata Aeshnidae Basiaeschna 'anata 7.4 1
Me alo tera Sialidae Sialis s 7.2 5
Hemi tera Corixidae 9 8
Coleo tera D tiscidae Co totomus s 9.3 1
Coleo tera Hali lidae Hali lus s 8.7 5
Total Number of Organisms 39
Total Number of Taxa 13
Total Number of EPT 0
6.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Hydrologic monitoring has shown that despite the extreme drought, wetland hydrology is
being achieved throughout the site. Three of thirteen gauges recorded shorter than
expected hydroperiods of less than 4.0 percent including AW8, AW9, and AW10. All
other gauges recorded hydroperiods of at least five percent with AW7, MW3 and MW4
recording above 12.5 percent. The range of hydroperiods recorded at the mitigation site
in 2007 was similar to the range recorded in the reference wetland site. Based on the
results of the past three years of groundwater monitoring and the drought conditions of
the past several years, it was concluded that overall the site is performing as designed.
The restored stream channel has remained stable and is providing the intended habitat
and hydrologic functions. All monitored cross sections and profiles for 2007 show little
adjustment in stream dimension. Vegetation, including cattails, is growing in the channel
throughout the Gregory site, reducing flows and increasing sediment accumulation and
treatment of in-channel vegetation problems is recommended. Based on the results of the
monitoring over the last three years, it was concluded that the site is on track to achieve
the stream success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan for the site.
• Vegetation monitoring efforts have calculated the average number of stems per acre on
site to be 552, which is a survival rate of greater than 82% based on the initial planting
count of 672 stems per acre. At an average of 552 stems per acre, the site has achieved
the interim vegetative success criteria of 320 stems per acre at the end of Year 3 as
specified in the Restoration Plan for the site.
• Monitoring of vegetation, stream stability, and hydrology of this site will continue
through 2009.
24 November 2007