20040929 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 4_20090629

-20C) Ito

E-Wkd Flu
Gregory Mitigation Project
Halifax County, North Carolina
Year 4 Monitoring Report
Prepared for
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Prepared by
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
And
Ecosystem & Land Trust Monitoring
PO Box 1492
3674 Pine Swamp Road
Sparta, NC 28675
November 2008
1 11,
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Table of Contents
1.0 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... .. 2
2.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................... ..2
2.2 Project Purpose ........................................................................................................... .. 2
2.3 Project History & Schedule .......................................................................................... 2
3.0 HYDROLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Hydrologic Success Criteria ......................................................................................... 5
3.2 Description of Hydrology Monitoring Efforts ............................................................. 5
3.3 Results of Hydrology Monitoring .............................................................................. .. 6
3.3.1 Site Data .............................................................................................................6
3.3.2 Reference Data ................................................................................................. 11
3.3.3 Climate Data ..................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Hydrologic Conclusions ............................................................................................. 15
4.0 VEGETATION .................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Vegetation Success Criteria ....................................................................................... 15
4.2 Description of Species and Vegetation Monitoring ................................................... 15
4.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring .............................................................................. 16
4.4 Vegetation Observations & Conclusions ................................................................... 17
5.0 STREAM MONITORING ................................................................................................... 17
5.1 Stream Success Criteria .............................................................................................. 17
5.2 Stream Morphology Monitoring Plan ........................................................................ 18
5.2.1 Cross Sections .................................................................................................. 18
5.2.2 Longitudinal Profile ......................................................................................... 18
5.2.3 Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 18
5.2.4 Photo Reference Stations ................................................................................. 18
5.2.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrates ............................................................................. 18
5.3 Stream Morphology Monitoring Results .................................................................... 19
5.3.1 Cross Sections .................................................................................................. 19
5.3.2 Longitudinal Profile ......................................................................................... 19
5.3.3 Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 19
5.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey Results ................................................................ 20
5.5 Stream Conclusions .................................................................................................... 23
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 23
i November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................3
Figure 2. USGS Map .................................................................................................................... .. 4
Figure 3. Monitoring Overview Map ............................................................................................ .. 7
Figure 4. Groundwater Hydrographs ............................................................................................ .. 9
Figure 5. Reference Hydrograph .................................................................................................. 13
Figure 6. 2008 Precipitation Data ................................................................................................. 14
Figure 7. Stream Problem Areas ................................................................................................... 21
List of Tables
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives ..................................................................... 2
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ............................................................................ 2
Table 3. Project Contacts ............................................................................................................... .2
Table 4. Hydrologic Monitoring Results ........................................................................................ 9
Table 5. Minimum Depth to meet 12.5% Hydroperiod ................................................................ I 1
Table 6. Comparison of Normal Rainfall to Observed Rainfall ................................................... 14
Table 7. Planted Tree Species ....................................................................................................... 16
Table 8. Results of Vegetation Monitoring ................................................................................... 16
Table 9. Volunteer Tree Species ................................................................................................... 17
Table 10. Stream Areas Requiring Observation ........................................................................... 19
Table 11. Crest Gauge Data .......................................................................................................... 20
Table 12. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters ....................................................... 20
APPENDICES
Appendix A As-Built Survey
Appendix B 2008 Profile and Cross Section Data
Appendix C 2008Gauge Data
Appendix D 2008 Site Photos
ii November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
1.0 SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2008 growing season on the
Gregory Mitigation Site. Construction of the site, including planting of trees, was completed in
January 2005. The 2008 data represents results from the fourth 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) and 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 2008, three of thirteen hydrology monitoring gauges recorded a hydroperiod of at least 12.5
percent of the growing season. Of the remaining ten gauges, eight exhibited hydroperiods greater
than 7.0 percent of the growing season and two exhibited hydroperiods of greater than 5.0 percent
of the growing season. The western gauges (AW 1, AW2, AW8, and AW 10) exhibited conditions
drier than expected likely due to local micro-topography. 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. This variability was documented by the reference wells which exhibited
hydroperiods of 1.3 to 22.2 percent of the growing season
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 throughout the year
resulted in reduced hydroperiods during the later 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 mitigation plan for this site. Three monitoring plots 1/10'' acre
in size and four 1/20`h acre plots were used to predict survivability of the woody vegetation
planted on site. Three of the plots are located adjacent to newly constructed stream to monitor the
vegetation adjacent to the stream bank. The vegetation monitoring indicated a survivability range
of 400 stems per acre to 697 stems per acre with an overall average of 556 stems per acre.
Overall, in 2007 the site met the initial vegetation survival criteria of 320 stems per acre surviving
after the third growing season and, based on 2008 results, is on trajectory to meet the final
survival criteria of 260 stems per acre surviving after the fifth growing season
The restored stream channel has remained stable and is providing the intended habitat and
hydrologic functions. Two bankfull events were recorded from Crest Gauge 2 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 site.
November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
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 2008 monitoring season represents the fourth
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
2008 (Year 4) at the Gregory Mitigation Site. Table 1 details the project history and schedule.
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Obiectives
Reach Name As-Built Length feet Restoration Approach
RI 820 Restoration
R2 5937 Restoration
Total 6757

Wetland 85.8 Acres Restoration
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY & SCHEDULE
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Month Activity
June 2004 Approved Restoration Plan
January 2005 Construction Completed
February 2005 Post-restoration Monitoring Begins
November 2005 1 st Annual Monitoring Report
November 2006 2nd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2007 3rd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2008 4th Annual Monitoring Report
November 2009 scheduled 5th Annual Monitoring Report
Table 3. Project Contacts
Contact Firm Information
Project Manager EBX-Neuse 1, LLC
Norton Webster 919 608-9688
Designer Buck Engineering PC
Kevin Tweedy, PE 919 463-5488
Monitoring Contractor WK Dickson and Co., Inc
Daniel Ingram 919 782-0495
November 2008
0 0
i ??h ei ? N N

Gregory Project Site
-o
0
JSP2 Raf
h
rn

(D
W
n
IW
m
Oc
Rd
%O
o-
?O
Dr
L
'Qa
sf 11
Figure 1. Gregory Site
Halifax County Legend
Vicinity Map
I Streams
0 0.5 1 2 Halifax Count
- Roads y
Miles Gregory Site NTS
0974 ?'z
/' ? ti any r J r •... ?? 7
r?
1
t f?
c s e t®r Q. Gregory Project Site
?,?
r 1
.. Willia
Reference Site
a
!
, 1 J
i `
4} /
? ? ? ti ; ? I 7 ll?; ,;
•
Figure 2. Gregory Site
Halifax County
_• USGS Map Reference Sites
u Streams
:r?• +; 0 5001,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 - Roads
Feet Gregory Site
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
3.0 HYDROLOGY
3.1 HYDROLOGIC 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 2008, 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.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF HYDROLOGY 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.
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
November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
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.
3.3 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGY MONITORING
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 (Table 4). Depth of groundwater for each of the monitoring gauges is shown in a graph
with precipitation (Figure 4). This hydrograph 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.
----------------

G? e site was designed to function as riparian wetland system with associated wet flats.
k
il
t
di
h
d
b
H
d
l
i
h
i
i
i
d
i
i
b
d
O?\e ?
an
ven pr
y
y groun
wa
er
sc
arge an
over
y
ro
ogy
n t
e r
par
an areas
s
r
mar
,
flooding, while precipitation is the primary hydrologic influence in wet flat areas. Model
X ?1`7 imulations performed during the design phase of the project indicate that the entire site would
range from slightly higher than the minimum wetland criteria of 5 percent to more saturated areas
S x that would exceed 12.5 percent. The data collected for the 2008 growing season for this site
indicate it is performing as described in the Mitigation Plan, with varying degrees of wetness
ft documented.
1
i ' 3.3.1 Site Data
The results of hydrology monitoring in 2008 are presented in Table 4 and Figures 4a - 4d.
?c \`, The Gregory restoration site again experienced lower than normal rainfall. Gauges MW3, AW 11,
? and AW 13 exceeded the 12.5 percent hydrologic success criteria. All gauges exhibited saturated
conditions early in the growing season but not of great duration. Eight gauges exhibited

CO??' ?` hydroperiods greater than 7.0 percent but less than 12.5 percent. Gauges AW 1 and AW 10
exhibited the least amount of cumulative saturation, but exhibited consecutive hydroperiods
5 greater than 5.0 percent. Throughout the site, the only significant consecutive hydroperiods
occurred during March through June and very few significant consecutive hydroperiods have
been recorded since July 2008, except in September at MW3.
November 2008
_ 1( \?
L'i
_ I L f? t 51 S I/-?t li??,- <r!r \` / tin wo
00*

?J
V
T
0
I
i?
\ ' !) a) 1? if ^ I i 'ter 1? ? (i j o ?' a s ? f_ ` . , \
9 \ . \ mil, i
l .4" \
(\ s GI
S?
(
f
X\ -V
??'40 y L l
o 1 -4 ufj ? ? tiv a Y ?' ?, `?f
Of 5Q
L'i
ck?
0 LO
v
_ v /n S+/l//G{/ rr'?7 ?(ri /? GvD rJ C? bA S
0 ` ra%/U\l L o?/ t? a P o gy
w ? j%
??--+ "Z?/ ?' mss= -%- jli--?•`1 - . / ? s {•>-? ?\\\\'?\ `\, +, {?, ,? ? ? ' ?
?CR
7J^ R
J
0
3'
3
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Table 4. Hvdrologic Monitoring Results
2008 Max H droperiod (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 5.3 18 8.0 2
AW2 16 7.1 40 17.8 7
MW3 52 23.1 114 50.7 5
MW4 23 10.2 57 25.3 7
AW5 24 10.7 56 24.9 5
MW6 16 7.1 36 16.0 6
AW7 20 8.9 71 31.6 10
AW8 16 7.1 36 16.0 5
AW9 17 7.6 46 20.4 8
AW10 15 6.7 35 15.6 6
AW11 58 25.8 66 29.3 3
AW12 17 7.6 35 15.6 5
AW13 43 19.1 61 27.1 5
RAW I 22 9.8 43 19.1 5
RAW2 50 22.2 50 22.2 1
RAW3 7 3.1 19 8.4 3
RAW4 3 1.3 3 1.0 1
Figure 4. Groundwater Hydrographs
15
5
-5
t
C.
C
° -1s
W
L
2Q -zs
7
-35
-45
-5c
Figure 4A. 2008 Gregory Groundwater Gauges
Growing Season

J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
INEWN Enfield Daily Rainfall --------AW I ------AW2 ¦ MW3

1.C
0.(
9.0
8.0
7.0
5.0
i
i'
u
.5
C
O
'a
4.C
3.0
2.C
9 November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Figure 4B. 2008 Gregory Groundwater Gauges

G
i
S 10.0

5 row
ng
eason
9.0

5 11T
L
8.0

V
r 1
F' II C'? ` '
I j 1 7.0
-15 7 71
c C 6.0

S.0 O
y -25

C 4.0

-35
e
r h
¦ 3.0

-45 2.0
¦
1
0
¦ .
-55 0.0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Fnfield Daily Rainfall ¦ MW4 --::a-- AW5 ¦ MW6 AW7
Figure 4C. 2008 Gregory Groundwater Gauges
10.0

s ? Growing Season

9.0

-5
I
1
V
w
?
1 M1

7.0

1.
..
. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
15
O \
,.
V

6.0 V

Z
? fi

_
Y 7
N
5.0 c
« -25 I ,

1 4.0
,ka
C
0.
-35 . -
3
0
I .

-45 2.0

`
r s 1.0
-55
0
0
J F M A M J J A S O N D .
Months
Fnfield Daily Rainfall .............. A W 8 A W 9 A W 10
10 November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Figure 4D. 2008 Gregory Groundwater Gauges
10 10
0
Growing Season .

0 9.0
8
0
.

G -=----- -- --? „----- -------------------- -------- 7.0
' Z
C
zo 8.0
p -
W I • 'r s.o
? a
_3o 4.0
C F4
7
3.0
-40
%

0 2.0
5 1.0
_80 0.0
J F M A M J d A S O N D
Months
INNER Enfield Daily Rainfall - ----- AW I 1 AW 12 AW 13
Table 5 displays the depth below ground at which marginal and unsuccessful wells achieved the
12.5% hydroperiod. With the exception of AW 1 and MW6 all of the gauges met the hydroperiod
criterion within -13 to -19 inches. These results are within the range of conditions observed in the
reference wetland.
Table 5. Minimum Devith to meet 12.5% Hydroperiod
Gauge . Depth inches.
AW 1 -28.51
AW2 -19.80
MW4 -17.19
AW5 -16.97
MW6 -23.36
AW7 -13.20
AW8 -14.89
AW9 -18.32
AW10 -17.54
AW12 -17.38
RAW1 -15.29
RAW3 -19.33
RAW4 -30.26
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
11 November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
positive correlation between the performance of the restoration site and the natural hydrology of
the reference site.
Four reference automated wells were observed during the 2008 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 4). 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, April, and May. Reference wells RAW3 and
RAW4 exhibited wetland hydroperiods of 3.1 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively. Reference
well RAW I was just under the success criteria with 22 consecutive days and 9.8 percent of the
growing season. 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
dryer conditions, fewer wetland hydroperiods were recorded for this area after May 2008
12 November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Figure 5. Reference Hydrograph
2008 Gregory Reference Groundwater Gauges
o.o

10 Growing Season
9.0
0
6.0

'V
10 (I t 7.0

ri ----
??
j t r
?
-1 - --------.?-----------
fy II F 4 ---------
---------
r^b,
C
O I
6.0 v
ca
> -zo ,
V
? I I t c
W
4
1 ;
?? 5.0

CC
-30 j ?
I I
l ?I?
1
,4
V
! 4.0
C
7 I
3.0
-40

,y _ .... ---- -__.. _- W.
i .. 2.0
-50

1.0
-60 0
0
.
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Enfield Daily Rainfall - - REFAW I ------I REFAW2 REFAW3 REFAW4
3.3.3 Climate Data
Table 6 is a comparison of the 2008 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 January, and February data is the cumulative rainfall for both months. The rainfall total from
the Enfield weather station correlates well with data collected from the on-site manual rain gauge
February through May. The on-site gauge recorded much lower rainfall in June and August and
much higher rainfall in July and September. Rainfall amounts were within the normal limits in
February through May as well as July and September.
13 November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Table 6. Comparison of Normal Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Normal Limits
Month Average 30
Percent 70
Percent Enfield
Precipitation On-Site
Precipitation
January 4.23 3.20 5.01 .19 ---
February 3.47 2.37 4.29 4.15 4.63
March 4.22 3.12 4.95 4.17 5.00
April 3.16 2.14 3.94 5.84 4.60
May 3.94 2.58 4.77 3.47 3.83
June 3.62 2.48 4.25 2.12 1.3
July 4.25 2.76 5.07 4.91 6.50
August 4.26 2.60 5.62 4.31 1.05
September 4.58 2.19 5.52 3.24 5.43
October 3.33 2.01 4.35 1.24 1.9
November 3.04 1.86 3.59 3.29 ---
December 3.26 2.29 4.06 --- ---
Total 42.10 27.31 51.36 37.93 34.29
*October on-site rainfall data includes data collected through the end of the growing season (Nov. 6th)
Figure 6. 2008 Precipitation Data
2008 Precipitation for Gregory Site
,0

s Growing Season
a

6
5
\
s
a 4

a

3

0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
inniiiiiiiiiiinii afield Daily Rainfall -: ----- On-site Raingauge ------- 30th/70th Percentile ----u------Enfield Monthly Rainfall

14 November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
3.4 HYDROLOGIC CONCLUSIONS
Data collected from the groundwater monitoring gauges on the Gregory Mitigation Site document
that three of thirteen hydrology monitoring stations recorded a hydroperiod of at least 12.5
percent of the growing season. Eight of thirteen gauges recorded a hydroperiod of greater than 7.0
percent of the growing season. The remaining two gauges recorded hydroperiods greater than 5.0
percent of the growing season. The majority of the site exhibited a cumulative hydroperiod in the
range of 15 to 25 percent of the growing season. Most significant consecutive hydroperiods
occurred during March through June and very few significant consecutive hydroperiods were
recorded since late July 2008, except in September at MW3. Monitoring demonstrated that the
hydrologic parameters of the mitigation site are similar to those of the reference site.
Enfield weather station rainfall data indicates that the 2008 growing season rainfall amounts were
normal to above normal for most of the growing season except for the month of June. On-site
rainfall data indicates that during the months of June and August it was unusually dry compared
to normal rainfall totals.
Based on the results from the mitigation site monitoring wells relative to the reference site
monitoring wells and the dryer conditions, it is concluded that most of the site is performing as
designed. As was observed in 2006 and 2007, the western limit of wetland restoration (AW 1,
AW2, AW8, and AW 10) was drier than expected. Minor topographical differences between the
elevated western portion and lower eastern portion of the site are likely playing a role in short
hydroperiods being recorded at these gauges.
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 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 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 percent of the
site. The three stream bank vegetation monitoring plots were designed to be 1/10t' acre, or 50' x
87.5' dimensionally. Four other plots are designed to be 25 feet x 100 feet dimensionally (1/20`''
acre). The plots were randomly located and randomly oriented within the wetland restoration
area.
Plot construction consists of 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 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 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.
15 November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
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 7. Planted Tree Species
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 Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak FACW
7 Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress OBL
8 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash FACW
9 Ulmus rubra Volunteer Sli e Elm FAC
4.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING
The following tables present stem counts for each of the 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. Volunteers are also flagged during this process. Annual
variation in stem count data can be attributed to mortality and regeneration from root stock of
stems previously thought dead.
Table 8. Results of Vegetation Monitoring
Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6' 7 8 9 Total Stems/acre
G1 6 1 11 1 2 1 0 11 1 34 592
G2 0 6 5 11 2 5 0 4 0 33 575
G3 0 4 4 2 20 3 0 7 0 40 697
G4 9 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 32 558
GS-1 0 2 15 0 6 2 0 15 0 40 400
GS-2 0 3 21 4 11 1 0 6 0 46 460
GS-3 19 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 61 610
Average Stems/Acre: 556
Range of Stems: 400-697
Volunteer species are 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
assessment of the site. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) is the most common volunteer,
though Red Maple (Acer rubrum), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) and River Birch (Betula nigra)
were also observed.
16 November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
The following tree species were identified as volunteers within in the Wetland Restoration Area:
Table 9. Volunteer Tree Species
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status:
A Liquidambar styraciua Sweetgum FAC+
B Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC
C Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm FAC
D Betula nigra River Birch FACW
4.4 VEGETATION OBSERVATIONS & 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.
Naturally occurring hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation, including rush (Juncus effusus), spike-
rush (Eleocharis obtusa), Boxseed (Ludwigia spp.), sedge (Carex spp.), smartweed (Polygonum
spp. ), arrowleaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), and false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical) 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 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 majorities of the weedy
species are annuals and seem to pose very little threat to survivability on site. Commonly seen
weedy vegetation includes aster (Aster spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), deerticks (Bidens spp.),
fescue (Festuca spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), broomsedge (Andropogon spp.), ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisiii lia) and wild dill (Foeniculum vulgare). Any threatening weedy vegetation
found in the future will be documented and discussed in quarterly reports.
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. In
2007 the site met the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of year
three and, based on 2008 results, is on track to meet the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre
by the end of year five.
5.0 STREAM MONITORING
5.1 STREAM 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
be consistent with those observed in "E" and "C" type channels.
17 November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
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 Q.
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:
5.2.1 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 2008 (Year 4) were surveyed in September 2008.
5.2.2 Longitudinal Profile
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, 4, and 5.
5.2.3 Hydrology
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).
5.2.4 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.
5.2.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrate data will be collected from the reference 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
18 November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
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.
5.3 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING RESULTS
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 dry conditions, and minor aggradation. 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.
5.3.1 Cross Sections
Year 4 cross-section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during September 2008
and compared to the baseline data, Year 2, and Year 3. 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.
5.3.2 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile survey was conducted in Year 4 (Appendix B). The previous profile
indicated there has been very little adjustment to the stream profile or dimension since
construction. Stream areas requiring observation are described in Table 10, and their locations
are shown on Figures 7a and 7b.
Table 10. Stream Areas Requiring Observation
SPA Station Description
1 37+25 Minor right bank erosion
2 41+00 Minor right bank erosion
3 42+00 Erosion behind rootwad
4 Throughout Algae in channel
5 Throughout Vegetation in channel, stagnant flow
5.3.3 Hydrology
During 2008, bankfull events on the site were documented during two 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 April and was
19 November 2008
Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
approximately 0.75 feet above the bankfull stage at the crest gauge. No out-of-bank-flow events
have been recorded on Crest Gauge 1 for the 2008 monitoring season. Stream monitoring data is
provided in Appendix C.
Table 11. Crest Gauge Data
Month CG1 CG2
January ___ ---
February ___ ---
March 0.00 0.00
April 0.00 0.75
May 0.00 0.30
June 0.00 0.00
July 0.00 0.00
August 0.00 0.00
September 0.00 0.00
October 0.00 0.00
November 0.00 0.00
December ---
Table 12. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters
Parameter As-Built
Reach 1 As-Built
Reach 2 Year 4
Reach 1 Year 4
Reach 2
Bankfull Xsec Area, Abkf (s ft) 7.75 5.34 5.6 6.34
Avg. Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 11.35 9.66 9.45 10.52
Bankfull W/D 18.3 18.8 18.2 18.14
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.7 0.54 0.5 0.56
Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax (ft) 1.25 1.0 1.0 1.1
5.4 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY RESULTS
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected at one station along the restoration reach in September
2008. One restoration reach station was sampled in 2008 in the downstream portion due to
stagnant flow conditions in the channel. 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.
The 2008 benthic macroinvertebrate data is in the process of being identified and will be in
included the 2009 report.
20 November 2008
J ?? \l is I )\ U Jle,
AIJ 1?? `r ) / 41- 62
... _.. - \ \\? , f r.`..?'y?•?/.%.l// r -.t? ?' ! Gar 1 h /
.f
/ n
0 9
4
t
EH OVN
?1 . w7 -v a
4 -
n
i^
\? rt r\ ??"??
14
`?-C'Y?? j ? \ >? ? 1 ??•' y \,'\ .-iC/' ? ?? ^ ? 1 r t.1 i - it ?.?
'o
t I

s?
mm
?l j
c° 1
9 (' J
U
tom.
Q
r?

OR T(N

e ?
t
1 10i
Is

?
T 7 c?

Gregory Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Restoration Reach
The restoration reach received a habitat score of 44 out 100 possible points. 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.
Reference Reach
The reference reach received a habitat score of 48 out of 100 possible points. Flow was sparse in
the reference reach making it difficult to conduct good kicknet samples.
5.5 STREAM CONCLUSIONS
Overall the Gregory stream mitigation site is functioning as designed. In-channel vegetation
problems is restricting flow and causing sediment accumulation throughout the stream. The
vegetation is likely a result of low flow conditions. Other problems are minor and localized. The
profile and cross-section data indicates that little change has occurred since the Gregory stream
was built. Two bankfull events occurred in the early part of 2008. 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.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Hydrologic monitoring has shown that wetland hydrology is being achieved throughout
the site. Three of thirteen gauges recorded successful hydroperiods of greater than 12.5
percent. Eight of the remaining gauges recorded hydroperiods of at least 7.0 percent and
another two gauges recorded hydroperiods greater than 5.0 percent of the growing
season. The range of hydroperiods recorded at the mitigation site in 2008 was similar to
the range recorded in the reference wetland site. Based on the results of the past four
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 2008 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 four 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 documented the average number of stems per acre on site
to be 556, which is a survival rate of greater than 83 percent based on the initial planting
count of 672 stems per acre. Vegetation survival should remain excellent on site and
vegetative success criteria should be acheived.
• Monitoring of vegetation, stream stability, and hydrology of this site will continue
through 2009.
23 November 2008