20061342 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20101230

Ord I -; ,;; , � � }tt �• ���♦ r.,,, a �4 �� ;�'+� _ �,�
4
T, //II i J 1 tff ��, t. t (��i r Y (. f y xt...l; � ' t �- r {i'�' t• h 'r"r Kv� a. t r
wit i
kxtrr ^+.I��, �+�'' r
'
cdJc krir16
,,
M`iG J �v i j l 1t Y t r 4C 5 IJ F` x
`'W t 4 WIN-
Act �
uJ ,Lte, � �c+
:3* `i� t t fly Y 1r� -' "4 OEM
s 1t I i �t r 7 t C� }
c ar ) s k
� � x"�- ( �a�1 t�tly ti. sM�rS
-+�
�tE r— / 1 4 i
♦ 1Q , tY ,y r3 ,l t ivt �x> �,ylt.j F �t
cir� r �.
' �" �K�e -ice r r, y � �t� a.r.� t ,CW?�5f ���,�x^�'-3� �l' '�, f. 4 `�c �e '�" '{�'L �.t� `Y /�'ru�r kt2 A�, .t"� � rj•Ytr' .
Y
WIN � �, 7.n._
X z,(;
�li1r
' 'i• t� r >tt3 r i i s�. t( t4�N,.•1'"4Yz"'�y t�'t" r! �+ x4t`�Y r'r' 1 /SfXF 9F 3�; j'l�}
1'i- �"*Tkn '� .. owl
I t• :7 �( tr {(L 1 m d J �� ^. kA. 5< t i L� - i`�`� `L �,w.�il ,4[S''X J` i l'�{
�" if� err,v�( y'fi to t0. n1Tie >� `p 1h .4$3-
`� �` r`(tj'`'+
I nt 'w A�" K'
711"t f} - ri i
�: t yr1tr 5 . ✓Ys },4J
ki� Y 1 h l �r 3 `}' - i Jt1 �T�(x ' f24 l
Mrs i �i f � $' ��j� r�{ � J •k�'+ �,�
RE
� y �� l \ i t a 5 r i t �r,Ps •tyiCi� r{ �}�� (J�M � I +�,:�� t�l ' � to �' t r_
l F r"t St irk , /r r x V 7`" ly '�a, ' "%f:�i.G 3 r �4h 'i etc I• �., t .!
Y
� %r � ✓`�(� � "� �'i'+i�r,,fr' :* % ✓i,�a,; l �t � i �'ej+ .i�YN Y�al� z\�' �'(
if�id
_'.`".4 _ ?,
' � .� A: a.. s' cif 1!Y^� 'f r". Y�I . ,` ..l i 7� f}}. *,•1411'rJri;51,'.i l�;;r. �� 1. t� � i l �' _.. ;cr �..-. `�'\ �. .. u
{��t

Prepared by:
Eng'i, ogical
nee rin g J
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540
919.557.0929
G. Lane Sauls, Jr., Principal
This document is based on the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program's Monitoring Report Submission Template Version 1.2
(dated 11106106) in the Project Implementation Manual.

Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary/ Project Abstract .......................................... ............................... 2
1.0 Project Background .......................................................... ............................... 3
1.1 Project Objectives ......................................................................... ............................... 3
1.2 Project Structure ........................................................................... ............................... 3
1.3 Restoration Type and Approach .................................................... ..............................4
1.3.1 Coastal Marsh Wetlands ............................................. ..............................4
1.3.2 Non - Riparian Hardwood Flat Wetlands ...................... ..............................4
1.3.3 Riverine Forested Wetlands ....................................... ..............................4
1.4 Location and Setting ...................................................................... ..............................5
1.5 Project History and Background ................................................... ............................... 5
2.0 Project Condition and Monitoring Results ......................... ............................... 9
2.1 Vegetation Assessment ................................................................ ............................... 9
2.1.1 Vegetation Problem Areas ......................................... ............................... 9
2.2 Wetland Assessment .................................................................... ............................... 9
2.2.1 Wetland Problem Areas ............................................. .............................10
3.0 Methodology ................................................................. ............................... 12
4.0 References ..................................................................... ............................... 13
Figures
Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Attributes
Figure 3. Vegetation Problem Areas Plan View
Figure 4. Monitoring Well Locations
Tables
Exhibit Table I. Project Restoration Components.........
Exhibit Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
Exhibit Table III. Project Contact Table .........................
Exhibit Table IV. Project Background Table ..................
Exhibit Table V. Wetland Criteria Attainment ..............
Appendices
Appendix A. Vegetation Raw Data and Annual Photograph Comparisons
Appendix B. Wetland Raw Data
.6
.7
.7
.8
11

Executive Summary/ Project Abstract
The Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, hereinafter referred to as the Bishop Road Site or Project Site,
is one of a group of sites purchased by the NC Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) to meet its on-
going mitigation needs throughout North Carolina. The Bishop Road Site was purchased in the spring of
2001 from Weyerhauser Corporation. According to Weyerhauser, this and many nearby tracts were
being managed for silvicultural uses. NCDOT worked with a consultant to complete the original Wetland
Mitigation Plan in 2004, a document that described existing and proposed conditions. In 2006, the
Project Site was turned over to the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) for project implementation. During this time period, EEP contracted with
the same consultant to update the document into a Restoration Plan. Once the document was
approved, final design, quantity estimates, construction bidding and implementation proceeded.
Construction was completed during the spring of 2009.
Ecological Engineering, LLP (Ecological Engineering) entered into contract with EEP in October 2009. As
part of this contract, Ecological Engineering was tasked to provide annual monitoring services including,
but not limited to annual vegetation assessments within the existing nine vegetation plots and the
downloading of monitoring well data at 12 locations. During 2010, Ecological Engineering added three
additional vegetation plots to the overall assessment. The downloading of well data occurred
approximately four times during the year. Additional services, including well maintenance and
replacement, were also provided, as necessary.
The Bishop Road Site is situated along SR 1156 (Bishop Road), between US 264 and the Pungo River in
Hyde County, North Carolina (Figure 1). It is approximately one mile north of Scranton, five miles
southeast of Leechville and ten miles east of Belhaven. The Project Site is bordered to the northwest by
Tarklin Creek, the south by Scranton Creek and the west by the Pungo River.
Vegetation Assessment
The Year 2 vegetation monitoring effort was performed by determining density and survival of planted
species, consistent with prescribed Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols. Nine 100 - meter2
(wetland) and three 50- meter2 (buffer) plot locations were assessed. Based of survey data, the mean
stem count for all of the plots combined totaled 246 planted stems per acre and 2,567 total stems per
acre. Seven of nine total wetland plots and one of three buffer plots met the 320 -count threshold. Of
the remaining two wetland plots, neither exhibited any stems. The two remaining buffer plots exhibited
counts below the threshold. Supplemental planting was implemented as part of the construction
warranty during early 2010; however, its overall effect did not appear to significantly increase counts as
originally intended.
Wetland Assessment
Wetland assessments associated with the Year 2 monitoring effort were performed by collecting
groundwater hydrology via monitoring wells that record daily groundwater elevations. Based on the
results, all 12 wells met the criteria established for wetland hydrology.
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, EEP Project No 38 Page 2
Monitoring Year 2 (2010), Final Report
December 2010 50512 no3

1.0 Project Background
1.1 Project Objectives
Based on information provided in the Bishop Road Wetland Restoration Final As -Built and Monitoring
Baseline Report (EEP, 2009), the project related goals were to restore site hydrology, restore natural
diverse wetland communities and protect the site from vehicle access, logging or development. These
goals were and will be accomplished by the following objectives:
• Remove earthen roads and fill roadside drainage ditches;
• Remove bedding rows in selected areas and replant areas to establish natural plant
communities, non - riparian hardwood flats, coastal marshes and riverine forested wetlands;
and,
• Purchase property fee simple, put under conservation in perpetuity and install vehicle
access barriers.
The system of measurement to determine successful implementation includes documentation of
hydrology through groundwater monitoring wells, documentation of vegetation development through
permanent 100- meter2 plots and documentation of no vehicle access, logging or development through
visual observation (EEP, 2009).
1.2 Project Structure
Mitigation components include coastal marsh restoration and preservation, riverine forested wetland
restoration and preservation, non - riparian hardwood flat restoration and preservation and riparian
buffer restoration. Figure 2 depicts the locations of each mitigation component. Exhibit Table 1 denotes
the final calculated acreages of each component.
According to EEP (2009), the restoration types and amounts were modified during construction due to
plant community nomenclature and inaccuracy of the topographic survey. These modifications deviate
significantly from names and amounts presented in the 2006 Restoration Plan. Approximately 36.0 acres
of non - riparian hardwood flat restoration were removed to reduce construction costs. The tidal
freshwater marsh community is now referred to coastal marsh per the request of EEP and the NC
Division of Coastal Management (DCM). A 2.2 -acre section of tidal freshwater marsh /coastal marsh
located west of Old Bishop Road was changed to non - riparian hardwood flat due to inaccurate survey
elevations. The design was based on topographic survey information provided by a third party. Based on
the survey elevations and its proximity to open water, this area was slated for marsh restoration. After
the area was cleared during construction, it was obvious that the area was significantly higher than the
survey depicted. A small section of non - riparian hardwood flat restoration (0.171 acres) was changed to
riparian buffer restoration. This change resulted from the need of riparian buffer credits in the area
(EEP, 2009).
Vehicle access barriers comprised of concrete Jersey barriers, an earthen berm and a metal gate were
installed at strategic locations within the Project Site.
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, EEP Project No 38 Page 3
Monitoring Year 2 (2010), Final Report
December 2010 50Si2 003

1.3 Restoration Type and Approach
1.3.1 Coastal Marsh Wetlands
According to EEP (2009), the restoration plan includes 0.343 acres of coastal marsh restoration at two
locations. The first and larger area, covering 0.246 acres, is located at the northern end of Bishop Road
along the main branch of Tarklin Creek. The area consisted of an earthen road bed approximately 32
feet wide and approximately 2.5 feet higher than the adjacent marsh. Restoration was accomplished by
removing the earthen fill to an elevation within ±0.2 feet of the adjacent marsh. The fill material was
used to raise the elevation of the adjacent to the same elevation as the marsh and regraded road. The
restored area was planted with vegetation representative of the adjacent marsh, included black needle
rush (Juncus raemerianus), Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and
pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata). Soils in the marsh consist of Longshoal mucky peat, a hydric A soil
(EEP, 2009).
The second and smaller area, covering 0.097 acres, is situated near the end of Silverthorne Road.
Silverthorne Road crosses a small tidal slough of Scranton Creek at this location. There was no culvert
under Silverthorne Road at this location. This disconnected the small slough upstream of Silverthorne
Road from tidal flow. Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) is the dominant vegetation on the downstream
(the tidal side) of the road. The upstream side was dominated by bare ground. This significant difference
in vegetation is a result of the disconnection from tidal flow. The roadway was removed and graded to
an elevation within ±0.2 feet of the adjacent slough elevations and replanted with the same suite of
coastal marsh herbaceous vegetation as the above location. Soils in the area consist of Bolling loamy
fine sand, a hydric B soil (EEP, 2009).
DCM representative Steve Trowell inspected both coastal marsh restoration areas during construction.
Final construction elevations of the coastal marsh areas were provided to DCM and concurrence was
granted on May 26, 2009.
1.3.2 Non - Riparian Hardwood Flat Wetlands
According to EEP (2009), the non - riparian hardwood flat restoration areas include 56.3 acres of non -
jurisdictional areas within the existing planted pine and roadbed areas throughout the Project Site.
These areas exhibited hydric soils; however, they did not meet the other two parameters necessary for
jurisdictional status. Non - riparian hardwood flat restoration was accomplished by clearing and grubbing
non - jurisdictional 10 to 15 year old loblolly pine plantation then replanting the area with the
appropriate wetland vegetation. The bedding rows were graded to a more natural contour. Existing
roadways were also removed and adjacent ditches were filled with the roadbed material to the
elevation of the adjacent non - riparian hardwood flat community. The depth of cut on the roadways
averages around 1.5 feet. The depth of the adjacent ditches averaged around 2.5 feet. These areas were
also replanted. Soils within the non - riparian hardwood flat restoration areas consist of Acredale silt
loam, Argent loam, Chapanoke silt loam and Yeopin silt loam, all of which are hydric. The Site was
cleared by first removing the pine trees. Trees were cut at the base, leaving the roots in the ground, and
then chipped. The chips were hauled off site. Branches and bark were burned on site. The tree roots
were grubbed using a "rake" attached to a track excavator. This also removed the bedding rows. Root
material was burned on site (EEP, 2009).
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, EEP Project No. 38 Page 4
Monitoring Year 2 (2010), Final Report
December 2010 30512 -003

1.3.3 Riverine Forested Wetlands
According to EEP (2009), the restoration plan provided restoration of 1.0 acre of riverine forested
wetland. Riverine forested wetlands restoration was accomplished by removing an earthen road bed.
The road material was used to fill drainage ditches adjacent to the roadbed. Target restoration
elevations were designed to be within ± 0.2 feet of the adjacent target community elevations. An initial
survey revealed that the desired elevations had not been met. The contractor was required to re -grade
the area to design specifications. A post construction topographic survey verified that final elevations
were within the target range. Soils within the adjacent riverine wetlands consist of Belhaven muck, a
hydric A soil. Trees removed to accomplish the riverine wetland restoration were a few 10 to 15 year old
loblolly pines located along the ditch banks. After clearing, grubbing and grading, the area was replanted
with riverine wetland species, including bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), water tupelo (Nyssa
aquatica), tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and various oaks (Quercus spp.) (EEP, 2009).
1.4 Location and Setting
The Bishop Road Site is situated along SR 1156 (Bishop Road), between US 264 and the Pungo River in
Hyde County, North Carolina. It is approximately one mile north of Scranton, five miles southeast of
Leechville and ten miles east of Belhaven. The Project Site is bordered to the northwest by Tarklin Creek,
the south by Scranton Creek and the west by the Pungo River. The remainder of the Project Site is
bordered by roads, managed timber areas, agricultural fields and wooded or undeveloped lands.
1.5 Project History and Background
Based on information depicted by EEP (2009), the Bishop Road Site was purchased in the spring of 2001
from Weyerhauser Corporation. According to Weyerhauser, this and many nearby tracts were being
managed for silvicultural uses. The NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) worked with a consultant
to complete the original Wetland Mitigation Plan in 2004; a document that described existing and
proposed conditions. In 2006, the Project Site was turned over to the NC Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for project implementation. During this
time period, EEP contracted with the same consultant to update the document into a Restoration Plan.
Once the document was approved, final design, quantity estimates, construction bidding and
implementation proceeded. Construction was completed during the spring of 2009 (EEP, 2009).
Project history and background information is presented in the following four tables. The Final Wetland
Restoration Plan (2006) denotes that the Project Site had been managed for timber since the early
1900's and was initially converted from its original vegetative community to pine plantation by removing
the canopy vegetation. This was accomplished by first harvesting merchantable timber and then using
techniques such as shearing, piling and burning of slash debris. The Project Site has been clear -cut and
planted several times. The timber stands across the site were bedded to keep the roots of the planted
pine seedlings above the water table.
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, EEP Project No 38 Page 5
Monitoring Year 2 (2010), Final Report
December 2010 50512 -003

Exhibit Table I. Project Restoration Components
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Project No. 05- 0653802, EEP Project No. 38
Riparian Wetland (ac)
m
c
2
u
d
oc
c
^
d
�
Restoration
Project Segment or
N
i >
o
C
n/a
0.171
Q
Comments
Reach ID
x Q
W
° _J
a
a
Q
y
a`,
Enhancement I
n/a
0
IX
Q
n/a
H
m
Enhancement II
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Loblolly pine and road beds
Non - Riparian
0
R
R
56.3
n/a
n/a
removed and replanted with
Hardwood Flat.
61.7
332.5
n/a
n/a
184.0
suite of native species
Non - Riparian
332.5
n/a
P
332.5
n/a
n/a
High Quality
Preservation
Hardwood Flat
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
Coastal Marsh
62.7
0
338.80
n/a
0.171
184.343
Road beds removed and
Bishop Road
R
R
0.246
n/a
n/a
replanted with suite of
native species
Road beds removed and
Silverthorne
R
R
0.097
n/a
n/a
replanted with suite of
native species
Coastal Marsh
184.0
n/a
P
184.0
n/a
n/a
Road beds removed and
Riparian Buffer
R
R
0.171
n/a
n/a
replanted with suite of
native species
Road beds removed and
Riverine Forested
R
R
1.0
n/a
n/a
replanted with suite of
native species
Riverine Forested
61.7
n/a
P
61.7
n/a
n/a
R = Restoration
P = Preservation
Component Summations
Restoration Level
Stream
(If)
Riparian Wetland (ac)
Non - Riparian
Wetland (ac)
Upland
(ac)
Buffer (ac)
Coastal
Marsh
(ac)
Riverine
Non-
Riverine
Restoration
n/a
1.0
0
56.3
n/a
0.171
0.343
Enhancement
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Enhancement I
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Enhancement II
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Creation
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Preservation
n/a
61.7
332.5
n/a
n/a
184.0
High Quality
Preservation
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
High Quality
Preservation
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
n/a
62.7
0
338.80
n/a
0.171
184.343
Source: EEP, 2009
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, EEP Project No. 38
Monitoring Year 2 (2010), Final Report
December 2010
Page 6
1051? 003

Exhibit Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Project No. 05- 0653802, EEP Project No. 38
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Actual Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
December 2006
August 2006
Construction
n/a
December 2008
Planting Activities
n/a
January 2009
Mitigation Plan / As -Built (Year 0 Monitoring— Baseline)
February 2009
July 2009
Year 1 Monitoring
November 2009
December 2010
Warranty Planting
n/a
March 2010
Year 2 Monitoring
November 2010
December 2010
Year 3 Monitoring
Meadville, PA 16335
Year 4 Monitoring
Seed Mix Suppliers (Temporary)
Indian Creek Farms
Year 5 Monitoring
Midway, AL
Exhibit Table III. Project Contact Table
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Project No. 05- 0653802, EEP Project No. 38
Designer
801 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 300
ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Robert Lepsic, 919.854.1282
Construction Contractor
P.O. Box 499
Jamesville, NC 27846
Kris -Grey Construction, Inc.
Mitch Dotson, 252.799.6607 (mobile)
Planting Contractor
9305 -D Monroe Road
Charlotte, NC 28270
Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program, Inc.
Alan Peoples, 704.841.2841
Seeding Mix Supplier (Permanent)
Ernst Seeds
Meadville, PA 16335
800.873.3321
Seed Mix Suppliers (Temporary)
Indian Creek Farms
Midway, AL
888.307.8773
Evergreen Seed, LLC
Rice, VA 23966
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farms Coastal Plain Conservation Nursery
Siler City, NC Edenton, NC
919.742.1200 252.482.5707
SC Super Tree Nursery Weyerhaeuser NR Company
Blenheim, SC Atlanta, GA
843.528.3943 800.221.4898
Monitoring Performer
Ecological Engineering, LLP
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540
Wetland Monitoring POC
G. Lane Sauls Jr., 919.557.0929
Vegetation Monitoring POC
G. Lane Sauls Jr., 919.557.0929
Source: EEP, 2009
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, EEP Project No 38
Monitoring Year 2 (2010), Final Report
December 2010
Page 7
50512 003

Exhibit Table IV. Project Background Table
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Project No. 05- 0653802, EEP Project No. 38
Project County
Hyde
Drainage Area
n/a
Impervious Cover Estimate
<1%
Stream Order
n/a
Physiographic Region
Outer Coastal Plain
Ecoregion (Griffith and Omernik)
Chesapeake - Pamlico Lowlands and Tidal Marshes
Rosgen Classification of As -built
n/a
Cowardin Classification
n/a
Dominant Soil Types
Acredale, Argent, Hydeland
Reference Site ID
n/a
USGS HUC for Project and Reference
030401020100
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project and Reference
03 -03 -07
Any Portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d listed
segment.
No
Reason for 303d listing or stressor
n/a
Percent of project easement fenced
0%
Source: EEP, 2009
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, EEP Project No 38
Monitoring Year 2 (2010), Final Report
December 2010
Page 8
50512 -003

2.0 Project Condition and Monitoring Results
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation at the Project Site was assessed by general visual assessments and counting stems within the
nine pre- determined vegetation and three additional plots added in 2010. These plots are randomly
scattered throughout the Project Site and used to determine the approximate stems per acre in and
surrounding the plot location. Their locations are shown on Figure 3. Assessments within each of the
plots were completed using methodology prescribed by the CVS and EEP. Level II assessments were
completed on ten of the 12 plots. The two remaining plots were assessed using Level III assessment
protocol. Appendix A provides the vegetation related data and information including CVS -EEP output
tables and photographic comparisons. Specific information regarding the CVS protocol is presented in
Section 3.0.
2.1.1 Vegetation Problem Areas
Based on the annual field assessment, several vegetation problem areas exist at the Project Site. These
areas are also depicted on Figure 3 and described in the following paragraphs.
For wetland mitigation success, the USACE et. al. (2003) denotes that planted stem counts should be no
less than 320 stems per acre after the third year of monitoring and no less than 260 after Year 5. For
buffer success, the counts must be no less than 320 planted stems per acre after Year 5. Based on the
field data collected during Year 1 monitoring, the annual mean of planted stems at the Project Site was
estimated at approximately 273 stems per acre. EEP utilized the planting contractor's one -year warranty
and a supplemental planting was conducted across several portions of the Site during early 2010. Once
planting was complete, stem counts were updated during Year 2 monitoring activities.
Year 2 monitoring results were slightly lower than Year 1 results for planted stems; however, volunteer
stems significantly increased the overall mean. The means for planted and total were 246 and 2,567
stems per acre, respectively. Seven of nine wetland vegetation plots met the three -year threshold
amount. The two remaining plots (VP# 24 and 25) did not exhibit any living planted stems. This was
likely the result of high water levels throughout the beginning of the growing season. One of the three
buffer plots met the success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. The data from this plot assumes
approximately 363 planted stems per acre. The remaining two plots exhibited planted stems at densities
ranging from approximately 217 to 290 stems per acre. Exhibit Table V summarizes the vegetation
criteria attainment.
In addition, the two wetland vegetation plots (VP# 24 and 25) did not exhibit any cover during the Year 2
monitoring assessment. Cover was observed however, during the fall and winter months.
According to the NC Drought Management Advisory Council (2010), Hyde County experienced
abnormally dry conditions in May, June, July and September and moderate drought conditions during
August.
Two other problem areas were observed along Old Bishop Road and the area immediately to the west
and an unnamed road that intersects US 264 along the northeastern portion of the Site. Common reed
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, EEP Project No 33 Page 9
Monitoring Year 2 (2010), Final Report
December 2010 50512 003

(Phragmites australis) is present. This invasive species has a tendency to outcompete native vegetation
in wet areas. Controlled burning is the preferred method to control this species.
2.2 Wetland Assessment
Wetland areas at the Project Site were assessed by hydrologic data collected and general visual
observations. Hydrologic data was collected using 40 -inch groundwater monitoring wells (or
piezometers) that collect daily groundwater elevation levels. These monitoring wells were placed
adjacent to the eight of the existing vegetation plots. Four reference monitoring wells were strategically
placed within the Project Site to act as control for existing and functional jurisdictional wetlands. These
monitoring wells are numbered (MW# 7, 14, 15 and 16). The remaining eight monitoring wells will
document hydrology throughout the areas receiving mitigation credit. Figure 4 depicts all of the
associated well locations. For hydrologic success, the restoration plan states that groundwater
elevations must be within 12 inches of the ground surface for a consecutive period no less than 5%
(approximately 12 days) of the growing season.
All 12 of the monitoring wells met the hydrologic requirements of saturation within 12 inches of the
ground surface for a period no less than 5% of the growing season. According to EEP (2009), the growing
season at the Project Site is estimated at 230 total days, ranging from March 27 through November 12.
Five of the wells exceeded the saturation requirements for more than 12.5% of the growing season.
Exhibit Table V summarizes the wetland criteria attainment. Additional information including charts
comparing groundwater elevations with respect to precipitation amounts is provided in Appendix B.
2.2.1 Wetland Problem Areas
No wetland problem areas currently exist at the Project Site.
Bishop Road wetland Mitigation Site, EEP Project No 38 Page 10
Monitoring Year 2 (2010), Final Report
December 2010 50512 -003

Exhibit Table V. Wetland Criteria Attainment
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Project No. 05- 0653802, EEP Project No. 38
Well ID
Well Hydrology
Tract Mean
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation
Tract Mean
Threshold Met?
Survival Threshold
Percentage?
Met?
MW# 7
Yes
29%
(Reference)
>12.5%
MW# 14
Yes
10%
(Reference)
>12.5%
MW# 15
Yes
(Reference)
5%-12.5%
61%
MW# 16
Yes
(Reference)
5% -12.5%
MW# 17
s
VP# 17
Yes
5% 1
MW# 18
s
VP# 18
Yes
5% 1
s
MW# 19
VP# 19
Yes
5% 1
61%
61%
Yes
MW# 20
VP# 20
Yes
5%-12.5%
s
MW# 21
VP# 21
Yes
5% 1
MW# 22
s
VP# 22
Yes
>12
Yes
0 °
MW# 23
10%
VP# 23
Yes
>
Yes
MW# 24
29%
VP# 24
No
>
29%
VP# 25
No
Tarklin Creek
No
<1%
SW Scranton
No
NW Scranton
Yes
Notes: Growing Season Length = 230 days
12.5% = 29 days
5% = 11 days
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, EEP Project No 38
Monitoring Year 2 (2010), Final Report
December 2010
Page 11
50511 003

3.0 Methodology
This monitoring report follows methodology consistent with EEP's Content, Format and Data
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports (Version 1.2, dated 11/16/06), available at EEP's website
(http: / /www.nceep.net).
Vegetation assessments were conducted using the CVS -EEP protocol (Version 4.2). As part of this
protocol, vegetation is assessed using 100- meter 2 plots, or modules. The scientific method requires that
measurements be as unbiased as possible, and that they be repeatable. Plots are designed to achieve
both of these objectives; in particular, different people should be able to inventory the same plot and
produce similar data (Lee et. al., 2006).
According to Lee et. al. (2006), there many different goals in recording vegetation, and both time and
resources for collecting plot data are extremely variable. To provide appropriate flexibility in project
design, the CVS -EEP protocol supports five distinct types of vegetation plot records, which are referred
to as levels in recognition of the increasing level of detail and complexity across the sequence. The lower
levels require less detail and fewer types of information about both vegetation and environment, and
thus are generally sampled with less time and effort (Lee et. al., 2006). Level 1 (Planted Stem Inventory
Plots) and Level 2 (Total Woody Stem Inventory Plots) inventories were completed on all nine of the
vegetation plots at the Project Site. In addition, Level 3 (Community Occurrence Plots) inventories were
conducted on the two marsh vegetation plots.
Level 1 plots are applicable only for restoration areas with planted woody stems. The primary purpose is
to determine the pattern of installation of plant material with respect to species, spacing, and density,
and to monitor the survival and growth of those installed plants. Level 1 plots are one module in size
(Lee et. al., 2006).
Level 2 plots also are designed specifically for restoration areas and represent a superset of information
collected for Level 1 plots. In these plots planted woody stems are recorded exactly as for Level 1, but in
addition all woody stems resulting from natural regeneration are recorded by size class using separate
datasheets. These plots allow an accurate and rapid assessment of the overall trajectory of woody -plant
restoration and regeneration on a site. Level 2 plots are one module in size (Lee et. al., 2006).
Level 3 plots are used to document the overall abundance and vertical distribution of leaf area cover of
the more common species in a plot. Cover is estimated for all plant species exceeding a specified lower
level (typically 5% cover); species present but with cover lower than the cut -off may be ignored. The
information can also be used to assess vegetation successional status as well as the presence and
abundance of undesirable taxa such as invasive exotics. Additional environmental data are collected in
Level 3 plots. Optionally, woody stem data required for Level 2 plots (tallies of planted and /or natural
woody stems) may be collected for Level 3 plots to allow more accurate assessment of the rate and
direction of succession. Level 3 plots are one module in size (Lee et. al., 2006).
Twelve Ecotone WM (40 -inch) Water Level Monitors record daily groundwater elevations across the
Project Site. These wells are downloaded electronically in person approximately three times per year.
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, EEP Project No, 38 Page 12
Monitoring Year 2 (2010), Final Report
December 2010 105D 003

4.0 References
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1. Prepared for Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
20314 -1000.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., and T.R. Wentworth, 2006. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from: http: / /www.nceep.net.
Miller, K.H., 2009. Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site Background Data. Prepared by NCDENR
Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2010.
Bishop Road Wetland Restoration Site Monitoring Year 1 (2009), EEP IMS# 38, Hyde County, NC.
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2009.
Final As -Built and Monitoring Baseline Report, Bishop Road Wetland Restoration, EEP IMS# 38,
Hyde County, NC. Prepared by ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina, Inc.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2006.
Bishop Road Wetland Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan Report. Prepared by ARCADIS
G &M of North Carolina, Inc.
NC Drought Management Advisory Council, 2010. Summary of Drought Conditions Throughout North
Carolina. Available: http: / /www.ncdrought.org.
Tiner, R.W., 1993. Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States. The
University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.
US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources Commission,
NC Division of Water Quality, (USACE et.al.), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, EEP Project No. 38 Page 13
Monitoring Year 2 (2010), Final Report
December 2010 50512 003

From Raleigh, take US 64 easi towards A'endell.
Merge onto US 264 East. Continue on US 264
approximately 135 miles_ Turn right onto { -
Silverthome Road. The site abuts the y9} ^y y r M • ' -
intersection of US 264 and Bishop Road and
extends to the west and north Silverthorne Road
�f'� } ,i -1 _ ° . • tee- � a _ -.
TO BELHAVEN
-4
ka
PROJECT
AREA
{
4N It
j QWk y ` i c t US 264
Point x -
pilift
- Yl�r ��_r�oestt
TO SWAN QUARTER
IN
Prepared For. 2,000 1.000 0 2,000 4,000 N
` Feet
'N ^d = _= E
F ��ti�lt itl i i Miles
SCALE: 1:24,000 S
PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP Figure No.
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1

Legend
West Muriel Road
Riparian Buffer Restoration
Non - Riparian Restoration
Existing Silverthorne Road
Coastal Marsh Preservation
Riverine Forested Wetland Preservation
Riverine Forested Wetland Restoration
Weyerhauser Mitigation Area
Non - Riparian Hardwood Flat Preservation
Non - Jurisdictional Areas
Coastal Marsh Restoration
East Muriel Road
Bishop Road
lexistinel
Silverthorne Road
lexistinel
Old Bishop Road
The subject project sate is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP} and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
by land under private mvnership. Accessing the site may require
traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore
access by the general oublic is not permitted. Access by authorized
personnel of the state and federal agencies or their
designeeslcontractors involved in the development. overwght and
stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and
timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
activities by any person ourtside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activities requires prior coordination with EEP.
Prepared For N
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
rellitim Feet WE
S
I ni: ! SCALE. 1:13.000
PROJECT ATTRIBUTES Figure No.
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 2
fmace: 1993 USGS DODO

00
00
c
t
°
3
"
O
+1 c
c
!
�
c
y
Y
a! a=�
N m
d
t
c
3 M
a+
y
"
O
z tw
++
• y X
w
O
tw
❑
O
C
C
N
O
C
4a
0
r
W)
y d r N O
G1
p o
O
o
E ��,
a
>
c t10
C
cu
0
�!
-rZ
0 E
0
c
0
O
`
C>
o
a--+
c (0
rn
�o
0
Q
0
00
O O
m
w
_ f 1' 1
M �
o
LO
`J
cu
O
N
CL
U
L- U
0
.I
N c
LO
r
o
f –
0
.i
M
=
N O
U
■{/ —/
O
O
Z
N
c
�o
N
o
c
M
,
O
4!
x
ai 00
m
a
CU °c°
N o
C p o
N
^�
c –°
o
O Z
EE
E v
c'o u-
°1
E
00 ,O
o"
a v
o v v
u
+, C
L u
00 C O
O p
0
d
ai m
> a v
U_ O
.O d o
LU
•-"
N ry
C a _a
v o
C
f0 L J
Div
�
v
O
N a f0
to C O
V E
ro O
am
O
m "
a
O
>
N U
� U
a
m N
m
E E
u\
N
m
"O
v m
aa) ai
o '^
O '^
c0 ro
u`
a v i
be o
a v
Doc o
E-0
v
E
'D
c E
Y Y
w fo
> a 0
ai fo
> a N
O N
u
_
m
m
p@
O
a
u "
u
o c
–
c a :2
v o
o
b
cn
u O U C
> ^
O o"
� " u
v �
-0
� O
y d C
O
ry U
:K \
o E
v "
c E
�
o a
C
a1 a1
Y
al ai
al
�
V1 C
C
M
V � �
c m ry
°
a
V)
sc E
c p v E
c r
O
to
O N
N V~�1
bO ry
a Q
d H
to
to (0
Sk m al C 46
m
> $
o ap
Q O
o O
O
v v
u u
a O
U.0
C N
m \
a
>
C �r
d N
E
O ro
ob o
c
> C
C m
o c
N O
C In
~
M O
N
bb
CCO
C
O
r
0
O
r-�
�I

v �
E c ++
v
H O Y
L
c c 3 u
Gl
'�
0 4-0
in r-
X 04 A p O
Z
E s 4- 4.
_O M
Q 0
.�
N 'C E
O
E
0
v
0
O
6)0
o
m
O
Oo
O
_rn
N
0
N
Q
O - p
.j
a
O
° s
U')
00
' `
C)
(�J
N
L
M
N
u
_m
�E�_E
O
N
C)
E
N
4--
_1
� U
O O
■�
O
(D
Z
m
N
Q " )
� �
N
?
�
M
�
7
LO
O
�
V
o
v
.O
2
00
v
N `
N M o
0 O
N
i�-
O Z
E
+, 4, =_'
o_f°iD .9
O
a
a o
r W
v
W
v
Lr, v
�+
4J
#�
3
m
0
oc
CL
N
CA
N
0
i
ft
3
LA
m
2
n
N
00
#
#
3
�
N
N
3
a
N
O
N
3
c
ti v
� v
c
Q)
CA
u
c N
C
n N
0
# v
VI
Q
O p
= O
�
4J r
� N
N
� L
3
c m
`o
}
4+ on
C c
O 'L
p
C
CO
C
;a -
_ O
O
M
O
Y
�

Appendix A
Vegetation Raw Data and Annual Photograph Comparisons

Appendix A Table 1. Vegetation Metadata
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 38)
Report Prepared By
Lane Sauls
Date Prepared
11/1/2010 13:46
database name
EcoEng- 2010- A- 38- BishopRoad- cvs -eep- entrytool- v2.2.7.mdb
database location
S: \Projects \50000 State \EEP 50512 \50512 -003 EEP Bishop Road \Year 2 2010 Monitoring
computer name
LANE
file size
37388288
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------- - - --
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all
planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems
impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems
are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined)
for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY----------------------------------
Project Code
38
project Name
BISHOP ROAD
Description
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
0
Source CVS -EEP Data Output

Appendix A Table 2. Vegetation Vigor by Species
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 38)
Nysso aquatica
Species
CommonName
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
0
Alnus serrulato
hazel alder
Quercus sp.
oak
1
12
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
° �Fa 'cw osc
�c
1
4
2
4
Alnus serrulato
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
cherrybark oak
8
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Ilex glabra
inkberry
1
1
2
1
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern bacchars
0
Nyssa aquatica
water tupelo
13
1
Sambucus canadensis
Hibiscus sp.
1
1
Pinus serotina
pond pine
1
Ilex glabra
inkberry
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
llexopaca
3
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
1
3
1
Rosa palustris
swamp rose
4
1
12
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
3
Morella cerifero
wax myrtle
7
1
2
llexopaca
American holly
1
1
1
2
Quercus sp.
oak
1
11
9
1
7
21
Magnolia virgmiana
sweetbay
1
2
Hibiscus sp.
rosemallow
1
Myrica sp.
sweetgale
1
4
1
1
6
Unknown
TOTALS:
18
17
3
40 1
17 1
5
1 10
54
Source. CVS -EEP Data Output
Appendix A Table 3. Vegetation Damage by Species
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 38)
I Morella cerifera Iwax myrtle 1 3 1 7 1 1 1 3 1
Nysso aquatica
water tupelo
2
1
Ot�
2�
2
L�
pond pine
0
1
Quercus sp.
oak
38
12
6
32
° �Fa 'cw osc
�c
swamp chestnut oak
4
4
Alnus serrulato
hazel alder
1
cherrybark oak
1
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
3
1
1
2
1
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern bacchars
0
8
13
Sambucus canadensis
Hibiscus sp.
rosemallow
1
3
1
Ilex glabra
inkberry
0
1
llexopaca
IArnerican holly
5
5
I Morella cerifera Iwax myrtle 1 3 1 7 1 1 1 3 1
Unknown I 1 0 1 2
TOTALS: 118 117 85 1 46 1 1 1 12 1 72
Source CVS -EEP Data Output
Nysso aquatica
water tupelo
2
1
1
2
Pinus serotina
pond pine
0
1
Quercus sp.
oak
38
12
6
32
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
4
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
1
4
1
Rosa palustris
Iswarrip rose
13
4
13
Sambucus canadensis
lCommon Elderberry
1 3
1
3
Unknown I 1 0 1 2
TOTALS: 118 117 85 1 46 1 1 1 12 1 72
Source CVS -EEP Data Output

Appendix A Table 4. Vegetation Damage by Plot
Bishop Road Site (EEP Project No. 38)
ay
°Qo
a�
v ZN
w
fo
rz
Ooh ao 0
0
0
c. °JCS °� J0/
Source LVS -EEP Data Output
038 - EEP- NWScranton- year:2
9
1 2
1
1 4
1 5
038 - EEP- SWScranton- year:2
8
5
3
038 - EEP- TarklinCreek -year2
10
3
7
E38- 1- Gauge17- year:2
4
8
4
E38- 1- Gaugel8- year:2
5
6
5
E38- 1- Gauge19- year:2
7
6
1
6
E38- 1- Gauge20- year:2
6
9
6
E38- 1- Gauge2l- year:2
7
4
7
E38- 1- Gauge22- year:2
2
8
2
E38- 1- Gauge23- year:2
17
1
17
E38- 1- Gauge24- year:2
10
2
10
E38- 1- Gauge25- year:2
1
TOTALS:
12 1
85 1
46
1 1
1 1
1 12
72
Source LVS -EEP Data Output

v
'u �
C. m
N �
2
C V
m W
i+ O
O i
a W CL
J3
4a
C
kA
O
O c
O
u
EA
a
LA To
W 2
� 3
H �
Q O
x �
n
0
C. 'm
Q
Q
r.;
PaT
S2a�
l; OP
9.t
Z�Pa aZa�'P.9. 8£d ;O/d
T r
Z�Pa �. 8FJ'?o
f t.
2 ;Paf, , j ;O /a
��Pa t2a�dP9. 8FJ'�O /d
�4'a
t.
2�Pa 6ra�nP9.
Z�Pa 8ra�nP9 rBF�'�O /a
t;Paf
t ;P 40 '�OP��
of 40 /4P,
s
spa ;Spa SAO /d
;4P
/O,
a
�P414°
4�4OJ >
m
L
Y C
\ ° E
L
v a`,
z v c Q
Y
m
O
Y
C Y
o o
N Q L m O
T co �0+ C L O
X v u, E o f
3 3 3 0 3 Li, .� 3 14
o
S o
:3 t S o a o s
a O` O o u CL
a o o 0
.� �0
° a v v o o > > >> o m
¢ m Z CJ C1 CJ CJ cc N
;4a
4Q41,0
J
(U
a
Y
V1
O
j
O
C
f0
D
C
'
W
N
J
u
F
u
p
0

Appendix A Table 6. Vegetative Problem Areas
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 38)
Feature /Issue
Station /Range
Probable Cause
Photo #
Vegetation Plot # 21
n/a
Unknown
VP - 21
Vegetation Plot #23
n/a
Inundation
VP -23
Vegetation Plot # 24
n/a
Inundation
VP - 24
Vegetation Plot # 25
n/a
Inundation
VP - 25
Vegetation Plot # Scranton Creek SW
n/a
Unknown
VP - Scranton SW
Vegetation Plot # Tarklin Creek
n/a
Unknown
VP - Tarklin Creek
Phrogmites australis
n/a
Invasive Species
n/a

r
E
E
7
O
U
E
d �
H ¢O
O G
r O
� N
C m
N
�O E
d m
C z
�p «
a
. o
d
a a0
� m
F �
v
Q v°
x
O v
C a`
d a
Q w
H
1-1-
-
N
O
Of
G
—
d
t0
N
q
m o0
.i
a0 ti
ry
d
O
OI N
d
o
Y
d
o
Q
f
d
0
0 0
f-
H 00
ml
I H-
� o
6
0
O O
H N
M
N Odl
N Q
M d
W
Q
�
N
O
O
n lD
—
ut
CY
^�
C
N
CL
O
O O
T
N
N
N
Od0
�
m
�
N
r o
o
—
a
m
d
m
ao
M
d
N
pQp
d
m
�
o
a
ao
M
d
n
d
0
m
m
(�
N
m
CL
o
T N
d
m
d
0
N
m
m
d
o
0
d
ao
M
W
y�
J
a
O
O O
m
v
0
M
m
N
N
m
R
A
d
O
O
6
L
U
m
d
A
Ur
N
.+ O
O
W
N
b
A
d
d
N
m
T rtj
N
.y
o6
m
y�
J
d
O
O O
M
W
n
0
N
d
m
H
y�
m
M
6
Y
d
u`
d
pp
c
F
CL
m
O O
N
d
o
C
N
12
-10
N
d
m m
d
0
0 0
m
o
d
d
M
2
d
n
O 0
�
a
O
O O
W
rymj
o
Evw;�
Y
Q
a N y n
y
a
v
v
a
a
u
N
v >
a a
> >
a a
> >
a a
> >
a a
> >
a
> a
a
> >
s
> v
a
v
a a
a
v >
s
> v
c
Y
w
F L
tL/1 tL/1
S
L L
L F
V1 �/1
V1 1-
H VLI
F F
H L
L H
VL1
w
A
L
a
a
r
u°
E W=
°1
E>
E
o w
E
E
o
o 0
c E
w 3
3
3
o Y
3 t
m
3 'u"
o
c
o
o
a°
�
c
rn m,
°c_
'w E
c
o
E
5
m
u
m V
2 a
w J
o Q
2
a Q
O O
U° z
C°°

a
�a
E
m
VJ
CL
L
cm
0
0
a
O
a
c
0
W
Qi
cn
c
G
a
c
W
M0
cc
Q
0
t
N
m
c�
d
a>
c
O
r
O
T
N
7
�i
O
C
cO
L
0
0
N
l0
^f
44- 6
O LL �
co
0 W
N
` w •
cm
ci
LL
O. O
C
C
C
O
(Z CZ
O L
O
3:
LL
p
O L
r
O
O L
a)
O O
— 0
� O
a- Z
d T O
d o
Cl- U)
>
>
a_ C/)
>
^f
44- 6
O LL �
co
0 W

d
C
�L
O
.0
cO
L
O
T
O
N
_A
7
T
L
f0
d
}
C
�i
O
C
O
2
O
T
O
N
T
L
to
7
C
cC
i�
b.
N
cli
ol
ft ✓.
v 1`
T
,e.
LL
L C
0)
0)
0)
O
1! f0
3t U
O LL to
*t U
O L L iA
k U
O L L Y
4t O
O Li
O
L
N Z
t O
a C
d
>
a
>
>
a_
>

Appendix B
Wetland Raw Data

N
ai
a� M
bb c
c_ 3
.7 O
O L
c =
0 0
2 �
(ui) uoi;elidi:)aJd
°o ° °o ° °o oD °O
m N N r-i O O
O 00 tD Izi N O 00 �D IzT N O 00 O N IzT �D w O
N c-i r-I r-I r-I r-1 I-I
(ui) aa;empunojg 01 y;daa
OT-AaN-LZ
OT- noN -LT
OT -noN -L
c
OT -00-8Z o
OT-PO -ST o
L
OT-PO -8 p-
N
OT- daS -8Z °
OT- daS -ST
OT -daS -8
OT- $nV -6Z o
°
OT- $nV -6T o
OT -Sny -6
a
OT- Inf -OS v
o_
OT- Inf -OZ
OT- Inf-OT
OT- unf -0E
OT- unf -OZ
0
OT- unf -pI c
N
OT- AeW-TE
OT- AeW -TZ
OT- AeW -TT
OT-AeW -T
OT- add -IZ
OT- ad`d-TT
OT -adV -T
OT- aeW -ZZ
OT- aeW -ZT
OT -aeW -Z
OT- qaj -OZ
OT- qaJ -OT
OT- uef -TE
OT- Uef -TZ
OI-Uef-IT
OT -Uef -T

RT
!'I L
cu
iJ
v m
3
c
•i O
O `
r �
0 o
O
2
(ul) uolieildl:)aJd
m N N O O
-n0
OT N LZ
OT- AoN -LT
3
OT -^oN-L
c
OT -P0 -8Z
OT -00 -8T
OT -130 -8
v
OT- daS -BZ
0
OT- daS -8T
OT -daS -8
OT- Sny -6Z o
OT- Ony -6T o
.Y
OT -Sny -6 l
2
OT- Inf-OE v
a
OT- Inf -OZ
OT-Inf -OT
OT- unf -OE
OT- unf-OZ
0
OT- unr -OT N
OT-AeW -TE
OT- AeW -TZ
OT- AeW -TT
OT- /aeW -T
OT- ad`d -TZ
OT -ady -T T
OT -adV -T
v
OT-aeW-ZZ
t
OT- aeW -ZT
r
OT -aeW -Z m
a
OT- qaj -OZ a
OT- qaj -OT r
c
OT- uer -TE N
OT- uef -TZ
0
a
OT- uef -TT o
OT -uef -T
O 00 l0 N O N 'T kD W O N IzT lD x O N 'T lD x O N u
(ul) aazempunoj9 01 41daa z

v
u
C
a,
v
� L
CD cu
w M
.� co
Ln 3
f c
3
cu O
00 =
c o
O
r
O
0�
(ui) uoilelld!JaJd
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o ill 0 Un o n o
m N N c-i
O o0 to �* N O w to IzT N O N E (.0 w O N a' �.D w O r14 'T lD w O N�:T tD W O N I:T �o W O
N rI r-I i-i ri r-I ' r-I ci r-1 r-I e-i N N N N N M m m T M IT IT I� Ill
(uI) aalempunojg of yldoa
OT- �aN-LZ
OT- noN-LT Y
OT -AON -L
c
I
OT- 1D0 -8Z o
OT -P0 -8T o
L
OT-PO -8 a
N
OT- daS -SZ °
OT- daS -BT
OT -daS -8
OT- Sny -6Z o
0
OT- Ony -6T o
OT -Sny -6
.Q
OT-Inf -OE v
a
OT-Inf-OZ
OT- Inf-OT
OT- unf -0E
OT- unf -OZ
c
OT- unf -OT c
OT- /aeW -TE N
OT- AeW -TZ
OT- AeW -TT
OT-AeW -T
OT- add -TZ
OT- adV -TT
OT -add -T
OT- aeW-ZZ
OT- aeW-ZT
OT -aeW -Z
OT-gaj-OZ
OT- qaj -OT
OT- uef -T8
OT- uef -TZ
OT- Uef -TT
OT -Uef -T

kD
� v
_ +r
v f°
3 �
c
•L O
O `
� o
o �
(w) uoi;elidi:)aad
°O ° °O ° °O ° °
O
M N N -+ O O
lD It N O N T lD 00 O rl lzt �O W NO N N N N O M
M M M M
(ui) aa;empunoig of q ;dad
OT- AON -LZ
v
OT- AON-LT
3
OT -AON -L
0
OT-1:)0 -8Z 6
0
OT- 130-8T —
t
Y
OT -PO -8 aa)
OT- daS -gZ
OT- daS -ST
OT -daS -g
Y
OT- 2ny -6Z o
c
OT- 8ny -6T ,o
01-gny -6 _o
U
OT- Inf -OE
OT-Inf-OZ
OT- Inf -OT
OT- unf -OE
OT- unf -OZ
0
OT- unf-OT o
N
OT- AeW -TE
OT- AeW -TZ
OT- AeW -TT
OT -AeW -T
OT- add-TZ
OT- jdy -TT
OT-adb -T
OT- aeW -ZZ
OT- aeW -ZT
OT -aeW -Z
OT- qaj -OZ
OT-gaJ -OT
OT-uef -TE
OT- Uef -TZ
OT- Uef -TT
OT-Uef -T

n
P•I L
� }I
cu f 0
3
tub
c
•i O
O `
= O
O �
(ul) uollelldl:)aad
O 0 0 0 ° 00 ° 0
0
m N N —i O O
LD '�t N O N lD W O N cT lD X O N C* lD W O N c* lD W O N
N N N N m m m m m
(ul) jalempunoaE) of gjdaa
OT- nON -LZ
L
OT-AON -LT
OT-AON-L
c
D
OT -P0-8Z °
cD
OT -PO-8T
t
OT -100 -8 fl
v
OT- daS-8Z 0
OT- daS -BT
OT -daS -8
OT- 'Ony -6Z o
OT- 2ny -6T o
Y
OT -Sny -6 a
OT-Inf -OE v
o_
OT-Inf -OZ
OT- Inf -OT
OT- unf-OE
OT- unf -OZ
0
OT- unf -OT o
N
OT- Aew -TE
OT- AeN -TZ
OT- AeN -TT
OT -AeA -T
OT- adV -TZ
OT- adV -TT
OT-jdd -T
OT- aeN -ZZ
OT- aeN -ZT
OT -aeN -Z
OT-gaj-OZ
OT-gaJ-OT
OT- Uef -TE
OT- Uef-TZ
OT- Uef -TT
OT -Uef -T

00
rq L
U v
v f°
3
c
o
0
� O
O
(ui) uoi;e;ldl:)aad
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o Ln o Ln o Ln o
m N N .1 ­4 O O
00 lD zT N O N d' lD 00 O N IzT lD 00 O N �* lD 00 O N Ci lD 00 O N
' 71 '-i M M m m m v 17
(ul) jalennpunoig of gldaa
OT-�oN-LZ
L
OT-AaN-LT
3
OT -noN -L o
c
OT- 100-82 °
OT -PO-St
t
OT -100 -8 C-
v
0
OT- daS -8Z
OT- daS -ST
OT -daS -8
OT- 9ny -6Z o
OT- Sny -6T o
Y
01-Ony -6
-a
U
OT- Inf -OE v
a
OT- Inf-OZ '
OT-Inf -OT
OT- unf -OE
OT- unr -OZ
0
OT- unf OT o
N
OT- AeA -TE
OT- AeW -TZ
OT- AeiN -TT
OT -AeW -T
OT- ady -TZ
OT- ady -TT
OT -ady -T
OT- aeW -ZZ
OT- aeW-ZT
OT -aeW -Z
OT- qaj -OZ
OT- qDJ -OT
OT- uef-TE
Ot- uer -TZ
Ot- Uef -TT
OT -uer -T

M
P'I L
f+
3
c
L O
0 o
o �
2
(uI) uoilel!dl:)aad
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Ln o Ln o Ln o
m N r4 - O O
�D V N O N lD 00 O N C �D w O N IzT l0 w O N IT lD x O N
c-1 c-1 -1 r-1 1-1 N N N N N m rn 1n m m v
(uI) ja;empunojg of y;dea
OTOZ-AoN -LZ
OTOZ- AoN-LT
OTOZ-AoN-L
OTOZ-3:)0-8Z
OTOZ- }DO -8T °
OTOZ-100-8 a
v
0
OTOZ-daS -8Z
OTOZ- daS -gT
OTOZ -daS -g
OTOZ- $nV-6Z o
OTOZ- Ony -6T o
OTOZ -Ony -6 a
v
OTOZ - Inf -OE v
a
OTOZ- Inf -OZ
OTOZ- Inf-OT
OTOZ-unf -OE
OTOZ-unf -OZ
a
OTOZ- unf -OT c
ev
OTOZ- AeW-TE
OTOZ-AeW-TZ
OTOZ- AeW -TT
OTOZ-AeW -T
OTOZ- ady -TZ
OTOZ- ady -TT
OTOZ -jdy -T
OlOZ-aeW -ZZ
OTOZ- aeW-ZT
OTOZ-aen -Z
OTOZ- gaj-OZ
OTOZ- gaJ-OT
OTOZ- uef -TF
OTOZ-Uef -TZ
OTOZ - Uef -TT
OTOZ -Uef -T

0
N �
*k G1
_ +r
3
C
L O
0 O
o �
2
(ui) uoilelidi:)aJd
°o ° °o ° °o ° O°
M N N .--I e--1 O O
00 lD N O N ItT lD 00 O N IzT l0 00 O N -:I' lD 00 O N �ZT lD 00 O
1-1 N N m m m m T IT
(ui) jalempunojg 01 yldad
OT-AoN -LZ
OT- AON-LT
r9
01-AON-1 -00
c
OT- 100-8Z °
OT-100 -8T
s
OT -10-8
v
OT- daS -8Z
0
I
OT- daS -8T
OT -daS -8
OT- $nV -6Z o
OT- On`d-6T o
Y
OT -Sny -6 ° :
_a
u
OT-Inf -OE a)
o_
OT-Inf-OZ
OT- Inf -OT
OT- un(-OE
OT-unf -OZ
c
OT- unf -OT c
OT- AeW -TE N
OT- AeW -TZ
OT- AeW -TT
OT -AeW -T
OT- adV -TZ
OT- adV -TT
OT -add -T
OT- JeW-ZZ
OT- aeW -ZT
OT -aeW -Z
OT- qaj -OZ
OT-q@A-OT
OT- uer -TE
OT- Uef -TZ
OT- Uef -TT
OT -uef-T

N �
3* G1
cu f°
oA a
c =
L O
O `
0 o
o �
(ui) uoi ;e;idhaJd
°o ° ° O ° 00 ° 00
M N N i O O
-AO -
--------
-
- -- -----------------------
CN
c '-
T
f0
v
>.
0
z
0
v
v
y�J
c
w
c
_
0
o
— _-
a,
V)
00
3
0
N
�
L
O
_
y
N
N
OT N LL
v
OT- nON -LT 3
OT -nON -L
OT -00 -8Z Cq
O
OT- 130 -8T
OT -30-8 v
0
OT- das -8Z
OT- das -BT
OT -das -8
01- $nV -6Z o
c
OT- Ony -6T o
2
OT -IIny -6 a
OT- Inf -OE
OT- Inf -OZ
OT- Inf-OT
OT- unf -0£
OT- unf -OZ
0
OT- unf -OT o
N
OT- AeW -TE
OT- AeW -TZ
OT- AeW -TT
OT -AeW -T
OT- adV -TZ
OT- adV -TT
OT -jdV -T
d
OT- aeW -ZZ
OT- JeW -ZT
3
O
OT -aew-Z Obi
OT- gaj-OZ
N
41
OT- gaj-OT
c
OT- Uef -TE
OT- uef-TZ o
a
c
OT- uef -TT .0
OT -uef -T
IzT N O N 11 lD W O N 'T lD w O N 'IT lD w O N IzT lD W O U
(uI) jalempunojg o; gidaa Z

N
N i
u (U
4.
v
3 �
c
L O
O L
0 o
Co �
G
(uI) uolle;idi:)aJd
°o Ur °o ° °O ° °O
M N N -1 r-1 O O
O 00 lD IzT N O N "I lO 00 O N cf LD 00 0" 'zT lD 00 O N ':T ',D 00 O
ri r-1 -- 1i 1-1 N N N N N m m m m T'T
(ui) aazempunojg of gjdaa
OT -IlO IA-LC
L
OT- nON -LT
ro
3
OT -nON-L a
c
OT-00-8z
OT -00 -8T °
OT -3D0 -8 0-
v
OT- daS -SZ
0
OT- daS -ST
OT -daS -8
OT- 2ny -6Z o
OT- 2nV-6T o
m
OT -Ony -6
a
u
OT-Inf -08 v
a
OT-Inf -OZ
OT- Inf-OT
OT- unf -0£
OT- unf -OZ
0
OT- unf OT o
N
OT- AeW-T£
OT- AeW -TZ
OT- AeW -TT
OT -AeW -T
OT- adV -TZ
OT- adV -TT
OT -adV -T
OT-aeW -ZZ
OT- aeW -ZT
OT -aeW -Z
OT- qaj -OZ
OT- qaJ -OT
OT- Uef -T£
OT- Uef -TZ
OT- Uef -TT
OT -Uef -T

M
N i
ai f 6
o,o �
c �
•L O
O `
� o
o �
(ui) uoi;eiidi:)aad
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o n o Un o n o
M N N •—I
O w lD ct N O c0 D N O N to w O N'1 tD W O N C tD w O r,4 'I �D w O
N — r ci r1 ei N N N N N m m m m M V
(uI) jazempunoig o; y}daa
OT- ^-N -L(
OT- noN -LT °1
OT-AoN -L
c
3
OT -00 -8Z o
OT-PO -8T o
L
OT -300 -8 a
dl
OT- daS -BZ °
OT- daS -BT
OT -daS -g
OT- 2?ny -6Z o
0
OT- Sny -6T a
.Y
OT -Ony -6
a
OT-Inf -OE v
a
OT-Inf -OZ
OT- Inf -OT
OT- unf -0£
OT- unf -OZ
0
OT- unf -OT c
N
OT- /aeW -TE
OT- AeW -TZ
OT -AeMTT
OT -AeA -T
OT- add -TZ
OT- adV -TT
OT -ady -T
OT- aeW -ZZ
OT- aeW -ZT
OT -aeW -Z
OT-ga�-OZ
OT- gaj-OT
OT- Uef -TE
OT- Uef -TZ
OT- Uef -TT
OT -Uef -T

N i
*k w
_ +r
ai m
3
oa c
c �
L O
O L
O O
(ui) uoijej!dPDJd
°o ° °O ° °O ° °O
rn N N 14 � O O
N C
C J _
m
m
N
-
O
—
aj
v
N M
E v
i` to
cu tx
to
C
Z p
0
v
c
w
O 00 tD 'T N O N d' lD 00 O N �t
r-1 r-I ci rl
(ui) jalempunoag 01 41daa
OT- 11ON -LZ
OT- ^ON -LT °J
OT -nON -L
c
7
OT- 1D0 -8Z
l7
OT -PO -8T
L
OT -100 -8 c
OT- daS -SZ
OT- daS -BT
OT -daS -B
OT- SnV -6Z o
OT- $n`d -6T o
ro
OT -Sny -6 _a
u
OT- Inf -OE v
a
OT- Inf -OZ
OT- Inf -OT
OT- unf -OF
OT- unf -OZ
0
OT- unf -OT N
OT- AeW-T£
OT- AeW -TZ
OT- AeW -TT
OT -AeW -T
OT- Jd`d-TZ
OT- Jdb -TT
OT -JdV -T
OT- JeW -ZZ
OT- JeW -ZT
OT -JeW -Z
OT- qaj -OZ
OT- qaj -OT
OT- uef -TE
OT- uef -TZ
OT- Uef -TT
OT -Uef -T
C J _
m
m
N
-
—
v
to
0
2
L
O
t
- --
O 00 tD 'T N O N d' lD 00 O N �t
r-1 r-I ci rl
(ui) jalempunoag 01 41daa
OT- 11ON -LZ
OT- ^ON -LT °J
OT -nON -L
c
7
OT- 1D0 -8Z
l7
OT -PO -8T
L
OT -100 -8 c
OT- daS -SZ
OT- daS -BT
OT -daS -B
OT- SnV -6Z o
OT- $n`d -6T o
ro
OT -Sny -6 _a
u
OT- Inf -OE v
a
OT- Inf -OZ
OT- Inf -OT
OT- unf -OF
OT- unf -OZ
0
OT- unf -OT N
OT- AeW-T£
OT- AeW -TZ
OT- AeW -TT
OT -AeW -T
OT- Jd`d-TZ
OT- Jdb -TT
OT -JdV -T
OT- JeW -ZZ
OT- JeW -ZT
OT -JeW -Z
OT- qaj -OZ
OT- qaj -OT
OT- uef -TE
OT- uef -TZ
OT- Uef -TT
OT -Uef -T