The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20081319 Ver 3_Year 1 Monitoring Report Ph II_20110218RUTMAN CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA IN SUPPORT OF THE PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. FEB 1 8 2011 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE L AURORA, BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Kip Og- 130 YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT -PHASE 2 Prepared by: Wetlands Resource Center Canal Winchester, Ohio Land Man-ageinent'Group,-Inc. Wilmington;.North,Carolina, February, 2011.' IP RUTMAN CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA IN SUPPORT OF THE PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE L AURORA, BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA MONITORING REPORT - PHASE 2 Prepared by: Wetlands Resource. Center Canal Winchester, Ohio Land Management Group,, Inc. 05 1318 Wilmington, Nortfi:Carolina �,, �; 4�F..r .ri�to y'ri't,•�=�l ',� F- 4 .j`ia�:," ;q,vr ='" t J•345',i�'�:'s't'r+•z - " f )•`* .l.i ,a,. {up;a, .,&Vi.� ,xK, „. t. `Fe_b� %� rua 201:1 ,Y,C °v, �4.= .0.,• � "rv� .� ;'c �. to �'S�G,i %� t '��.. �r '„ \i? '.= 3=r`�'.�s, "V�� A jS�A<.t�n�+,� 'i ��'. #` ^.i'• m� pp "yt5i;� 2 ,.�Z,�n. 'f�:: �v',.�4 , � "S. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.0. PROJECT OVERVIEW ..................................................................................... ............................... 2 A. Introduction ................................................................................................ ............................... 2 B. Mitigation Goals and Objectives ............................................................... ............................... 2 C. Project Implementation ............................................................................. ............................... 3 3.0. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................... ............................... 5 4.0 MONITORING RESULTS ................................................................................. ............................... 7 A. Vegetative Monitoring .... ............................... B. Hydrologic Monitoring .... ............................... 1. Overview .................. ............................... 2. Bay Forest Restoration Areas ................. 3. Wet Hardwood Forest Restoration Areas 4. Enhancement and Reference Areas....... 5. Summary of Annual Precipitation .......... 5.0 CONCLUSION ................................ ............................... 7 ................................ ............................... 8 ................................ ............................... 8 ................................ ............................... 9 ................................ ............................... 9 .............................. ............................... 12 ................................ .............................12 LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES 14 Figure1 .......................................................................................................... ............................... Phase Map Figure 2 .............................................................................. ............................... Phase 2 (Well and Plot) Map Figure 3 ............................................... ............................... Reference and Enhancement Well Map (On -site) Figure 4 ................................................................................ ............................... Estimated Hydrologic Zones Figure 5 ...................................... ............................... ......................Reference Well Map (Cameron Property) Table 1 ..................................................................... ............................... Phase 1 Planting List (March 2009) Table 2 ........................................ ............................... List of Acceptable Volunteer Species by Habitat Type Table 3 ................................. ............................... Summary of Year 1 Vegetative Monitoring Data (Phase 2) Table 4A ...................... Summary of Year 1 Hydrologic Monitoring Data (Bay Forest Restoration — Phase 2) Table 4B..... Summary of Year 1 Hydrologic Monitoring Data (Wet Hardwood Forest Restoration — Phase 2) Table 4C ................... Summary of Year 1 Hydrologic Monitoring Data (Reference and Enhancement Wells) Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C, Appendix D. Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project Phase 2 — Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report February 2011 ........................... ............................... Site Photographs ............................... Vegetative Monitoring Data (2010) .............................. Hydrographs (2010) —enclosed CD Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index Maps — enclosed CD 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On behalf of PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. (PCS), Wetlands Resource Center LLC (WRC), has completed annual monitoring of Phase 2 of the Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project. Phase 2 includes the restoration of 1,232 acres of non - riparian wetland restoration and the preservation and enhancement of 448 acres of bay forest wetlands. Two wetland community types, headwater bay forest and wet hardwood forest, were restored based on landscape position and soil composition. Construction of this phase was completed in March 2010. Work included the backfilling of interior (lateral) ditches, disking of fields, the installation of clay plugs, and the planting of over 643,950 bare -root seedlings (refer to the As -Built Report submitted June 2010). Per the approved restoration plan, monitoring of the site includes the assessment of both hydrologic and vegetative conditions over the course of a five year monitoring period. Following the completion of the earthwork, a total of one hundred twenty -three (123) 0.10 acre plots were established throughout the planted area. Approximately 90% of the vegetation plots were associated with the bay forest community and 10% were associated with the wet hardwood forest community. A total of sixty -two (62) shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed within approximately 50% of the plots. Additional wells have been installed in enhancement wetland areas and within reference wetlands (both on -site and off - site). The Year 1 annual monitoring was conducted in October and November (2010). Based upon the data collected, the Phase 2 project area exhibits high rate of survivorship ( >90 %) of planted species as evidenced by an average observed density of 547 stems per acre. The hydrologic response to restoration efforts is also evident via data collected from the shallow groundwater monitoring wells. Subsequent to the backfilling of lateral ditches and installation of clay plugs within canals (completed in March 2010), groundwater discharge from the site gradually declined. As a result, forty (40) of the sixty -two (62) wells exhibited hydroperiods greater than 5% of the growing season. It should be noted that the installation of the plugs occurred subsequent to the winter months (a period of time typically coinciding with increased hydrologic input for wetlands in this landscape position). As such, the groundwater data collected during the early growing season of 2010 do not reflect a recharged system. Groundwater recharge occurring in the fall and winter Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project Phase 2 —Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report February 2011 of 2010 has resulted in the rise of static water table levels across the site. As a result, the duration of saturation and /or inundation is expected to increase during the early growing season of 2011. 2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Introduction Wetlands Resource Center (WRC) began implementation of Phase 2 of the restoration project (encompassing 1,680 acres of the 4,213 -acre project area) in December 2009. Phase 2 is located in the central section of the larger Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project and is bounded by New Lake Road to the north, Airport Road to east, and Bama Canal to the southwest (Figure 1). Restoration activities included earthwork (backfilling of interior ditches, disking of fields, installation of clay plugs, etc.), planting of characteristic non - riparian bay and swamp forest trees, and the installation of monitoring devices. Placement of fill material within existing ditches was authorized under Nationwide Permit 27 issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit 27 with attached conditions (issued February 20, 2009), and the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Water Quality Certification with attached conditions (issued March 16, 2009). Refer to the Phase 1 As -Built Report for copies of these authorizations. The restoration project is designed to provide suitable, high - quality wetland and stream restoration to mitigate for authorized impacts associated with the PCS mine continuation project in Aurora (Beaufort County), NC (USACE Permit No. SAW- 2001 - 10096; DWQ 401 Certification No. 3771). B. Mitigation Goals and Objectives The objective of the Rutman Creek project is to provide for the functional restoration and ecological up -lift of wetland and stream habitat via the re- establishment of characteristic hydrologic conditions and vegetative assemblages. Anticipated functions and values resulting from the restoration project include increased nutrient retention /transformation, sediment retention, floodwater storage /flood abatement, wetland /wildlife habitat, and groundwater recharge. Given the scale of the restoration effort, the project will provide considerable habitat benefits on a watershed and regional level. The project offers the unique opportunity to provide habitat connectivity between Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 2 Phase 2 — Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report February 2011 vast acreage of wildlife refuge areas (to the northeast) and the Pungo River Estuary (to the southwest). Phase 2 of the project is intended to restore the hydrology and vegetation to 1,232 acres of previously disturbed wetland habitat. An additional 384 acres of preservation and 64 acres of enhancement are also included within the boundaries of Phase 2. Restoration and preservation efforts will contribute to enhanced water quality and food -web support of downstream waters. The vegetative restoration component is intended to reestablish a mixed assemblage of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and pond pine (Pinus serotina) coinciding with existing topography and the restored hydroperiod. The resulting assemblage of characteristic canopy and sub - canopy species will restore valuable refuge and feeding habitat previously e impacted by site management practices. C. Project Implementation Restoration activities within the existing farm fields were initiated in December 2009 with the backfilling of the existing network of lateral ditches. Clay plugs were then installed in five (5) specific locations within outlet canals per the approved restoration plan (Figure 2). Clay material for these plugs was excavated from existing spoil piles along Mooney Canal. The plug material was placed within the canals and subsequently compacted utilizing the excavator equipment. All the clay plugs were installed during February and March 2010. Clay plugs #7 through #10 and #13 are 50 ft in length. To provide additional reinforcement during high -flow events, filter- fabric and large rip -rap was placed over the entire length of each plug (including the upstream and downstream slopes). All water - control structures on each of the canals within Phase 2 have been removed from operation. Note that access across the water - control structures has been maintained to provide all- terrain vehicle ingress /egress for monitoring and long -term management. Planting of the 1,232 -acre restoration area was conducted by Superior Tree Planting Service during the week of March 1 through March 12, 2010. All planting activities were supervised by environmental scientists from LMG. Plant material was provided by Arborgen Nursery (Blenheim, SC). Per the restoration plan, two non - riparian vegetative communities (bay forest and wet hardwood forest) were established throughout the 1,232 -acre restoration area. The bay forest Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 3 Phase 2 — Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report February 2011 � community (approximately 1,111 acres) was planted with characteristic species such as bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) and pond pine (Pinus serotina). The wet hardwood forest community (approximately 121 acres) was planted with species such as swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxil), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). A total of 643,950 seedlings were planted (corresponding to an average density of 523 stems /acre). Table 1 provides additional information regarding community composition and total stem counts for Phase 2. Table 1. Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project — Phase 2 Planting List (March 2010) Bay Forest 1,111 Non-Riparian Restoration Common Name Scientific Name % Composition # Planted Red Bay Persea borbonia 20 11,525 Sweetbay Magnolia virgimana 15.2 89,000 Pond Pine Pinus serotina 23.6 138,450 Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 128 75,000 Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 303 177,900 Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica 162 94,800 TOTAL 586,675 Wet Hardwood Forest 121 Non-Riparian Restoration Common Name Scientific Name % Composition # Planted Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 18.0 10,300 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifoha 17.8 10,200 Cherrybark Oak Quercus falcata 18.0 10,300 Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica 18.0 10,300 Ironwood Carpinus carolinium 5.7 3,275 Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 22.5 12,900 TOTAL 57,275 GRAND TOTAL 643,950 Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 4 Phase 2 — Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report February 2011 3.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Annual monitoring is being conducted near the end of each growing season for a period of five years. This monitoring includes both a vegetative and hydrologic component per the approved restoration plan. The vegetative component for Phase 2 includes an assessment of the conditions within each of the 123 permanent monitoring plots that have been established throughout the project area (Figure 2). Hydrologic monitoring is being conducted via sixty -seven (67) automated, shallow groundwater monitoring wells recording on daily intervals (refer to Figure 2 for location of the monitoring wells). Data from the wells are downloaded on approximate three -month intervals and imported into graphing software analysis. The following are the specific success criteria for both the vegetation and hydrologic monitoring of the restoration areas. Note that the hydrologic success criterion for Phase 2 (bay forest and swamp forest community types) is identified in 2b below. (1) Demonstrated density of planted species to meet or exceed 260 trees per acre at the end of 5 years (post planting). 1 (2) The hydrologic criterion is premised on the speck community type to be restored. (a) For the nonriverine wet hardwood forest community (mineral soils), the hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a static water table at, or within, 12 " of the soil surface for 6% of the growing season (equivalent to 16 days based upon a growing season from March 11th through November 27th) during periods of normal rainfall. (b) For the nonriverine bay forest' and swamp forest communities (organic soils), the hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a static water table at, or within, 12 " of the soil surface for 10% of the growing season (equivalent to 26 days based upon a growing season from March 11th through November 27th) during periods of normal rainfall. I Volunteer species may be counted toward meeting the success criteria based upon the list of species identified in Table 2; however, these will be tracked separately. 2 As determined from long -term climatic data of published WETS Table of Belhaven, NC station. Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 5 Phase 2 - Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report February 2011 (c) For the small stream swamp (headwater riparian) community (Zero -order geomorphic position), the hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a static water table at, or within, 12 " of the soil surface for 125% of the growing season (equivalent to 33 days based upon a growing season from March 11th through November 27th) during periods of normal rainfall. Monitoring reports include results of vegetative monitoring and photographic documentation of site conditions. Reports also identify any contingency measures that may need to be employed to remedy any site deficiencies. For instance, deer browse tubes and fencing may need to be used if evidence of significant herbivory or deer browse is observed. In addition, supplemental planting may be necessary in areas of reduced survivorship. Table 2. List of Acceptable Volunteer Species by Habitat Type Swamp Forest 1,251 ac Bay Forest 1,705 ac Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana Fetterbush Lyonia lucida Red Bay Persea palustris American Titi Cyrilla racemiflora American Titi Cyrilla racemiflora Gallberry Ilex coriacea Wax Myrtle Myrica cenfera Inkberry Ilex glabra Fetterbush Lyonia lucida Dahoon Holly Ilex cassine Sweet Pepperbush Clethra alnifolia Wax Myrtle Mynca cenfera American Holly Ilex opaca High -bush Blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum High -bush Blueberry Vacanium corymbosum Wet Hardwood Forest 344 ac Small Stream Swamp 42 ac Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Red Bay Persea palustris Fetterbush Lyonia lucida Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera American Titi Cyrilla racemiflora Sweet Pepperbush Clethra alnifolia Wax Myrtle Mynca cerifera American Holly Ilex opaca Tulip Poplar Linodendron tulipifera High -bush Blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum High -bush Blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 6 Phase 2 - Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report February 2011 4.0 MONITORING RESULTS (YEAR 1) A. Vegetation Monitoring A total of 6,736 plant stems (6,733 stems of planted species and 3 stems of acceptable volunteer species) were enumerated throughout the one hundred twenty -three (123) plots. The total number of stems identified corresponds to an average density of 547 stems /acre within the project area (Table 3). Bald cypress was the most abundant woody species, with a total of 2,022 individuals identified. Other planted species such as pond pine, black gum and Atlantic white cedar were also prevalent within the monitored plots. A total of four volunteer species (eastern baccharis, American holly, wax myrtle, and loblolly bay) were observed within twelve of the plots. Natural recruitment of red bay volunteers was noted in areas in close proximity to the forested preservation areas of the tract. Refer to Appendix A for photographs of current site conditions. A comprehensive plot data table is provided in Appendix B. Table 3. Summary of Year 1 Vegetative Monitoring Data (Phase 2) Species Common Name Planted (P) or Total Volunteer V Stems # plots Average # Stems Taxodium distichum bald cypress P 2,022 110 18.38 Pinus serotina pond pine P 1,474 92 16.02 Nyssa sylvatica black gum P 1,024 96 10.67 Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar P 831 75 11.08 Magnolia virginiana sweetbay P 727 88 8.26 Quercus pagoda cherr bark oak P 151 9 16.78 Persea borbonia red bay P 127 22 5.77 Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar P 124 12 10.33 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak P 112 9 12.44 Quercus laurifolia laurel oak P 89 10 8.9 N ssa biflora swamp tupelo P 33 2 16.5 Carpinus caroliniana ironwood P 19 2 9.5 Morelia cerifera wax myrtle V 1 1 1 Ilex opaca American holly V 2 2 1 Total Planted Stems (123 Plots) 6,733 54.7 Total Planted and Acceptable Volunteer Stems (123 Plots) 6,736 54.8 Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 7 Phase 2 — Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report February 2011 The number of stems of planted species observed during the Year 1 monitoring event suggests that the site is progressing well toward the target communities. A total of 121 of the plots exceeded the minimum success criteria and contained a variety of shrub and tree species. Note that three plots (Plot #107, #108, and #110) located along a former dirt road are 0.05 -acre in size. Two of these three plots ( #107 and #108) exhibited particularly low stem counts. It was noted during the time of the monitoring that the area appeared to have been damaged by all- terrain vehicular (ATV) traffic likely associated with seasonal hunting. The access point to this area of the site will be secured and posted with 'no trespassing' signs. It is proposed that limited supplemental planting will be performed in the areas affected by ATV use. Of other note during the annual monitoring of Phase 2 was the density of herbaceous vegetation in select plots. While most planted tree seedlings will likely remain unaffected by dense herbaceous growth, some of the smaller planted material (particularly sweet bay seedlings) may be susceptible to mortality. Plots consisting of panicgrass (Panicum spp.) exhibited dense herbaceous growth covering the smaller planted seedlings. While mortality of the planted stems remained relatively low, these areas will be continued to be monitored to determine if any contingency measure is warranted. B. Hydrologic Monitoring 1. Overview Per the approved mitigation plan, a total of sixty -two (62) automated shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed throughout the Phase 2 project area the week of February 15, 2010. The number of wells installed was proportional to the acreage of the two targeted wetland community types. Specifically, fifty -six (56) wells were installed in the bay forest restoration areas and six (6) wells were installed within the wet hardwood forest areas (refer to Figure 2). In addition, four (4) automated wells were installed within existing bay forest areas targeted for wetland enhancement and five (5) wells had been previously installed within on -site bay forest reference wetlands (refer to Figure 3). The hydrologic response to restoration earthwork was limited during the early growing season. This is principally a result of the drainage network functioning during the preceding winter — a Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 8 Phase 2 — Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report February 2011 period of time coinciding with increased hydrologic input. A brief increase in water table elevations was noted in March in response to a two -day rain event (refer to hydrographs in Appendix C on enclosed CD). However, subsequent dry conditions persisted through much of the summer, resulting in a gradual decline in water table elevations across much of the Phase 2 site. Groundwater levels generally remained greater than 12 inches from the soil surface throughout the summer. Higher rainfall was documented in late September 2010 resulting in groundwater recharge across a majority of the site. 2. Bay Forest Restoration Areas Of the 56 wells in the bay forest community type, twenty -five (25) wells exhibited hydroperiods greater than 5% (corresponding to 13 consecutive days) but less than 10% (corresponding to 26 consecutive days) of the growing season. Thirteen (13) wells exhibited hydroperiods greater than 10% of the growing season (i.e. the hydrologic success criterion for bay forest wetland restoration). The remaining eighteen wells did not meet the minimum wetland hydrologic criterion (i.e. these wells exhibited hydroperiods of less than 5% of the growing season). Refer to Table 4A for a summary of the hydrologic data for the bay forest restoration wells. Hydrographs are provided in Appendix C (on the enclosed CD). The estimated hydrologic zones of Phase 2 (Year 1) are provided in Figure 4. 3. Wet Hardwood Forest Restoration Areas Within the areas targeted for wet hardwood forest restoration, four of the six wells exhibited hydroperiods of less than 5% of the growing season. One well exhibited a hydroperiod of greater than 5% but less than 6% of the growing season (corresponding to 16 consecutive days). The remaining well exhibited a hydroperiod of greater than 6% of the growing season (i.e. the hydrologic success criterion for wet hardwood forest restoration). Refer to Table 4B for a summary Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 9 Phase 2 —Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report February 2011 Oi L LOZ tienjgad jjoda�j 6uuolluoW lenuuy L RGA — Z aseyd loafoid uoileaolsaa paysaaleM 199jo uewlna -- -- X -- saA 9'ZZ LZ AoN - 0£ ides 69 OZ L L 6 6 .. .- -- -- ON E'9 Z 100 - 6Z ides v 89 606 -- -- X -- saA 611 9Z a v - 6 6 JeW Lb 601 LO L •• •- -• X ON 9'6 66 AoN - 9Z 100 9Z 966 906 •• •• -- X ON Cl 8 L l00 - 0£ ides 6 L L9 £0 L -- -- X -- saA 9'ZZ LZ ^oN - OE Ides 69 9E6 606 -- -- X -- saA 9'ZZ LZ ^oN - OE 1 aS 69 9L L 66 •• •' •- -• ON Z'ti 0 L l00 - OE ides L L 9E L6 •• •• •• X ON 8'8 ZZ l00 - 0£ ides £Z OZ L 96 -• •- -• X ON Z'6 £Z l00 - 0£ ides bZ L L L £6 •- •• -• X ON 91 66 l00 - 0£ ides OZ 9L L6 •• •• •- '• ON L'£ L l00 - 0£ ides 8 9Z 68 •- -• -• X saA 9' L L bZ AoN - 9Z 100 0£ 0 L L L8 •• •• •• ON £'9 E L l00 - OE ides b L Z8 98 -• •• -- X ON 0'8 OZ 100 - 0£ ides LZ 006 E8 -- -- •• -- ON E'9 b L 100 - OE Ides b L 89 68 -• •- X saA 9'ZZ LZ AoN - 0£ Ides 69 6Z6 6Z •• -• X ON 9'9 L6100 - 6100 LL 99 LL •- -- •- -- ON Z'b 0 L l00 - OE l aS L 6 Z9 9L -- -- X -- saA 9'Z L LZ ^oN - 9Z 100 ££ L8 £L -- -- -• X ON 9'9 9 L l00 - 0£ ides L L 8b LL -• -• •• •- ON Z'b 0 L l00 - 0£ ides L L VE 69 •- •• -- •• ON 0'9 Z 6 l00 OE 1 as £ L 9ti L9 .• •• •• ON b'E 8 l00 - OE ides 6 8Z 99 -• -- -- X ON 9'9 LL 100 - 6 100 L L LL £9 -- -- -• -- ON Z'b K 100 - b 100 L L 6E 69 -- -- -- •- ON 8'£ 0 L 100 - L 100 0 L 9ti 69 -- •• •- •• ON L'E 8100 - L 100 8 Eb L9 -- -- -- -- ON 8'E 6100 - OE ides 0 L 69 99 '- -' -• -• ON b'£ 8 l00 - OE ides 6 OE E9 •• -• X -- saA 9'ZZ LZ AoN - OE ides 69 6Z L 69 -- •• -• X ON ti'8 6Z l00 - 0£ ides ZZ 08 6b .. .. .. .. ON 9'b Z L 100 - L 100 Z L 09 Lb .. .. .. .. ON Z'V 0 L l00 - OE Ides L L bb 9b •• •• -- X ON 6'9 L L l00 - OE ides 8 L 89 Eb -• •- X ON 6'9 LL l00 - 0£ ides 86 98 Lb -- -• -- -- ON 6' L 9100 - 6 100 9 6Z 6£ •• •- •• -• ON LZ L 100 - 6 100 L 9E LE -- -- -- -- ON 9' 6 V)00 - L 100 b 9L 9E -• •- •• •• ON E'Z 9 l00 - 0£ Ides 9 9Z £E -• -- -- X ON 6'9 L L l00 - 0£ Ides 8 L L9 L£ -- -• •- X ON 91 6L l00 - OE ides OZ bL 6Z -- -- -- X ON Cl 86 l00 - 0£ ides 6L L8 LZ -- •• X -- saA 9'6 L 6 L AoN - 0£ ides 69 b6 9Z •• -- -- •- ON 0'9 Z L l00 - 0£ ides £ 6 L9 £Z -• •• •• X ON 8'8 ZZ l00 - OE ides EZ VU LZ -- -- X -- saA b' LZ bZ AoN - OE ides 99 606 6 L -- -- - ON L'£ 8100 L 100 8 Z£ L L ON Z'b 0 L l00 - 0£ ides L L 69 9 L -- -- -- X ON 9'9 9 L l00 - 0£ ides LL 99 E L -- -. .. -• ON 0'9 Z 6 l00 - OE ides £ L Z9 L L -- -- X -- SBA O'VZ LZ ^oN 9Z 100 £9 69L 6 -- •- X -- saA 9'Z L LZ AoN - 9Z 100 EE ZO L L •- -• X ON 0'8 OZ 100 - 0£ ides LZ 99 9 -- - X -- saA 9'0Z ZZ AoN - 0£ ides b9 96 E -- •- -• X ON 0'8 OZ 100 - 0£ ides LZ 69 L %SL< %91— 5Z %SZ • S'Z6 %9'Z6 - 9< (sl(eo else a 9Z) 1. � ss800nS %06 uoseaS Bulmoj � ;o aBe;uMOd elJa;lJD ABolapAH Pul;aM BullaaW SAB and n Q ; 0asuo� 10 JagwnN ;saBuoi jo sa ;ed elielpo AB°lapl(H puel ;aM Bul ;aaW sued and ;n0asuo� ;p JegwnN;saBuol (6£ 09a - 6 Uef) �,Z6 u!4 ;lnn sea jo aagwnN P01 jagwnN IIaM LZ aagwanoN - 6 6 43JEW uoseaS bu!MOJE) 0602 (Z aseyd - uol}ea PON Isaaod Ae8) Bu'JOIIuoW :)IBoloapAH O�OZ jo A.lewwnS ',VV algel N d N N t D. C R O �F+ N d N d O LL .a O O 3 cc 2 d c 'L O w .E O V O O 2 O r O N O R E co m eF N .Q I-- 0 ti A 0 04 N 0 LO N C14 fV 0 l[y clir X lC A U) N � T L A 0 N Z z Z U 0 N M � Q� O = p m N CO C5 L6 U o'^ U) L V a d U) E Ta R a LO r r Z N r •L U LO U U) > d rn 3 Q � O U Q Q U Q O T O N a O 0 M O — 0 ch O O O rn U p = A O p vi = Co N co N f0 ++ R E� dU ai Z j 01 � _ c0 C,2 U-) LO M M ) d N w O O O1 = d = O T J w _ O CV r � O d E w+ C LO LO CO z 3� CO M d Y � _ O M � a v N N M C7 = N r N Z U O o N c � o rn � c O o U) 'c O O U, f6 cu Q Y (6 N O N U � c N CU N 7 cu cu cu CL LL of the hydrologic data for the bay forest restoration wells. Hydrographs are provided in Appendix C. The estimated hydrologic zones of Phase 2 (Year 1) are provided in Figure 4. 4. Enhancement and Reference Areas As indicated above, wells were installed in both reference wetlands and those wetlands considered for enhancement. Of the twelve reference and enhancement wells, four (Bay Reference Wells #1 through #3 and Enhancement Well #3) exhibited abnormally low groundwater levels throughout the monitoring period (Figure 3). It is unclear as to the reason these areas lack wetland hydrology — as they are located within histosol soils and are located greater than 300 ft from any drainage feature. At the time of installation, it was unclear whether the lack of an observed water table was an artifact of drought conditions or a regional drainage effect. Based upon the data collected, it appears as though groundwater conditions are adversely affected by factors other than drought. The other reference and enhancement wells are located in areas that appear to be more representative of relatively undisturbed wetlands and display more characteristic hydroperiods (Figure 4). Refer to Table 4C for a summary of the hydrologic findings for these wells. Hydrographs are provided in Appendix C. 5. Summary of Annual Precipitation Overall, the annualized precipitation totals were considered normal during the Year 2 monitoring (though available precipitation datasets are either incomplete or variable). At the time of this report, precipitation data from the NOAA and the NC Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast (CRONOS) databases for the Belhaven (NC) weather station were reported only through August 31, 2010. The on -site rain gauge reported 35.53 inches of rainfall during 2010. However, the tipping bucket of the rain gauge was frozen during the latter part of the year. As a result, the total precipitation recorded is likely well below actual precipitation occurring on the site. Other resources indicate higher, but varying precipitation totals. For instance, 'Accuweather' reported 54.31 inches (estimated from cloud cover) in 2010, and 'WeatherUnderground' reported 46.55 inches for the year. Based upon long -term (30 -year) climatic data (WETS), the average precipitation total for the Belhaven station is 49.74 inches with a range of normalcy (30/70 percentile) between 45.81 inches and 52.65 inches. Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 12 Phase 2 — Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report February 2011 T w C d E U C R t C W .a c O) U c Oa m .O U _O O L O_ O N O E E N (3 N R 0 1- A o O N ti 0 NU.) x x x x x x x N 0 x x A A N 'ir N o R O D O O O Q Q Q O O O d w CD Z z z } } Z Z Z } z } N O1 V jn T z z z (n co ca ca Z Z Z Z Z } } } Z C _ O O R O O N R fA O O O 1� m O OO LO e- Q C C) O) O O O O CM N I� N M C) CD CV N Z M 3 a ° C7 w o R tm. r- d .5 a c EL.: y N c) V' M Q7 T R Z fA L N L N L G 4) U) a Q Q Q ¢ Z Q 0 C) C 0 Q z Q z Q z - - - — - Q Z C w U) U) O O O) 0 U 0 y zr_ Ta N C 'C O �C w R G N L O) Z O O O N Cl) M M � OM O M C O A C) c— CM c 0 co LO .. c c y o 0 0 U >+ rn 2 O CJ � � M r O7 E w' O O O O O O ;Z M M O M Z 3 N N N N w T A t6 ).oa3 `O— a) c a) c c m La m r Ow L N M d' LO � N � M � M � td c5 r c c c c E v) v) a) U) rn LL- E E E E Z O O O O O O O O U- LL LL LL Li- 3i 3i C 3: c N C m c co cu cu cu cu 72 C C C C m m m m m N (p cp = W W W W M U O) O Q d c Or- o tT � C O O N :C � O O) (O L O O C � C 7�< �-E Y L6 4) d r } O U I a CU C N fc0 a) 7 cn C6 Q' CL w Based upon available on -site data and data recorded at the Belhaven weather station, there were notable periods of wet and dry conditions occurring over the course of the year. Similar to other areas of eastern North Carolina, Hyde County experienced an above - normal wet period in late 2009 and early 2010. Rainfall declined considerably through the spring and summer resulting in drought conditions. Higher rainfall was documented during late September 2010 resulting in the recharge of ground water levels across the site. An additional resource used to evaluate long -term precipitation and its effect on hydrologic conditions of a site is the Palmer Hydrological Drought Index. These maps (Appendix D) depict hydrological (long -term cumulative) drought and wet conditions, which more accurately reflect responses in groundwater conditions. Site - specific rainfall data are included on the hydrographs in Appendix C. Appendices C and D are provided digitally on the enclosed CD. 5.0 CONCLUSION Vegetation and hydrologic monitoring of the Phase 2 project area indicate that the site is progressing well during the first year following the implementation of the restoration activities. Vegetation data document high rates of survivorship among the planted species. There were no significant vegetation issues noted. Supplemental planting in one area affected by ATV use by hunters will be conducted during March 2011. As anticipated (due to the relatively short -time period of hydrologic response), many of the restoration areas did not meet the target hydrologic criterion for bay forest and wet hardwood flat. However, a majority of the wells did exhibit hydroperiods greater than 5% - thus indicating a preliminary hydrologic response to the grading and earthwork completed in Phase 2. It is anticipated that static water table elevations will continue to rise across the site over time. As such, contingency measures related to wetland hydrology are not recommended at this time. Overall, Phase 2 appears to be progressing well toward the targeted wetland community types. The site will be continued to be monitored over the next five years or until such time restoration is deemed successful. Future annual monitoring reports will document conditions over time and identify any contingency measures as may be needed. Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project Phase 2 — Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report February 2011 14 FIGURES ■I� �w N o N O LL co 0 0 CD ";r O N N II 0 O ■ U O r) ^L }� W , O^^ � � O a) U W m O cu �U - Y . L Y s. 41 t • `4 i j r� m U O U m m a M o o 00 a d N I °M op Q� N M v o �;C c U fn (n U) c 0 I 00 U5 IALM A Dunbar Canal Road cn co 0 0) co cv 0 0 LO In to N m O to co co cl LO co N cn co W N Ln LL i im 0 f • • N Go Clay Canal N w L. Ln L -It co LO 0 m Lr) C4) 0 C-4 Lo ID 0 ID Fj 04 ((a3r) X 00 F— w O LO co Lr) -T co co co '0 Ln co CN U) M00 Ui CO) c) (n cr 00 r n 0 LL r- co M < co PM ca 4 B;Wa Canal 0 Iuu ' r 4- sarMr- Bay Forest (1 -3) Enhancement 1 Bay Forest (4 -5) ' Enhancement 2 Enhancement 3 ;," d�, Enhancement 4 AO r+ Legend Enhancement Well Location Reference Well Location 'I Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project Figure 3. On -site Reference /Enhancement 0 1,000 2,000 Well Map Feet r: n i ,t f? r t 3 t✓ t } s I 44 w �r•v f W, Q1 6 Fi7 1.3 • [• O -O Q O ' O O N 7 T O 3 -0 0 o O _� U O OU .. O u- 0 0 0 CV O U O U O O 3 LL U) • •� (� O O 00 0 3 N N Lr) O -0 N 0 O N N N 2 L /� N U) U) o _ a_ d V A A > CD � Q • J 0 i� IVY �., z A l zi \ C Wet Hardwood Forest (3) APPENDIX A. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (2010) (1) Baseline monitoring of plots in April 2010 (2) View of bald cypress seedling in Plot 2 Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project Phase 2 AI�LMG LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP me Environmental Consultants Site Photographs Annual Monitoring (Year 1) (3) View of black gum in Plot 3 (4) View of Atlantic white cedar in Plot 5 Rutman Creek L GG Site Photographs Watershed Restoration Project 1MNAGIMENr GROUP i— Annual Monitoring Phase 2 - Envitonmenta/Consultants (Year 1) 5) View of Plot 15 near Dunbar Canal Road (6) View of scattered pond pine seedlings Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project Phase 2 LMG LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP me Environmental Consultants Site Photographs Annual Monitoring (Year 1) (7) View of Plot 22 facing northeast (8) View of Plot 122 facing toward New Lake Road Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project Phase 2 AI�LMG LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP do Environmental Consultants Site Photographs Annual Monitoring (Year 1) (9) View of Plot 50 (10) View of bald cypress seedling in Plot 50 Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project Phase 2 LMG LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP me Environmental Consultants Site Photographs Annual Monitoring (Year 1) APPENDIX B. INDIVIDUAL PLOT DATA (YEAR 1) N CO N N VZ 101d 817 301d N Ls W to w CO N £Z;01d � N N Lo "I Lti to to - N N v v Q ZZ � Id O N N to co CD I� N O O O O 1,Z ;Old 'n O co co co O M O O 9V )Old M OZ 101d co to Lo W) r- w co O w Lo 61, 3QId N co to r- — L) co v v 86 3QId £ti 30Id °' 14 1' N M Lo Lo LI, 3QId Lo � n - covl- rnl-� N v v 96 30Id m - N CO co M r'- 617 30Id r- 00 Lo Lo 91, ;Old to to N - Ln Ln t0 C� 00 Lo to to 017 301d cc V1, )Old M NN CO co 00 N Lo N v v Ln LC) Cl, 101d 6£ 3QId N v v M 00C0Lo v IT I- ov Ov Z6;QId 0) 8£ 30Id O 'K N I'- Cl O 4 4 ;Old - r- rn Ln Ln v LE 101d M C14 N 01, ;Old I• r• rn N N o rn Lo W) 9£ 301d Lo 0 6;01d N COO co v 00 Ln o ao ao ao 8 3QId N Ln 'r' M CO IT 0) M M LA LA L 30Id 00 ib£ 401d N Ln Ln N 00 M In O 0o O O 9;01d - rn N ti r OO S ;Old v o N N LEA Lo O o Z£ ;01d r T- V 3QId Lo La N W) W) m o M O Ce) co co p £; Id - N Lo w co co r "T - Lo Lo Z ;Old 0£;01d Lo Lo O C0 OD cm N 4 ;Old - N LN CO Lo w Lo 0o 00 00 M N CD 8Z 301d a co to (14 cCL c=a w CO) LZ 30Id O LD 0) 0) L O O O M r- C C m 9Z 101d N N to aaan.aa O as 0 Q SZ; Id 00; N M ti r` �' V cn cn a m a d 0 0Q m � CO m Q c E '0'0 N Cc U c +? 0) L CD O E t 3 3 C c 0) E cm Q O c N Y -0 -0 V as a L 3 o � Q - CI � cn W D O I_ N � C: IL L m .� co 0�Q 0) ,L N a •� m U O c c cn CL cn E > > 0 6 = U O U =3 CU I_ 0 m m a) cn N CU (n " C X O L cu E U2zaa� •go � +� cm o- N 817 301d to w CO N •- � N Lo "I Lti N v v O r- co to CD 9V 301d N 'n O N O M O O 9V )Old co to 'D r- w co w Lo VV 101d CO r- i. N co £ti 30Id N Lo Lo co V, 30Id - N Lo m - (0 Lo Lo 617 30Id N to to v t0 C� 00 Lo to to 017 301d M to in Cfl Lf) 6£ 3QId M v v 00 o 0) 8£ 30Id Ln Lo ti r- rn v v LE 101d M N I• r• rn o rn Lo W) 9£ 301d N O Lo 00 r'- w to 9C 101d N IT 0) O 00 ib£ 401d co In W) 00 co I- rn CE ;01d v v o 0) O o Z£ ;01d N Lo La Ln Ln m o rn Ln Ln 6£ 301d - Lo w M r - 0£;01d N Lo Lo O N - 6Z 301d CO Lo w Lo 0o 00 00 M N N 8Z 301d N co to (14 Lo w CO) LZ 30Id LD O O M r- 00 0o 9Z 101d N N to to O Q SZ; Id N M ti r` CL m d CO m Q c '0'0 N 0) 0) L CD C C Q) `O aan.aaaaa as L. 0 0 � D IL 0�Q E ea z O U O L cu E E •go � +� cm o- ' U O Q � Ucu Q - cYi a 3L°�oFu - L i? - cn W O cu E +J Q 4% O .L C N L U O 'c O N c rn �_ :v O -0 c ._ in :3 > > O p N -0 E "a C (0 to OX i L •0 N tUn � 7 U�2 zCL �- r K 'a C ZL 30Id N Lo Lo O ti co °' T- 6L 3QId v N LN LA N N T (0 CO ti r� OL 30Id v v Ln Ln T o 0) Ln T Ln r T- 69 30Id `- T T N LA to OLocoTCO M N N 89 3QId — T N IV It co O O IV L9 3QId N T T N le It rn N N N E V- V- 99 30Id N N Lo Lo O Ln co N r- O M M 99 30Id N T Lo Lo O O T C0 M c0 q Iq V9 3QId T I I — ii le N co 0 CO O O r- O £9 101d Ln LA Ln o rn r- T m T d' le Z9 30Id N CO — N Ls an NT rl- N oo CD 0) w 69 3QId T N M w r- v N N co co 09 30Id N N N LA Lo Ln U') Ln rl- Ln N d' w to 69 3QId co N T LA LA O'1' 'IT r—Toco 0 Ln co co 89 T T M w 3QId O) T (Y N M IQ- N ti L9 30Id T T T T e} LA T N co M Ln N Ln to 99 30Id k T T T N N a LA N coON0 (] 'I V 99 30Id T M Ln an T 00 T N O) m V9 3QId N CM le Ln O) T co M M £5 30Id T T T T N v le CN N 0 0 LN cm Z9 3QId 0 N N le Ln rn N r- T (T° 'Lt v 69 30Id I(o T i L i o Ico co N Lo � ti 09 30Id T N N CO c0 't T O 0) 0) 6V 30Id T T T T L() Ln CL a dCO CO L=a o C C m 2 E- aaaaaa> m CL Ci. CL CL as o 0 0 E co m °: cn a c d a 0 Fes°- a mM co E R Z N >, C :L, O N cn N cu 7 EM C E��m U �_ Q CT L= Q Q v O c O E - �a -p U Ln o co o,o n c a Q w w - n-Coo Q cn a� O c6 E E N - c d N � ca co N L U L U O Q.� rn-, - m O C cn > O > p (0 V N co .O L E CU E .- 76 c cn m cn cn p .� E c M CU N j O LO cn cn L c U 1 2.z Z dCL H 96 3QId O ti co T- 96 30Id N 1n CD CIA V6 30Id v LLo LN rnr- o Lo r— co co £6 30Id T T at OLocoTCO N N Z6 30Id — T v Ln O O IV 66 30Id N T t* T N N N E V- V- 06 101d NTT r• r. co 68 30Id m w T CO T C0 O N N 88 30Id T T N to to "t r'- 0 CO O (o T 18 3QId w L o rn o co m f~ 98 3QId CO — a(OO T N CD Q 58 101d T N M ti r- N N �8 3QId N N LA Lo 0' U') Ln Ln co ti r` £8 30Id co Ln Lo O 'IT r—Toco 0 0 Z8 3QId T T N w cc T (Y T M IQ- N N 1,8 30Id T T T Le LA T N M O N N 08 30Id T T N Ln LA N coON0 co co 6L 3QId Lo T 8L 3QId N N le v LL 30Id T T T IV le T 0 p 9L 3 Id 0 N le le rl- N r- T 'Lt v 9L 30Id T T o c0 co CO 00 VL 30Id N N c0 't O £L 3QId CY) v le a dCO L=a O C C d aaaaaa> as O O O > co 0 �° m rc n a = a 0FQ m co E M U >, _ :L, cn L cu 7 N E��m L= Q Q cu U �. n E Q in- Q cn a� o ca E N -C c d LA CO C ca O • C L U G> c0 rn-, O C to > > O O (0 N E N CU E .- 76 c cn m CD O cn p CU CM N 0 X X v- a m K m 0 ca U 0 cu 0 m 0 x� C (6 C 0 0 6 a- rn In o Cfl ce W) W) OZ;old 6 M co 00 ZZ 6 ;old N M 'V O CA 00 N 00 6Z6 ;old r r 61,1, 101d N — Lo o C') C O O cn &0 Lo 81,1, 101d N o 0 co O &0 L66 ;old C C d > �+ C Lo L as O v o I- co co 91,1, 101d N Lo Lo Lo r CA C 966 Sold _ _ � M M m O N M (0 O m w Lo V1,1, 101d — Y Z C C to 0 I,- - O Lo 3 O CO EC M M ELL ;Old N CL O Q +' 0) U C M co co U I- O L O C) O -0 CN CO T- %- Z66 ;old — cu N r- n E .- N N CO N o) qY' X -0 O CA CA 666;o1d cu O C. O O � C0 V Cep > > E E Q C ''c_ -° V) U) U) C3 C CO 01,1, 101d " i APPENDIX C. HYDROGRAPHS (2010) (refer to enclosed CD) APPENDIX D. PALMER HYDROLOGIC DROUGHT INDEX MAPS (refer to enclosed CD)