20081319 Ver 3_Year 2 Monitoring Report Ph I_20110218

tz.
141,
✓ 6a

Pwc,i' ''1,t
Als. m
a
�� !,r ., .N" -0S%tro�s.�r,. l;l�i= �9.� <t,�', � . ti_E« F>'is ,"sr_``t`•d' lbs.
4
.. -LY.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 ..................................................................... ............................... 4
4.0 MONITORING RESULTS ................................................................................. ............................... 6
A. Vegetative Monitoring ............................................................................... ............................... 6
B. Hydrologic Monitoring ............................................................................... ............................... 7
5.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ ...............................
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
Figure 1
Figure2 ......... ...............................
Figure3 .......... ...............................
Figure4 .......... ...............................
Figure5 .......... ...............................
Table 1 ..................
Table 2 ..................
Table 3 ..................
Table 4A ................
Table 46 ................
AppendixA ..... ...............................
AppendixB ..... ...............................
AppendixC ..... ...............................
AppendixD ..... ...............................
.......................... Construction Phase Map
.................... Phase 1 (Well and Plot) Map
..................... Estimated Hydrologic Zones
.................. Reference Well Map (On -site)
.Reference Well Map (Cameron Property)
........................ ............................... Phase 1 Planting List (March 2009)
.......................... List of Acceptable Volunteer Species by Habitat Type
................... Summary of Year 1 Vegetative Monitoring Data (Phase 1)
Summary of Year 1 Hydrologic Monitoring Data (Phase 1 Restoration)
................ Summary of Year 1 Hydrologic Monitoring Data (Reference)
................................... ............................... Site Photographs
........ ............................... Vegetative Monitoring Data (2010)
....... ............................... Hydrographs (2010) —enclosed CD
........ Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index Maps — enclosed CD

i
1
t
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On behalf of PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. (PCS), Wetlands Resource Center LLC (WRC), has
completed the second year of annual monitoring of Phase 1 of the Rutman Creek Watershed
Restoration Project. Phase 1 includes the restoration of 680 acres and the preservation of 142 acres of
non - riparian headwater wetlands. Two wetland community types, bay forest and swamp forest, were
restored based on landscape position and soil composition. Construction of this phase was completed
in March 2009. Work included the backfilling of interior (lateral) ditches, disking of fields, the installation
of clay plugs, and the planting of over 329,000 bare -root seedlings (refer to the As -Built Report
submitted July 2009).
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 sixty -eight (68) 0.10 acre plots were established throughout the planted area. A
total of thirty -four (34) shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed within 50% of the plots.
Additional wells were installed within the outlet canals and select transects across former agricultural
fields to provide additional data relating to site response to grading activities. Wells have collected data
from February 2009 through the present. Please refer to the Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR)
(submitted February 2010) documenting site conditions during the 2009 growing season.
Annual monitoring for Year 2 was conducted in October 2010. Based on the data collected during this
effort, the site exhibits high rate of survivorship ( >90 %) of planted species as evidenced by the
recorded, mean density of 436 stems per acre. In addition, the restoration project area continues to
exhibit increased hydroperiods in response to the earthwork completed in March 2009. Documented
hydroperiods range between 16 consecutive days (6% of the growing season) and 108 days (41% of
the growing season). The mean hydroperiod observed was 56.3 days (21.5% of the growing season).
All but one well exhibited hydroperiods of greater than 10% of the growing season. The following AMR
provides more detailed information regarding the findings of Year 2 monitoring.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project
Phase 1 — Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
February 2011

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
A. Introduction
Wetlands Resource Center (WRC) began implementation of Phase 1 of the restoration project
(encompassing 822 acres of the 4,213 -ac project area) in February 2009. Phase 1 is located at the
northeastern end of the mitigation site and is bounded by New Lake Road, Mooney Canal, and Airport
Road (Figure 1). Restoration activities included grading, plug installation, planting of characteristic
seedlings, and 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 vast acreage of wildlife refuge areas (to the
northeast) and the Pungo River Estuary (to the southwest).
Phase 1 of the project is intended to restore the hydrology and vegetation to 680 acres of previously
disturbed wetland habitat. An additional 142 acres of preservation is also included within the
boundaries of Phase 1. 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), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora),
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 2
Phase 1 — Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
February 2011

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 impacted by site management practices.
C. Project Implementation
Restoration activities within the existing farm fields were initiated in February 2009 with the backfilling of
the existing network of lateral ditches. Clay plugs were then installed in six (6) 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 in March
2009. Clay plugs #1 through #5 are 50 ft in length. The length of clay plug #6 (within the larger Mooney
Canal) is 100 ft. 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 1 were 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 680 -acre restoration area was conducted by Superior Tree Planting Service during the
week of March 2 through March 7 (2009). All planting activities were supervised by environmental
scientists from Land Management Group, Inc. (LMG). Plant material was provided by Arborgen Nursery
(Blenheim, SC). Per the restoration plan, two non - riparian vegetative communities (swamp forest and
bay forest) were established throughout the 680 -acre restoration area. The bay forest community
(approximately 203 ac) was planted with characteristic species such as bald cypress, sweet bay
(Magnolia virginiana) and pond pine. The swamp forest community (approximately 477 ac) was planted
with species such as Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), bald cypress, green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvannica), and swamp tupelo. A total of 329,038 seedlings were planted (corresponding to an
average density of 483 stems /ac). Table 1 provides additional information regarding community
composition and total stem counts for Phase 1.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 3
Phase 1 — Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
February 2011

Table 1. Planted Species List (Phase 1— March 2009)
Swamp Forest
477 ac.
Non-Riparian Restoration
Common Name
Scientific Name
% Composition
# Planted
Swamp Tupelo
Nyssa biflora
26%
57,200
Bald Cypress
Taxodium distichum
26%
57,200
Atlantic White Cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
12%
25,050
Pond Pine
Pinus serotina
11%
23,000
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
19%
42,000
Tulip Poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
6%
13,100
TOTAL
217,550
Bay Forest
203 ac.
Non-Riparian Restoration
Common Name
Scientific Name
% Composition
# Planted
Sweetbay
Magnoha virginiana
18%
19,750
Pond Pine
Pinus serotina
26%
29,000
Atlantic White Cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
2%
2,338
Bald Cypress
Taxodium distichum
27%
30,200
Swamp Tupelo
Nyssa biflora
27%
30,200
TOTAL
111,488
GRAND TOTAL
329,038
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 1 includes an assessment of the conditions within each of the 68
permanent monitoring plots that have been established throughout the project area (Figure 2).
Hydrologic monitoring is conducted via thirty -four (34) automated, shallow groundwater monitoring wells
recording daily (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 for analysis.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project
Phase 1 — Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
February 2011
N

The following are the specific success criteria for both the vegetation and hydrologic monitoring of the
Rutman Creek Watershed Project. Note that the hydrologic success criterion for Phase 1 (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 specific 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 I1 th 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.
(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 12.5% 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.
I Volunteer species may be counted toward meeting the success criteria based upon the list of species identified in Table 2;
however, they 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 1 - Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
February 2011

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
Morella cerifera
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Dahoon Holly
Ilex cassine
Sweet Pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
Wax Myrtle
Morella cerifera
American Holly
Ilex opaca
High -bush Blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
High -bush Blueberry
Vaccinium 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
Morella cerifera
American Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
Sweet Pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
Wax Myrtle
Morella cerifera
American Holly
Ilex opaca
Tulip Poplar
Lidodendron tulipifera
High -bush Blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
High -bush Blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
4.0 MONITORING RESULTS (YEAR 2)
A. Vegetation Monitoring
A total of 3,020 plant stems (2,965 stems and 55 stems of planted and volunteer species, respectively)
were enumerated throughout the sixty -eight (68) plots. The total number of planted stems identified
corresponds to an average density of 436 stems /acre within the project area (Table 3). Of all the
planted species identified, bald cypress exhibited the highest number of individual stems (968). Other
planted species such as swamp tupelo, green ash, and Atlantic white cedar were also abundant within
the monitored plots. A total of four woody volunteer species (eastern baccharis, wax myrtle, black
willow, and winged sumac) were identified on the site.
Sixty -seven (67) of the plots exceeded the minimum success criteria of 26 stems per plot. In general,
plots exhibited a relatively diverse assemblage of shrub and tree species. Of the sixty -eight (68) total
plots, eight (8) plots consisted of less than 40 planted stems. With the exception of Plot #55, these plots
were typically located within area of increased duration of ponding — a condition likely contributing to
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 6
Phase 1— Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
February 2011

increased stem mortality. Refer to Appendix A for photographs of current site conditions. A
comprehensive vegetation plot data table is provided in Appendix B.
Table 3. Summary of Year 2 Vegetative Monitoring Data (Phase 1)
Species
Common Name
Planted (P) or
Volunteer V
Total
Stems
# plots
Average # Stems
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
P
968
65
14.89
N ssa biflora
swamp tupelo
P
842
66
12.76
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
P
489
43
11.37
Pinus serotina
pond pine
P
309
37
8.35
Chamaecyparis th oides
Atlantic white cedar
P
220
30
7.33
Liriodendron tulipifera
tulip poplar
P
71
15
4.73
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
P
66
10
6.6
Morella cerifera
I wax myrtle
I V
55
5
11
Total Planted Stems 68 Plots)
2,965
43.6
Total Planted and Acceptable Volunteer Stems (68 Plots) 1
3,020 1
44.4
B. Hydrologic Monitoring
Per the approved mitigation plan, a total of thirty -four (34) shallow groundwater monitoring wells were
installed throughout the site in February 2009. As indicated previously, lateral ditches were completely
filled by February 25 (2009) and all plugs installed by March 20 (2009). The final plug installed was
within Mooney Canal, the primary outlet for Phase 1. Data from the wells depicted a gradual decrease
in rate of discharge during Year 1 monitoring as a result of the earthwork conducted during the early
growing season of 2009.
During Year 2 monitoring, all the areas in which wells had been deployed exhibited wetland
hydroperiods (i.e. water table within 12 inches of the soil surface for >5% of the growing season). One
well (Plot #33) failed during the early growing season, and thus data were not retrievable for an
extended period of the growing season. However, of the 138 days for which data were retrievable,
water was either ponded or within 2 inches of the soil surface. Note that this same well exhibited a
hydroperiod in 2009 of 57.3% of the growing season. Based upon the information available, this well
would have readily met the hydrologic criterion for the 2010 (Year 2) monitoring period as well.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 7
Phase 1 — Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
February 2011

Of the remaining thirty -three wells, only one well (Well #55) did not meet the 10% hydrologic success
criterion. However, this well did meet the 6% threshold. Water levels were within 12 inches of the soil
surface for 16 consecutive days during the growing season (equivalent to 6.1 %) and 86 cumulative days
during the year. It appears as though the relatively higher elevation of this area and its location in the
center of a block near New Lake Road may affect the duration and amplitude of the observed
hydroperiod. Hydroperiods for all wells ranged between 16 consecutive days (6% of the growing
season) (Well #55) and 108 days (41% of the growing season) (Well #25). The mean hydroperiod for
Phase 1 (Year 2) was 56.3 days (21.5% of the growing season). Refer to Table 4A for a summary of
the Year 2 hydrologic data. Complete hydrologic monitoring data (i.e. hydrographs) are provided in
Appendix C (electronic format). The estimated hydrologic zones of Phase 1 are depicted in Figure 3.
Cumulative days of groundwater levels within 12 inches of the soil surface were significantly higher
during Year 2 than Year 1 (Year 1 R= 81.8; Year 2 R= 211.5; p <0.0001). Such data indicate that the
rate of groundwater discharge has appreciably declined, resulting in a gradual elevation of the static
water table. It should be noted that automated gauges within the plugged canals document relatively
stable, elevated water surface water levels (i.e. at top of bank). All plugs appear to be functioning as
designed and are effectively retaining surface water outflow. The amplitude and duration of saturation
for the mitigation wells appears to match or exceed that of the reference wells (refer to Tables 4A and
4B). Three wells within the bay forest reference area continue to exhibit abnormally low groundwater
levels throughout the monitoring period. There is no readily apparent cause for this condition.
However, these wells will continue to be monitored to determine if water levels respond to the
restoration of the rest of the site. With the exception of these wells, the remaining reference wells
exhibit hydroperiods between 13.0% (Hardwood Flat #1) and 27.9% (On -site Reference #2- Bay
Forest).
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 8
Phase 1 — Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
February 2011

C
O
ca
L
O
m
r
O
N
R
t
a
c
'C
O
O
V
O
O
.a
N
R
O
E
N
Q
d
H
ti
N
d
m
E
O
z
r
t
2
L
cc
C
O
N
N
cn
tm
3
0
_)
O
N
O
O
N
.Q
N
C6
a)
a
c
Ca
a`>
c
cu
0)
c
a
C
O
U
C
CB
E
x
0
U
a)
O d
C, 4)
c I
.o v)
c
aa) o 0
o .oz 0
aa) m
r O C
- � C
Q N
2 a) a)
— c
E aw '
R
IL Li
Q
L
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
z
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A
0
LO
ti
x
z
LO
N
L
N
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
z
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N
r
0
L17
z
x
CD
n
M
w m
on
u
V O
7 N
cn
a)
co
O
Co
a)
to
a)
to
4)
to
a)
to
a)
cn
N
h
N
to
N
N
a)
N
a)
N
O
to
O
N
O
N
N
Q
N
N
w
N
cn
(U
cn
N
(n
a)
co
O
Cn
O
O
O
cn
a)
!n
O
O
N
cn
h
O
N
O
to
O
to
cn
(n
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Z
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Z
}
}
}
}
}
o •�
O y,.
U
C1
C
3
0
0 c
0 O
O
Ln
v
M
CD
M
D
D
M
M
M
M
M
M
CV
N
M
M
N
M
M
M
M
N
M
M
M
M
Z
M
M
N
N
M
N
M
M
O
N
M
M
M
M
M
M
� y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
v
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
ca N
c
m
L
d
CL
>.
Lv
O
a) �
> 'C
N
N
H U
c T
Z
Z
O
P.-
ti
CD
ti
CD
P'-
!-
N
CO
r`
U
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
CO
N
N
N
CD
N
N
N
N
N
N
w O
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
N
O
O
O
CV
>
O
>
O
>
O
>
O
>
O
O
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
Z
O
z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Q
00
M
O
�
O
O
M
00
00
CO
M
W
W
Z
00
00
O
M
N
W
00
O
N
O
O
O
00
00
E
O
N
N
Cl)
N
N
CO
N
N
r
N
N
N
�_
N
_
N
_
N
_
N
_
N
_
N
_
N
N
_
_
N
N
Cl)
_
N
.--.
N
.-.
N
..�
N
N
+.
fa
Z +'
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
N
a)
a)
N
N
O
a)
O
N
N
a)
N
a)
U
�
0)
Q
N
a)
a)
Q
N
�
a)
4)
O
7.5
a)
a)
N
Cn
CO
CO
CO
to
N
U)
Cn
w
Cn
N
CO
CO
Cn
N
N
C
c c
O
O
N
N
m
O
T m
W
01
d w
w U �
3 T y
CD
O 4)
N
O Cn
O
O p O
w= r
3
CD
O
O
M
O
CD
CD
CA
CD
ZD
M
CD
M
co
CD
co
CO
CD
CD
Q
CD
CD
O
CD
CO
Cl)
CO
CO
M
CD
CD
V
LC)
M
Cl)
co
CO
CD
CD
CD
CD
0-0 0
Z
a) LCp CD
E
d C
O 31 • C
Z 7
co
N
a) N
O N
O �
J
C
L_
3
N
R
0
�
d L
> i�
CD
CD
.:t
M
U•)
00
N
O
U')
1-
00
cD
N
M
M
T
00
W
M
N
LC)
M
-�T
M
O
,
N
CD
W
Q)
CD
M
N
M
N
N
N
O
N
Lf7
N
M
N
O
N
N
O
N
DO
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
�i'
N
N
O
N
O
N
N
M
N
O
O
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
E
U
0
d
3
*
C-)
�`
«
O
M
Ln
CA
N
M
N
LQ
N
1-
N
O
N
M
Ln
M
`
M
O
M
M
V'
L()
V
ti
(3)
V
Lf)
M
LO
L()
LO
`
LO
T
L()
M
co
LLB
CD
I�
CD
Z
CM7
a)
O
O
N
.Q
N
C6
a)
a
c
Ca
a`>
c
cu
0)
c
a
C
O
U
C
CB
E
x
0
U
a)
O d
C, 4)
c I
.o v)
c
aa) o 0
o .oz 0
aa) m
r O C
- � C
Q N
2 a) a)
— c
E aw '
R
IL Li

d
v
C
O
d
C
�L
O
r
.2
CO
G
v
_O
O
L
2
N
R
4)
O
cc
E
co
00
d
ca
I--
ti N
L
�C
G
4)
O
Z
r
r
V
L
S�
G
0
N
CD
cn
a
�3
0
0
r
O
N
o
Lo
ti
A
\o
N in
X
ti
0
N Lo
x
x
X
N
0
co
A N
r
C
O
H
0 m
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
V
V
V
a)
C) 0
}
}
}
C
N
Uv
v
O
N
OL
T
\° cc
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
N
N
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
_
too
co
>.
>-
O
CA C
CD
n 0
O
O
O
r--
Q)
O
00
0 c
O
O
O
N
N
M
cn
CO
,,
L V N
a
N
O O = 'C
m
m
CL
Q
CL
Q
CL
Q
�O E V E
c
'A 3 d O
CD Z C N L
m
co
m
m
m
m
d�
>CM
�w T
R
O 'C
Z m a0i
M O :t--
O
O
O
CNO
r-
M
M
fyA C y
of U co
c,F
0 C3
J
O O
t
m m
0 - 3 04
O
O
O
m
LO
O
co
N
N
N
Z n
'D
N
M
U-)
C14
m
. D
fu
iu
m
ti
LL
z
0
li
Li
LL
U-
3
3
0
cu
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
co
v
c`o
v
m
2
2
2
O
U
a)
o Q
C �
O D)
� C
O O
O
N (p
t
N c
� c
cu Q
CD
N
Y m
O O CD
) }
U I N
cu cu
c
Of CL li

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.
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
Year 2 monitoring within Phase 1 demonstrated high survivorship among planted species across the site.
As indicated above the mean density for stems of planted species was 436 stems per acre. There were
no invasive species issues identified, and volunteers thus far do not appear to have any significant,
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 11
Phase 1 — Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
February 2011

adverse effect on shrub or tree growth. Few plots exhibit higher mortality (particularly Plot #55). These
areas will be monitored closely to determine if supplemental planting is warranted.
Year 2 monitoring also demonstrated a significant increase in the duration and amplitude of observed
hydroperiods. The rate of groundwater discharge has gradually declined, and the site overall exhibits
higher static water table levels. Hydroperiods for the site ranged between 16 consecutive days (6% of the
growing season) and 108 days (41 % of the growing season). The mean hydroperiod observed was 56.3
days of the growing season (equivalent to 21.5 %).
Based on the data collected during Year 2 monitoring, the site appears to be progressing well toward the
targeted wetland community types. The site will be continued to be monitored through Year 5 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 12
Phase 1 — Year 2 Annual Monitoring Report
February 2011

FIGURES
J

C)
0
CO
O
N
LL
III
4-
U
N
O Q
d N
C
O C:
O
L
O U
(A O
N J
4-
_O
N 12-
70
CZ
� C
N (ff
>N
Y
N
O N
L ^,
U L
C: D
m m
E�
o�
a E
U �
Fy �n
of O
o
rr \Y}1 Q
L—�–y -

`4.�r:
1
- f~
00 +
CD
op
i
7
1 •
1
M
r
M
i M to
tm ° •
N •
3 4 /
1"

�"°` Mooney Canal_

APPENDIX A.
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (2010)

(1) View of Plot 5 facing north
(2) View of Plot 20 facing northeast
Rutman Creek Site Photographs
Watershed Restoration Project LMANAGEMENT GROUProc Annual Monitoring
Phase 1 - Environmental Consultants (Year 2)

(3) View of vegetation within and adjacent to Plot 61
(4) View of area near Plot 65
Rutman Creek
Watershed Restoration Project
Phase 1
AkAMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP—
Environmental Consultants
Site Photographs
Annual Monitoring
(Year 2)

(5) View of well monitoring in March 2010
(6) View of surface water inundation near Plug #1
Rutman Creek Site Photographs
Watershed Restoration Project LMG
1 LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP w- Annual Monitoring
Phase 1 1 4 Environmental Consultants
(Year 2)

(8) Well maintenance in March 2010
Rutman Creek Site Photographs
Watershed Restoration Project LMG ENT GROUP w- Annual Monitoring
Phase 1 ! Environmental Consultants (Year 2)

(9) View of planted pond pine (March 2010)
(10) View of planted Atlantic white cedar
Rutman Creek
Watershed Restoration Project
Phase 1
LMG
LAND MANAGEMEN'I' GROUP :r:.
Environmental Conzukanr
Site Photographs
Annual Monitoring
(Year 2)

APPENDIX B.
INDIVIDUAL PLOT DATA (YEAR 2)

N
R
m
d
N
R
s
CL
V
O
L.
a
C
O
L
r
d
o;
m
r
L
r
Y
V
U
c
L4
7
w
O
a
ca
0
c
w
d
(U
M>
W
'a
C
d
C.
C.
Q
o0
Ln
N
co
N
Lo
O
O
CZ )Old
9V )Old
N
r
r
b
O
M
rn
c'o
N
0o
M
M
M
ZZ )Old
Lo
N
L9 )Old
r
O
1A
N
M
M
VV )Old
N
co
co
1,Z 101d
v
I
o
w
r
UD
ti
v
C0
CD
IV
EV Sold
co
OZ )Old
-
r
v
r
19
0)
Lo
co
Lo
N
v
It
(o
co
co
66 )Old
r
Lo
f—
`-
N
V9 )Old
(o
f-
M
IT
co
(o
M
M
86 )Old
N
0)
r
O
O
o
E9 )Old
0)
nd
L6)Old�
M
0V )Old
Lo
Ln
NNE
co
qw
C7i
r
r
00
(,Q
n
ti
96 )Old
r
r
M
6E 3p1d
r
v
((V
co
W)
(o
1,9 )Old
N
-
SL )Old
M
M
N
8£ )pld
IV
It
r
N
O
Un
I-
1-
V1, )Old
0
U')
r
r
M
M
(o
I,-
co
o
69 )Old
Cl, )Old
rn
N
oM
rn
v
~
9E )Old
O
04
C%1
04
Z6 )pld
8S ipld
r
N
�oN
N
co
O
S£)Oldrrn
In
r
M
r
I-
r
O
44)Oldr
d
LS )Old
°'
co
N
v
et
r
IV
ti£ )Old
(�
1;t
r
OOrn
O6 301d
v
at
99 )Old
cM
N
Cl
N
r
le
EE )Old
6 )old
CO
V'
N
N
SS )pld
o
(o
M
0)
m
N
v
CM
N
8 )Old
O
O
.�-��
M
of
v
N
r
r
I-
O
Q1
CD
L)Old
r
N-N
r
r
co)
M
£S )Old
co
N
O
Iq
co
00
O
9) Id
M
OE )Old
(fl
O
(o
M
M
c')
M
ZS )Old
O
`-
M
M
S )Old
6Z )pid
N
co
V.
Lo
"t
1,9 )Old
M
O
V Id
�
Mkt
8Z)pldooN
vco
rnvr
v
v
LZ )Old
N
E )pfd
N
(o
U')
Lo
r
N
Lo
Lo
N
N
9Z )OId
O
Z) Id
N
N
W)
Lo
00
(o
OO
ti
O
O
4 )Old
SZ )Old
N
tt
Ct
M
�
tiZ )Old
00
co
m
N
N
LV )Old
CL
M
M
m
C.
= C.
c
m
a
d
0
d
c
a_a_a_a_aa_a_
cl)
m
=c
�°
m
O
VV
M C.
c
as
�
a
a_a_a_a_aa_a>
O06
=c
0
c
0
a_aaa_a_a_a_>
m
m
as
a
a
o
o �
O
N
U) C.
N
N
m
m
EE
d
m
010a
E
E
L
co
C.
(L
cc
Z
a)
0
cl)
c C.
a
a)
o
to
O
E
3
a
c
cn
N
E
rn
a
co
`
L
Q
O
:-
C
O
-
Q
—
Z
C
U
U
(o
o
N
3
N
3
0
�
Q
O
cn
in
Q
O
s
Q
r
Q
N
E
O
E3cLn
U
N
.
Q-
�
U)
N
p
C
ctti
U
d+L
(Ei
Q
N
Q
a)
L
E
.�
D
'`.
5
vi
.—
ca�.QNLDC�
U
'++
C.
LO
C
C
--.
.0
cu
CU
C
Mn
cA
>UQ,QO'
C
->o
w
oa
�
c:=
L
'p
3
N
C a
E'X�
=cn
O
N
N
m
N
.O
E
to
D
0
X
w
O
Uti
C
ca
z
E
G>
.0
o0
N
M
O
N
N
9V )Old
r
r
M
M
M
9V )Old
N
CC)
r
Lo
Lo
L9 )Old
0)
N
M
M
VV )Old
N
r
�
O
v
I
o
w
99 )Old
UD
ti
v
CD
IV
EV Sold
-
v
S9 )pld
19
0)
-
I
N
It
W)
ZV )Old
Lo
f—
Lo
N
V9 )Old
M
co
O
LA
1,V )Old
0)
C)
v
o
E9 )Old
0)
N
M
M
0V )Old
Lo
Ln
co
N
e~
M
Z9 )Old
00
00
M
M
r
O
M
M
6E 3p1d
r
((V
W)
(o
1,9 )Old
N
M
M
v
8£ )pld
r
a
M
09 )Old
0)
(D
0
U')
v
v
LE )Old
a
69 )Old
rn
N
oM
rn
W)
~
9E )Old
(A
-
c000
8S ipld
N
�oN
co
le
S£)Oldrrn
In
r
r
r
O
d
LS )Old
°'
co
0)
o
r
IV
ti£ )Old
1;t
r
OOrn
v
at
99 )Old
N
r
le
EE )Old
N
CO
V'
N
N
SS )pld
o
(o
0o
0)
m
N
v
Z£ )pld
N
O
O
O
M
O
VS )Old
N
r
O
co
YE )pfd
cN•-
N-N
r
M
£S )Old
N
N
0,
00
M
OE )Old
(fl
O
(o
(o
Lo
c')
M
ZS )Old
c
`-
co
M
6Z )pid
co
V.
Lo
"t
1,9 )Old
aoaorn
�
Mkt
8Z)pldooN
vco
rnvr
v
v
LZ )Old
N
(o
U')
Lo
N
Lo
Lo
�
N
9Z )OId
N
r
W)
Lo
Lo
I-
OO
ti
N
N
M
SZ )Old
N
M
�
tiZ )Old
00
co
m
N
N
LV )Old
M
M
m
m
a
d
d
c
cl)
m
o
VV
M C.
>
d
d
>
a_a_a_a_aa_a>
=c
0
4)
r
0
a_aaa_a_a_a_>
as
a
o
o �
O
N
N
m
EE
d
m
E
E
C.
(L
cl)
c C.
a
0�a
U
0
`
H
Z
d
�
_
Z
O
(7
O
s
Q
r
Q
N
E
O
E3cLn
t
a
.
Q-
�
U)
N
p
C
ctti
U
E
(Ei
cu
O
0).
Q
a)
co
E
"O
-Fu
X
cu
JM3:
ca�.QNLDC�
w
m
'p
U
N
O
N
N
c6
E
w
O
C-
C
ca
E
G>
.0
•U
L
>
,c
C
L
U
cu
cu
c
cm
m
CU
C
—
N
L
cn
Q
>1
N
Q`
O
L
-
=
'a
'L
CD
U
"_
0
0
w
1=
U
L
cu
cn
a
=
Z
N
0
?
co
•L
N'X0CMU)�ON
N
C3
cu
N
U
N
3
c
O
X
co
U
LL
a-
0)U)
i�O
F�
a
N
o0
N
N
O
N
N
89 Sold
r
M
0
'o
r
L9 )Old
N
M
M
N
r
�
O
co
99 )Old
CD
a)
-
S9 )pld
19
I
I
N
It
le
Lo
f—
N
N
V9 )Old
M
r
O
LA
0)
C)
O
o
E9 )Old
N
M
M
Lo
Ln
co
r
m
(D
Z9 )Old
r
r
M
M
r
co
1,9 )Old
N
r
M
M
M
09 )Old
r
r
69 )Old
W)
&0
(A
-
8S ipld
N
Lo
Lo
In
r
r
r
O
d
LS )Old
r
r
r
a
1;t
r
OOrn
at
99 )Old
N
r
N
CO
V'
N
N
SS )pld
r
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
VS )Old
N
r
O
O
N-N
£S )Old
N
a
(fl
O
(o
(o
Lo
M
M
ZS )Old
co
V.
Lo
"t
1,9 )Old
�
v
vco
rnvr
v
v
OS )Old
N
(O
CO
Lo
r
�
N
6V )Old
N
r
Iq
O
I-
OO
O
8b )Old
N
�
00
O
Lo
LV )Old
M
M
4)
d
d
c
C-
c gi
M C.
o
m N
>
*+
°: d
a_aaa_a_a_a_>
L
O
as
a
o
o >
m
E
E
e=a
cl)
c C.
a
U
H
i- Q
d
�
Z
c
O
N
O
E3cLn
t
�
(L)
U)
N
ctti
Q
p
c
c
N
o
E
U
JM3:
ca�.QNLDC�
(1)
cu
O
m
�
ca
E
L
>
C
d
N
L
U
N
—
=;.-
—
U
CD
m
CL
"_
cp-
c:
- D)
L
Q
O
>
N
0
0
O
•L
N
C3
cu
N
U
3
c
—
cn
co
E
0
0)U)
i�O
N
N
,
X
1ULLS2Zai-To20

APPENDIX C.
HYDROGRAPHS (2010)
(refer to enclosed CD)

APPENDIX D.
PALMER HYDROLOGIC DROUGHT INDEX MAPS
(refer to enclosed CD)
r