20071055 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20111102

UN-) � b55
CUTAWHISKIE CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
2011 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 4)
HERTFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NCEEP CONTRACT NO. D06066 -A
PREPARED FOR:
NCDENR — ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -16152
I-
-ago
AugC11161
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
AND
Atkins North America, Inc.
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
NOV - 2 2011
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. ............................... 1
2.0
PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................ ...............................
5
TableIII
2.1 Project Objectives ................................................................................. ..............................5
TableIV
2.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach ............................ ............................... 5
2.3 Location and Setting ............................................................................ ...............................
6
10
2.4 History and Background ...................................................................... ...............................
7
3.0
PROJECT MONITORING AND RESULTS .................................................... ..............................9
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment ..................... ...............................
I 1
3.1 Vegetation Assessment ......................................................................... ..............................9
Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ................................... ...............................
12
3.2 Stream Assessment .............................................................................. .............................10
Morphology and Hydrologic Monitoring Summary ............................ ...............................
13
3.3 Wetland Assessment ............................................................................ .............................15
Wetland Criteria Attainment ................................................................ ...............................
4.0
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... ...............................
15
5.0
REFERENCES ............................................................................................... ...............................
15
APPENDIX A: VEGETATION RAW DATA
Vegetation Survey Data Tables Al -A6
Site Vegetation Photo Stations
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
APPENDIX B: GEOMORPHOLOGIC RAW DATA
Table B2. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Cross - Section Plots: B -1 to B -6 and Stream Photos
Longitudinal Profile Plot
Bankfull Event Photos
APPENDIX C: WETLAND RAW DATA
Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
APPENDIX D: CURRENT CONDITIONS AREA PLAN VIEW
LIST OF TABLES
Table I
Project Restoration Components ............................................................. ..............................6
Table II
Project Activity and Reporting History ................................................... ..............................7
TableIII
Project Contacts ....................................................................................... ..............................8
TableIV
Project Background ................................................................................. ..............................9
Table V
Vegetation Plot Summary .................................................................... ...............................
10
Table VI
Hydrological ( Bankfull) Verification ................................................... ...............................
10
Table VII
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment ..................... ...............................
I 1
Table VIII
Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ................................... ...............................
12
Table IX
Morphology and Hydrologic Monitoring Summary ............................ ...............................
13
Table X
Wetland Criteria Attainment ................................................................ ...............................
16
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A i 2011 Monitoring Report

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1. Site Location .......................................................................................... ............................... 3
Figure 2A, 2B. Current Conditions Plan View ............................................. ............................... Appendix D
Figure 3. Cutawhiskie Creek 30 -70 Precipitation Graph ............................. .......................Appendix C
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A ii 2011 Monitoring Report

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site ") was constructed for the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) to provide compensatory stream and wetland
mitigation in the Chowan River Basin. This restoration project is located on an unnamed tributary (UT)
to Cutawhiskie Creek on a 22.9 acre Site located in Hertford County (Figure 1). The project includes
stream restoration (Priority 1) and preservation, as well as riparian wetland restoration and enhancement.
The following report summarizes the monitoring activities that have occurred in the fourth year of project
monitoring (2011) at the Site. Site construction began and was completed in November 2007. As -built
surveys for the Site were performed in February 2008, and first year monitoring was conducted in 2008.
To be deemed successful the Site must satisfy vegetative and hydrologic success criteria; and verify
restored stream channel stability for a minimum of five years or until the success criteria is achieved. The
following report summarizes the results of the 2011 monitoring.
Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation monitoring for Year 4 was performed based on the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
Levels I and 2 (Lee et al. 2006). CVS methodology determines density and survival of planted species,
and individuals resulting from natural regeneration. Plot locations are shown in Figures 2A and 2b
(Appendix D). The taxonomic standard for vegetation follows Flora of the Southern and Mid - Atlantic
States (Weakley 2010).
Vegetative monitoring success will be achieved if plot data indicates the average number of planted stems
exceeds 320 stems per acre after the third year of monitoring and 260 stems per acre after the fifth and
final year of project monitoring. Based on Year 4 surveys, the average count of the surviving planted
species is 461 stems per acre. If volunteer species are included, the total number of stems increases to
5,771 stems per acre. The Site has met the 4`h year criterion and is on target to exceed the established
success criteria for vegetation based on the survival of the planted species.
Stream Assessment
Success criteria for the restored stream reach has been established to confirm that no significant changes
have occurred to the dimension, pattern, profile, and bed material over the 5 -year monitoring period.
Location surveys of the constructed features were conducted to verify the performance of the stream. A
total station survey was performed to describe the stream longitudinal profile and six permanent stream
cross - sections (3 riffles and 3 pools). Overall, the stream channel bed form and banks are stable. Based
on the cross - sections, longitudinal profile and visual observations, the channel dimensions have not
changed significantly compared to as -built conditions.
Wetland Hydrology Assessment
Success criteria for wetland hydrology require that restored wetland areas be inundated or saturated by
groundwater within 12 inches of the ground surface for a period of time during the growing season
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A 1 2011 Monitoring Report

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A 2 2011 Monitoring Report

CHOWAN RIVER BASIN HERTFORD
(CU03010204) COUNTY
eher „� 258j
onto y`
t
t o urfrees o
�7 - Ma leton
3 1
n +ylin[on
7 7
1!1 5 461
' Menola Union Cohela i
F 06 R HarDrellsv
St. John 7h. q: hoskie 10 561
6
008 n 4 7� Roanoke- Chowon CC 6
SITE DIRECTIONS:
From Woodland, travel East on US Route 258 2.5 mules
Turn Right on Jim Hardy Road. continue 2 mites.'
Site is on Right
qwii-
...
O.'�SG` it .• \ / J%
"•' .....r -_% i r a.,• p9 ,lam. A_ �( —..� 3
r s
Po
Porecqu
� x�a SITE r
LOCATION �� � a6,
i
it Waodlmd -^ % -• _
13
AV
kb,-t', k _
Z \ � ,yam¢
.. `` �I ,, t�
A. �'rryr'7 g RQ
i ieek.
� 2 MILES ' 0 2 MILES
�, r -
i`ry' acs e \` SCALE: 1"=2 MILES
Prepared by: Project: t SITE LOCATION Dwn. By: Ckd By: FIGURE
RLJ JWG
CUTAWHISKIE CREEK Date:
RESTORATION SITE OCT 201
Scale:
MONITORING REPORT AS SHOWN
ESC Project No.:
Hertford County, North Carolina 100004926

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A 4 2011 Monitoring Report

consistent with other wetlands located in similar settings. The growing season in Hertford County begins
on March 28 and ends on November 7 (225 days). In order to achieve hydrologic success, saturation
within 12 inches of the ground surface is required for between 12 and 28 consecutive days (5 to
12.5 percent). The results of the Year 4 hydrologic monitoring indicate that all gauges exhibited
saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface for at least 7.6 percent of the growing season. The
period of saturation ranges from 17 to 44 days or (7.6 and 19.6 %) with an average of 29.8 days (13.2 %)
of the growing season.
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 Project Objectives
Site restoration activities included the excavation of a new stream channel, limited floodplain excavation,
removal of stumps and debris, existing channel backfilling, on -site drainage ditch removal, and final
grading and soil preparation within the adjacent floodplain. These activities were proposed in order to
reintroduce surface water flood hydrodynamics from a 0.9- square mile watershed along the newly
restored length of stream and floodplain. The new channel was constructed to reflect regional stream
characteristics and accommodate bankfull flows. Characteristic wetland soil features, groundwater
wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation communities are expected develop in areas adjacent to the
constructed channel. Wetland and adjacent slope soil surfaces were restored and the Site reforested to
promote riparian and upland slope hardwood communities. Plant community associations were designed
to mimic various indigenous communities described by Schafale and Weakley (1990), including Coastal
Plain Levee Forest, Cypress -Gum Swamp, Mesic —Mixed Hardwood Forest, and Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp.
Specific ecological benefits anticipated as a result of on -Site restoration activities are as follows:
• Stream channel restoration will reintroduce stable bankfull dimension, pattern, and profile along
restored stream reaches, which is expected to enhance lotic habitat quality and stream function.
• Floodplain excavation adjacent to restored streams will restore the characteristic flood regime, as
well as provide a lateral hydrologic input to restored wetland areas adjacent to the UT and within
the greater Cutawhiskie Creek floodplain.
• Restored and enhanced wetland areas will help to improve water quality via nutrient removal,
increase local vegetative biodiversity, provide wildlife habitat, and serve as a forested corridor,
linking the Site with adjacent forested areas.
2.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
The primary restoration features within the Site include the UT to Cutawhiskie Creek and approximately
11.9 acres of drained, hydric soils. The UT had been dredged and straightened, such that it did not exhibit
stable dimension, pattern, and profile features. Side -cast material (spoil piles) from dredging was
deposited along the west bank of the former channel. A moderate headcut (approximately 2 foot drop in
elevation over 20 linear feet of stream channel) was observed near the upstream (north) extent of the Site
boundary, indicating vertical instability. Due to its high level of entrenchment caused by dredging, large
flooding events were confined within the former channel.
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A 5 2011 Monitoring Report

On -site restoration activities provide the following project mitigation units:
Table I: Project Restoration Components
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No. D06066 -A
Mitigation Units
Linear Footage
Project Segment
Mitigation
(LF)
or Reach ID
Type
Approach
or Acreage (AC)
Stationing_
Comment
UT to Cutawhiskie
Creek
R
Pi
2,540 LF
0+00-25+40
(active restoration)
Passive restoration
through floodplain
UT to Cutawhiskie
not stationed.
Creek
R
NA
359 LF
NA
Braided reach
measured as straight
(passive restoration)
line distance to
outfall
2593 LF actual
design units,
Stream Preservation
P
NA
519 LF
NA
however only
(Cutawhiskie Creek)
20 percent is
available for SMU
Riparian Wetland
R
NA
11.9 AC
NA
Restoration
1.1 AC actual
design units,
Riparian Wetland
WE
NA
0.6 AC
NA
however only
Enhancement
0.6 LF available as
WMU
R = Restoration PI = Prionty 1
P = Preservation NA = Not applicable
WE = Wetland Enhancement
2.3 Location and Setting
Land uses in the vicinity of the Site consist primarily of agriculture, forest, pastureland, roadside
shoulders, and residential lots. Row crops including soybeans, cotton, and corn are actively cultivated on
the Site and surrounding areas. The Site is immediately adjacent to active rowcrop agriculture and
timberland. There is no livestock or poultry production in the vicinity. Timber is actively harvested from
adjacent forested areas. A large, contiguous bottomland hardwood stand was harvested just west of the
Site along the Cutawhiskie floodplain in the spring of 2006. The Site encompasses approximately
22.9 acres of primary and secondary floodplain associated with Cutawhiskie Creek. The Site includes a
UT that flows into Cutawhiskie Creek from the north (Figure 1). Portions of the Site had been logged
prior to restoration activities, while other areas within the Site were actively managed for timber or
agricultural production. Prior to restoration, the Site vegetation was generally characterized by
bottomland hardwood forests along un- logged areas on the Cutawhiskie Creek floodplain and low
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A 6 2011 Monitoring Report

terraces, row crops including soybeans and corn, and successional communities associated with cut -over
timberland.
2.4 History and Background
Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No. D06066 -A
Activity Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
N /A*
December 2007
January 2007
Final Design (90 percent)
N /A*
December 2007
January 2007
Construction
N /A*
N /A*
November 2007
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
November 2007
N /A*
November 2007
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
November 2007
N /A*
November 2007
Bare Root Seedling Installation
February 2008
N /A*
February 2008
Mitigation Plan
April 2008
February 2008
April 2008
Minor repairs made filling small washed out areas
N /A*
N /A*
N /A*
Final Report
N /A*
N /A*
N /A*
Year I Vegetation Monitoring
November 2008
August 2008
November 2008
Year 1 Stream Monitoring
November 2008
September 2008
November 2008
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring
November 2009
September 2009
December 2009
Year 2 Stream Monitoring
November 2009
September 2009
December 2009
Year 3 Vegetation Monitoring
November 2010
September 2010
November 2010
Year 3 Stream Monitoring
November 2010
September 2010
November 2010
Year 4 Vegetation Monitoring
November 2011
September 2011
November 2011
Year 4 Stream Monitoring
November 2011
September 2011
1 November 2011
*N /A- Activities and reporting history for these items are not applicable to this restoration project
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A 7 2011 Monitoring Report

Table I1I. Project Contacts
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No. D06066 -A
Prime Contractor
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
(919) 755 -9490
Designer
Atkins (previously EcoScience Corporation/PBS &J)
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 876 -6888
Construction Contractor
Anderson Farms
179 NC 97 East
Tarboro, NC 27886
(252) 823 -4730
Planting Contractor
Carolina Silvics
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, NC 27932
(919) 523 -4375
Seeding Contactor
Anderson Farms
179 NC 97 East
Tarboro, NC 27886
(252) 823 -4730
Seed Mix Sources
Erosion Supply Company
8817 Midway West Rd
Raleigh, NC 27617
(919) 787 -0334
Nursery Stock Suppliers
South Carolina Super Tree Nursery Company
5594 Highway 38 South
Blenheim, SC 29516
(800) 222 -1290
Monitoring Performers
Atkins North America, Inc.
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 876 -6888
Stream Monitoring POC
Jens Geratz
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Jens Geratz
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A 8 2011 Monitoring Report

Table IV. Project Background
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No. D06066 -A
Project County
Hertford
Drainage Area
0.9 square miles
Impervious cover estimate M
0
Stream Order (UT/ Cutawhiskie Creek)
1 st order / 3rd order
Physiographic Region
Coastal Plain
Ecoregion (Griffith and Omernik)
Mid- Atlantic Flatwood
Rosgen Classification of As -built
E5
Cowardin Classification
Stream (R3UB2)
Dominant soil types
Craven fine sandy loam (Aquic Hapludults)
Leaf loam (Typic Albaquults)
Wilbanks silty clay loam (Cumulic Humaquepts)
Reference Site ID
Black Branch, Bullard Branch, UT to Town Creek
USGS HUC for Project
03010204
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03 -01 -02
NCDWQ classification for Project
C -NSW
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d
listed segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
N/A
Percent of project easement fenced
N/A
3.0 PROJECT MONITORING AND RESULTS
3.1 Vegetation Assessment
Five vegetation monitoring (10 x 10 m2) plots were established to monitor planted vegetation within
Site's restoration and enhancement areas. Site vegetation was monitored in accordance with the
guidelines and procedures developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) (CVS -EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Level 1 -2 Plot Sampling Only, Version 4.0, 2006). Established vegetation
monitoring plot locations are displayed on the Current Conditions Area Plan View (Appendix D).
Vegetative monitoring success will be achieved by plot data indicating an average number of planted
stems exceeding 320 stems per acre after the third year of monitoring and 260 stems per acre after the
fifth and final year of project monitoring. During Year 4 monitoring, the Site exceeded the vegetation
success criteria with an average of 461 planted stems per acre. If volunteer species are included, the total
number of stems increases to 5,771 stems per acre. Table V summarizes vegetation plot density for the
first four years of monitoring. Refer to Appendix A for CVS vegetation data collected during Year 4
monitoring.
Chinese privet (Ligustrtun sinense), an exotic invasive, was found growing densely along the lower reach
of the stream channel. During the winter of 2010, the Prime Contractor (Restoration Systems LLC)
initiated their plan to manage exotic species Chinese privet on the Site. Dense thickets of Chinese privet
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A 9 2011 Monitoring Report

were sprayed along the southwestern Site boundary (Figure 2A and 2B, Appendix D) and solitary
specimens located along Cutawhiskie Creek. Given the vigorous nature of Chinese privet, the Site will
continue to be monitored in order to maintain control of the species.
Table V. Vegetation Plot Summary
Planted Stems per Acre
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No. D06066 -A
Plot
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
1
728
688
688
526
See 2010 Monitoring Report
2
688
647
647
567
08 -27 -11
3
688
688
567
607
4
1 688
1 486
324
243
5
567
486
394
364
MEAN
672
599
518
461
3.2 Stream Assessment
In order to document stable bankfull dimension, pattern, and profile along the restored channel, annual
stream assessment surveys (longitudinal profile and six channel cross - sections) were undertaken
(locations shown on Figure 2A and 2B, Appendix D). The longitudinal profile and channel cross- section
plots are located in Appendix C. Channel geomorphic data is summarized on Tables VIII and IX.
Success criteria for stream restoration include 1) successful classification of the reach as a functioning
system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel permanence indices indicative of a stable stream system. Overall
the stream survey data indicates a stable channel with very little lateral or vertical movement; balanced
aggradation/degradation processes; and a rapidly developing, diverse riparian buffer. One bankfull event
documented on August 27, 2011 (Hurricane Irene) further demonstrates stream stability. This is the
fourth bankfull event that has been documented during the past four years of monitoring. No stream
problem areas were identified during Year 4 monitoring.
Table VI Hydrological ( Bankfull) Verifications
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No. D06066 -A
Date of Data Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method
Photo Number
11 -16 -09
11 -14 -09
Photo documentation
See 2009 Monitoring Report
03 -04 -10
03 -03 -10
Photo documentation
See 2010 Monitoring Report
11 -18 -10
09 -28 -10
Photo documentation
See 2010 Monitoring Report
09 -09 -11
08 -27 -11
Photo documentation
Photo 1 -2, Appendix B
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A 10 2011 Monitoring Report

Table VII. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No. D06066 -A
Segment/Reach: 2,540 feet
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
B. Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
C. Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F. Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
G. Rock Vanes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
H. Root Wads
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A 11 2011 Monitoring Report

NCEEP Contract No. D06066-A 12 2011 Monitoring Report
C,
O
tr)
Q
z
z
r-
00
C'I
rq
C�
Cq
IXv
C)
1
C
l-
al
z
z
LU
.E
SE
z
z
cz
C)
+
M
oo
oo
v)
rq
z
X
CD
r-
a,
Nz-,
k!4,
4
r-
C,
Z
rq
z
cq
z
rn
'Y
U
,u
rq
r-:
Cq
Z
z
kn
\4
E
ai =
x
,
-
7
I ng
cu 9z
r"
o6
r)
rq
z
z
m
�7q
i
Z
Z
oo
Z
CA
cj
Ln
cl
z
r-
cq
c-j
z
CD
<
<
Q
<
z
z
Z
z
z
z
z
z
to
<
ca
Z
Z
z
z
r
z
z
z
cq
O
X
<
v
9e
<
<
¢
X37:
oc
oc
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
cu
>
4w
:�
— <
<
<
—
z
z
z
Z
z
z
z
Iv -
<
<
Ak
9A-
Qj
>
<
<
<
<
>
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
w
71
<
<
<
<
<
—
z:
z
z
z
z
z
z
<
<
<
Q
Q
<
<
<
<
z
z
z
z
z
z
—Z
OM
<
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
<
Q
<
<
Q
<
Q
Q
<
<
Q
Q
z
Z
4
4
z
^ "%.
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
R
cn
z
z
z
z
z
.2
P5
cz
1
=
E
E
0
to
a
,I.
w
u
v
un
U
u
LL
u
U
~O
ti
>,
73
u
u
�T.
=
U
=
>u
cz
�2
r-
ea
C)
F
Lt+
w
12
2
E
NCEEP Contract No. D06066-A 12 2011 Monitoring Report
C,

NCEEP Contract No.DO6O66+\ 13 2Ol) Monitoring Report
Cn
IRV
Cn
IC
cn
00
m
Ky
1 14
It
to
E
tjD
to
E
fl
6.
NCEEP Contract No.DO6O66+\ 13 2Ol) Monitoring Report

NCEEP Contract No.DO6O60-\ 14 2011 Monitoring Report
RIM
MN
ME
11
u
Do
m
00
r-
Oc
It
NCEEP Contract No.DO6O60-\ 14 2011 Monitoring Report

3.3 Wetland HydrologyAssessment
Success criteria for wetland hydrology require that restored areas be inundated or saturated by
groundwater within 12 inches of the ground surface for a period of 5 to 12.5 percent of the growing
season. The growing season in Hertford County begins on March 28 and ends on November 7
(225 days). In order to achieve hydrologic success, saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface is
required for between 12 and 28 consecutive days during the growing season (5 to 12.5 percent). The
results of the Year 4 hydrologic monitoring indicate that all gauges exhibited saturation within 12 inches
of the ground surface for at least 7.6 percent of the growing season (Appendix Q. The average saturation
period for all gauges was 29.8 days (13.2 %) ranging from 17 to 44 days (7.6 and 19.6 %).
Figure 3 (Appendix C) shows a comparison of 2011 monthly rainfall to historical precipitation for
Hertford County. The figure shows average rainfall data collected between 1948 and 2011 and compares
30 percent and 70 percent of all observations with the actual 2011 monthly rainfall amounts to determine
average. Monthly rainfall amounts were below the 30`x' percentile during four months of the growing
season. Table X summarizes wetland hydrology criteria for Year 4 monitoring.
4.0 METHODOLOGY
No unavoidable deviations from initially prescribed methodologies were implemented as part of Year 4
monitoring activities.
5.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2006 CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.0 ( http : / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm)
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. 2010. Flora of the Southern and Mid - Atlantic States. University of North Carolina
Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
944pp.
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A 15 2011 Monitoring Report

Table X. Wetland Criteria Attainment
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site - EEP Contract No. D06066 -A
Hydrology
Monitoring
Year
Gauge ID
Wetland Criteria Met
Maximum
Consecutive
Saturated Days
(% of growing
season)
Total Number of
Saturated Days
(% of growing
season)
<5%
5-12.5%
>12.5%
1
✓
17(7.6)
67 (29.8)
2*
✓
12(5.3)
82 (36.4)
1
3
✓
59 (26.2)
73 (32.4)
4
✓
57 (25.3)
79 (35.1)
5
✓
15(6.7)
37 (16.4)
l
✓
26 (11.6)
54 (24.0)
2 **
✓
7(3.1)
32 (14.2)
2
3
✓
29 (12.9)
54 (24.0)
4
✓
32 (14.2)
59 (26.2)
5
✓
22(9.8)
39 (17.3)
1
✓
14(6.2)
45 (20.0)
2
✓
23 (10.2)
63 (28.0)
3
3
✓
19(8.4)
58 (25.8)
4*
✓
22(9.8)
40 (17.8)
5
✓
12(5.3)
33 (14.7)
l
✓
23 (10.2)
67 (29.8)
2
✓
44 (19.6)
98 (43.6)
4
3
✓
26 (11.6)
77 (34.2)
4
✓
39 (17.3)
78 (34.7)
5
✓
17(7.6)
48 (21.3)
Vegetation
Monitoring
Year
Vegetation Density Met
Tract
Density
(Planted Stems)
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot 5
1
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
672
2
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
599
3
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
518
4
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
461
*Missing data due to gauge malfunction. In both cases, would have likely extended the maximum consecutive saturated days.
* *Gauge moved after year 2 to avoid draining effects of the UT. Initial position was directly adjacent to stream.
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A 16 2011 Monitoring Report

APPENDIX A: VEGETATIVE DATA
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A 2011 Monitoring Report

Table Al: Vegetation Metadata
Report Prepared By
Adam Efird
Date Prepared
10/11/2011 15:28
Database name
Cutawhiskie _2008- 2011_CVS Data.mdb
Database location
G:\Prcjects\Projects06 \06 -306 Cutawhiskie
Creek\Mitigation Monitoring \201 1 (Year 4)
Monitoring \Veg
Computer name
RALH3TDXF1
File size
35229696
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets,
and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Pro', 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 b 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.
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 lot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
D04020
Project Name
Cutawhiskie Stream Restoration
Description
restoration monitoring
River Basin
Chowan
Length (ft)
2,540
Stream-to-edge width (ft)
6
Area (sq m)
8
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
5
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

Table A2 Vegetation Vigor by Species
Table A3.Ve2etation Damage by Species
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
1
Liquidambar
styraci ua
3
Nyssa biflora
2
26
1
2
Nyssa bi ora
1
12
5
1
9
0
4
Qttercus lyrata
10
Quercus phellos
2
7
3
1
FTOT-,
Quercus pagoda
1
3
1
3
TOT:
6
4
64
Quercus phellos
1
5
1
2
Taxodium distichum
9
8
2
TOT:
6
12
38
6
1
17
Table A3.Ve2etation Damage by Species
Table A4. Vegetation Damage by Plot
Species
All
Damage
Categories
(no
damage)
Cut
Unknown
Liquidambar
styraciflua
0
1
1
3
Nyssa biflora
2
26
2
Quercus lyrata
0
13
Quercus pagoda
0
4
Quercus phellos
2
7
1
1
FTOT-,
Taxodium distichum
0
19
1
3
TOT:
6
4
64
1
3
Table A4. Vegetation Damage by Plot
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site
lot
All
Damage
Categories
(no
dama e)
Cut
Unknown
D06066a- 12345-000 1 -year:4
4
13
1
3
D06066a- 12345 -0002- ear:4
0
16
D06066a- 12345 -0003- ear:4
0
17
D06066a- 12345 -0004- ear:4
0
12
D06066a- 12345 -0005- ear:4
0
12
FTOT-,
1 5
4
70
1
3
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

Table A5. Stem Count by Plot and Species
Table A6. All Stems by Plot and Species
Species
Total
Planted
Stems
#
plots
Avg
#
stems
D06066a-
12345-
0001-
year:4
D06066a-
12345-
0002-
ear:4
D06066a-
12345-
0003-
ear:4
D06066a-
12345-
0004-
ear:4
D06066a-
12345 -
0005 -
ear:4
Nyssa biflora
19
4
4.75
2
8
8
1
Quercus lvrata
10
4
2.5
65
1
3
3
3
Quercus pagoda
4
2
2
5
2
2
Quercus phellos
7
1
7
7
6
2
Taxodium distichum
17
5
3.4
4
3
4
2
4
TOT:
5
57
5
3.93
13
14
15
61
9
Table A6. All Stems by Plot and Species
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site
Species
Total
Stems
#
plots
Avg
#
stems
D06066a-
12345-
0001-
ear:4
D06066a-
12345-
0002-
ear:4
D06066a-
12345-
0003-
ear:4
D06066a-
12345-
0004-
ear:4
D06066a-
12345 -
0005 -
ear:4
Baccharis halimifolia
3
1
3
4
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica
214
5
42.8
65
34
7
94
14
Ligustruni sinense
5
1
1 5
5
Liquidambar
styraciflua
10
3
3.33
2
6
2
Nyssa biflora
23
4
5.75
6
8
8
1
Pinustaeda
124
4
31
11
25
1 85
3
Quercus l rata
21
4
5.25
1
3
12
5
Quercus pagoda
10
3
3.33
4
2
4
Quercus phellos
9
1
9
9
Taxodium distichurn
17
5
3.4
4
3
4
2
4
Mitts alata
21
4
5.25
2
6
8
5
Rhus copallinum
2
1
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
4
2
2
2
2
Acer- rubrurn
250
5
50
11
126
28
38
47
TOT:
14
713
14
12.2
121
211
146
154
81
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

Photo Stations: Year 4 Monitoring
Photo Station 1
Photo Station 3
Photo Station 2
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

r A -
�a'� fiT���vN h� ?i .• .. _
s
M-
4
p.

APPENDIX B: GEOMORPHOLOGIC DATA
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix B 2011 Monitoring Report

Table B2. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No. D06066 -A
2,540 linear feet
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines)
(# Stable)
Number
Performing
as
Intended
Total
number
per
As -built
Total
Number
/feet in
unstable
state
%
Perform
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perform
Mean or
Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
77
77
N/A
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
77
77
N/A
100
3. Facet grade appears stable?
77
77
N/A
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
77
77
N/A
100
5. Length appropriate?
77
77
N/A
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g not subject to severe aggrad. or
migrat. ?)
76
76
N/A
100
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6 ?)
76
76
N/A
100
3. Length appropriate?
76
76
N/A
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection) centering?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
2. Downstream of meander (glide /inflection) centering?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
2. Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar
formation?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar
formation)
N/A
N/A
0/2540
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation — areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
N/A
N/A
0/2540
100
100%
F. Bank
1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping
N/A
N/A
0/2540
100
1 100%
G. Vanes
1. Free of back or arm scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Height appropriate?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?;
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
H. Wads/
Boulders 1
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix B 2011 Monitoring Report

z z R
W z g� 8
Z NYC �_�
Uo
I w 0 8 M
Y 3�0~ Na W
avr�n WZW z V)
y Q W 0 0 gS�
W
W
Z
O
F c
w � N
Y
_ c E
o E
�o r
Uo H O
W
S�
< o
r
N
a
zNz
30
O
O
Z
N N N V p 7 V < Y Q y
O
N O
+ J
O
F .
OX` f ,yet ti r
O • ft r
O
a Z +
+ o
X o
+ u
f Y
00 y -N ii'3"- a
m
O � r
I
CD
7777 iiu°� '.� ck:
r
N a V <
z
a
(1333) NOUVA313 m
N N N N J
} Y Y }
N h v
mai<< X
i

Y = 3a~ v~ Wr O ?Z oUNW W Z z Y z o
W ' O 0 � N
$
N
a:0 0 MW
o V)N 3
U 0x �' y
F o
>
w N
0
z E
< W uy
< F e
O (A
Q a
w
o 95 °
W
J
W
2
F d _
y
W
O
•r O
.. Z
+ J
N
o
+ O
O Q
N N
N yj
—T
X 0!
0
Ilk Y
Z
OO �. m
'
O r
2
C7
F-
N o rn m n 0 0
Z
v Q
(1333) NOLLVA313
OONOO •�w+ F....•..q 1't 1i ��y W

V l z Z
z W = 0 t O
x s J i
_ V1YH Y a'C j U0
Y (n 8 MM
3' �0� Qr(L W
Q U U, W Z W o V) M
W } p O p X
g r ti
= F " a 11 g
a
W
W N
41 d
EV n
F Q < P O VI N X
a r p
O (A o e
a
N a g vOi wW .° o E
Z u9
W 1
W
I Hill
Z
O
F g
� o
�rF,� a i
Ln
g�
F-
C)
'" 0
m Z
0
0 0
N J
+
O M
VI
X
0
0
n
_ o �
O
O
+ O
O �
(n N S
X o
+
Y
00 �Y Q
+ m
C�
N N m a a a a v d
Z
Q
(1330 Noum: 3 ro
000� r
onoo w
N M a
m¢¢aa X
N W W W w
Q Y Y > Y
III

LA g ! ; 2 ■
�
2 ( k� §
§ ° °2 $ L'ik§§ | ¥
Y £ k) ` �= j
�
§ f !
®
�
�20
� [/ .. |
� � ƒ w
§ ! 2 Q
o
)
°` ƒ i\
Li
! .
[ ■ ::Z ;.S
7
k
R
j
o
a
3/
' )!
`
/
x
\
of
{
mG <aA3-13 -
���
E

C
r �s
c �
—111111iiiii 0
z 0
Lj
rq
milli
MINION
Iloilo

La Z
En
UJ
0 IX
sn
"f
{
MINION
milli
IN
Iloilo

z
Z W Z Z
x o z Q p $
Z Z
tnYr w A
Y 303= �0 W
H V N N } Z K O a
O O Z
y .. U w O
\ b = G o d Jt e
133! HI NOUVA3l3
N O Q
+ Y J N
N �
~ � N n a •
8 N W
Q> Y Y > Y Y
p}
8
8
0
8
8
8
8 a
8
8
0
8
8
f
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
o+
LM W NOUVAM

Bankfull Event 08- 27 -11: Year 4 Monitoring
Photo 1. Hurricane Irene produced 5 -7 inches of
rain over the region during a 24 hour period.
Evidence of a large bankfull event was seen
while checking monitoring gauges. Herbaceous
vegetation adjacent to the channel showed signs
of being matted down from water flow. Wrack
lines were found pressed against erosion matting
stakes and woody vegetation.
Photo 2. Floodplain wrack line looking from
across channel.
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix B 2011 Monitoring Report

APPENDIX C: WETLAND DATA HYDROGRAPHS
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix C 2011 Monitoring Report

00
N
V
T MMQ
T W
N wA*
Z
U r T
(L) = W
Y o cm
Cm
3 0 �
U � o
a�
� o
(•ui) uoijujidioaad
Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O
CO CO N N r r O O
L jagwa
61 I!jdy - uos -eaS 6i
8 !!ady - uossaS E
8Z 4oaI
O (D N w d O (D N w qt O It w N (D O"t O N w O
(u!) yldaa aajaM
c
0
►-
EEP Contract No. D- 06066 -A Appendix C Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

(-ui) uoijejidioaad
Cn O LI? O Cn O Lq O
C') Cl) N N r r C7 O
aagwanoN -
C
C
C
d
u
CO
z
L_
CO
W
MQ C
T W u
N o
O Z
j cv
G1 'i cm
O
N = �
O�
� � C
U
C�
O
m
gZ g0AUA - uoseas bUIMC
O CO N w It O Cfl N w It O� 00 N w O 1- CO N w O
rt C7 C'J N N N r r r r N N N C`7 C'7 �
(ui) yldaa aaleM
c
0
W-
EEP Contract No. D- 06066 -A Appendix C Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site
0
ioseas bulmoig p puA
°
z
rn
U
O
�o
O
U)
Q
I
T
CZ
2
iE) 10 liels
=
I�
C-
cT
O CO N w It O Cfl N w It O� 00 N w O 1- CO N w O
rt C7 C'J N N N r r r r N N N C`7 C'7 �
(ui) yldaa aaleM
c
0
W-
EEP Contract No. D- 06066 -A Appendix C Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

(•ui) uoilalidioaad
Un O Un O u? o U o
CO CO N N r r O Q_
L aagwanoN - t
a
°
m
m
W W
L °
c
m 3
0
Q C7
r W O
O Z r
�"
0 = �
O
U)
:E 00
� � C
V � O
O
gZ yoJeyq - uosaas bulmo
O (D N m't O w N m "t' O w N (D O't O N w O
(u!) yldaa aalaM
c
O
W-
EEP Contract No. D- 06066 -A Appendix C Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

(•ui) uoilulidioaad
U� O U� O U� O U� O
CO CO N N r r O O
jagwanoN - L
C
C
m
Cu
(B
C
0 0
m 0
a
r m Ci
O N T
O I Z
U c�
Gi 'i
O
U)
t O�
O M C
qT .r
V O
O
m
gZ yDJEV4 - uossas 6ulmo,
O (D N w O (D N w IF O qt w N w O a M N (D O
(u!) yjdaa aajeM
C
O
WE
EEP Contract No. D- 06066 -A Appendix C Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

ti
0
m
MQM
T W
T
Q RT
ONZ
O
U =
O 3
O
CC
V O
W C
O
2
(•ui) uoijujidioaad
Lq O U? O u? O Un O
CO CO N N r r O O
jagwanoN - i
EL I!jdy - uosueE
8 Iladtl - uoseas
8Z yoaeyq - uoseas 6ulmo
O (D N w O (D N w I�t O It m N (D O w N (D O
(u!) yldaa aa}LM
O
EEP Contract No. D- 06066 -A Appendix C Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

APPENDIX D: CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix D 2011 Monitoring Report

&..|
! !�)k » <
| s -! § N
&` ki
& �m
(E�«�)2,aV4
� ®
§($
<0
tz
\ (3k
E)}
Lu §`)
� 2 [ §/
§ § 22[
\ )
2 a Z"
— / §
�� 2 k k §
\ ¥ / / I / ) «
o )< ! e e ) \�
� 7 (b 2\ ) 2 f E
I § © \ §a
( \§ § § 5 § I■
eo z a ! < <- Qa
(k ( § ƒ § § §k
I LJ
I
U \ \ \ \ \ |
, - - - a
I 5 m � 2 6 -
I & 0 § § )
) a §
7
§ ) z ] §< o \ \
e . < < as ■ 7
` § m) / § (
�
Ix
| �
|
ego
ƒ6�� 3ow
® ƒ §\ §)E� i§/
the\ �± * §. /3)
k ƒ3 ± � # C) a_
&..|
! !�)k » <
| s -! § N
&` ki
& �m
(E�«�)2,aV4
� ®
§($
<0
tz
\ (3k
E)}
Lu §`)
� 2 [ §/
§ § 22[
\ )
2 a Z"
— / §
�� 2 k k §
\ ¥ / / I / ) «
o )< ! e e ) \�
� 7 (b 2\ ) 2 f E
I § © \ §a
( \§ § § 5 § I■
eo z a ! < <- Qa
(k ( § ƒ § § §k
I LJ
I
U \ \ \ \ \ |
, - - - a
I 5 m � 2 6 -
I & 0 § § )
) a §
7
§ ) z ] §< o \ \
e . < < as ■ 7
` § m) / § (
�
Ix
| �
|
ego
ƒ6�� 3ow
® ƒ §\ §)E� i§/
the\ �± * §. /3)
k ƒ3 ± � # C) a_

Ln � z
Z \�\ g - z Z 2 ..
$j \\ \ {� LU
#\ ~j �;� §, /§ƒ
�
�.. �
�
�
C
~ ~�
�
�
.�
\ £ £ Z - w
\ \ ! \ \
k go § \ / /
° , 7) ƒ ( ( \
q |
j \§
(d(
(
\
0
\
\
q
—
\
z
/
k
\
(
§\
/
_\
± o )
__
Of
-
3
L L \
\k
_
\ \(\
§ 2»E
\
y
<
!
/2
\\
(
\
ly
\ }
/ '
,
�g
E�
ZCN,
~ > ƒƒ{
4
~ ~�
�
�
.�
\ £ £ Z - w
\ \ ! \ \
k go § \ / /
° , 7) ƒ ( ( \
q |
j \§
(d(
(
\