20071055 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20111102

1-16S5
CUTAWHISKIE CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
2010 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 3)
HERTFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NCEEP CONTRACT NO. D06066 -A
PREPARED FOR:
NCDENR — ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -16152
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
AND
PBS &J, an Atkins company
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
NC ECOSyc
IINHANCEmEjqr

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. ............................... 1
2.0
PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................ ...............................
5
TableIII
2.1 Project Objectives ................................................................................. ..............................5
TableIV
Project Background ................................................................................. ..............................9
2.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach ............................. ..............................5
Table V
Vegetation Plot Summary .................................................................... ...............................
2.3 Location and Setting ............................................................................ ...............................
6
Hydrological ( Bankfull) Verification ................................................... ...............................
2.4 History and Background ...................................................................... ...............................
7
3.0
PROJECT MONITORING AND RESULTS .................................................... ..............................9
Table VIII
Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ................................... ...............................
3.1 Vegetation Assessment ......................................................................... ..............................9
Table IX
Morphology and Hydrologic Monitoring Summary ............................ ...............................
3.2 Stream Assessment .............................................................................. .............................10
Table X
Wetland Criteria Attainment ................................................................ ...............................
3.3 Wetland Assessment ............................................................................ .............................15
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 Mitigation Objectives and Structure ........................................... ..............................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 ..................... ...............................
10
Table VIII
Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ................................... ...............................
12
Table IX
Morphology and Hydrologic Monitoring Summary ............................ ...............................
13
Table X
Wetland Criteria Attainment ................................................................ ...............................
16
EEP Contract No. D06066 -A i 2010 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
EEP Contract No. D06066 -A ii 2010 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 (EEP) 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 third year of project
monitoring (2010) 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
throughout the growing season of 2008. Year 2 monitoring was completed in 2009. The Site must
demonstrate vegetative and hydrologic success criteria and a stable, restored stream channel for a
minimum of five years or until the Site is deemed successful. The following paragraphs summarize the
results of the 2010 monitoring.
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring for Year 3 was performed based on the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
Levels 1 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 by plot data indicating an average number of planted
stems per acre 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. Based on Year 3 surveys, the average count of the
surviving planted species is 518 stems per acre. If volunteer species are included, the total number of
stems increases to 5,131 stems per acre. The Site meets and exceeds the established success criteria for
vegetation based on the survival of the planted species.
Stream Monitoring
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 Monitoring
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
EEP Contract No. D06066 -A 1 2010 Monitoring Report

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EEP Contract No. D06066 -A 2 2010 Monitoring Report

CHOWAN RIVER BASIN HERTFORD
(CU03010204) COUNTY
e,,,n
omo +
,
2 -,� urfreest o
2 Mableton
3
n +ylinton
3 3
1111 5 1{1
' Menola Union Cofield 1
E�4 IF O6 R D
5 581 Harrellsv
St. John *,p „Ahoskie IQ 551,
6
306 5 n 4 3 Roanoke•Chawon CC e
SITE DIRECTIONS:
From Woodland, travel East on US Route 258, 2.5 miles.►
Turn Right on Jim Hardy Road, continue 2 miles. r
Site is on Right. y�(p3 ��
_
Potecos,
�-� -, ± SITE
/r ljl �A t�" LOCATION,
aI
ID
o'
P
501 J.M
. v ' 561
�' 35 r•i- C� 2�{~ ~
__ � � � •mot � 3., a '' � J �'
-. 2 SePra I _ ,4�� �'� � n? � t ~ �%�� 11 .. „ttt'. � / ' ��1•`
2 MILES 0 2 MILES
sos SCALE: 1"=2 MILES
Prepared by: Project: SITE LOCATION Dwn. By: Ckd By: FIGURE
RL JWG
CUTAWHISKIE CREEK Date:
RESTORATION SITE Nov zolo
Scale:
MONITORING REPORT AS SHOWN
an Atkins company
ESC Project No.:
Hertford County, North Carolina 06 -306

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EEP Contract No. D06066 -A 4 2010 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 3 hydrologic monitoring indicate that all gauges exhibited
saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface for at least 5 percent 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 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 riparian and upland slope
hardwood communities. Plant community associations were designed to mimic various 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 greatly 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
1 1.9 acres of drained, hydric soils. The UT has been dredged and straightened, such that it no longer
retained stable dimension, pattern, and profile. 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 channel at its former dimension.
EEP Contract No. D06066 -A 5 2010 Monitoring Report

Table III. 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
PBS &J (previously EcoScience Corporation)
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
PBS &J, an Atkins company
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 876 -6888
Stream Monitoring POC
Jens Geratz
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Jens Geratz
EEP Contract No. D06066 -A 8 2010 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 ( %)
<1 percent
Stream Order
1 st 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 10m2) plots were established to monitor planted vegetation within Site
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 per acre 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 3 monitoring, the Site exceeded the vegetation success criteria with
an average of 518 planted stems per acre. If volunteer species are included, the total number of stems
increases to 5,131 stems per acre. The following Table V summarizes vegetation plot density for first
three years of monitoring. Refer to Appendix A for vegetation data collected during Year 3 monitoring.
No vegetation problem areas were identified during Year 3 monitoring.
Despite the vegetative success demonstrated during Year 3 monitoring, the Prime Contractor (Restoration
Systems LLC) plans to initiate exotic species management to control Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
on the Site. Chinese privet will be sprayed during the winter of 2010 within dense thickets located along
EEP Contract No. D06066 -A 9 2010 Monitoring Report

the southwestern Site boundary (Figure 2A and 2B, Appendix D) and solitary specimens located along
Cutawhiskie Creek.
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
Photo documentation
1 -2 (Appendix B)
2
688
647
647
100%
100%
3
688
688
567
100%
100%
4
1 688
1 486
324
D. Meanders
100%
5
567
486
394
E. Bed General
MEAN
672
599
518
3.2 Stream Assessment
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
1 -2 (Appendix B)
11 -18 -10
09 -28 -10
Photo documentation
3 (Appendix B)
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%
B. Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
C. Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
F. Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
100%
G. Rock Vanes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
H. Root Wads
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
EEP Contract No. D06066 -A 10 2010 Monitoring Report

To ensure stable bankfull dimension, pattern, and profile along the restored channel, annual stream
assessment surveys (longitudinal profile and six channel cross - sections) were undertaken [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. Two bankfull events documented on March
3 and September 28, 2010 further demonstrates stream stability (see Appendix B). This is the second and
third bankfull event that has been documented during the past three years of monitoring. Variations in
bankfull geometry within pool cross - sections are a result of limited bankfull features and possible survey
error during 2009 surveys (XS3). No stream problem areas were identified during Year 3 monitoring.
EEP Contract No. D06066 -A I I 2010 Monitoring Report

EEP Contract No. D06066'& 12 2O)0Monitoring Report
CD
r
C4
N
Cq
PA
X
to
EE
sw
td
EEP Contract No. D06066'& 12 2O)0Monitoring Report

EEP Contract No D06066-A 13 2OlO Monitoring Report
+1
Cl!
X
C'I
(0�
0�
6
11 `
a
r
1 n
u
C)
2
cc 9z
CA
lu
kn
OP
r-
In
m
to
Oz
u
In
00
cz
cl
cm
u
EEP Contract No D06066-A 13 2OlO Monitoring Report

EEP Contract No.D06O66/\ 14 2010 Monitoring Report
Fk
00
44
Cn
rq
Ca
ca
E
E
aj
LV
EEP Contract No.D06O66/\ 14 2010 Monitoring Report

3.3 Wetland Assessment
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 3 hydrologic monitoring indicate that all gauges exhibited saturation within 12 inches
of the ground surface for at least 5 percent of the growing season (Appendix Q. Figure 3 (Appendix C)
shows the monthly precipitation for Hertford County in 2010 with the 30'h and 70`h percentile rainfall
amounts. Monthly rainfall amounts were below the 30`s percentile during four months of the growing
season. Table X summarizes wetland hydrology criteria for Year 3 monitoring.
Additional groundwater gauges are expected to be added for the 2011 growing season to ensure sufficient
hydrologic data for areas immediately surrounding gauges that may be at risk of underperforming.
4.0 METHODOLOGY
No unavoidable deviations from initially prescribed methodologies were implemented as part of Year 3
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.
DENR Contract No. D06066 -A 15 2010 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)
1
✓
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)
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
*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.
DENR Contract No. D06066 -A 16 2010 Monitoring Report

APPENDIX A: VEGETATIVE DATA
DENR Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A 2010 Monitoring Report

Table Al: Vegetation Metadata
Report Prepared By
Adam Efird
Date Prepared
10/11/2010 15:28
Database name
PBSJ 2008 - 2009 -2010 A.mdb
Database location
G:\Prcjects\Projects06 \06 -306 Cutawhiskie
Creek\Mitigation Monitoring\2010 (Year 3)
Monitoring \Ve
Computer name
RALH3TDXF 1
File size
52166656
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.
Pro', total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per
acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all
lanted 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 (s m)
8
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
5
DENR Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

Table A2 Vegetation Vigor by Species
Table A3.Ve2etation Damage by Suecies
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
17
Liquidambar
styraciflua
1
Nyssa biflora
28
23
1
5
N ssa bi ora
2
18
2
1
5
4
4
Quercus lyrata
6
10
1
9
9
6
4
OT
Quercus pagoda
21
4
1
2
TOT:
6
79
64
Quercus phellos
14
9
Taxodium distichum
18
3
TOT:
6
2
59
2
11
15
Table A3.Ve2etation Damage by Suecies
Table A4. Vegetation Damage by Plot
Species
All
Damage
Categories
(no
damage)
Cut
Unknown
Liquidambar
styraciflua
1
17
1
Nyssa biflora
28
23
5
Quercus lyrata
16
10
1 6
Quercus pagoda
4
4
6
FT:�.:FD06066a-12345-0005-year:3
Quercus phellos
9
9
1
4
OT
Taxodium distichum
21
18
1
2
TOT:
6
79
64
1
14
Table A4. Vegetation Damage by Plot
DENR Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site
lot
All
Damage
Categories
(no
damage)
Cut
Unknown
D06066a- 12345 -0001-year: 3
17
17
D06066a -12345 -0002- ear:3
17
16
1
D06066a- 12345 -0003- ear:3
17
14
3
D06066a -12345 -0004- ear:3
14
8
6
FT:�.:FD06066a-12345-0005-year:3
14
9
1
4
OT
79
64
1
14
DENR 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-
ear:3
D06066a-
12345-
0002-
ear:3
D06066a-
12345-
0003-
ear:3
D06066a-
12345-
0004-
ear:3
D06066a-
12345 -
0005 -
ear:3
N ssa bi ora
23
4
5.75
4
10
8
1
Quercus l rata
10
4
2.5
62
1
2
4
3
Quercus pagoda
4
2
1 2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
9
1
9
9
4
2
Taxodium distichum
18
5
3.6
6
3
4
3
4
TOT:
5
64
5
27.25
EEA
16
14
8
9
Table A6. All Stems by Plot and Species
DENR Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site
Species
Total
Stems
#
plots
Avg
#
stems
D06066a-
12345-
0001-
ear:3
D06066a-
12345-
0002-
ear:3
D06066a-
12345-
0003-
ear:3
D06066a-
12345-
0004-
ear:3
D06066a-
12345 -
0005 -
ear:3
Baccharis halimi olia
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica
173
5
34.6
62
21
5
76
9
Ligustrum sinense
2
1
2
2
Liquidambar
styraciflua
7
3
2.33
1
4
2
Nyssa biflora
25
4
6.25
6
10
8
1
Pinus taeda
109
4
27.25
11
1 19
77
2
Quercus l rata
12
4
3
1
2
5
4
Quercus pagoda
10
4
2.5
3
2
2
3
Quercus phellos
10
1
10
10
Taxodium distichum
18
5
3.6
4
3
4
3
4
Ulmus alata
11
4
2.75
1
4
5
1
Rhus co allinum
2
1
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
3
2
1.5
1
2
Acer negundo
1
1
1
1
Acer rubrum
250
5
50
7
124
33
35
51
TOT:
15
634
15
109
188
137
F 123
77
DENR Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

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

Vegetation Plots: Year 3 Monitoring
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 4
DENR Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A 2010 Monitoring Report

APPENDIX B: GEOMORPHOLOGIC DATA
DENR Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix B 2010 Monitoring Report

Table B2. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEPContract 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
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 ?3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
H. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
DENR Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix B 2010 Monitoring Report

N� r
r
MINION

Li ! ° N
!
! ƒ
§
® � .
§
!
§ !
} k §
$§
;z!/ } E
`
! |.....&..... ` ; :
� ® 3 �
ƒ�
$ � ... : :...
..
.y.p.
!
. - R
2
(
o /��
p. \2
t
)6
N °,
x 2 0
§
\
2
@ Q G $ e ■ ; ; = 3
S
Q� maw,
j \ \\ \
� A g } k�
¢
§§s— t
«
�\
\ \
\ \u� \�
!
� $E
Li ! ° N
!
! ƒ
§
® � .
§
!
§ !
} k §
$§
;z!/ } E
`
! |.....&..... ` ; :
� ® 3 �
ƒ�
$ � ... : :...
..
.y.p.
!
. - R
2
(
o /��
p. \2
t
)6
N °,
x 2 0
§
\
2
@ Q G $ e ■ ; ; = 3
S
Q� maw,
j \ \\ \

WOO
UJ
Lj
Ix
Olson
■N
0
0
+ 0

PO
1111111111 E3
01111111101 1 xj 11
,a
Iloilo I
Iloilo I
loolsom

N
RdVA
Ln
(133J) NOUVA3-13
x
DD

Fx
ii k Nil Nii
�k
milli
Iloilo I
Iloilo

2 & | ■
i ) § 2 ( )� §
�kk0
. ! i§ §� §eL� a2 §
$ �§ § )
k/ (L L) (x
IM NI NOLYA-T3
� ■ , » , ■ ; ; , ;!
� §
;
m
� |
i f
� I
� !
. f
- \§
§|
2�
� m
� � |
. �
¥
6� §
. I
E
� #
2
!
� 2
a „ �■ „ ; „

Bankfull Event 03- 03 -10: Year 3 Monitoring
Photo 1. UT to Cutawhiskie Creek following a
bankfull event. Water still persists above the top
of bank and on the floodplain.
Photo 2. Floodplain wrack line.
Bankfull Event 09- 28 -10: Year 3 Monitoring
Photo 3. Hurricane Nicole produced 8 -10 inches of
rain over the region during an 8 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.
DENR Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix B 2010 Monitoring Report

APPENDIX C: WETLAND DATA HYDROGRAPHS
DENR Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix C 2010 Monitoring Report

(-ui) uoijejidioaad
O Un O Ln O Un O
M N N *- r O O
jagwa
00
N
U
om
4) N ItT
O I Z
L c
U .=
O CM
N
am
O0
CM
}' M
O � .
U o
m
o
2 9Z iudy - uoseaS bi
g Iiady - uoseaS E
93 gOJI
O CO N W� O CD N WIlt OlIt 00 N CD O d' N N CD O
It M M N N N r r ' ' r r- N N N C? C') '�
(u!) u}daa jE)IeM
0
EEP Contract No. D- 06066 -A Appendix C Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

(-ui) uoijejidioaad
O O U? O
CO N N r r
L JagwanoN -
T-
oo
W
W
N d'
O Z
V = N
O
N = �
:E O�
� � C
U�o
0
gZ Judy - uoseaS f
g I!Ady - uoseaS
gZ gOJ2N - uoseaS bulmc
U? O
0 0
O CD N 00 O CD N w IF O d w N w O It m N CO O
C7 C 7 N N N r r 7 7 N N N C' C? �
(ui) gldaa joluM
c
0
►=
EEP Contract No. D- 06066 -A Appendix C Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site
0
Ioseas buiMOJo 10 pub
°
z
CL
N
73
Cz
UIMOJ!D 10 %g 'Z G
JUIMOJO 10 %ry
I
CIL
¢
10 10 IMS
I
I
co
�
c�
O CD N 00 O CD N w IF O d w N w O It m N CO O
C7 C 7 N N N r r 7 7 N N N C' C? �
(ui) gldaa joluM
c
0
►=
EEP Contract No. D- 06066 -A Appendix C Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

O
i
U
:c
U
(-ui) uoilulidpaid
o In O Ln O Ln o
CO N N r r O O_
L aagwanoN -
W
LL
m
O m
T
O �
N Z
t M
E
o a'
•= ca
00
Cf) 'i
O
O
2 gZ i!ady - uoseaS E
8 I!jdy - uoseaS
8,7 yoaew - uoseaS 6ulmo
O CO N w't O C0 N N't O't 00 N c.0 O tt m N C0 O
lt M M N N N r r 7 r N N N CM C7 d
(u!) uldaa aaluM
0
►O
EEP Contract No. D- 06066 -A Appendix C Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

(-ui) uoilelidpaid
O Ln O Un o Ln O
CO N N r r O O
AagwanoN - L
m
O m
N
O Z
U c�
O
CAI
O�
O
2 9Z Judy - uoseag E
g Iiady - uoseag
9Z gojew - uoseag 6ulmo
O CO N O O Co N m It O w N w 0 I N N CO O
qqt M M N N N r r . 7 7 N N N M C') �
(u!) uldaa aait?M
c
O
WE
0
0
N
N
N
C
�3
0
a�
0
r
CO
W
m C�
o
C6 U
C
N R7
�E E
o m ro
Z 0 m
EEP Contract No. D- 06066 -A Appendix C Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

(-ui) uoijLj!dioaad
o U� O U o u? o
CO N N r O O
jagwanoN - L
ti
0
m
O m
N
as Z
(� U-)
G1 'i �
O
N = �
's o C�
2 _c
V O O
O
gZ pjdy - uos8ag 6
g iudy - uosaas I
gZ yojew - uossas bulma
O c0 N O � O CO N 00 � O � 00 N COO � 00 N CO O
M M N N N T T 7 r N N N M M�
(u!) yldaa aajeM
c
0
2
EEP Contract No. D- 06066 -A Appendix C Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

m
M
SLR
V
_
_G
�CL
V
L U
az
o
o =
�Vo
N
L
U _o
L
.�d W
T) =
3
ca
U
M
L
3
k Q%
_cz
U U
O Y �
O O O
N M I-
I I
CO CO nt N O
(ui) uoilulidioaad
O
T
O
Z
R
T
4—
U
U
W
T
Q
m
W-
E,
0
T z
cz
Q
O
C
O
T
Cz
2
r
i
W
T
L
CCz
G
O
T
O
N
O
T
0
Cu
cu
O
.G
cc
Cu
O
C
O
X
L
EEP Contract No. D- 06066 -A Appendix C Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site

APPENDIX D: CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
DENR Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix D 2010 Monitoring Report

\e/ 2 S\% �..\
2 �ems ® ±)/ F
) /\ \ /)f
§k7 [f ! N
kk E & , °§2 �§
k } ze 4L } !�:
( i33633S )3NnHol a
Li
|
z°°
g5i
_ §g)
} 0�0
L;j _ Li
0
) <<
° z Ln
\ z 27)
)
s ] I — R
b e E z z z
§ }w \ \ § / 7 (
/ )\ § [ � ) \\
| | § ({ u ) / ( \ / z cz
<
t \( \ k z z \ \(
\\ \ \ } / \ k
|
Ls #
/ z
,
C"i
\ / \ \ /
I
I f
az0 w §
R=
2ƒ\ } \} ° \ \ \
| @o § ! j !
| ^ | U\ ( i) / [ «
. § —

\�\ 2 /
&y�
\ ` $ ( \�
LLJ
kf \k $ \}
- § ;{o§m > \)§. / §j 2f ® N
z © ® - ° !\
�
0
�
z / \ \ §
§ \\ / 8 b!
eM z a / ! u ®
�. (\ \ ( \ \ \
6
�. .
� ..
� .
} \ \ \ -H
\
) � P
) a !
(\ } \} ° \ z z
\\ \ ))) § ( (
z §k
k� \ }\
0
0
(
\
)
Ln
uj
\
\
\
y
)
§
6
z
\
\
\
/m
j
,
z / \ \ §
§ \\ / 8 b!
eM z a / ! u ®
�. (\ \ ( \ \ \
6
�. .
� ..
� .
} \ \ \ -H
\
) � P
) a !
(\ } \} ° \ z z
\\ \ ))) § ( (
z §k
k� \ }\
0
0
(
\