20061342 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20111222

i4l
I.Th
I M
a

Prepared by
bn'CJ'neen,,ngo-- gical
E
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs NC 27540
919 557 0929
G Lane Sauls Jr, Prnn pal
This document is based on the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program s Monitoring Report Submission Template
Version 12 (dated 11106106) in the Project Implementation Manual
r

Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary/ Project Abstract !
2
10
I
Project Background
3
7
11 Project Objectives
3
Exhibit Table V Wetland Criteria Attainment
12 Project Structure
3
13 Restoration Type and Approach
4
13 1 Coastal Marsh Wetlands
4
1 3 2 Non Riparian Hardwood Flat Wetlands
4
1 3 3 Riverine Forested Wetlands
5
14 Location and Setting
5
15 Project History and Background
5
20
Project Condition and Monitoriing Results
9
2 1 Vegetation Assessment
9
2 1 1 Vegetation Problem Areas
9
2 2 Wetland Assessment
10
2 2 1 Wetland Problem Areas
10
30
Methodology i
12
40
References
13
Figures
Figure 1 Project Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Attributes
Figure 3 Vegetation Problem Areas Plan View
Figure 4 Monitoring Well Locations
Tables
Exhibit Table I Project Restoration Components
6
Exhibit Table II Project Activity and Reporting History
7
Exhibit Table III Project Contact Table
7
Exhibit Table IV Project Background Table
8
Exhibit Table V Wetland Criteria Attainment
11
Appendices
Appendix A Vegetation Raw Data and Annual Photograph Comparisons
Appendix B Wetland Raw Data
I

Executive Summary/ Project Abstract
The Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site hereinafter referred to as the Bishop Road Site or Project Site
is one of a group of sites purchased by the NC Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) to meet its on
going mitigation needs throughout North Carolina The Bishop Road Site was purchased in the spring of
2001 from Weyerhauser Corporation According to Weyerhauser, this and many nearby tracts were
being managed for silvicultural uses NCDOT worked with a consultant to complete the original Wetland
Mitigation Plan in 2004 a document that described existing and proposed conditions In 2006 the
Project Site was turned over to the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) for project implementation During this time period, EEP contracted with
the same consultant to update the document into a Restoration Plan Once the document was
approved final design quantity estimates construction bidding and implementation proceeded
Construction was completed during the spring of 2009
Ecological Engineering LLP (Ecological Engineering) entered into contract with EEP in October 2009 As
part of this contract, Ecological Engineering was tasked to provide annual monitoring services including,
but not limited to annual vegetation assessments within the existing nine vegetation plots and the
downloading of monitoring well data at 12 locations During 2010 Ecological Engineering added three
additional vegetation plots to the overall assessment The downloading of well data occurred three
times during the year Additional services including well maintenance and replacement, were also
provided as necessary
The Bishop Road Site is situated along SR 1156 (Bishop Road) between US 264 and the Pungo River in
Hyde County North Carolina (Figure 1) It is approximately one mile north of Scranton five miles
southeast of Leechville and ten miles east of Belhaven The Project Site is bordered to the northwest by
Tarklin Creek, the south by Scranton Creek and the west by the Pungo River It is within the Tar Pamlico
River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040104
Vegetation Assessment
The Year 3 vegetation monitoring effort was performed by determining density and survival of planted
species consistent with prescribed Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols Nine 100 meter
(wetland) and three 50 meter (buffer) plot locations were assessed Based of survey data, the mean
stem count for all of the plots combined totaled 235 planted stems per acre and 3 549 total stems per
acre Four of nine wetland plots and zero of three buffer plots met the 320 count threshold Of the
remaining five wetland plots three exhibited planted stem counts between 121 and 283 stems per acre
and two exhibited no planted stems The remaining buffer plots exhibited between 145 and 217 stems
per acre Supplemental planting was implemented as part of the construction warranty during early
2010
Wetland Assessment
Wetland assessments associated with the Year 3 monitoring effort were performed by collecting
groundwater hydrology via monitoring wells that record daily groundwater elevations Based on the
results, all 12 wells met the criteria established for wetland hydrology
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site CEP Project No 38
Monitoring Year 3 (2011) Final Report
December 2011
Page 2
50512 003

10 Project Background
11 Project Objectives
Based on information provided in the Bishop (Road Wetland Restoration Final As Built and Monitoring
Baseline Report (EEP 2009) the project related goals were to restore site hydrology, restore natural
diverse wetland communities and protect the site from vehicle access logging or development These
goals were and will be accomplished by the following objectives
• Remove earthen roads and fill roadside drainage ditches,
• Remove bedding rows in selected areas and replant areas to establish natural plant
communities non riparian hardwood flats coastal marshes and riverine forested wetlands,
and
• Purchase property fee simple put under conservation in perpetuity and install vehicle
access barriers i
The system of measurement to determine successful implementation includes documentation of
hydrology through groundwater monitoring wells documentation of vegetation development through
permanent 100 meter plots and documentation of no vehicle access logging or development through
visual observation (EEP, 2009)
12 Project Structure
Mitigation components include coastal marsh restoration and preservation riverine forested wetland
restoration and preservation non riparian Hardwood flat restoration and preservation and riparian
buffer restoration Figure 2 depicts the locations of each mitigation component Exhibit Table 1 denotes
the final calculated acreages of each component
According to EEP (2009) the restoration types and amounts were modified during construction due to
plant community nomenclature and inaccuracy of the topographic survey These modifications deviate
significantly from names and amounts presented in the 2006 Restoration Plan Approximately 36 0 acres
of non riparian hardwood flat restoration were removed to reduce construction costs The tidal
freshwater marsh community is now referred to coastal marsh per the request of EEP and the NC
Division of Coastal Management (DCM) A 2 2 acre section of tidal freshwater marsh /coastal marsh
located west of Old Bishop Road was changed to non riparian hardwood flat due to inaccurate survey
elevations The design was based on topographic survey information provided by a third party Based on
the survey elevations and its proximity to open water this area was slated for marsh restoration After
the area was cleared during construction, it was obvious that the area was significantly higher than the
survey depicted A small section of non riparian hardwood flat restoration (0 171 acres) was changed to
riparian buffer restoration This change resifted from the need of riparian buffer credits in the area
(EEP 2009)
Vehicle access barriers comprised of concrete Jersey barriers, an earthen berm and a metal gate were
installed at strategic locations within the Project Site
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site CEP Project No 38
Monitoring Year 3 (2011) Final Report
December 2011
Pa .-e 3
0512 00

13 Restoration Type and Approach
1 3 1 Coastal Marsh Wetlands
According to EEP (2009), the restoration plan includes 0 343 acres of coastal marsh restoration at two
locations The first and larger area, covering 0 246 acres, is located at the northern end of Bishop Road
along the main branch of Tarklin Creek The area consisted of an earthen road bed approximately 32
feet wide and approximately 2 5 feet higher than the adjacent marsh Restoration was accomplished by
removing the earthen fill to an elevation within ±0 2 feet of the adjacent marsh The fill material was
used to raise the elevation of the adjacent to the same elevation as the marsh and regraded road The
restored area was planted with vegetation representative of the adjacent marsh included black needle
rush (Juncus roemerianus) Sawgrass (Cladium Jamaicense) smooth cordgrass (Sportrna alterniflora) and
pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) Soils in the marsh consist of Longshoal mucky peat a hydric A soil
(EEP 2009)
The second and smaller area, covering 0 097 acres, Is situated near the end of Silverthorne Road
Silverthorne Road crosses a small tidal slough of Scranton Creek at this location There was no culvert
under Silverthorne Road at this location This disconnected the small slough upstream of Silverthorne
Road from tidal flow Sawgrass (Cladium Jamaicense) is the dominant vegetation on the downstream
(the tidal side) of the road The upstream side was dominated by bare ground This significant difference
in vegetation is a result of the disconnection from tidal flow The roadway was removed and graded to
an elevation within ±0 2 feet of the adjacent slough elevations and replanted with the same suite of
coastal marsh herbaceous vegetation as the above location Soils in the area consist of Bolling loamy
fine sand a hydric B soil (EEP, 2009)
DCM representative Steve Trowell inspected both coastal marsh restoration areas during construction
Final construction elevations of the coastal marsh areas were provided to DCM and concurrence was
granted on May 26, 2009
1 3 2 Non Riparian Hardwood Flat Wetlands
According to EEP (2009) the non riparian hardwood flat restoration areas include 56 3 acres of non
jurisdictional areas within the existing planted pine and roadbed areas throughout the Project Site
These areas exhibited hydric soils, however they did not meet the other two parameters necessary for
jurisdictional status Non riparian hardwood flat restoration was accomplished by clearing and grubbing
non jurisdictional 10 to 15 year old loblolly pine plantation then replanting the area with the
appropriate wetland vegetation The bedding rows were graded to a more natural contour Existing
roadways were also removed and adjacent ditches were filled with the roadbed material to the
elevation of the adjacent non riparian hardwood flat community The depth of cut on the roadways
averages around 15 feet The depth of the adjacent ditches averaged around 2 5 feet These areas were
also replanted Soils within the non riparian hardwood flat restoration areas consist of Acredale silt
loam, Argent loam Chapanoke silt loam and Yeopin silt loam all of which are hydric The Site was
cleared by first removing the pine trees Trees were cut at the base leaving the roots in the ground, and
then chipped The chips were hauled off site Branches and bark were burned on site The tree roots
were grubbed using a "rake" attached to a track excavator This also removed the bedding rows Root
material was burned on site (EEP 2009)
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site EEP Project No 38 Page 4
Monitoring Year 3 (2011) Final Report
December 2011 50512 003

i
1 3 3 Riverine Forested Wetlands
According to EEP (2009) the restoration plan provided restoration of 10 acre of riverine forested
wetland Riverine forested wetlands restoration was accomplished by removing an earthen road bed
The road material was used to fill drainage ditches adjacent to the roadbed Target restoration
elevations were designed to be within ± 0 2 feet of the adjacent target community elevations An initial
survey revealed that the desired elevations had not been met The contractor was required to re grade
the area to design specifications A post construction topographic survey verified that final elevations
were within the target range Soils within the adjacent riverine wetlands consist of Belhaven muck, a
hydric A soil Trees removed to accomplish the Iriverine wetland restoration were a few 10 to 15 year old
loblolly pines located along the ditch banks After clearing grubbing and grading the area was replanted
with riverine wetland species including bald cypress (Taxod►um d►st►chum) water tupelo (Nysso
aquat►ca), tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and vario l s oaks (Quercus spp ) (EEP, 2009)
14 Location and Setting
The Bishop Road Site is situated along SR 1156 (Bishop Road), between US 264 and the Pungo River in
Hyde County, North Carolina It is approximately one mile north of Scranton, five miles southeast of
Leechville and ten miles east of Belhaven The Project Site is bordered to the northwest by Tarklin Creek,
the south by Scranton Creek and the west by the Pungo River The remainder of the Project Site is
bordered by roads, managed timber areas, agricultural fields and wooded or undeveloped lands The
Project Site is within the Tar Pamlico River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040104
15 Project History and Background
Based on information depicted by EEP (2009) the Bishop Road Site was purchased in the spring of 2001
from Weyerhauser Corporation As previously mentioned NCDOT worked with a consultant to complete
the original Wetland Mitigation Plan in 2004, a document that described existing and proposed
conditions In 2006 the Project Site was turned over to EEP for project implementation During this time
period EEP contracted with the same consultant to update the document into a Restoration Plan Once
the document was approved final design, quantity estimates, construction bidding and implementation
proceeded Construction was completed during the spring of 2009 (EEP, 2009)
Project history and background information is presented in the following four tables The Final Wetland
Restoration Plan (2006) denotes that the Project Site had been managed for timber since the early
1900 s and was initially converted from its original vegetative community to pine plantation by removing
the canopy vegetation This was accomplished by first harvesting merchantable timber and then using
techniques such as shearing, piling and burning of slash debris The Project Site has been clear cut and
planted several times The timber stands across the site were bedded to keep the roots of the planted
pine seedlings above the water table
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site EEP Project No 38 Page 5
Monitoring Year 3 (2011) Final Report
December 2011 50512 003

Exhibit Table I Protect Restoration Components
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Protect No 05 0653802 EEP Protect No 38
Riparian Wetland (ac)
oD
C
C
u
N
C
�
Restoration
Protect Segment or
N u
A
c
M
a,
o
`
Q
Comments
Reach ID
x Q
W
N _J (1)
a
Y
Q
n/a
d
Enhancement I
n/a
0
W
Cr
Q
n/a
N
CO
Enhancement 11
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Loblolly pine and road beds
Non Riparian
1 0
R
R
563
n/a
n/a
removed and replanted with
Hardwood Flat
617
3325
n/a
n/a
1840
High Quality
Preservation
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
suite of native species
Non Riparian
3325
n/a
P
3325
n/a
n/a
Totals
Hardwood Flat
1 627
0
33880
n/a
0 171
184 343
Coastal Marsh
Road beds removed and
Restoration Bishop
R
R
0 246
n/a
n/a
replanted with suite of
Road
native species
Coastal Marsh
Road beds removed and
Restoration —
R
R
0 097
n/a
n/a
replanted with suite of
Sdverthorne Road
native species
Coastal Marsh
1840
n/a
P
1940
n/a
n/a
Preservation
Road beds removed and
Riparian Buffer
R
R
0 171
n/a
n/a
replanted with suite of
native species
Road beds removed and
Rrverine Forested
R
R
10
n/a
n/a
replanted with suite of
Restoration
native species
Rrverine Forested
617
n/a
P
617
n/a
n/a
Preservation
R = Restoration
P = Preservation
Component Summations
Restoration Level
Stream
(If)
Riparian Wetland (ac)
Non Riparian
Wetland (ac)
Upland
(ac)
Buffer (ac)
Coastal
Marsh
(ac)
Rrvenne
Non
Rrvenne
Restoration
n/a
10
0
563
n/a
0 171
0 343
Enhancement
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Enhancement I
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Enhancement 11
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Creation
n/a
1 0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Preservation
n/a
617
3325
n/a
n/a
1840
High Quality
Preservation
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
High Quality
Preservation
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
n/a
1 627
0
33880
n/a
0 171
184 343
Source EEP 2009
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site EEP Project No 38
Monitoring Year 3 (2011) Final Report
December 2011
Page 6
50512 003

Exhibit Table II Project Activity and Reporting History
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Project No 05 0653802 EEP Project No 38
Activity or Report I
Data Collection Complete
Actual Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
December 2006
August 2006
Construction
n/a
December 2008
Planting Activities
n/a
January 2009
Mitigation Plan / As Built (Year 0 Monitoring — Baseline)
February 2009
July 2009
Year 1 Monitoring
November 2009
December 2010
Warranty Planting
n/a
March 2010
Year 2 Monitoring
November 2010
December 2010
Year 3 Monitoring I
November 2011
December 2011
Year Monitoring
Charlotte NC 28270
4
Year 5 Monitoring
Alan Peoples 704 8412841
Seeding Mix Supplier (Permanent)
Exhibit Table III Project Contact Table
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Project No 05 0653802, EEP Project No 38
Designer
801 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 300
ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina Inc
Raleigh NC 27607
Robert Lepsic 919 854 1282
Construction Contractor
10 Box 499
Jamesvdle NC 27846
Kris Grey Construction Inc
Mitch Dotson 252 799 6607 (mobile)
Planting Contractor
9305 D Monroe Road
Charlotte NC 28270
Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program Inc
Alan Peoples 704 8412841
Seeding Mix Supplier (Permanent)
Ernst Seeds
Meadville PA 16335
800 873 3321
Seed Mix Suppliers (Temporary)
Indian Creek Farms
Midway AL
888 307 8773
Evergreen Seed LLC
Rice VA 23966
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farms Coastal Plain Conservation Nursery
Stier City NC Edenton NC
919 742 1200 252 482 5707
SC Super Tree Nursery Weyerhaeuser NR Company
Blenheim SC Atlanta GA
843 528 3943 800 221 4898
Monitoring Performer
Ecological Engineering LLP
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs NC 27540
Wetland Monitoring POC
G Lane Sauls Jr 919 557 0929
Vegetation Monitoring POC
G Lane Sauls Jr 919 557 0929
Source EEP 2009
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site EEP Project No 38 Page 7
Monitoring Year 3 (2011) Final Report
December 2013 50512 003

Exhibit Table IV Project Background Table
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Project No 05 0653802 EEP Project No 38
Project County
Hyde
Drainage Area
n/a
Impervious Cover Estimate
<1%
Stream Order
n/a
Physiographic Region
Outer Coastal Plain
Ecoregion (Griffith and Omermk)
Chesapeake Pamlico Lowlands and Tidal Marshes
Rosgen Classification of As built
n/a
Cowardin Classification
n/a
Dominant Sod Types
Acredale Argent Hydeland
Reference Site ID
n/a
USGS HUC for Project and Reference
030401020100
NCDWQ Sub basin for Project and Reference
03 03 07
Any Portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d listed
segment
No
Reason for 303d listing or stressor
n/a
Percent of protect easement fenced
0%
Source EEP 2009
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site EEP Project No 38
Monitoring Year 3 (2011) Final Report
December 2011
Page 8
50512 003

20 Project Condition an r)ng Results
Precipitation is one of the most critical factors in determining both vegetation and wetland success
During the past several years Hyde and many other counties across North Carolina have faced below
normal precipitation amounts The year 2011 results have not been any different According to the NC
Drought Management Advisory Council (20111) Hyde County experienced seven weeks of abnormally
dry four weeks of moderate drought, five weeks of severe drought and eight weeks of extreme drought
conditions during this year's growing season The following chart denotes the drought status and
subsequent dates with respect to Hyde County
i
Abnormally Dry (DO) Moderate DrOUght (D3) Severe Drought (D2) Extreme Drought (D3)
March 15 May 3 May 31 July 5
March 22 May 10 June 7 July 12
March 29 May 17 June 14 July 19
April 5 May 24 June 21 July 26
April 12 June 28 August 2
April 19 August 9
April 26 August 16
August 23
Source NC Drought Management Advisory Council (2011)
21 Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation at the Project Site was assessed by�general visual assessments and counting stems within the
nine pre determined vegetation plots and three additional plots added in 2010 These plots are
randomly scattered throughout the Project Site and used to determine the approximate stems per acre
in and surrounding the plot location Their locations are shown on Figure 3 Assessments within each of
the plots were completed using methodology, prescribed by the CVS and EEP Level II assessments were
completed on ten of the 12 plots The two remaining plots were assessed using Level III assessment
protocol Appendix A provides the vegetation related data and information including CVS EEP output
tables and photographic comparisons Specific information regarding the CVS protocol is presented in
Section 3 0
2 11 Vegetation Problem Areas
Based on the annual field assessment severalI vegetation problem areas exist at the Project Site These
areas are also depicted on Figure 3 and described in the following paragraphs
For wetland mitigation success the USACE eti al (2003) denotes that planted stem counts should be no
less than 320 stems per acre after the third year of monitoring and no less than 260 after Year 5 For
buffer success the counts must be no less than 320 planted stems per acre after Year 5 Based on the
field data collected during Year 1 monitoring,) the annual mean of planted stems at the Project Site was
estimated at approximately 273 stems per acre EEP utilized the planting contractor s one year warranty
and a supplemental planting was conducted across several portions of the Site during early 2010 Once
planting was complete stem counts were updated during Year 2 monitoring activities
Year 3 monitoring results were slightly lowerlthan Year 2 results for planted stems, however, volunteer
stems significantly increased the overall mean The means for planted and total stems were 235 and
3 549 stems per acre as compared with the Year 2 results of 246 and 2 567 stems per acre, respectively
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site EEP Project No 38 Page 9
Monitoring Year 3 (2011) Final Report
December 2011 I 0512 00

Four of the nine wetland vegetation plots met the three year threshold amount for planted stems In
addition, Vegetation Plots #24 and #25 were also investigated for percent cover Neither exhibited any
planted stems, however Vegetation Plot #24 averaged a volunteer stem count of approximately 526
stems per acre Its overall coverage was estimated at 80 percent The actual coverage at Vegetation Plot
#25 was estimated at 10 percent The absence of planted stems throughout these two areas is likely the
result of high water levels during the initial planting year None of the three buffer plots met the success
criteria of 320 planted stems per acre These plots exhibited planted stems at a density between 145
and 217 stems per acre Volunteer species counts for these plots ranged however, from 3 778 to 6 030
stems per acre Exhibit Table V summarizes the vegetation criteria attainment In addition Vegetation
Plot #25 did not exhibit any cover during the Year 3 monitoring assessment
Other existing problem areas are associated with exotic invasive vegetation, specifically common reed
(Phragmites austrahs) This species is common to Hyde County especially along roadside and utility
rights of way managed impoundments and upper marsh areas Wind dispersion is the main culprit for
the spread of common reed EEP utilized a contractor to spray this species during the growing season of
Year 3 Based on the site visit in November, this species has been effectively controlled for the time
being Several small populations remain which will be controlled as necessary during Year 4 of the
monitoring period The current locations of controlled and remaining populations are depicted on Figure
3
22 Wetland Assessment
Wetland areas at the Project Site were assessed by hydrologic data collected and general visual
observations Hydrologic data was collected using 40 inch groundwater monitoring wells (or
piezometers) that collect daily groundwater elevation levels These monitoring wells were placed
adjacent to the eight of the existing vegetation plots Four reference monitoring wells were strategically
placed within the Project Site to act as control for existing and functional jurisdictional wetlands These
monitoring wells are numbered (MW# 7, 14, 15 and 16) The remaining eight monitoring wells will
document hydrology throughout the areas receiving mitigation credit Figure 4 depicts all of the
associated well locations For hydrologic success the restoration plan states that groundwater
elevations must be within 12 inches of the ground surface for a consecutive period no less than 5%
(approximately 12 days) of the growing season
All 12 of the monitoring wells met the hydrologic requirements of saturation within 12 inches of the
ground surface for a period no less than 5% of the growing season The growing season at the Project
Site is estimated at 230 total days ranging from March 27 through November 12 Eight of the wells
exceeded the saturation requirements for more than 12 5% of the growing season
Exhibit Table V summarizes the wetland criteria attainment Additional information Including charts
comparing groundwater elevations with respect to precipitation amounts is provided in Appendix B
2 2 1 Wetland Problem Areas
No wetland problem areas currently exist at the Project Site
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site EEP Project No 38 Page 10
Monitoring Year 3 (2011) Final Report
December 2011 50512 003

Exhibit Table V Wetland Criteria Attainment
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Project No 05 0653802 EEP Project No 38
Well ID
Well Hydrology
Tract Mean
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation
Tract Mean
Threshold Met)
Survival Threshold
Percentage?
Met?
MW# 7
Yes
29%
(Reference)
>12 5%
MW# 14
Yes
10%
(Reference)
5% 125%
MW# 15
Yes
(Reference)
5% 12 5%
619'o
MW# 16
Yes
(Reference)
5% 125%
j
MW# 17
E
VP# 17
Yes
> 2e5%
s
MW# 18
VP# 18
Yes
5% 12 5%
es
MW# 19
I
VP# 19
Yes
> 2
61%
61%
es
MW# 20
VP# 20
No
>12
Yes
MW# 21
VP# 21
No
>12
Yes
MW# 22
VP# 22
Yes
>12
Yes
10%
MW# 23
10%
VP# 23
No
> 12
MW# 24
29%
VP# 24
No
>12e5%
29%
VP# 25
No
Tarklin Creek
No
<1%
SW Scranton
No
t
-
=
t
NW Scranton
No
Notes Growing Season Length = 230 days
12 5% = 29 days
5% = 11 days
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site EEP Project No 38
Monitoring Ye'ir 3 (2011) Final Peport
December 2011
Page 11
051 ? Jo

30 Methodology
This monitoring report follows methodology consistent with EEP s Content, Format and Data
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports (Version 12, dated 11/16/06), available at EEP's website
(http / /www nceep net)
Vegetation assessments were conducted using the CVS EEP protocol (Version 4 2) As part of this
protocol, vegetation is assessed using 100 meter plots or modules The scientific method requires that
measurements be as unbiased as possible and that they be repeatable Plots are designed to achieve
both of these objectives in particular, different people should be able to inventory the same plot and
produce similar data (Lee et al 2006)
According to Lee et al (2006), there are many different goals in recording vegetation and both time
and resources for collecting plot data are extremely variable To provide appropriate flexibility in project
design the CVS EEP protocol supports five distinct types of vegetation plot records which are referred
to as levels in recognition of the increasing level of detail and complexity across the sequence The lower
levels require less detail and fewer types of information about both vegetation and environment, and
thus are generally sampled with less time and effort (Lee et al , 2006) Level 1 (Planted Stem Inventory
Plots) and Level 2 (Total Woody Stem Inventory Plots) inventories were completed on all nine of the
vegetation plots at the Project Site In addition Level 3 (Community Occurrence Plots) inventories were
conducted on the two marsh vegetation plots
Level 1 plots are applicable only for restoration areas with planted woody stems The primary purpose is
to determine the pattern of installation of plant material with respect to species spacing and density
and to monitor the survival and growth of those installed plants Level 1 plots are one module in size
(Lee et al , 2006)
Level 2 plots also are designed specifically for restoration areas and represent a superset of information
collected for Level 1 plots In these plots planted woody stems are recorded exactly as for Level 1 but in
addition all woody stems resulting from natural regeneration are recorded by size class using separate
datasheets These plots allow an accurate and rapid assessment of the overall trajectory of woody plant
restoration and regeneration on a site Level 2 plots are one module in size (Lee et al 2006)
Level 3 plots are used to document the overall abundance and vertical distribution of leaf area cover of
the more common species in a plot Cover is estimated for all plant species exceeding a specified lower
level (typically 5% cover) species present but with cover lower than the cut off may be ignored The
information can also be used to assess vegetation successional status as well as the presence and
abundance of undesirable taxa such as invasive exotics Additional environmental data are collected in
Level 3 plots Optionally, woody stem data required for Level 2 plots (tallies of planted and /or natural
woody stems) may be collected for Level 3 plots to allow more accurate assessment of the rate and
direction of succession Level 3 plots are one module in size (Lee et al , 2006)
Twelve Ecotone WM (40 inch) Water Level Monitors record daily groundwater elevations across the
Project Site These wells are downloaded electronically in person approximately three times per year
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site EEP Project No 38 Page 12
Monitoring Year 3 (2011) Final Report
December 2011 50512 003

40 References
I
Environmental Laboratory 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual Technical Report Y
87 1 Prepared for Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers Washington, DC
20314 1000
Lee M T Peet R K Roberts S D and TIR Wentworth 2006 CVS EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4 0 Retrieved October 30 2006 from http / /www nceep net
Miller, K H 2009 Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site Background Data Prepared by NCDENR
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2010
Bishop Road Wetland Restoration Site Monitoring Year 2 (2010) EEP IMS# 38 Hyde County NC
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
I
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) 2009
Final As Built and Monitoring Baseline Report, Bishop Road Wetland Restoration EEP IMS# 38
Hyde County NC Prepared by ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina Inc
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) 2006
Bishop Road Wetland Restoration Project Final Restoration Plan Report Prepared by ARCADIS
G &M of North Carolina, Inc
NC Drought Management Advisory Council, 2010 Summary of Drought Conditions Throughout North
Carolina Available http / /www ncdroueht ors
i
Tiner R W 1993 Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States The
University of Massachusetts Press, Amiherst MA
US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources Commission,
NC Division of Water Quality (USACE et al ) 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site EEP Project No 38 Page 13
Monitoring Year 3 (2011) Final Report
December 2011 n 00

From Raleigh, take US 64 east towards Wendell. - `,'. _ a,
Merge onto US 264 East - Continue on US 264
approximately 135 miles. Turn right onto W ~
Silverthome Road. The site abuts the M
intersection of US 264 and Bishop Road and ,.< 6
extends to the west and north. Silverthome Road
TO BELHAVEN
`4-
ov CO-
4 � _
PROJECT
AREA
T rhiaa� k
Beck CC)
—
'�` x 9La ,J r US 264
0 it
sr�` Gtl4
�� scrdnt
C e
r° .s ""t0°�, TO SWAN QUARTER
Prepared For: 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 4,000 N
Feet E
'' fill J I ' Miles S
vi �:n it SCALE: 1 :24,000
PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP Figure No.
Bishop Road Wetland .'litigation Site
HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1

Legend
West Muriel Road
Riparian Buffer Restoration
Non - Riparian Restoration
Existing Silverthorne Road
- Coastal Marsh Preservation
Riverine Forested Wetland Preservation
Riverine Forested Wetland Restoration
Weyerhauser Mitigation Area
Non - Riparian Hardwood Flat Preservation
Non - Jurisdictional Areas
Coastal Marsh Restoration
Prepared For.
0
r�
rte=
East Muriel Road
Bishop Road
(existing)
Silverthorne Road
(existing)
Old Bishop Road
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
try land under private rnvnership. Accessing the site may require
traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore
access by the general public is not pemtitted. Access by authorized
personnel or the state and federal agencies or their
designeeslcontractom involved in the development, oversight and
stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and
timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
activities by any person ourtside ofthese previously sanctioned roles
and activities requires prior coordnation with EEP.
1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
SCALE: 1:18.000
PROJECT ATTRIBUTES
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
N
S
Figure No.
2

khmiller 03/11/09
111 -boo it
Vegetation Problem Areas Plan View
Monitoring Year 3 (2011) Assessment
Bishop Road
Hyde County
2006 aerial photo
from CG IA
ftp- /1204.211.239.203/o utgoi ng/
raster /local_imagery/hyde2006 /sid/
N
Key
■ Vegetation Plots meeting mitigation expectations.
■Vegetation Plots requiring attention or not meeting current
mitigation thresholds
Common reed (Phragmites australis) treatment areas
Existing populations of common reed (Phragmites australis)
0 65130 260 390 520 650 780 910 1,040
Meters
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Hyde County, NC
EEP Project No. 38
Source: Miller, 2009
1 meter = 3.28 feet
Figure
3

khmiller 03/11109
r�
moire e
I '�1 181 Clllf',11t
Wetland Problem Areas Plan View
Monitoring Year 3 (2011) Assessment
Bishop Road
Hyde County
2006 aerial photo
from CGIA
ftp- 1/204.211.239.203/outgoi ng/
raster /l oca l_i magery/hyde2006 /sid/
N
0 65130 260 390 520 650 780 910 1,040
Mete rs
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Hyde County, NC
EEP Project No. 38
Source: Miller, 2009
1 meter = 3.28 feet
Key
N
Monitoring well met
2011 hydrology
criteria for mitigation.
It
Monitoring well did not
meet 2011 hydrology
criteria for mitigation
(Not Applicable)
Figure
4

Appendix A
Vegetation Raw Data and Annual Photograph Comparisons

Appendix A Table 1 Vegetation Metadata
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 38)
Report Prepared By
Lane Sauls
Date Prepared
16724/201116 00
database name
EcoEng 2011 A 38 BishopRoad EntryTool v227 mdb
database location
S \Projects \50000 State \EEP 50512 \50512 003 EEP Bishop Road \CVS DATA
computer name
LANE
file size
79777792
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file the report worksheets and a summary of project(s) and project data
Proj planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre for each year This excludes live stakes
Proj total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre for each year This includes live stakes all
planted stems and all natural /volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems dead stems missing etc )
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems
impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot dead and missing stem
are excluded
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers
combined) for each plot dead and missing stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
38
project Name
BISHOP ROAD
Description
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
River Basin
length(ft)
stream to edge vAdth (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
0
Source CVS EEP Data Output

Appendix A Table 2 Vegetation Vigor by Species
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 38)
Species
CommonName
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Aroma arbut¢ oho
Red Chokeberry
1
Bacchans halimifolia
eastern bacchans
3
5
Ilex glabro
inkberry
1
Nyssa aquatica
water tupelo
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
1
1
1
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
4
6
1
Rosa palustns
swamp rose
3
8
Morelia cenfera
wax myrtle
8
5
1
Ilex opoca
American holly
1
1
Quercus
oak
1
8
3
2
18
Magnolia virgimana
sweetbay
1
1
1
Myrnca
sweetgale
6
Nyssa
tupelo
1
Salix
willow
1
Unknown
2
TOTALS
16
15
16
28
16
2
2
38
Source CVS EEP Data Output

Appendix A Table 3 Vegetation Damage by Species
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 38)
Qiy
Or
a
v
m
OC 41� C i
`�h Ko
�' R� �� c 6� •tom ��
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
1
1
Bacchans hohmifoho
eastern bacchans
5
3
5
Ilex glabra
inkberry
1
1
Ilexopoca
American holly
1
1
1
Magnoho wrginiana
sweetbay
1
2
1
Morello cenfera
wax myrtle
1
13
1
Mynca
sweetgale
0
6
Nyssa
tupelo
1
1 1
Nysso aquatics
water tupelo
1
1
1
Quercus
oak
6
26
1
4
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
1
4
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
1
2
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
1
10
1
Rosa palustrns
swamp rose
1
10 1
1
Salix
willow
0
1
Unknown
0
2
1
TOTALS
16
15 1
22
81
6
15
1
Source CVS EEP Data Output
0

Appendix A Table 4 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 38)
t�
4�
w�
. a c
c° a�F � c °3
Source CVS EEP Data Output
E38 1 Gauge17 year 3
2
1 8
1
1
E38 1 Gauge18 year 3
2
7
1
1
E38 1 Gauge19 year 3
4
9
3
1
E38 1 Gauge20 year 3
1
11
1
E38 1 Gauge2l year 3
1
6
1
E38 1 Gauge22 year 3
5
3
5
E38 1 Gauge23 year 3
2
11
2
E38 1 Gauge24 year 3
0
7
E38 1 Gauge25 year 3
1
E38 EEP NWScranton year 2
2
7
2
E38 EEP SWScranton year 2
1
4
1
E38 EEP TarklinCreek year 2
2
8
2
TOTALS
12
22 1
81 1
1 1
6 1
15 1
1
Source CVS EEP Data Output

Appendix A Table 5 Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Bishop Road Wetland Whgation Site (EEP Project No 38)
w
Fv° �y
F
vo yQ
Aronia arbutifoha
Bacchans hahmifoha
Ilex glabra
Ilex opoca
Magnoha virgmiano
Morella cerifera
Nyssa
Quercus
Quercus michauxii
Quercus pagoda
Quercus phellos
Rosa palustrns
Sohx
n/a no stems
TOTALS
1
13
13
Source CVS EEP Data Output
o°
F�
V°
Red Chokeberry
eastern bacchans
inkberry
American holly
wax
- oak
swamp chestnut oak
cherrybark oak
willow oak
swamp rose
willow
Fy
a
N /'v /!%,
a a a ti° yoC
44v? 44v? 44q47
ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti �

Appendix A Table 6 Vegetative Problem Areas
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No 38)
Feature /Issue
Station /Range
Probable Cause
Photo #
Vegetation Plot #20
n/a
Drought
Vegetation Plot # 21
n/a
Drought
VP 21
Vegetation Plot #23
n/a
Inundation
VP 23
Vegetation Plot # 24
n/a
Inundation
VP 24
Vegetation Plot # 25
n/a
Inundation
VP 25
Vegetation Plot # Scranton Creek SE
n/a
Drought
VP Scranton SE
Vegetation Plot # Scranton Creek SW
n/a
Drought
VP Scranton SW
Vegetation Plot # Tarklin Creek
n/a
Drought
VP Tarklin Creek
Phrogmites austrolis
n/a
Invasive Species
n/a

Appendix A Table 7. Planted and Total Stem Count Summary
EEP Proiect Code 38. Proiect Name: BISHOP ROAD
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Fails to meet re uiremeMS, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more Man 101A
Current Plot Data (MY3 2011)
American holly
Jesuit s bark
�■
���
���
���
���
���
���
���
��
®���
���
���
��m
��m
���
��m
���
swamp chestnut oak
cherrybark oak
Stem couni
mmm
oo
®m
®�
vv
®oom
oom
o
©moo
®o00
0
©�
o
©moo
®mm�
mmm
mm�
®
®�
size (ares�
0
0
0
0
©v
o
0
0
size (ACRES),
o ©voo
®oom
®
©voo
©vv
©ao
©000000
©aaa
©ooa
©m
® ®mm
®mm
®mmm
per ACRI
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Fails to meet re uiremeMS, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more Man 101A

Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site Vegetation Plot Photograph Summary
Photograph
February 12, 2009 Baseline
Information
Photo #
VP -17 Faci
Southwe!
January 2010 Monitoring Year 1 July 2010 Monitoring Year 2 July 2011 Monitoring Year 3
Photo #
VP -18 Faci
Northeas
Photo #
VP -19 Faci
Southwe
Photo #
VP -20 Fad
East
Photo #
VP -21 Faci
West

Photograph
Information February 12, 2009 Baseline
Pho
VP -22
Wi
January 2010 Monitoring Year 1 July 2010 Monitoring Year 2 July 2011 Monitoring Year 3
Photo #
VP -23 Faci
North
Pho
VP-24
No
Photo #
VP -25 Facing
North
Photo #
Scranton
NW Facing
Northwest

Photograph
Information
Photo #
Scranton SE
Facing
Northwest
Photo #
Tarklin
Creek S
Facing South
February 12, 2009 Baseline January 2010 Monitoring Year 1 July 2010 Monitoring Year 2 July 2011 Monitoring Year 3

1- Jan -11
11- Jan -11
21- Jan -11
31- Jan -11
10- Feb -11
20- Feb -11
2- Mar -11
12- Mar -11
22- Mar -11
1- Apr -11
11- Apr -11
21- Apr -11
1- May -11
11- May -11
21- May -11
31- May -11
10- Jun -11
20- Jun -11
30- Jun -11
'10- Jul -11
20- Jul -11
30- Jul -11
v
.t
9- Aug -11
19- Aug -11
0
29- Aug -11
m
8- Sep -11
18- Sep -11
0 28- Sep -11
m
s
8- Ott -11
0 18- Oct -11
c 28- Oct -11
0. 7- Nov -11
of
CD 17- Nov -11
1
27- Nov -11
Depth to Groundwater (in)
Nh-A I-A 1-A I--- F-A N
O 00 0) A N O 00 C) A N O N A rn 00 O N A a) 00 O
O O O O O N N N
O O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O
Precipitation (in)
t-0
O
3
o
o
G
o
c =
� V
d �
m A
m
m
n

c Depth to Groundwater (in)
M
A
o+ O m m A N O 0 m A N O 0 m � N O 0 0 C i N
O N A m 00
1- Jan -11
11- Jan -11
2 _
21- Jan -11
31- Jan -11
d
10- Feb -11
g 20- Feb -11
0 2- Mar -11 - -- —
CL
12- Mar -11
22- Mar -11 -- -_ -___
- - — — — — —N - - - - -_ - - -- N-
1- Apr -11 NJ
m
11- Apr -11 V < o
21- Apr -11
1- May -11 —�-
w
11- May -11
21- May -11
31- May -11
0 10- Jun -11
f+
20- Jun -11
30- Jun -11
'10- Jul -11
20- Jul -11
m 30- Jul -11 00
CL
C1
9- Aug -11 <
Ct
0 19- Aug -11 /
29- Aug -11 - -- -- r/
oa
8- Sep -11
m
18- Sep -11 a
o
0 28- Sep -11 n F, m
o,
CL
8- Oct -11 LA < i o
a 10 __ <
0 18- Oct -11 J�__a o�0 3
0 28- Oct -11
c o
CL 3 N
7-Nov-11 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -- r - - - --
m 17- Nov -11
27- Nov -11
N
Q�
O
O O O o t, N N
N A m 00 O N A
O O O O O O O
Precipitation (in)
9
O
O
O
o �
O m
C =
CL i-a
F A
M
r�
n
v

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
c -8
-10
-12
3 -14
c -16
O
-18
c7 -20
-22
-24
d -26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
-42
-44
-46
-48
-50
-4
c
r-1
Monitoring Well #15 (Reference)
40" Groundwater
i March 27
Start of Growing Season
I
i
i
1
i
i
1 day
� 27� days
GAGE MALFUNCTION AFTER 5/20/11
November 12
End of Growine Season
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
c
C
O
0.80 0
a
'u
d
CL`
0.60
0.40
0.20
1 ill If
III
11111.
1 It I
I It
1 ■.
11 1
1311
III
III
t .
1 111
111111.
I; I 1111111. 111 It 1
IIIII
111 I.
HIM'Wi
1
1 0.00
r-1 r-1
ri r 1
r-1
r I
11
r 1
r-1
.1
-4
ri
r-1
ri
r1
.1
ri
ri
r-1
i-1
r-I
r 1
11
r 1
r-1
r 1
r-1
ri
r-1
r I
r-1
11
ri
171
w-1
e1
ri r-i r-1 r-1
11 r- 171 1-1
r 1
-4
r 1
-1
ri
r-1
e-1
-4
ri
-4
. -I
ri
a-1
11
.1
'1
rf
1-1
rf
r-1
ri
c c
c
o
m
a
s
a
c
C
c
ao
ao
0o
a
a
a
-U
+�
-U
>
>
>
�'
1�
i
a
a
a
a
a'
a'
0
0
o
z
z
z
r-1 N
M
N
N
N
a--1
r-1
ri
ri
-1
N
M
O O M
N
W
N
00
N
ri
N
r-I
N
r-I
N
co
4
r,
r-I
N
2011 Precipitation Data Depth to Groundwater

1- Jan -11
11- Jan -11
21- Jan -11
31- Jan -11
10- Feb -11
20- Feb -11
2- Mar -11
12- Mar -11
22- Mar -11
1- Apr -11
11- Apr -11
21- Apr -11
1- May -11
11- May -11
21- May -11
31- May -11
N
10- Jun -11
F+
20- Jun -11
30- Jun -11
10- Jul -11
' 20- Jul -11
30- Jul -11
9- Aug -11
d
0 19- Aug -11
29- Aug -11
rt
O)
8- Sep -11
18- Sep -11
28- Sep -11
v
8- Oct -11
0
18- Oct -11
GQ 28- Oct -11
0
CL 7- Nov -11
d 17- Nov -11
m
27- Nov -11
Depth to Groundwater (in)
A W W W W W N N N N N N N F� F+ F- i i
O O 9) A N O 00 9) A N O 90 9) A N O 00 91 A N O N A O1 90
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 o O O O
O N A M 00 O N .A Ol
O O O O O O O O O
Precipitation (in)
0
0
A �
o
G1
0 m
CL
C
C
0
M m
1
m
3
n
fD

1- Jan -11
11- Jan -11
21- Jan -11
31- Jan -11
10- Feb -11
20- Feb -11
2- Mar -11
12- Mar -11
22- Mar -11
1- Apr -11
11- Apr -11
21- Apr -11
1- May -11
11- May -11
21- May -11
31- May -11
10- Jun -11
r
20- Jun -11
30- Jun -11
'10- Jul -11
20- Jul -11
-o
n
30- Jul -11
9- Aug -11
3 19- Aug -11
29- Aug -11
a,
8- Sep -11
18- Sep -11
v
28- Sep -11
M
-0 8- Oct -11
0 18- Oct -11
G)
0 28- Oct -11
c
CL 7- Nov -11
17- Nov -11
27- Nov -11
Depth to Groundwater (in)
A A W W W W W N N N N N F- F-.
N O 00 M A N O CO Ol A N O 00 M A N O 00 01 A N O N A O) 00 O
O O O o O t- t
O N A Cn 00 O N 4�- m
O O O O O O O O O
Precipitation (in)
A 0
o �
o
c ao
3
CL
d
m U
� f+
V

1- Jan -11
11- Jan -11
21- Jan -11
31- Jan -11
10- Feb -11
20- Feb -11
2- Mar -11
12- Mar -11
22- Mar -11
1- Apr -11
11- Apr -11
21- Apr -11
1- May -11
11- May -11
21- May -11
31- May -11
10- Jun -11
20- Jun -11
30- Jun -11
'10- Jul -11
20- Jul -11
v
n
30- Jul -11
9- Aug -11
0 19- Aug -11
29- Aug -11
d
8- Sep -11
18- Sep -11
v
28- Sep -11
m
8- Oct -11
z
0 18- Oct -11
G)
0 28- Oct -11
C
M
CL 7- Nov -11
17- Nov -11
1
27- Nov -11
Depth to Groundwater (in)
A W W W W W N N N N N N 1- F- F- FLl F+
O 00 0) A N O 00 O) A N O 00 Qi A N O 00 Oi A N O N A Cn 00 O
O O O O O t- N
C N A Q) 00 O N A m
O O O O O O O O O
Precipitation (in)
A C
o �
o
C
CL
d m
m U
� f+
00

1- Jan -2011
11- Jan -2011
21- Jan -2011
31- Jan -2011
10- Feb -2011
20- Feb -2011
2- Mar -2011
12- Mar -2011
22- Mar -2017.
1- Apr -2011
11- Apr -2011
21- Apr -2011
1- May -2011
11- May -2011
21- May -2011
31- May -2011
N
0 10- Jun -2011
20- Jun -2011
30- Jun -2011
'10 -Jul -2011
20-Jul-2011
30 -Jul -2011
9- Aug -2011
r,
0 19- Aug -2011
29- Aug -2011
o,
8 -Sep -2011
18 -Sep -2011
0 28- Sep -2011
m
8 -Oct -2011
s
0 18 -00-2011
G)
0 28 -Oct -2011
c
C7- Nov -2011
r.
17- Nov -2011
1
27- Nov -2011
Depth to Groundwater (in)
.A W W W W W N N N N N N N h- h- I- i 8
O 00 01 A N O CO 0) A N O CO 0) A N O 00 al A N O N A M 00 O
0 o O o O N N
O N A 0) 00 O N A Q�
O O O O O O O O O
Precipitation (in)
A �
o �
0
0 3
c o0
CL
d
r.
m xs
� N

1- Jan -11
11- Jan -11
21- Jan -11
31- Jan -11
10- Feb -11
20- Feb -11
2- Mar -11
12- Mar -11
22- Mar -11
1- Apr -11
11- Apr -11
21- Apr -11
1- May -11
11- May -11
21- May -11
31- May -11
N
10- Jun -11
20- Jun -11
30- Jun -11
'10- Jul -11
20- Jul -11
-v
30- Jul -11
v
9- Aug -11
0 19- Aug -11
29- Aug -11
d
8- Sep -11
18- Sep -11
v
28- Sep -11
m
a 8- Oct -11
s
0 18- Oct -11
C)
0 28- Oct -11
C
i7- Nov -11
17- Nov -11
27- Nov -11
Depth to Groundwater (in)
A W W W W W N N N N N 1� F- Y� I� h.
O 00 0) A N O 00 0) A N O 00 0) A N O 00 m A N O N -Cl 0) 00
O O O O O t-
O N A 0) 00 O
O O O O O O O O C
Precipitation (in)
� o
o �
G)
� o
O
C 3
3 �
fl.
d �
� N
0

Z Depth to Groundwater (in)
0
!R A W W W W W N N N N N I� FLl F- F l FLl
O 00 � A N O 00 01 A N O 00 01 A N O 00 01 A N O N A 01 00
Q 1- Jan -11
fu
0 11- Jan -11
a
0 21- Jan -11
a 31- Jan -11
10- Feb -11
N
g 20- Feb -11
0 2- Mar -11
'o
C
a 12- Mar -11
N
C
22- Mar -11
A
1- Apr -11
11- Apr -11
21- Apr -11
1- May -11
11- May -11
21- May -11
31- May -11
N
0 10- Jun -11
20- Jun -11
30- Jun -11
10- Jul -11
' 20- Jul -11
30- Jul -11
r:
9- Aug -11
m
a 19- Aug -11
0 29- Aug -11
r,
8- Sep -11
18- Sep -11
28- Sep -11
v
8- Oct -11
0
18- Oct -11
GQ 28- Oct -11
0
c
CL 7- Nov -11
f
17- Nov -11
m
27- Nov -11
O O O O O t
O N A 0) 00 O N A Q�
O O O O O O O O O
Precipitation (in)
A 0
o �
0 0
c
3 �
CL
:E A
m se
� N
f+

1- Jan -11
11- Jan -11
21- Jan -11
31- Jan -11
10- Feb -11
20- Feb -11
2- Mar -11
12- Mar -11
22- Mar -11
1- Apr -11
11- Apr -11
21- Apr -11
1- May -11
11- May -11
21- May -11
31- May -11
N
0 10- Jun -11
20- Jun -11
30- Jun -11
'10- Jul -11
20- Jul -11
30- Jul -11
9- Aug -11
: 19- Aug -11
29- Aug -11
d
8- Sep -11
18- Sep -11
v
28- Sep -11
m
8- Oct -11
0 18- Oct -11
G)
0 28- Oct -11
c
7- Nov -11
17- Nov -11
27- Nov -11
Depth to Groundwater (in)
A W W W W W N N N N N 1- 1Ll Ir F- M I` I-
O 00 0) Pb N O 00 01 A N O 00 0) A N O 00 0) A N O N A m 00 O N
O O O O O t,
°O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0
Precipitation (in)
O o
G1 ''
� o
O
c
3 OQ
CL
d m
m *s
� N
N

1- Jan -11
11- Jan -11
21- Jan -11
31- Jan -11
10- Feb -11
20- Feb -11
2- Mar -11
12- Mar -11
22- Mar -11
1- Apr -11
11- Apr -11
21- Apr -11
1- May -11
11- May -11
21- May -11
31- May -11
N
N 10-Jun-11
N
20- Jun -11
30- Jun -11
'10- Jul -11
20- Jul -11
30- Jul -11
v'
r+
9- Aug -11
Om 19- Aug -11
v
29- Aug -11
0r
8- Sep -11
18- Sep -11
0 28- Sep -11
m
s
8- Oct -11
0 18- Oct -11
G)
c 28- Oct -11
D
i
7- Nov -11
d
m 17- Nov -11
27- Nov -11
Depth to Groundwater (in)
A W W W W W N N N N N !- I- F- F+ h+
O 00 M A N O 00 M A N O 00 M A N O CO O) -P- N O N A O) 00 O N A Oi 00 O
O O O O O r N
O O O O O O O O C
Precipitation (in)
O 0
G1 '+
C
3 �
C.
dm
m ft
� N
w

1- Jan -11
11- Jan -11
21- Jan -11
31- Jan -11
10- Feb -11
20- Feb -11
2- Mar -11
12- Mar -11
22- Mar -11
1- Apr -11
11- Apr -11
21- Apr -11
1- May -11
11- May -11
21- May -11
31- May -11
10- Jun -11
20- Jun -11
30- Jun -11
'10- Jul -11
20- Jul -11
30- Jul -11
-o'
9- Aug -11
0 19- Aug -11
o,
29- Aug -11
d
8- Sep -11
18- Sep -11
0 28- Sep -11
(o
8- Oct -11
0 18- Oct -11
G)
0 28- Oct -11
c
i 7- Nov -11
d
m 17- Nov -11
27- Nov -11
Depth to Groundwater (in)
h A
N
A N O 00 M N O N A Q1 00 O
O o 0 o O
0 NJ 00
O O O O O 0 N
O O O
Precipitation (in)
A 0
O �
+n O
o
c o0
CL
off, f D
� N
A

colo�ica!
ineerin��
December 16, 2011
128 Ralcigk 5trcct
Holly 5Fnngs North Carolina 27540
(9 1.9) 557 0929
RECEIVED
Heather Smith DEC 2 2 2011
DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 1H 103 NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMEENT NT PROGRAM
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re Response to Comments — Draft Bishop Road Site Year 3 Monitoring Report (2011)
EEP Project No 38
Dear Ms Smith
Ecological Engineering, LLP (Ecological Engineering) appreciates the opportunity to respond to
comments regarding the abovementioned draft report submitted in November 2011 We have
addressed all comments, made updates and are submitting the final report along with this letter Based
on your letter dated December 12, 2011, the following suggestions were provided
1 Please double side the entire document
Response The document will print as double sided
2 Include the CU on Page 2
Response We have included the CU on Page 2
3 Delete "approximately' from the second paragraph on page 2
Response The word approximately' has been deleted from the second paragraph on Page 2
4 Delete the "however, its overall effect did not appear to significantly increase counts as
originally intended" from Vegetation Assessment on page 2
Response The wording has been deleted from the Vegetation Assessment paragraph on Page 2
5 Include the CU on page 5 in the Location and Setting paragraph
Response We have included in the CU on Page 5 in the paragraph under Location and Setting
6 Table I included the acreages for Coastal Marsh in the upper portion of the table
Response Table 1 has been simplified
7 Include the word "plots" after vegetation in the first sentence under Vegetation Assessment on
page 9
Response The word "plots" has been inserted
8 Page 10 need % cover for coastal marsh, not stems /acre Include wording that vegetation plot
25 is bare but herbaceous vegetation is present in the restoration area
Response The Level 111 assessment includes planted stems along with vegetative cover The
entire paragraph has been revised to include percent cover along with the overall findings
Ecological Engineering LLP Project No 50 -)12 003 Page 1 of 2

9 Delete "According to EEP (2009)' under Wetland Assessment on page 10
Response The phrase has been deleted
10 Page 12 include "are" in third paragraph first sentence
Response The word 'are has been inserted
11 Figure 3 include another color to denote meets 320 stems /acre with volunteers and include %
cover for coastal marsh areas
Response Figure 3 has been revised to include the above comment
As previously noted, we sincerely appreciate the opportunity to respond to these comments If you have
any additions questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at [phone]
Respectfully submitted,
ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP
G Lane Sauls Jr
Principal
cc File 50512 003
Ecological Engineering LLP Project No 50512 003 Page 2 of 2