20061905 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20110929

06- qO
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project
Hyde County, NC
2011 Annual Monitoring Report
Year 4
NCEEP Project Number D06001
Tar - Pamhco River Basin
Submitted to
NCDENR/Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27604
z
Date September, 2011
00
m
M n
-v
Monitoring
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
z
-o
�
P O Box 176
OK
Fairfield, NC 27826
D
r%0- A
il�k11101swe
llt
PgOGRM1

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1
I Project Background
2
10 Project Objectives
2
20 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
2
30 Location and Setting
3
40 Project History and Background
5
50 Monitoring Plan View
6
II Project Condition and Monitoring Results
9
10 Vegetation Assessment
9
1 1 Vegetation Discussion and Problem Areas
9
12 Vegetation Monitoring Plan View (Integrated)
10
20 Wetland Assessment
10
21 Wetland Discussion and Problem Areas
10
22 Wetland Problem Areas Plan View (Integrated)
11
30 Project Success Discussion
11
III Methodology Section
12
List of Tables
Table E -S 1 Project Success Summary
1
Table I Project Restoration Components
3
Table H Project Activity and Reporting History
5
Table III Project Contacts
5
Table IV Project Background
6
Table V Species for Each Community Type
9
Table VI Hydrology and Vegetation Success by Plot
11
Table C -1 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
Appendix C
List of Figures
Figure 1 Composite Vicinity Map 4
Figure 2 Monitoring Plan View Gauges and Vegetation Plots 7
Figure 3 Monitoring Plan View Sods, Contours and Plant Communities 8
Figure 4 Composite Vegetation and Wetland Problem Areas Plan View Appendix D
Appendices
Appendix A
Vegetation Data and Site Photos
Appendix B
Geomorphologic Raw Data — N/A
Appendix C
Hydrologic Data Tables
Appendix D
Integrated Problem Area Plan Views
11

Executive Summary
The Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Site is a riverine and non- riverine wetland restoration
project located on U S Rt 264 at Rose Bay in Hyde County, North Carolina It was constructed
by Albemarle Restorations, LLC, under contract with EEP to provide compensatory wetland
mitigation credits in the Tar - Pamlico River Basin Construction activities, in accordance with
the approved restoration plan, began March 14, 2007, and were completed on May 14, 2007
The resulting features include a main swamp run and adjacent areas of lower elevation that retain
flood water for extended periods Tree and shrub planting on the project site occurred in May,
2007 using bare -root seedlings and containerized stock from a species list that produced a
diverse species nux across the site and throughout the various elevations
Six water level monitoring gauges are installed at varying elevations throughout the site to
measure subsurface water elevations Two additional gauges are installed at reference sites for
hydrology comparison In 2011, all of the monitoring gauges met the hydrologic success
criterion of maintained groundwater levels within 12 inches of the soil surface for 21 consecutive
days during the growing season
Four vegetative monitoring plots are installed and permanently monumented, one coincident
with each of monitoring gauges 1 through 4 Their locations ensure an accurate sampling of the
entire vegetative community Each plot is a 10m X 10m square, as recommended by the CVS-
EEP Protocol for recording vegetation sampling In this fourth year of monitoring, all four plots
met the Year 5 success criterion of 260 living planted stems per acre
Table ES -1 shows the levels of success attained by each of the water level monitoring gauges
and the vegetation plots since monitoring began Success criterion for hydrology is 8% of the
growing season (21 days) Table C -1 in Appendix C has a detailed breakdown of hydrologic
success Success criterion for the vegetation plots is 260 live stems per acre (the year 5 criterion
for survival)
Table ES -1 Project Success Summa (longest hydropenod as a percent of the growing season)
Gau a
Percent
Success
Vegetation
Plot
Percent
Success
1
2
3
4
5
6
7*
8*
1
2
1 3
4
Year 1 (2008)
38
33
36
34
35
36
61
16
100%
Y
Y
N
N
50%
Year 2 (2009)
55
35
30
51
35
45
46
49
100%
Y
Y
Y
Y
100%
Year 3 (2010)
12
18
19
18
18
18
100
18
100%
Y
Y
Y
Y
100%
Year 4 (2011)
30
1 21
1 27
1 21
1 21
1 28
1 21
15
100%
Y
I Y
Y
Y
100%
* Gauges 7 & 8 are reference gauges and not included in Percent Success
Figures in GREEN made hydrology for 8% of the growing season, figures in RED did not
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 1
Albemarle Restorations LLC
201 I Momtonng Year 4of 5

I Protect Background
10 Proiect Obiectives
The goal of the Mason Property Mitigation Project was to create both riverine and non - riverine
wetland systems that will accomplish several goals Primary among those goals is the
establishment of functioning wetlands that will aid in flood attenuation and improve water
quality on site and downstream The project is to serve as compensation for wetland loss in the
Tar - Pamlico River Basin The restoration plan was developed and implemented to ehmmate
pattern drainage and restore topography and hydrology that more closely resembled that of
similar undisturbed land Construction resulted in the development of a broad, frequently
flooded swamp run following the historical path as evidenced by aerial photographs and
signature topography Subsequent planting was designed to restore a wetland forest ecosystem
that is typically found in the immediate area characteristic of siirular soils, topography and
hydrology
The specific project goals and objectives include
1) Provide floodflow attenuation
2) Water quality improvement through sediment, toxicant, and nutrient retention and
reduction
3) Slow over bank flow rates and provide storage and desynchromzation of flood waters
4) Alleviate downstream flooding issues by lessening the effect of pulse or flashy flows
5) Provide shading through forest cover to reduce algae growth and associated low
dissolved oxygen levels in surface water moving through the site
6) The production and export of food sources
7) The creation of wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities
20 Protect Structure, Restoration Type. and Approach
Table I lists the estimated wetland acreage by community type to be restored on the Mason
Property The mitigation plan provides for the restoration of 16 0 acres of riverine wetlands and
20 0 acres of non- riverme wetlands The 36 0 acre easement area is located within the
boundaries of the larger Mason farm which has been used for row crop production The project
area was bisected by a deep drainage ditch that acted as a stream that ran from north to south
through the property Degradation to the channel and surrounding areas by past agricultural
activities, including channel straightening and planting of row crops up to the channel edges had
eliminated any significant natural habitat on the site and allowed excessive nutrient and sediment
accumulation in the channel Construction, in accordance with the approved restoration plan,
began in March of 2007 and was completed in May of 2007 The resulting features and
topography allow for frequent over bank flooding of the newly created swamp run, which in turn
allows for adjacent areas that are lower in elevation to retain water even after stream flow returns
to normal
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 2
Albemarle Restorations LLC
2011 Monitoring - Year 4of 5

Table I Protect Restoration Components
Mason Pro a rty Wetland Mitigation Site/EEP #D06001
Post
Community
Pre- Eaasting
Construction
Credit Ratio
Mitigation
Type
Acreage
Acreage
(Restoration WMU)
Units
Rtverme
0 0
160
1 1
16 0
Wetland
Non- Rivertne
0 0
200
1 1
200
Wetland
Total
360
30 Location and Settmg
The Mason Property Mitigation Site is located in Hyde County, on the north side of U S
Highway 264, approximately 1 mile northwest of Rose Bay, NC (intersection of Turnpike Rd
and U S 264) The easement area is situated in the center of the Mason property and lies along
the mid and upper reaches of an unnamed tributary to Rose Bay, referred to locally as the
"Mason Ditch " Downstream from this site, the tributary flows almost exclusively through
wooded areas containing extensive wetland communities before joining the main run of Rose
Bay Creek The surrounding area is primarily forest and agricultural land with residential
properties as a minor component
Figure 1 is a location map for the project area Directions to the site are as follows travel west
from Rose Bay on U S Hwy 264 approximately 1 mile and turn right (north) onto the property
Access to the site is via a farm path
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 3
Albemarle Restorations LLC
201 l Momtonng Year 4of 5

5 % of growing season is 13 days, 8% is 21 days
2011 Reference Precipitation January thru August
Total Normal = 35.25 inches, Total Actual = 40.55 inches
Total cumulative surplus = 5.3 inches
25
s= 20
15
� —Normal Preciptiation
10 —
c 5 — Actual Precipitation
a Cumulative Deficit
" 0
a
Table C -1
Longest Consecutive Successful Hydrologic Period
in Days and Success at 5% and 8% of Growing Season
Year l
Current Year
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Gau a
Da s
%
5%
8%
Days
% 5 %
8%
Da s % 5%
8%
Da s
%
5%
8%
Days % 5 % 8%
1
99
38
Y
Y
143
55 Y
Y
30 12 Y
Y
79
; 30
Y
Y
2
86
33
Y
Y
91
35 Y
Y
47 18 Y
Y
54
21
Y
Y
3
95
; 36
Y
Y
79
; 30 Y
Y
49 19 Y
Y
70
27
Y
Y
4
88
34
Y
Y
133
51 Y
Y
48 18 Y
Y
56
21
Y
Y
5
92
35 ;
Y
Y
91
35 Y
Y
47 18 Y
Y
56
; 21
Y
Y
6
93
36
Y
Y
118
45 Y
Y
48 18 Y
Y
72
28
Y
Y
7 (Ref)
158
61
Y
Y
119
46 Y
Y
261 100 ; Y
Y
56
21 ;
Y
Y
8 (Ref)
41
16
Y
Y
129
49 Y
Y
47 18 Y
Y
40
15
Y
Y
5 % of growing season is 13 days, 8% is 21 days
2011 Reference Precipitation January thru August
Total Normal = 35.25 inches, Total Actual = 40.55 inches
Total cumulative surplus = 5.3 inches
25
s= 20
15
� —Normal Preciptiation
10 —
c 5 — Actual Precipitation
a Cumulative Deficit
" 0
a

Figure 4 Composite Vicinity Map
4 1
I� i!'b I Y,�l "F, •v� �I'FF'�Fi�! bYi — + �� +yp1 `�� � i ,\ ��/1'\�1 �'1,/ 1
t/ qI= .I fit f *tl'�� ►f, ►f 1 �k�y�n`1,i �a„ I�, ,�,1�' t� \t
��� � � \� „ I f 1►1 l a r � ti `\ 1 1 �
1
r
�4 ��
Nr
it 104E Il ' � ✓ ' '
Y +d
I
it
l
t l
Ar
jABOaVWLE rztsrcvrn>radS 4770- TONE.
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 4
Albemarle Restorations, L.LC
2011 Monitonng Year 4of 5

40 Project History and Background
Table II provides the history of data collection and actual completion of various milestones of
the Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Site
Table H Project Activity and Reporting thstory
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Pro ect/EEP #D06001
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
June 2006
November 2006
Final Design -90%
June 2006
November 2006
Construction
N/A
May 2007
Temporary S & E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
May 2007
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
May 2007
Containerized and Bare Root Planting
N/A
May 2007
Mitigation Plan/As -built (Year 1 monitoring - baseline)
Oct 07 /Set 08
December 2008
Year 2 monitoring
September 2009
January 2010
Year 3 monitoring
September 2010
December 2010
Year 4 monitoring
September 2011
September 2011
Year 5 monitoring
Mary-Margaret McKinney (252- 482 -8491)
Seed mix sources
Points of contact for the various phases of the MPWMS are provided in Table III
Table III Project Contacts
Mason Proper Wetland Mitigation Site/EEP #D06001
Designer
Ecotone Inc
Primary Project design POC
1204 Baldwin Mill Road
Jarrettsville, MD 21804
Scott McGill (410- 692 -7500)
Construction Contractor
Armstrong, Inc
Construction contractor POC
P O Box 96
25852 US Hwy 64
Pantego, NC 27860
Tink Armstrong (252- 943 -2082)
Planting Contractor
Williams Forestry Service Inc
Planting contractor POC
P O Box 189
Millville, PA 17846
Christian Duff (570- 458 -0766)
Seeding Contractor
Carolina Silvics, Inc
Seed planting contractor POC
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton NC 27932
Mary-Margaret McKinney (252- 482 -8491)
Seed mix sources
Earnst Conservation Seeds, LLP, Meadville, PA
Nursery stock suppliers
Williams Forestry Service, Inc, International Paper Inc
Monitoring Consultants
Woods Water and Wildlife Inc
Wetland and Vegetation POC
P O Box 176
Fairfield, NC 27826
Ashby Brown (800 -509 -0190)
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 5
Albemarle Restorations LLC
2011 Monitonng Year 4of 5

Project background information for the MPWMS is provided in Table IV
Table IV Project Background
Mason Property Wetland IVLti ation Site/EEP #D06001
Project County
Hyde Count
Drainage Area
36 0 acres within easement boundary
Drainage impervious cover estimate ( %)
0
Physiographic Reion
Coastal Plain
Ecore ton
8 5 1 Nhddle Atlantic Coastal Plain
Ros en Classification of As -built
N/A
Cowardin Classification
PEM PSS PFO
Dominant Soil Types
Stockade sand loam, H deland silt loam, Brookman loam
Reference site ID
Rose Bay Hyde county NC
USGS HUC for Project and Reference
03020105
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project and Reference
03-0308
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference
C
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed se ment9
Yes Pamlico River
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor?
Ag, Urban Runoff Septic
% of project easement fenced
None
5 Monitonng Plan View
Six water level monitoring gauges are installed at key locations across the property in order to
assess the groundwater levels throughout the year at various elevations and topographies These
gauges are suspended in two -mch pvc pipe that is set approximately four feet vertically into the
ground Two reference gauges are also installed offsite to provide a means of comparison to
naturally functioning wetlands In addition, a ram gauge is installed on site to capture and record
on -site precipitation
Vegetation monitoring was done on the four permanent sampling plots Each plot is referenced
by one of four monitoring gauges which serve as the plot origin and as a photo station for that
plot The plots are ten meters square and are situated to give an accurate sample of the planted
and natural woody vegetation For each site, the data recorded matches that required of the CVS-
EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, v 4 0, 2006, level 1 -2
Figures 2 and 3 provide plan views of the site showing all monitoring features including gauges,
sampling plots and the rain gauge, soils, contours and plant communities
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 6
Albemarle Restorations LLC
2011 Monitonng Year 4of 5

O
z
N
O
N
O
O
IN
N
FRS-
IIII
U5 264
IALBERMARLE RESTORATIONS, L j EcO TONE. I N C.
404 COURT STREET • OATES%%LE. NC 27976 P.O. Box S• 1204 Bdd.Yi Y6 Road • J- 0t.N.. M.34.d 21064
(252) 333^0240- FAX (282) ]67 -4692 (410) 692 -7506 Fa. (410) 692 -7503 anal lmfo6.,M- .h a.oam
i
_ 1111 cp
r�
�Illal elliell
.•RO[: 1lAM
MW MILAW Mfn MON A5-WV
16,0 AX5
NONWOW I S*V MIiIGAiION ffi-P .f
20.0 ACW5
Ha GOWN, NORM MW
MP CON>X U #' P06001
L -L
-u (3.,
M5 MP WOMON PL0 5
NMWP 2008

0
0
0
�1
77C
\ l
S Q
x
N N
N
1
/5tA
1
1-
I
L---1
# #
Al Al
,
mom 7
WAA
NL4A
J
5tA
g 7 #
U5 264
IALBERMARLE RESTORATIONS, LLI ECO TONE, INC.
104 COURT STREET CA7FS14llE. NC 279136 I P.O. Bmt S. 1201 &M W Rood • J—t� M-AM 21054
(252) 9173 -o24a FAX (252) 367 -IeC2 (410) 9192 -75091 F- (Ito) 8912-7503 anal Yi+obwconMnc.mn
MW VVI.Mn MIiIGA11ON n5-nf
16,0 ACM5
NON-UK VVMff MWf ION ki-nf
20.015
m COOdiY, NORM CARD w
MP CONiRPLf #; rW01
�3QZ
1Z
i1
#
r
ZN
N
[A
500, CONfOX5, AND P,MIf COMMIE115
NMMf k 2006
�� •
I
• •
• •
0
_
�
�
s
�\
1
I
w
�
r
/ •
_
� ��
r�w
_
'�
Ill i
r
5tA
g 7 #
U5 264
IALBERMARLE RESTORATIONS, LLI ECO TONE, INC.
104 COURT STREET CA7FS14llE. NC 279136 I P.O. Bmt S. 1201 &M W Rood • J—t� M-AM 21054
(252) 9173 -o24a FAX (252) 367 -IeC2 (410) 9192 -75091 F- (Ito) 8912-7503 anal Yi+obwconMnc.mn
MW VVI.Mn MIiIGA11ON n5-nf
16,0 ACM5
NON-UK VVMff MWf ION ki-nf
20.015
m COOdiY, NORM CARD w
MP CONiRPLf #; rW01
�3QZ
1Z
i1
#
r
ZN
N
[A
500, CONfOX5, AND P,MIf COMMIE115
NMMf k 2006

II Proiect Condition and Monitoring Results
10 Vegetation Assessment
The vegetation success criterion was developed in accordance with the CVS -EEP protocol. The
Mason project was planned to include various topographies and a contiguous plant community
consistent with those found naturally occurring along swamp runs and associated broad
hardwood flats The species mix was based on the vegetation noted at the reference site and all
species are classified from FAC to OBL (Table V) At the start of the 2011 growing season the
planted stems averaged 423 stems per acre
Table V Species by Ve etation Type
Mason Property Wetland Nhti ation Pro ect/EEP #D06001
Trees
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator Status
Bald Cypress
Taxodium distichum
OBL
Red Maple
Acer rubrum var Tnlobum
FACW -
Water tupelo
N ssa a uatica
OBL
Swamp Black Gum
N ssa biflora
FAC
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
FACW-
Swamp White Oak
Quercus bicolor
FACW+
Water Oak
Quercus nigra
FAC
Shrubs
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator Status
IIi h Tide Bush
Baccharis hahnufolia
FAC
Swamp Cyrilla
Cyrilla racemiflora
FACW
Sweet Pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
FACW
Virginia Sweets ire
Itea vir imca
FACW+
Button Bush
Ce halanthus occidentalis
OBL
Tag Alder
Alnus serrulata
FACW
Wax Myrtle
Myrica cenfera
FAC+
Sweetbay
Magnolia vir iniana
FACW+
11 Vegetation Discussion and Problem Areas
All four monitoring plots met the Year 5 success criterion of a minimum of 260 stems per acre
after the fifth growing season Over the entire project, the survival rate averaged 392 planted
stems per acre Severe tidal flooding as a result of Hurricane Irene in late August, 2011, caused
severe browning of nearly all vegetation, both planted and natural Photos of the foliage of some
cypress trees in Appendix A show the severity of salt damage which was typical and widespread
across the project site
During the vegetation assessment which was completed in September, 2011, approximately two
weeks after the storm related flooding, many of the cypress trees appeared to have viable leaf
buds, wluch indicate they may survive the salt intrusion Factors affecting the survival of all
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 9
Albemarle Restorations LLC
2011 Monitoring - Year 4of 5

planted stems include the depth of salt penetration into the trees' root zone, the relative salinity
levels and whether or not the leaf buds break open in the fall of 2011 Late bud break could
deplete root carbohydrate stocks which may adversely affect spring leaf -out in 2012 Live buds
were less obvious on buttonbush and willow oak, though many of these stems are tall enough
that their uppermost buds may have escaped serious damage
Coffeeweed (Sesbania herbacia) appeared to have re- emerged during the 2011 growing season
but was completely defoliated during the hurricane in August, 2011 It remains to be seen how
much viable seed it produced and to what extent it will be a problem in 2012
12 Vegetation Momtonng Plan View (Integrated)
Due to the fact that the entire project area suffered damage, Appendix D contains photos instead
of a map that more accurately illustrate the damage caused by salt water flooding during
Hurricane Irene in August, 2011 If not for the salt damage, few, if any problem areas would
have been reported
20 Wetland Assessment
The hydrologic success criterion is to achieve a nummum of 21 consecutive days where the
groundwater level is within 12 inches of the soil surface during the growing season The
growing season for this site is from March 11 to November 27, a period of 261 days (WETS
Table for Belhaven, Beaufort County, NC) Success for any particular monitoring location is to
show soil saturation to within 12 inches of the surface for 21 consecutive days during that period
Six continuous monitoring gauges are deployed across the site and two more are installed in
reference areas All six gauges met the success criteria for the site in 2011 as did the two
reference gauges
21 Wetland Discussion and Problem Areas
Drainage from the project area can only occur during tunes when water levels onsite are high
enough to overcome the level of the retaining structure at the outfall end of the project and the
level of the water beyond the outfall end is low enough to accommodate additional runoff which
is dependant on daily tidal fluctuations This combination causes the site to maintain robust
hydrology for long periods and even during seasons when rainfall is less than average
Salt water intrusion was suspected of causing damage to planted stems in the past, but the photos
in Appendix A illustrate beyond a doubt that this is indeed a potential problem Also, refer to the
hydrographs in Appendix D for peak high water marks during Hurricane Irene in August, 2011
Gauges 3 and 6 recorded the highest water mark during the storm at 4 0 feet above ground level
The other gauges recorded various water levels from 2 6 feet to 3 9 feet above ground level
These lugh water levels were very short- lived, but lasted long enough to cause damage to
foliage Green, live buds were observed on many stems during data collection which indicates
the salt damage may be superficial The vegetation will be reassessed after leaf -out in 2012
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 10
Albemarle Restorations LLC
2011 Momtonng Year 4of 5

22 Wetland Monitoring Plan View (Integrated)
The photos in Appendix D illustrate the problems discussed above
Table VI Hydrology and Vegetation
Mason Pro a rty Wetland Miti
Criteria Success by Plot
anon Pro ect/EEP #D06001
Well
Hydrology Success
Met
Hydrology
Mean
Vegetation Plot
Vegetation
Success Met
Vegetation
Mean
1
Y (30 %)
100%
1
Y
100%
2
Y (21 %)
2
Y
3
Y (27 %)
3
Y
4
Y (21 %)
4
Y
5
Y (21 %)
No Plot
N/A
6
Y (28 %)
No Plot
N/A
7
Y (21%)
No Plot
N/A
8
Y (15 %)
No Plot
N/A
3 0 Protect Success Discussion
Achieving successful hydrology on the Mason project has not proven to be difficult Tree
survival and growth have been more of a challenge due to the heavy herbaceous cover, high
water levels which hamper seedling development and now, as shown by the photo evidence from
September, 2011, saltwater intrusion caused by wind - driven high tide events Tree survival in
2011 appeared to be at a sustainable level but it remains to be seen if the planted stock can
overcome the salt water damage from Hurricane Irene in August, 2011 Gauges 1, 2 and 3 and
their corresponding vegetation plots are located on areas of the project that are most likely to
experience prolonged inundation and occasional exposure to saltwater The herbaceous cover at
these gauges /plots is primarily cattails (Typha latifolia) and coffeeweed (Sesbania herbacta),
which are largely absent at gauge /plot 4 where tree growth appears to be better on average and
the vegetative cover is more diverse
The site topography is such that the area around gauge /plot 4 is less subject to minor flooding,
and probably less subject to saltwater intrusion though still subject to total inundation during
very wet periods or excessively high tides The 2011 vegetation assessment was done ten days
after Hurricane Irene passed through the area and as can be seen on the hydrographs, the entire
site was still flooded to a depth of nearly twelve inches Given the past hydrologic performance
of this project, it is likely the site will remain flooded, to some extent, until drier weather returns
in the summer of 2012 Upcoming fall rains should help dilute the salt content which may prove
beneficial to continued tree survival and growth
III Methodology Section
Year 4 monitoring for the Mason project occurred in 2011 Monitoring and vegetation sampling
procedures were established in the mitigation plan for this project and no deviations were made
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 11
Albemarle Restorations LLC
2011 Monitonng Year 4of 5

Appendix A
Vegetation Data Tables
Site Photos

1 Vegetation Data Tables
Table 1 Project Summaz
Report Prepared By
Ashby Brown
Date Prepared
9/8/2011 17 00
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
This worksheet, which is a summary of the project and the project data
Vigor b Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
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 Species
Count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot,
dead and nussing stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Pro ject Code
D06001
Project Name
Mason Riverme
Desch tion
Mason Riverme wetland project in Hyde county, NC
River Basin
Tar- Pamlico
Sampled Plots
14

Table 2 Vigor b S ecies
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
1
Ce halanthus occidentahs
Clethra almfolia
3
1
8
1
Myrica cerifera
Clethra alnifoha
1
1
N ssa biflora
1
1
8
N ssa biflora
Quercus bicolor
1
1
38
1
6
Quercus bicolor
2
Taxodium distichum
34
2
1
TOT
Quercus phellos
48
10
2
4
Taxodium distichum
32
2
Myrica cerifera
1
TOT
7
38
10
Table 3 Damage by Species
Species
All Damage Categories
(no damage)
Hurricane
Ce halanthus occidentahs
4
1
3
Clethra almfolia
1
1
8
Myrica cerifera
1
1
1
N ssa biflora
1
1
8
TOT
Quercus bicolor
1
1
38
Quercus phellos
6
4
2
Taxodium distichum
34
2
32
TOT
7
48
10
38
Table 4 Damage by Plot
lot
All Damage Cate ones
(no
damage)
Hurricane
D06001 -ABET -0001- ear 4
11
1
10
D06001 -ABET -0002- ear 4
14
6
8
D06001 -ABET -0003- ear 4
13
1
12
D06001-ABET-0004-year 4
10
2
8
TOT
4
48
10
38

Table 5 Stem count by lot andspecies
Feature/Issue
Species
Total Planted
Stems
#
plots
avg#
stems
Plot 1,
year
Plot 2,
Plot 3,
year 4
Plot 4,
year 4
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
3
3
1
1
1
1
Myrica cenfera
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
2
1
1 2
2
Taxodium dishchum
32
4
8
9
5
11
7
TOT
4
38
4
10
8
12
8
Average per acre
392
412
330
495
330
Table 6 Vegetation Problem Areas
Feature/Issue
Plot
Probable Cause
Photo #
Possible mortality caused
Entire project area
Saltwater intrusion during
VPA 1 2 3
by saltwater intrusion
Hurricane Irene

View from Gauge 1 shows project is completely flooded in March 2011.

VPA 1

Si
VPA 2
VPA 3
Photo from September, 2011 showing general salt damage from Hurricane Irene.
n.

Appendix B
Geomorphologic Raw Data
Not used in this report

Appendix C
Hydrologic Data Tables

to
W
w
to
C14
T
d
7
O
C
O
O
U)
m
(sewuo sivan3 imuiea Awea
U� LO U')
co N N r O O
MP�rri
m
W-41
m
I
m
w
MWIAMIM
=IF
AM,
I==
mrmmImIFImwI6m"
MFMMIMM
N r O 7 N M
(tool) ooel.inS punojE) 01 oniteIaa Jona-1 aateM
27/2011
13/2011
30/2011
16/2011
2/2011
18/2011
4/2011
21/2011
7/2011
D
23/2011
9/2011
'26/2011
12/201 1
'26/2011
12/201 1
29/201 1
15/2011
1/2011
0
cz
cn
cn
0
I
c
0
m
m
w
2
v
CD
0
.6
a�
w
(3)
0
c4
7

2
a�i 1
m
R
CO
= 0
O
0
a�
d
m
m
m
J
L
r 2
�a
-3
N
O
Mason Monitoring Gauge #2 (1126648)
N N W
W
A 41 Cn
U1 0) 0)
N N
N
cD ry 1
N _r�
N N
N W N
7t N O
O
O O O O
O
O
O O
Date
Water Surface Elevation
Required Elevation
— Onsite Rainfall
K,
1.8
1.6
1.4 N
d
t
C
1.2
N
C
G1
1 W
�o
w
0.8
21
0.6 'R
O
0.4
0.2
0
V
N
N
O

LO
r
Ln
q*
N
M
d
cm
7
m
cm
O
C
O
O
N
m
2
(s9youl) sluon3 Ile;ulea (Ilea
Lq LO U?
co N N r O O
N r O .- N Cl)
(1991) 9oeling punoaE) 019n11e19a 19n9-1 a91eM
27/2011
13/2011
30/2011
16/2011
2/2011
18/2011
4/2011
21/2011
7/2011
O
23/2011
9/2011
'26/2011
12/2011
'26/2011
12/2011
29/201 1
15/201 1
1/2011
V
1
0
cui
w
Q
c
0
w
a�
U
ro

N
LO
cD
N
r
r
4*
7
m
0
tm
C
0
•C
O
2
C
O
N
ca
2
(say3ul) sluan3 Ilejulea AI1ea
Cp 1p I,,: N C0 O N
N r r r O O O O O
N — O 7 N
(1991) 93elinS punoj!E) of anllelaa lanai aaleM
7/2/2011
6/18/2011
6/4/2011 c
5/21/2011 0
5/7/2011
4/23/2011
m
4/9/2011
D
3/26/2011
3/12/2011
2/26/2011
2/12/2011
1/29/2011
1/15/2011
1/1/2011
cri
c
0
cu
a)
w
a
a�
Q
Ir
0
ro
w
m
w
iv

O
CO
LO
r
ft
a)
cm
O
cv
Im
O
C
O
O
U)
w
2
(so4oui) sluan3 nelu1eu Area
L U�
co N N r O O
N r O N M
(;aal) eaelinS punoaE) of ani;eIaa Iana-1 aa;eM
27/2011
13/2011
30/2011
16/2011
2/2011
18/2011
4/2011
21/2011
7/2011
O
23/2011
9/2011
26/2011
1 2/201 1
26/2011
12/2011
29/2011
15/2011
1/2011
ro
c
cu
0
0
aa)
w
a
cr
a�
Ir
c
0
m
w
U
ca
a�
mom
N r O N M
(;aal) eaelinS punoaE) of ani;eIaa Iana-1 aa;eM
27/2011
13/2011
30/2011
16/2011
2/2011
18/2011
4/2011
21/2011
7/2011
O
23/2011
9/2011
26/2011
1 2/201 1
26/2011
12/2011
29/2011
15/2011
1/2011
ro
c
cu
0
0
aa)
w
a
cr
a�
Ir
c
0
m
w
U
ca
a�

O
O
T-
O
r
�D
3
O
C
O
O
N
O
(sayoul) sluan3 Ile;ulea Alm
U� LO U�
co N N r — O O
CM r O 7 N
(1991) ooelinS punoa!D o; anllelaa lanai aa;eM
8/27/2011
8/13/2011
7/30/2011
7/16/2011
7/2/2011
6/18/2011
6/4/2011
5/21/2011
5/7/2011
4/23/2011
4/9/2011
3/26/2011
3/12/2011
2/26/2011
2/12/2011
1/29/2011
1/15/2011
1/1/2011
ro
0
1
c
0
iE
m
w
2
0
a�
w
au
U
7
id
ME
=M%o._=
M-mam
5
W�
=
1 rm
M.
M,rMulms-
CM r O 7 N
(1991) ooelinS punoa!D o; anllelaa lanai aa;eM
8/27/2011
8/13/2011
7/30/2011
7/16/2011
7/2/2011
6/18/2011
6/4/2011
5/21/2011
5/7/2011
4/23/2011
4/9/2011
3/26/2011
3/12/2011
2/26/2011
2/12/2011
1/29/2011
1/15/2011
1/1/2011
ro
0
1
c
0
iE
m
w
2
0
a�
w
au
U
7
id

N
O
O
r
r
ti d
tm
d 7
tm m
m�
o u
V
tm C
C i
�L
0 4)
'E
O "
C
O
N
R
(sayoui) sluan3 Ile;ulea Allea
U� LO U�
M N N r — O O
-8/27/2011
-8/13/2011
7/30/2011
7/16/2011
7/2/2011
6/18/2011
6/4/2011
5/21/2011
5/7/2011
D
4/23/2011
4/9/2011
3/26/2011
3/12/2011
2/26/2011
-2/12/2011
1/29/2011
-1/15/2011
1/1/2011
r O 7 N
(1991) ooejjnS punoaE) 01 aAllelaa lanai JaleM
fb
C
ro
a�
c'
O
1
c
0
cu
w'
a
a�
ir
0
.�
w
cca�
U
3
U)
w
is
c
0
L
d
0
R
r
M
t
rn
z
N
a
N
0
.0
d
v
o
0
c
0
w
m
ti
a>
c
0
L
cm
0
r
5
N
-8/27/2011
-8/13/2011
7/30/2011
7/16/2011
7/2/2011
6/18/2011
6/4/2011
5/21/2011
5/7/2011
D
4/23/2011
4/9/2011
3/26/2011
3/12/2011
2/26/2011
-2/12/2011
1/29/2011
-1/15/2011
1/1/2011
r O 7 N
(1991) ooejjnS punoaE) 01 aAllelaa lanai JaleM
fb
C
ro
a�
c'
O
1
c
0
cu
w'
a
a�
ir
0
.�
w
cca�
U
3
U)
w
is

N
O
O
r
oo
cm
d
d 3
a1 m
v
pm C
C i
.O w
O
C �
O "
C
O
N
cC
(sayoul) sluan3 110Mea AIlea
Lq L
Cl) N N r r O O
r O 7 N
(loo;) eoulinS punoa!E) 01 an118108 lanai JOIBM
8/27/2011
8/13/2011
7/30/2011
7/16/2011
7/2/2011
6/18/2011
6/4/2011
5/21/2011
5/7/2011
O
4/23/2011
4/9/2011
3/26/2011
3/12/2011
2/26/2011
2/12/2011
1/29/2011
-1/15/2011
,- 1/1/2011
C?
c!
a�
0
I
0
a�
w
cr
a)
Ir
0
w
Q
U
c6

Appendix D
Problem Areas Plan View (Integrated)
In lieu of an integrated map, some photos are offered as evidence of the
potential damage caused by Hurricane Irene in late August of 2011.
Vegetation across the project site shows stress and premature leave browning
or leaf drop due to salt water intrusion during the storm. The long -term
effects of this salt damage are unknown at this point.

Typical example of damage from salt water flooding post Irene.
Entire project site was inundated with salt water causing widespread browning of
vegetation.

Typical browning of the vegetation on the project site. Some live leaf material above the
4.0' high water mark appears to have survived.