HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071055 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_201302120�- 165-5
CUTAWHISKIE CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
2012 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 5)
HERTFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NCEEP CONTRACT NO. D06066 -A (IMS NO. 92547)
PREPARED FOR:
NCDENR — ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -16152
D.. NR W-AMEpI r'UALITy
11i
rY
i stem
('E11 m "C111011
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Tel (919) 755 -9490 Fax (919) 755 -9492
AND
ATKINS NORTH AMERICA INC.
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Tel (919) 876 -6848 Fax (919) 828 -3518
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
20 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2 1
Project Objectives
22
Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
23
Location and Setting
24
History and Background
30 PROJECT
MONITORING AND RESULTS
3 1
Vegetation Assessment
32
Stream Assessment
3 3
Wetland Assessment
40 METHODOLOGY
50 REFERENCES
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 -I 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
1
5
5
5
6
7
9
9
10
15
15
15
Table I
Project Restoration Components
6
Table II
Project Activity and Reporting History
7
Table III
Project Contacts
8
Table IV
Project Background
9
Table V
Vegetation Plot Summary
10
Table VI
Hydrological ( Bankfull) Verification
10
Table VII
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
1 I
Table VIII
Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
12
Table IX
Morphology and Hydrologic Monitoring Summary
13
Table X
Wetland Criteria Attainment
16
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A i
2012 Monitoring Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I Site Location
Figure 2A, 2B Current Conditions Plan View
Figure 3 Cutawhiskie Creek 30 -70 Precipitation Graph
Appendix D
Appendix C
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A 11 2012 Monitoring Report
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site ") was constructed for the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) to provide compensatory stream and wetland
mitigation in the Chowan River Basin This restoration project is located on an unnamed tributary (UT)
to Cutawhiskie Creek on a 22 9 acre Site located in Hertford County (Figure 1) The project includes
stream restoration (Priority 1) and preservation, as well as riparian wetland restoration and enhancement
The following report summarizes the monitoring activities that have occurred in the fifth year of project
monitoring (2012) at the Site Site construction began and was completed in November 2007 As -built
surveys for the Site were performed in February 2008, and first year monitoring was conducted in 2008
To be deemed successful the Site must satisfy vegetative and hydrologic success criteria, and verify
restored stream channel stability for a minimum of five years or until the success criteria is achieved The
following report summarizes the results of the 2012 monitoring
Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation monitoring for Year 5 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 20 10)
Vegetative monitoring success will be achieved if plot data indicates the average number of planted stems
exceeds 320 stems per acre after the third year of monitoring and 260 stems per acre after the fifth and
final year of project monitoring Based on Year 5 surveys, the average count of the surviving planted
species is 502 stems per acre If volunteer species are included, the total number of stems increases to
4,427 stems per acre The Site has met the Year 5 criterion by exceeding the established success criteria
for vegetation based on the survival of the planted species
Stream Assessment
Success criteria for the restored stream reach has been established to confirm that no significant changes
have occurred to the dimension, pattern, profile, and bed material over the 5 -year monitoring period
Location surveys of the constructed features were conducted to verify the performance of the stream A
total station survey was performed to describe the stream longitudinal profile and six permanent stream
cross - sections (3 riffles and 3 pools) Overall, the stream channel bed form and banks are stable, pool
depths and widths remain consistent with the constructed geometry, and bed features indicate no
significant aggradation or degradation Based on the cross - sections, longitudinal profile and visual
observations, the channel dimensions have not changed significantly compared to as -built conditions and
the channel classifies as a Rosgen E -type stream
Wetland Hydrology Assessment
Success criteria for wetland hydrology require that restored wetland areas be inundated or saturated by
groundwater within 12 inches of the ground surface for a period of time during the growing season
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A 1 2012 Monitoring Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A 2 2012 Monitoring Report
CHOWAN RIVER BASIN
HERTFORD
(CU03010204)
COUNT`(
;2581
omo y
�{i p
—
Z O ,freestw¢o
? Ma letor
+ into
3
461 S
Menola union cohetd 1
4111
E 14 F`
R'
t s ftDe�l�„
St. John nos +e la `Sil
3
�S Roonoke Cho.,on CC
SITE DIRECTIONS:
no
From Woodland, travel East on US Route 258, 2.5 miles. \
Turn Right on Jim Hardy Road, continue 2 miles. ( + t"
�0pab"
$
Or :■�� °° `'1 ~�
sa
Site is on Right. ) L 1
IM
_
.14"a
'�,j -vas _•uWN ,.Mp e
SSJ
�� f � ,� \�
- _.— Po OSl rti
T _
SITE
LOCATION .,
�_; 461
,T�
l i
IP
tpa
4b ,v �T .t
1 -/ �', .' AG 461
�
rf1 4n
561
T
561 � a_ i ' �IQ ; i' 1
� 561
tEr
l 17
` PnOg
2 MILES
0
2 MILES
'
"
305 ! _t
SCALE: 1 =2 MILES
Prepared by:
Protect:
SITE LOCATION
Own. By:
Ckd By:
FIGURE
RL
JWG
CUTAWHISKIE CREEK
Date:
RESTORATION SITE
DEC 2012
Scale:
MONITORING REPORT
AS SHOWN
ESC Project No.:
Hertford
County, North Carolina
100004926
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A 4 2012 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 5 hydrologic monitoring indicate that all gauges exhibited
saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface for at least 7 6 percent of the growing season The
period of saturation ranges from 17 to 57 days or (7 6 and 25 3 %) with an average of 25 6 days (114%)
of the growing season Based on Year 5 hydrologic monitoring, success criteria for wetland hydrology
has been achieved
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 Project Objectives
Site restoration activities included the excavation of a new stream channel, limited floodplam excavation,
removal of stumps and debris, existing channel backf►]ling, on -site drainage ditch removal, and final
grading and soil preparation within the adjacent floodplam These activities were proposed in order to
reintroduce surface water flood hydrodynamics from a 0 9- square mile watershed along the newly
restored length of stream and floodplam The new channel was constructed to reflect regional stream
characteristics and accommodate bankfull flows Characteristic wetland soil features, groundwater
wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation communities are expected develop in areas adjacent to the
constructed channel Wetland and adjacent slope soil surfaces were restored and the Site reforested to
promote riparian and upland slope hardwood communities Plant community associations were designed
to mimic various indigenous communities described by Schafale and Weakley (1990), including Coastal
Plain Levee Forest, Cypress -Gum Swamp, Mesic —Mixed Hardwood Forest, and Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp
Specific ecological benefits anticipated as a result of on -Site restoration activities are as follows
• Stream channel restoration will reintroduce stable bankfull dimension, pattern, and profile along
restored stream reaches, which is expected to enhance lotic habitat quality and stream function
• Floodplam 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 floodplam
• Restored and enhanced wetland areas will help to improve water quality via nutrient removal,
increase local vegetative biodivers►ty, provide wildlife habitat, and serve as a forested corridor,
linking the Site with adjacent forested areas
2.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
The primary restoration features within the Site include the UT to Cutawhiskie Creek and approximately
11 9 acres of drained, hydric soils The UT had been dredged and straightened, such that it did not exhibit
stable dimension, pattern, and profile features Side -cast material (spoil piles) from dredging was
deposited along the west bank of the former channel A moderate headcut (approximately 2 foot drop in
elevation over 20 linear feet of stream channel) was observed near the upstream (north) extent of the Site
boundary, indicating vertical instability Due to its high level of entrenchment caused by dredging, large
flooding events were confined within the former channel
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A 5 2012 Monitoring Report
On -site restoration activities provide the following project mitigation units
Table I• Project Restoration Components
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No. D06066 -A
Mitigation Units
Linear Footage
Project Segment
Mitigation
(LF)
or Reach ID
Tye
Approach
or Acreage (AC)
Stationing
Comment
UT to Cutawhiskie
Creek
R
PI
2,540 LF
0+00-25+40
(active restoration
Passive restoration
through floodplain
UT to Cutawhiskie
not stationed
Creek
R
NA
359 LF
NA
Braided reach
measured as straight
(passive restoration)
line distance to
outfall
2593 LF actual
design units,
Stream Preservation
P
NA
519 LF
NA
however only
(Cutawhiskie Creek)
20 percent is
available for SMU
Riparian Wetland
R
NA
11 9 AC
NA
Restoration
1 1 AC actual
design units,
Riparian Wetland
WE
NA
0 6 AC
NA
however only
Enhancement
0 6 LF available as
WMU
R = Restoration PI = Priority I
P = Preservation NA = Not apphcahle
:1
WE = Wetland Enhancement
2.3 Location and Setting
Land uses in the vicinity of the Site consist primarily of agriculture, forest, pastureland, roadside
shoulders, and residential lots Row crops including soybeans, cotton, and corn are actively cultivated on
the Site and surrounding areas The Site is immediately adjacent to active rowcrop agriculture and
timberland There is no livestock or poultry production in the vicinity Timber is actively harvested from
adjacent forested areas A large, contiguous bottomland hardwood stand was harvested dust west of the
Site along the Cutawhiskie floodplain in the spring of 2006 The Site encompasses approximately
22 9 acres of primary and secondary floodplain associated with Cutawhiskie Creek The Site includes a
UT that flows into Cutawhiskie Creek from the north (Figure 1) Portions of the Site had been logged
prior to restoration activities, while other areas within the Site were actively managed for timber or
agricultural production Prior to restoration, the Site vegetation was generally characterized by
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A 6 2012 Monitoring Report
bottomland hardwood forests along un- logged areas on the Cutawhiskie Creek floodplam and low
terraces, row crops including soybeans and corn, and successional communities associated with cut -over
timberland
2.4 History and Background
Table 11 Protect Activity and Reporting History
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No D06066 -A
Activity Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
N /A*
December 2007
January 2007
Final Design (90 percent)
N /A*
December 2007
January 2007
Construction
N /A*
N /A*
November 2007
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
November 2007
N /A*
November 2007
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
November 2007
N /A*
November 2007
Bare Root Seedling Installation
February 2008
N /A*
February 2008
Mitigation Plan
April 2008
February 2008
April 2008
Minor repairs made filling small washed out areas
N /A*
N /A*
N /A*
Final Report
N /A*
N /A*
N /A*
Year 1 Vegetation Monitoring
November 2008
August 2008
November 2008
Year 1 Stream Monitoring
November 2008
September 2008
November 2008
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring
November 2009
September 2009
December 2009
Year 2 Stream Monitoring
November 2009
September 2009
December 2009
Year 3 Vegetation Monitoring
November 2010
September 2010
November 2010
Year 3 Stream Monitoring
November 2010
September 2010
November 2010
Year 4 Vegetation Monitoring
November 2011
September 2011
November 2011
Year 4 Stream Monitoring
November 2011
September 2011
November 2011
Year 5 Vegetation Monitoring
November 2012
October 2012
December 2012
Year 5 Stream Monitoring
November 2012
November 2012
December 2012
*N /A- Activities and reporting history for these items are not applicable to this restoration project
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A 7 2012 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
Atkins (previously EcoScience Corporation /PBS &J)
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 876 -6888
Construction Contractor
Anderson Farms
179 NC 97 East
Tarboro, NC 27886
(252) 823 -4730
Planting Contractor
Carolina Silvics
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, NC 27932
(919) 523 -4375
Seeding Contactor
Anderson Farms
179 NC 97 East
Tarboro, NC 27886
(252) 823 -4730
Seed Mix Sources
Erosion Supply Company
8817 Midway West Rd
Raleigh, NC 27617
(919) 787 -0334
Nursery Stock Suppliers
South Carolina Super Tree Nursery Company
5594 Highway 38 South
Blenheim, SC 29516
(800) 222 -1290
Monitoring Performers
Atkins North America, Inc
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 876 -6888
Stream Monitoring POC
Jens Geratz
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Jens Geratz
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A 8 2012 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 ( %)
0
Stream Order (UT/ Cutawhiskie Creek)
1 st order / 3rd order
Physiographic Region
Coastal Plain
Ecoregion (Griffith and Omermk)
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 listed9
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d
listed segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
N/A
Percent of project easement fenced
N/A
3.0 PROJECT MONITORING AND RESULTS
3.1 Vegetation Assessment
Five vegetation monitoring (10 x 10 m2) plots were established to monitor planted vegetation within
Site's restoration and enhancement areas Site vegetation was monitored in accordance with the
guidelines and procedures developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) (CVS -EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Level 1 -2 Plot Sampling Only, Version 4 0, 2006) Established vegetation
monitoring plot locations are displayed on the Current Conditions Area Plan View (Appendix D)
Vegetative monitoring success will be achieved by plot data indicating an average number of planted
stems exceeding 320 stems per acre after the third year of monitoring and 260 stems per acre after the
fifth and final year of project monitoring During Year 5 monitoring, the Site exceeded the vegetation
success criteria with an average of 502 planted stems per acre If volunteer species are included, the total
number of stems increases to 4,427 stems per acre Table V summarizes vegetation plot density for all
five years of monitoring Refer to Appendix A for CVS vegetation data collected during Year 5
monitoring
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), an exotic invasive, was found growing densely along the lower reach
of the stream channel During the summer of 2012, the Prime Contractor (Restoration Systems LLC)
continued their plan to manage exotic species Chinese privet on the Site Dense thickets of Chinese privet
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A 9 2012 Monitoring Report
were sprayed along the southwestern Site boundary (Figure 2A and 213, Appendix D) as well as 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
526
607
2
688
647
647
567
647
3
688
688
567
607
607
4
688
486
324
243
364
5
567
486
394
364
283
MEAN
672
599
518
461
502
3.2 Stream Assessment
In order to document stable bankfull dimension, pattern, and profile along the restored channel, annual
stream assessment surveys (longitudinal profile and six channel cross - sections) were undertaken
(locations shown on Figure 2A and 213, 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
aggradatton/degradation processes, and a rapidly developing, diverse riparian buffer Four bankfull
events have been documented during the past five years of monitoring, further demonstrating stream
stability No stream problem areas were identified during Year 5 monitoring
Table VI Hydrological ( Bankfull) Verifications
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No D06066 -A
Date of Data Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method
Photo Number
11 -16 -09
11 -14 -09
Photo documentation
Photo 1 -2, Appendix B
03 -04 -10
03 -03 -10
Photo documentation
Photo 1 -2, Appendix B
11 -18 -10
09 -28 -10
Photo documentation
Photo 1, Appendix B
09 -09 -11
08 -27 -11
Photo documentation
Photo 1 -2, Appendix B
WEEP Contract No D06066 -A 10 2012 Monitoring Report
Table VII. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No. D06066 -A
Segment/Reach. 2,540 feet
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
B Pools
100%
100 %
100%
100%
100%
100%
C Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D Meanders
100%
100%
100 %
100%
100%
100%
E Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
G Rock Vanes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
H Root Wads
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A 11 2012 Monitoring Report
MA
C)
M
b
0
0
0
>v
z
0
N
O_
N
0
0
0
5
Uo
0
0
b
0
Table VIII Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No D06066 -A
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Regional Curve Interval
Pre - Existing Condition
Project Reference
Stream
Design
As -built
Dimension
Mtn
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Mtn
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
BF Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
90
84
96
9 1
72
98
87
60
80
70
64
75
70
Floodprone Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
12
13
125
175
225
200
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
BF Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
95
64
137
1005
9
115
102
70
110
90
66
104
87
BF Mean Depth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
09
09
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 3
1 2
07
1 4
1 3
10
14
1 2
BF Max Depth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 5
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 9
1 7
1 5
3 5
1 8
1 5
3 1
24
Width/Depth Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
87
93
90
55
84
74
4
57
54
64
54
5 8
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 3
14
1 35
203
23 1
21 4
1 2
59
>18 0
1 2
59
43
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
76
356
176
Bank Height Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
34
50
42
1 1
1 3
12
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 0
Hydraulic radius (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
07
1 2
09
07
l 2
09
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N /A*
N /A*
N /A*
120
1130
383
280
490
400
280
490
400
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N /A*
N /A*
N /A*
70
580
194
90
140
1 1 0
90
140
110
Meander Wavelength (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N /A*
N /A*
N /A*
280
1750
75 7
400
600
500
400
600
500
Meander Width ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N /A*
N /A*
N /A*
2 1
21 6
1 8 1
57
10
79
5 7
10
79
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N /A*
N /A*
N /A*
N/A
N/A
N/A
30
250
120
32
213
11 1
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N /A*
N /A*
N /A*
N/A
N/A
N/A
000
0 050
0 001
0 000
0 082
0 013
Pool length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N /A*
N /A*
N /A*
50
840
298
40
250
120
4 1
256
134
Pool spacing (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N /A*
N /A*
N /A*
190
1130
526
80
300
200
104
363
200
Substrate
d50 (mm)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NA
NA
NA
1 5
1 5
1 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
NA
NA
NA
d84 (mm)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NA
NA
NA
1 9
1 9
19
N/A
N/A
N/A
NA
NA
NA
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
2,200
N/A
1,775
1,775
Channel Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
2,200
N/A
2,540
2,540
Sinuosity
N/A
N/A
10
14 -16
14
14
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
00031
0 002
N/A
00004
BF slope (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
0 004
N/A
00005
Rosgen Classification
N/A
N/A
G5
E5
E5
E5
Habitat Index / Macrobenthos
NA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
* No Distinct Riffles and Pools or Repetitive Channel Pattern due to Dredging and Straightening
z
n
m
m
-o
n
0
0
m
z
0
.a
N
_O
N
0
0
0
5
fro
7D
ro
0
0
Table IX Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No D06066 -A
Parameter
Cross - Section 1
Pool
Cross - Section 2
Riffle
Cross - Section 3
Pool
Cross - Section 4
Riffle
Dimension
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
MY]
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY
MY]
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY
BF Width (ft)
174
92
225
247
243
91
68
67
62
66
269
155
201
233
182
79
77
71
63
81
Floodprone Width (11)
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
189
92
201
21 9
205
90
82
8 1
77
79
26 4
11 5
18 0
22 8
17 7
94
94
82
73
98
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1 1
13
09
09
09
1 0
12
12
12
12
10
07
09
10
10
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
12
BF Max Depth (ft)
27
22
29
28
28
19
19
17
19
19
31
23
25
31
26
I8
18
17
17
17
Width/Depth Ratio
92
57
56
52
5 5
66
64
59
53
67
Entrenchment Ratio
165
220
223
161
227
190
194
21 1
159
185
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
107
8 1
80
79
79
90
89
92
90
92
Hydraulic radius (ft)
08
08
1 0
1 0
1 0
10
10
09
08
1 1
Substrate
d50 (mm)
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
d84 (mm)
Silt
Silt
t
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt i
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Parameter
MY -01 (2008)
MY -02 (2009)
MY -03 (2010)
MY -04 (201 l)
MY -05 (2012)
MY+
Pattern
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
280
490
400
280
490
400
280
490
400
280
490
400
280
490
400
Radius of Curvature (ft)
90
140
110
90
140
1 1 0
90
140
110
90
140
110
90
140
110
Meander Wavelength (ft)
400
600
500
400
600
500
400
600
500
400
600
500
400
600
500
Meander Width ratio
5 7
10
79
57
10
79
57
10
79
57
] 0
79
5 7
10
79
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
40
210
115
24
193
100
21
184
104
10
267
118
22
193
100
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
0 000
0 074
0 007
0 000
0 094
0 013
0 000
0 072
0 011
0 000
0 079
0 004
0 000
0 069
0 009
Pool length (ft)
10
23 8
125
26
227
134
37
232
140
32
25 1
142
42
23 9
13 5
Pool spacing (ft)
96
360
206
77
287
193
93
32 1
189
89
367
182
97
343
186
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1,775
1,775
1,775
1,775
1,775
Channel Length (ft)
2,540
2,540
2,540
2,540
2,540
Sinuosity
14
14
14
14
14
Bankfull slope (ft/ft)
00005
00005
00005
00006
00006
Rosgen Classification
E5
E5
E5
E5
E5
Table IX cont Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No D06066 -A
Parameter
Cross Section 5
Riffle
Cross Section 6
Pool
Dimension
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
BF Width (ft)
70
72
74
74
77
151
137
135
129
155
Floodprone Width (ft)
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
150+
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
67
62
6 1
5 1
68
168
141
128
96
169
BF Mean Depth (ft)
10
08
08
07
09
1 1
10
09
07
1 2
BF Max Depth (ft)
14
14
14
11
17
27
25
27
27
28
Width/Depth Ratio
74
5 1
93
106
89
Entrenchment Ratio
21 5
208
203
13 5
194
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
78
78
88
89
86
Hydraulic radius (ft)
09
09
07
06
08
Substrate
d50 (mm)
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
d84 (mm)
Silt
I Silt
I Silt
Silt
I Silt
Silt
I Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
3.3 Wetland HydrologyAssessment
Success criteria for wetland hydrology require that restored areas be inundated or saturated by
groundwater within 12 inches of the ground surface for a period of 5 to 12 5 percent of the growing
season The growing season in Hertford County begins on March 28 and ends on November 7
(225 days) In order to achieve hydrologic success, saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface is
required for between 12 and 28 consecutive days during the growing season (5 to 12 5 percent) The
results of the Year 5 hydrologic monitoring indicate that all gauges exhibited saturation within 12 inches
of the ground surface for at least 7 6 percent of the growing season (Appendix C) The average saturation
period for all gauges was 25 6 days (114%) ranging from 17 to 57 days (7 6 and 25 3 %)
Figure 3 (Appendix C) shows a comparison of 2012 monthly rainfall to historical precipitation for
Hertford County The figure shows average rainfall data collected between 1948 and 2012 and compares
30 percent and 70 percent of all observations with the actual 2012 monthly rainfall amounts to determine
average Monthly rainfall amounts were below the 30`h percentile during four months of the growing
season Table X summarizes wetland hydrology criteria for Year 5 monitoring
4.0 METHODOLOGY
No unavoidable deviations from initially prescribed methodologies were implemented as part of Year 5
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 Hcvs bio unc edu/methods htm)
Rosgen, D 1996 Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology (Publisher) Pagosa Springs,
Colorado
Schafale, M P and A S Weakley 1990 Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina
Third Approximation North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N C Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Raleigh, North
Carolina
Weakley, A S 2010 Flora of the Southern and Mid - Atlantic States University of North Carolina
Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
944pp
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A 15 2012 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)
75-12.5%
>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(67)
37(164)
1
✓
26 (11 6)
54 (24 0)
2 **
✓
7(3 1)
32(142)
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(53)
33(147)
1
✓
23 (10 2)
67 (29 8)
2
✓
44 (19 6)
98 (43 6)
4
3
✓
26 (1 ] 6)
77 (34 2)
4
✓
39 (17 3)
78 (34 7)
5
✓
17 (7 6)
48 (21 3)
1
✓
18(80)
115(51 1)
2*
✓
17 (7 6)
49 (21 8)
5
3
✓
19 (8 4)
127 (56 4)
4
✓
57 (25 3)
151 (67 1)
5
✓
17 (7 6)
102 (45 3)
Vegetation
Monitoring
Year
Vegetation Density Met
Tract
Density
(Planted Stems)
Plot I
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot 5
1
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
672
2
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
599
3
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
518
4
✓
✓
✓
✓
461
5
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
502
*Missmg data due to gauge malfunction In all cases, would have likely extended the maximum consecutive saturated days
* *Gauge moved after year 2 to avoid draining effects of the UT Initial position was directly adjacent to stream
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A 16 2012 Monitoring Report
APPENDIX A: VEGETATIVE DATA
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A Appendix A 2012 Monitoring Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table Al: Veiretation Metadata
Report Prepared By
Jeremy Schmid
Date Prepared
12/3/2012 11 17
Database name
Cutawhiskie 2008- 2011_CVS Data mdb
Database location
G \Projects \Projects06 \06 -306 Cutawhiskie
Creek \Mitigation Monitoring\201I (Year 4)
Monitoring
Computer name
RAL3ZODXFI
File size
37752832
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets,
and a summary of project(s) and project data
Pro j, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per
acre, for each year This excludes live stakes
Prol, 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 e for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by e 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 plot, 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 11
6
Areas m
8
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
5
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A Appendix A 2012 Monitoring Report
Table A2 Veeetation Vieor by Suedes
Table A3.Veeetation Damage by Suecies
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
23
N ssa bi ora
2
12
6
4
7
4
4
Quercus lyrata
1
6
5
Quercus pagoda
0
4
Quercus michauxtt
6
2
1
0
6
TOT:
Quercus pagoda
1
4
1
1
TOT:
6
7
61
Quercus phellos
6
5
1
Taxodium distichum
2
15
2
1
TOT:
6
4
44
14
6
Table A3.Veeetation Damage by Suecies
Table A4. Veeetation Damage by Plot
Species
Count of
Damage
Cate ories
(no
damage)
Other/Unknown
Animal
Vine
Strangulation
Nyssa Mora
1
23
1
1
Quercus lyrata
4
7
4
Quercus michauxrr
1
2
1
Quercus pagoda
0
4
6
Quercus phellos
0
6
TOT:
Taxodium distichum
1
19
1
1
TOT:
6
7
61
1
6
Table A4. Veeetation Damage by Plot
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A Appendix A 2012 Monitoring Report
lot
All
Damage
Categories
(no
damage)
Cut
Unknown
D06066a- 12345-000 1 -year 5
1
16
1
D06066a- 12345 -0002- ear 5
0
18
D06066a- 12345- 0003 -year 5
0
16
D06066a- 12345- 0004 -year 5
6
2
6
D06066a- 12345- 0005 -year 5
0
9
TOT:
5
7
61
1
1 6
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A Appendix A 2012 Monitoring Report
Table A5. Stem Count by Plot and Species
Table A6. All Stems by Plot and Species
Species
Total
Planted
Stems
#
plots
Avg
#
stems
D06066a-
12345-
0001-
year:5
D06066a-
12345-
0002-
year:5
D06066a-
12345-
0003-
year:5
D06066a-
12345-
0004-
year:5
D06066a-
12345 -
0005-
year:5
Nyssa b fora
20
4
5
3
8
8
1
30
uercus 1 rata
11
4
275
1
3
4
3
Quercus mrchauxu
3
1
3
3
24
6
24
13
Quercus pagoda
4
2
2
7
2
3
2
Quercus phellos
5
1
5
5
6
2
2
Taxodrum drstrchum
19
5
38
4
5
4
2
4
TOT:
6
62
6
3.6
15
16
15
1 7
9
Table A6. All Stems by Plot and Species
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A Appendix A 2012 Monitoring Report
Species
Total
Stems
#
plots
Avg
#
stems
D06066a-
12345-
0001-
year:5
D06066a-
12345-
0002-
year:5
D06066a-
12345-
0003-
year:5
D06066a-
12345-
0004-
year:5
D06066a-
12345 -
0005-
year:5
Acerrubrum
190
5
38
4
111
25
20
30
Baccharrs hahmrfolra
3
1
3
3
Fraxrnus pennsylvanrca
125
5
25
58
24
6
24
13
Lr ustrum srnense
10
2
5
7
3
Lr urdambar styraciflua
12
4
3
2
6
2
2
Nyssa b fora
20
4
5
3
8
8
1
Prnustaeda
113
5
226
16
26
63
5
3
Platanus occrdentalrs
2
1
2
2
Populus deltordes
5
1
5
5
Quercus l rata
11
4
275
1
3
4
3
Quercus mrchauxrr
3
1
3
3
Quercus pagoda
8
3
267
4
2
2
Quercus phellos
5
1
5
5
Rhus co allrnum
2
1
2
2
Taxodrum drstrchum
19
5
3 8
4
5
4
2
4
Ulmus alata 1
19
4
475
2
6
8
3
TOT:
16 1
547
16
8.3
110
189
120
66 1
62
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A Appendix A 2012 Monitoring Report
Photo Stations: Year 5 Monitoring
Photo Station 1
Photo Station 3
Photo Station 2
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A 2012 Monitoring Report
Vegetation Plots: Year 5 Monitoring
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 4
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix A 2012 Monitoring Report
APPENDIX B: GEOMORPHOLOGIC DATA
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A Appendix B 2012 Monitoring Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table 132 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site — EEP Contract No D06066 -A
2,540 linear feet
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines)
(# Stable)
Number
Performing
as
Intended
Total
number
per
As -built
Total
Number
/ feet in
unstable
state
%
Perform
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perform
Mean or
Total
A Riffles
l 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
l 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 floodplam access and relieh
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100%
E Bed
I 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%
x
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 93
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
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A Appendix B 2012 Monitoring Report
INSERT XS1 -XS6 PLOTS
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A Appendix B 2012 Monitoring Report
52
51
50
_ 49
48
0
47
J
W
46
45
44
AS —BUILT SURVEY 43
YEAR —I SURVEY (2008)
YEAR SURVEY (2009)
- -- YEAR -3 SURVEY (2010)
- - -- YEAR -4 SURVEY (2011)
YEAR -5 SURVEY (2012)
XS1 (Pool)
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
0 +00 0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0 +40 0 +50
STATION (FEET)
XS1 FROM LEFT BANK TO RIGHT BANK
XS1 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
TA
SUMMARY
Nff]ES:
I. All cross— sections facing
the downstream direction
Survey Date
NOV. 2012
Survey Weather
Sunny
Fleld Team
Schmid, Gloden
Location
xs1
ATKIN511
CUTAWHISKIE
CREEK
RESTORATION
SITE
YEAR
MONITORING
REPORT
HERTFORD COUNTY. NC
CROSS SECTION
XS1 _ POOL
JOG I DEC 2012
Scats:
NO SCNF
Project No.:
l000ae2e
sNEEr
B1
WrRIT."Im G p 0 W INSIMA
° °m - --
iiiiii
�Lii•5135�— - --
iiiiii �xra�•xti• - - --
rA�i - -- - -- --
MMETIMMM
- - - - --
iiiiii - - - - --
SUMMARY - - - - - -S
DATA
RkSTONai o:.
�EAR-4 SURVEY • • �7ai
Al CUTAWHISKIE
CREEK
Willi
® RESTORATION
SITE
'
REPORT
• I
1. All cross–sections focina
the downstream direotion
J �y/`. - ,1 � ` 1 ys ►. �� '�e��ii1 `. .` - i' i / 1k+K;j ff' 6 ®�
Is ,�• 3R -ap � � 'r
"—
• • is •• .•
Survey Date
NOV. 2012
Survey Weather
Sunny
Fleld Team
Schmid, Gladen
Location
x52
XS3 (Pool)
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
0 +00 0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0 +40 0 +50
STATION (FEET)
XS3 FROM LEFT BANK TO RIGHT BANK
XS3 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
SURVEY DATA
1n IR
SUMMARY DATA
N4IES*
1. All cross — sections facing
the dormstreom direction
Survey Date
52
Survey Weather
51
Fleld Team
50
Location
49
_
z
48
0
47
w
46
45
44
AS -BUILT SURVEY
43
YEAR -1 SURVEY (2008)
YEAR -2 SURVEY (2009)
YEAR -3 SURVEY (2010)
- -- YEAR -4 SURVEY (2011)
- -- 1EAR -5 SURVEY (2012)
XS3 (Pool)
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
0 +00 0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0 +40 0 +50
STATION (FEET)
XS3 FROM LEFT BANK TO RIGHT BANK
XS3 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
SURVEY DATA
1n IR
SUMMARY DATA
N4IES*
1. All cross — sections facing
the dormstreom direction
Survey Date
NOV. 2012
Survey Weather
Sunny
Fleld Team
Schmid, Gloden
Location
XS3
,TKINS1l
CUTAWHISKIE
CREEK
RESTORATION
SITE
YEAR
MONITORING
REPORT
HERTFORD COUNTY, NC
CROSS SECTION II
XS3 -POOL
JWG DEC 2012
r-t NO SCALE
Ne.:
10000492!
I X
MEMMIMUM
MUMMIgs��
MMETAM
l�1FiliibL!- -�-
i[9kY�iFE3i- -�-
iFE•YlsF1IFi•- -�-
itSFlIFEFi♦-
ikE•bS�c3Fi•- - --
• • iFE•Iis.•Eii- -�-
--- - - -0'
- - - - --
Rs
UA
CUTAWHISKIE
CREEK
RESTORATION
SITE
MONITO
RING
REPOR
• �S • r
/ r ` lb -
ij
a,
I a'ty�
Survey Date
NOV. 2012
Survey Weather
Sunny
Fteld seam
Schmid, Cloden
Location
X54
940TWITH��
5.11(t1♦- - --
t!1<:Ya- - --
ksz��•as�— - --
mm RPM"
Rs
SUMMARY DATA xE5Tl1R 1'I i.,
CUTAWHISKIE
I �
&�
RESTORATION
SITE
1 MONITORING
REPORT
NOTES-
1. All cross—s�tiws facino
the downstream directfm
I 4-c
• • •• sell
Survey Date
NOV. 2012
Survey Weathsr
Sunny
Fleld Team
Schmid, Clodan
Location
x55
XS6 (Pool)
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
0 +00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0 +40 0 +50
STATION (FEET)
XS6 FROM LEFT BANK TO RIGHT BANK
XS6 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
SURVEY DATA
STATION ELEVATION FEATURE 11 STATION IELEVATIONI FEATURE
DATA
NOA NOTES-
A] facing
the downstream direction
Survey Date
52
Survey Weather
51
Field Team
50
Location
49
_
z
48
0
a
47
w
46
45
44
4S —BUILT SURVEY
43
TEAR -1 SURVEY (2008)
TEAR -2 SURVEY (2009)
,EAR-3 SURVEY (2010)
--- - - -__- r EAR -4 SURVEY (2011)
1EAR -5 SURVEY (2012)
XS6 (Pool)
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
0 +00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0 +40 0 +50
STATION (FEET)
XS6 FROM LEFT BANK TO RIGHT BANK
XS6 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
SURVEY DATA
STATION ELEVATION FEATURE 11 STATION IELEVATIONI FEATURE
DATA
NOA NOTES-
A] facing
the downstream direction
Survey Date
NOV. 2012
Survey Weather
Sunny
Field Team
Schmid, Gloden
Location
XS6
ATKINSI
CUTAWHISKIE
CREEK
RESTORATION
SITE
YEAR
MONITORING
REPORT
HERTFORD COUNTY. NC
CROSS SECTION
XS6 -POOL
MG I DEC 2012
SceN:
NO 9fMF
Propel No.:
1000We26
T
INSERT PROFILE PLOT
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A Appendix B 2012 Monitoring Report
50
49 ATKINS
48
47 - REVISIONS
W
W
l�
Z 46 1 Z
J
S
0 45
)- a
J 44
W Cik.e
43
42
41 P,.;.n
0 +00 1+00 2 +00 3 +00 4 +00 5 +00 6 +00 7 +00 8 +00 9 +00 10 +00 11+00 12 +00 13 +00 curawHISKIE
STATION IN FEET CREEK
50 RESTORATION
SITE
AS —BUILT SURVEY
YEAR -3 SURVEY (2010) 49
YEAR -5
YEAR -5 SURVEY (2012) p MONITORING
YEAR -5 BANKFULL 48 REPORT
YEAR -5 WATER SURFACE NERTFORD COUNTY. NC
47 F--
w
w
L�
46 Z LONGITUDINAL
PROFILE
1
45 0
�uv JN ph'
V vv,� BY:
44 REc
W XG I DEC 2012
Sc.k:
PA 43 NO SCALE
P, )_t N..:
10000/926
42 SHEEP
4, B7
13 +00 14 +00 15 +00 16 +00 17 +00 18 +00 19 +00 20 +00 21 +00 22 +00 23 +00 24 +00 25 +00 26 +00
STATION IN FEET
Bankfull Event 11- 14 -09: Year 2 Monitoring
Photo 1.Floodplain wrack line
Photo 2. Water in channel near bankfull. Streamside
vegetation matted down along the banks.
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.
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix B 2012 Monitoring Report
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.
Bankfull Event 08- 27 -11: Year 4 Monitoring
Photo 1. Hurricane Irene produced 5 -7 inches of
rain over the region during a 24 hour period.
Evidence of a large bankfull event was seen
while checking monitoring gauges. Herbaceous
vegetation adjacent to the channel showed signs
of being matted down from water flow. Wrack
lines were found pressed against erosion matting
stakes and woody vegetation.
Photo 2. Floodplain wrack line looking from
across channel.
NCEEP Contract No. D06066 -A Appendix B 2012 Monitoring Report
APPENDIX C: WETLAND DATA HYDROGRAPHS
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A Appendix C 2012 Monitoring Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
m
m
0
0
v
Z
0
0
0
0
NO
D
m
CL
x
n
N
O_
N
O
7
O
7�
cn
�7
fD
70
0
WON
Q
aD
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
-40
00
N
L
Cutawhiskie Creek
Year -5 Monitoring - 2012
Monitoring Gauge 1: N47BAC28
L
8% of Growinq Season E
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
C
1.5
0
m
w
1.0
�U
N
0.5
0.0
M
IT!
0
z
0
0
0
0
D
cu
_
a
x'
0
N
_O
N
O
0
cn
;U
m
-o
0
a
C
Q
N
L
m
G
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
-40
Cutawhiskie Creek
Year -5 Monitoring - 2012
Monitoring Gauge 2: N47BAB81
N �2
U -
Q O
Q Z
Month
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 c
O
cc
1.5 Q
U
O
t1
1.0
0.5
0.0
Note:
Data missing after May 25 due to gauge malfunction.
m
m
C)
0
v
Z
0
0
0
O
D
a
v
m
_
CL
X
x
N
O_
N
0
0
cn
x
m
0
m
O
I
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
-40
Cutawhiskie Creek
Year -5 Monitoring - 2012
Monitoring Gauge 3: N47BABFE
00
N
t
2
(6
C
8.4 % of Growino Season
N
E
N
O
Z
Month
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 _
1.5 0
cu
.a
1.0 v
a�
IL
0.5
0.0
m
m
C)
O
v
Z
0
0
0
0
0
D
m
a
X
n
N
O
N
O
o�
m
v
0
Q
m
a�
(0
G
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
-40
00
N
L
2
co
Cutawhiskie Creek
Year -5 Monitoring - 2012
Monitoring Gauge 4: N47BABD7
7F 'la/ of (- - ... i— 1Z.--
E
O
Z
Month
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
c
1.5
0
1.0 n
U
d
0.5
0.0
m
m
0
0
v
Z
0
0
0
O
i
D
v
cu
CL
X
n
Q
(D
m
m
N
0
N
K
O
7
o�
co
�7
m
v
0
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
-40
Cutawhiskie Creek
Year -5 Monitoring - 2012
Monitoring Gauge 5: N47BABD7
ao
N
L
U
lD
DO M
C �
cu Q
N C
O C
m O O
C c0 to
3 a) cu
O U en
m
Q
E
a)
O
Z
Month
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 c
0
c�
1.5 2-
L)
d
1.0
0.5
0.0
m
m
a
0
0
0
v
Z
0
0
0
0
14
12
10
c 8
c
D O
co
6
=3 Q.
CL
x� �U
a 4
2
0
N
O_
N
0
o�
co
M
0
Figure 3. Monthly Precipitation (Jan -Nov 2012)
Hertford County, NC
2012
Monthly Rainfall
30th Percentile -
70th Percentile -
Jan -12 Feb -12 Mar -12 Apr -12 May -12 Jun -12 Jul -12 Aug -12 Sep -12 Oct -12 Nov -12
Date
'Recorded at Murfreesboro - 315996 monitoring station
"'Recorded at NRCS WETS Station: MURFREESBORO 2 W, NC5996
APPENDIX D: CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
NCEEP Contract No D06066 -A Appendix D 2012 Monitoring Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2
0 o I G2
i
GI
VPI
LEGEND:
_CE_ - INSERVATION
�4SEMENT BOUNDARY
RESTORATION DESIGN
22.9+ acres
UNITS
STREAM RESTORATION
2540 In It
BRAIDED STREAM
359 In. It
RESTORATION
%
— — — THALWEG
--�-- _ - STREAM PRESERVATION
2593 In. ft.
f. WETLAND RESTORATION
11.9± acres
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
1.1± acres
MONITORING SETUP:
VEGETATIVE MONITORING PLOT
NOTE-
`p,
(SUCCESS CRITERIA MET) (5)
GROUNDWATER MONITORING GAUGE
%
HYDROLOGY >12.5% OF GROWING SEASON(1)
HYDROLOGY 5 -127 OF GROWING SEAS014(4),,
h
it
VPERMANENT
CROSS– SECTIONS (6)
PERMANENT PHOTO STATION (8)
—Om-
STREAM FLOW DIRECTION
EXOTIC SPECIES MANAGEMENT
(Ligustrum stnense)
G3 r 2
C4
t Do' 0 100' 1—
w
SCALE 1" =100' w
N
w
N
w
z
w4lal
CUTAWHISKIE
CREEK
RESTORATION
SITE
YEARS
MONITORING
REPORT
HER1F0RD COIMIY, NC
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
RLG .IWG
ote' Scale
DEC 2012 AS SHOWN
SC Prge�l No.
100006926
FIGURE
2A
NOTE-
czi
NO STREAM OR VEGETATION
PROBLEM AREAS WERE IDENTIFIED
DURING YEAR -5 MONITORING.
w4lal
CUTAWHISKIE
CREEK
RESTORATION
SITE
YEARS
MONITORING
REPORT
HER1F0RD COIMIY, NC
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
RLG .IWG
ote' Scale
DEC 2012 AS SHOWN
SC Prge�l No.
100006926
FIGURE
2A
/
/
Vp3
G4
� wwY
IQ \ I
N
w /
x
rn �r VP4
w �
z
J
x
� 4
� l
1 on'
F,1 =AI IL �I I00'
G5 /
1
/ CU TAWHISh:.IE
/ CREEK
/
[NOTEO STREAM OR VEGETATION
PROBLEM AREAS WERE IDENTIFIED
DURING YEAR -5 MONITORING.
/
/
LEGEND:
—CEO CONSERVATION 22,9+ acres
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
RESTORATION DESIGN UNITS
STREAM RESTORATION 2540 In ft.
— - -- BRAIDED STREAM
RESTORATION 359 In ft.
.
THALWEG
STREAM PRESERVATION 2593 In ft.
WETLAND RESTORATION 11.9± acres
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT 1.1± acres
ATKINSI
CUTAWHISKIE
CREEK
RESTORATION
SITE
YEARS
MONITORING
REPORT
HERTFORD COU0. NC
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
xn. By Cktl- By.
RLG JWG'
ale' ScOle
DEC 2012 AS SHOWN
iC P"),d N,
100004926
FIGURE
?E
MONITORING SETUP:
VEGETATIVE MONITORING PLOT
LPJ
(SUCCESS CRITERIA MET) (5)
GROUNDWATER MONITORING GAUGE
HYDROLOGY >12.5% OF GROWING SEASON(1)
HYDROLOGY 5 -127 OF GROWING SEASON(4)
VPERMANENT
CROSS— SECTIONS (6)
�.--�
PERMANENT PHOTO STATION (8)
--Op.
STREAM FLOW DIRECTION
EXOTIC SPECIES MANAGEMENT
(Ligusfrum sinense)
LEGEND:
—CEO CONSERVATION 22,9+ acres
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
RESTORATION DESIGN UNITS
STREAM RESTORATION 2540 In ft.
— - -- BRAIDED STREAM
RESTORATION 359 In ft.
.
THALWEG
STREAM PRESERVATION 2593 In ft.
WETLAND RESTORATION 11.9± acres
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT 1.1± acres
ATKINSI
CUTAWHISKIE
CREEK
RESTORATION
SITE
YEARS
MONITORING
REPORT
HERTFORD COU0. NC
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
xn. By Cktl- By.
RLG JWG'
ale' ScOle
DEC 2012 AS SHOWN
iC P"),d N,
100004926
FIGURE
?E