20061905 Ver 1_Year 3 Mitigation Report_20101201

06 -I905
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project
Hyde County, NC
2010 Annual Monitoring Report
Year 3
�,r
NCEEP Project Number D06001
Tar - Pamlico River Basin
Submitted to
NCDENR/Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Date: December, 2010
Monitoring:
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
P. O. Box 176
Fairfield, NC 27826
r "I.-
s!stem
I l�li 'i l�
f•RnI:RAM

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1
I Project Background
2
1.0 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
2 1 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 II 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- Wells and Vegetation Plots 7
Figure 3 Monitoring Plan View Soils, 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 mix across the site and throughout the various elevations. Supplemental planting
was done in 2009 and again in 2010 in specific areas on the site.
Six water level monitoring gauges were installed in May, 2007 at varying elevations throughout
the site to measure subsurface water elevations. Two more gauges were installed at reference
sites for hydrology comparison. In 2010, 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 were installed and permanently monumented, one coincident
with each of four of the monitoring gauges. 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 second year of monitoring, all four plots
met the Year 3 success criterion of 320 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 320 live stems per acre (the year 3 criterion
for survival).
Table ES -1. Project Success Summary (longest h dro eriod as a percent of the r wing season)
Gau a
Percent
Success
Vell
etation Plot
Percent
Success
1
2
3
4
5
6
7*
8*
1
2
3
1 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%
* 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
2010 Monitoring -Year 3of 5

I. Proiect Background
1.0 Proiect Objectives
The goal of the Mason Property Mitigation Project was to create both riverme and non- riverme
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 eliminate
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 similar 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 desynchronization 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
2.0 Proiect Structure, Restoration Tyne, 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 rivenne wetlands and
20 0 acres of non- riverine 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
2010 Monitoring - Year 3of 5

Table I. Project Restoration Components
Mason Prop rty Wetland Mitigation Site/EEP #D06001
Post
Community
Pre - Existing
Construction
Credit Ratio
Mitigation
Type
Acreage
Acreage
(Restoration WMU)
Units
Rtvenne
0 0
160
1 1
160
Wetland
Non- Rivenne
0 0
200
1 1
200
Wetland
Total
360
3.0 Location and Setting
The Mason Property Mitigation Site is located in Hyde County, on the north side of U S
Highway 264, approximately 1 mule 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 mud 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
2010 Monitoring - Year 3of 5

, . e ! , r � I�r •� e Ln +> } III >'.
/• /F re Air °+ � i ,�: I� £:ra. ♦ •`•� i , }1,
�' °'w,:''t• �.,i.r e'er' � f' `µ«, i, \� �'•, .I I
b
���� r_ ,' � "4'� Imo! {_' `fS. `�• �" +..
1 � ddr .1Y r t
ew
•,'
z
J- I
f 1
. .
am" RES'�PA'GNS, ! C. Eco TONE, INC. C. � VCN11'�{M
xsur
— Ca�t,o. l�i(b�'J(l� , fiYdm[Ir6M0l�4rpKAlf
Hcavmrc,"
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 4
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
2010 Monitoring - Year 3of 5

4.0 Proiect 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 History
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Pro'ect1EEP #D06001
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Deliver
Restoration Plan
June 2006
Novermber 2006
Final Design -90%
June 2006
Novermber 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
Containenzed 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
Edenton, NC 27932
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 HI. Project Contacts
Mason Pro pert 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 Pa er, 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
2010 Monitoring - Year 3of 5

Project background information for the MPWMS is provided in Table IV
Table IV. Project Background
Mason Property Wetland Miti ation Site/EEP #D06001
Project County
Hyde Count
Drainage Area
36 0 acres within easement boundary
Drainage impervious cover estimate ( %)
0
Ph sio ra hic Reion
Coastal Plain
Ecore ion
8 5 1 Middle 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 -03 -08
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 segment?
Yes, Pamlico River
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor9
A , Urban Runoff, Septic
% of project easement fenced
I None
5. Monitoring 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 -inch 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 rain gauge is installed on siteto 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
2010 Monitoring - Year 3of 5

Arl
�-
VV
Z ME
z — / <
h/ LN Z
VV
# #
I. 71
4.CJ'
aa
+I
Z
os,
z
o. Z 3
�v
1.5 + ��
N 6
n
.O'
I.75 cwt 0
+.5 + 5. 5'
I
SP J
AS ' 2 >' <
o / 9 _ .7
1.75 i7+ N "`<� N
VNN 0
VNN
1.75+ 1.5
_�
75 OZ
- 75 ' Z
+
in ( ZZ
Z ZN
5' 2 5
�Jl 2.50 I 1.5 2
I.2
I.
\
� 1
I
5 1 2 1.75
5 +
5
+f
s
5
2 0,
l SI
Q
# # # # # #
KN
((11 t-0H-
Z
b
N O
W W W IN IN W
Z
N
' I
_
_
J
N
b
0 V
I I
I
u 115 264
-u :A ;t o
I
_ az
a
c�
vvvvvvvv
c
ZN a
s`
(3NQN Z\ 4�' 1�1' (3" Z'
'z—
a
-0
PLAN PW°AM°°)'
MA50N p CRU
M5 MV WGUMON W5
ALBERMARLE
RESTORATIONS, LL
EC 0 TONE, INC.
s
'
� � WETLAND MIiIGA110N A5 (311111
I6,0 ALAS
MaP 2"
�
N
Vsteni
NON'RIVEt'w wMa MWWON %i5 0V
20.0ACM5
WETLAND
STREAM
& WILDUFE HABITAT
RESTORATION,
RESTORA110N
CREA`IION
Environmental Consultk Pamltting do Design,
Forest k We Creation be
Stream Restoration.
����,6T'�I� /1I�NV �Vrin� maim
H VC COW, IWf.Ifi �M.1/I im
P.O. Box S• Bddsin Road Jw Mar larW 21054
404 COURT STREET • OATESNtlE. NC 27938
(232) 333 -0249• FAX [phone]
1204 MN • ttMw
(410) 692 -7806 Fax [phone] rural Infoo—tonMrlo.00m
ffr CGNWT *:

v
j
60
C1
C1
z
ACC
U1
1
_ $ 75
Z i
/ n
# # `
JN
� > p
,y. A
r
�7 rn
f ' 2.5
G f
ZO
/ y �� 1. + +•y 0� it
\ z�
.9 rn
I" # 10 �
E� f 5C>
to `off
Q
� ru
25' .
S
I /
1�
11.151 /
0.0 1.-7 zN
10' 0 J
2.50 L 5 2 S rn
1.75 #
1.75'1 -1 -12 :. \ �•-
3
+ 1
+.5 // Il
i
�.0'/ /
R
O 3
Z(3 LOD
Q b
II �I
U5 26q
0
z �
;I ALBERMARLE RESTORATIONS, LL,' ECO TONE, INC.
404 COURT STREET • GATESYl1E NC 27935
(252) 33J -0249• FAX [phone]
6m 5 - 1204 Baldwin Mw Road • J—H.Al . M >14md 21084
10) 892 -7500 Far (410) 892 -7603 —d InloOo- tontha.cam
r�
Ecosystem
t?NEK W1;1LANP MI16MON A5-6 Lf
16,0 ACAS
NON-RIV OKE WMMV MGAMN A5.61bLf
20.0 ALMS
w7E cm, M" CR?aWA
V COMM #: P06001
5011.5, COMM AW PM COMMWIM5
NOWWR 2005
A

II. Project Condition and Monitoring Results
1.0 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) The site was originally planted at a rate of
275 stems per acre in May of 2007 In February of 2008, an additional 175 stems per acre were
installed bringing the total stocking at the start of the 2008 growing season to 450 stems per acre
In March of 2010 an additional 2,700 containerized trees were added to bolster stocking levels in
areas that appeared to be suffering from salt water damage caused by backflow over the outlet
plug during periods of high tide
Table V. Species by Vegetation Type
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation 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 m ra
FAC
Shrubs
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator Status
High Tide Bush
Baccharis halimifolia
FAC
Swamp C nlla
C rilla racemiflora
FACW
Sweet Pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
FACW
Virginia Sweets ire
Itea vir inica
FACW+
Button Bush
Ce halanthus occidentalis
OBL
Tag Alder
Alnus serrulata
FACW
Wax Myrtle
M rica cenfera
FAC+
Sweetbay
Magnolia vir miana
FACW+
1.1 Vegetation Discussion and Problem Areas
All four monitoring plots met the Year 3 success criterion of a minimum of 320 stems per acre
after the third growing season Over the entire project, the survival rate averaged 423 planted
stems per acre Local farmers have observed periodic saltwater intrusion and in September of
2010, after the remnants of Tropical Storm Nicole passed up the coast, video evidence of
saltwater flowing into the project was captured
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 9
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
2010 Monitoring -Year 3of 5

Saltwater flowing into the project will be well diluted when there is ample standing water
already in the project, but wind driven high tides can occur during dry periods, and undiluted
saltwater will have a much more dramatic effect on tree mortality and growth especially in the
first few years as trees are trying to become established after planting Figure 4 in Appendix D
shows the delineation, based on vegetative cover, between the areas that appear to be less
susceptible to both saltwater damage and prolonged, deep standing water from those that are
more susceptible The area identified by blue hatching appears to be less prone to water damage
Water oak (Q phellos), buttonbush (C occidentalts) and bald cypress (T distichum) proved to
be the hardiest species as they are all obligate wetland species During March of 2009, an
additional 8,000 stems of water oak and bald cypress were planted to once again bring the
density up to approximately 450 stems per acre The containerized stock that was added in
March of 2010 was bald cypress (T distichum) and buttonbush (C occidentalis) as they have
been noted to exhibit some tolerance to salinity, were on the original planting schedule for this
project, and have survived the site so far Due to the site's robust wetland hydrology and long
periods of inundation, there are few options for site maintenance beyond manual herbaceous
competition control to improve tree survival Herbaceous competition is thought to be a problem
secondary to the length of constant inundation and soil salinity levels Once again in 2010,
coffeeweed (Sesbania herbacia) began to appear on site and was manually chopped for control,
but was still present at the time of vegetation sampling as can be seen in the photos
1.2 Vegetation Monitoring Plan View (Integrated)
Figure 4 in Appendix D illustrates the development of cover types caused by suspected effects of
depth and length of inundation and salinity Refer to 3.0 Project Success Discussion for further
discussion of developing cover types
2.0 Wetland Assessment
The hydrologic success criterion is to achieve a minimum 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 were deployed across the site and two more were installed in
reference areas All six gauges met the success criteria for the site in 2010 as did the two
reference gauges
2.1 Wetland Discussion and Problem Areas
Drainage from the project area can only occur during times 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
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 10
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
2010 Monitoring - Year 3of 5

The remnants of the tropical storm in September provided evidence of tidal flows entering the
site from the ditch that leads from the site to Rose Bay Creek Considering the site's close
proximity to Rose Bay, wind driven tidal intrusions into the Mason wetland site are expected and
are common occurrences in adjacent existing wetland systems in the Rose Bay watershed
2.2 Wetland Monitoring Plan View (Integrated)
Figure 4, Appendix D indicates the areas discussed above
Table VI. Hydrology and Vegetation Criteria Success by Plot
Mason Prop rty Wetland Miti ation Project/EEP #D06001
Well
Hydrology Success
Met
Hydrology
Mean
Vegetation Plot
Vegetation
Success Met
Vegetation
Mean
1
Y (12 %)
100%
1
Y
100%
2
Y (18 %)
2
Y
3
Y (19 %)
3
Y
4
Y (18 %)
4
Y
5
Y (18 %)
No Plot
No Plot
6
Y (18 %)
No Plot
No Plot
7
Y (Ref 100 %)
Reference Well
I Reference Well
8
Y (Ref 18 %)
Reference Well
I Reference Well
3.0 Proiect 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 video evidence from
September, 2010, saltwater incursion caused by wind - driven high tide events Tree survival in
2010 appeared to be at a sustainable level such that minor mortality in the future should not be a
problem 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 herbacia), 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,
though still subject to total inundation during very wet periods and probably less subject to
saltwater intrusion The area shown on Figure 4 in Appendix D (identified by blue cross-
hatching) identifies a large portion of the site where this appears to be the case, based on tree
growth, species mix and herbaceous cover There are other smaller pockets, inclusions and
ridges that share the same vegetative features, but this area is the largest contiguous acreage of
this cover type This distinction is not made to delineate wetland types, but to assess the
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 11
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
2010 Monitoring - Year 3of 5

development of the vegetative cover Saltwater intrusion has been documented (though the
extent is unknown) and length of inundation between the two vegetative cover types can vary
depending on rainfall patterns The depth of standing water, the length of time it stands and its
salinity levels and combinations of these factors has had an effect on the development of these
two distinct cover types
Further evidence of these effects can be seen by comparing the hydrographs in Appendix C
Gauge 4 does not show the same sensitivity to periodic minor rainfall events as the other gauges,
including gauges 5 and 6 (gauge 6 is on the borderline between the two vegetative cover types)
During the period from the end of April, when rainfall lessened considerably, until the end of
September when Tropical Storm Nicole produced very heavy rainfall, gauge 4 shows less peaks
and a generally less sensitive water table than the other five gauges on the project
III. Methodology Section
Year 3 monitoring for the Mason project occurred in 2010 Monitoring and vegetation sampling
procedures were established in the mitigation plan for this project and no deviations were made
Mason Property Wetland Mitigation Project 12
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
2010 Monitoring -Year 3of 5

Appendix A
Vegetation Data Tables
Site Photos

1. Vegetation Data Tables
Table 1 Project Summary
Report Prepared By
Ashby Brown
Date Prepared
10/15/2010 15 42
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 spp
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
D06001
project Name
Mason Riverme
Description
Mason Riverme wetland project in Hyde county, NC
River Basin
Tar - Pamlico
Sampled Plots
4

Table 2 Vigor b S ecies
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Ce halanthus occidentahs
3
1
M nca cenfera
2
2
Clethra alnifolia
1
1
TOT:
Quercus bicolor
1
1
N ssa biflora
7
7
1
Taxodium distichum
33
33
Quercus bicolor
2
2
TOT:
8
51
1
Quercus phellos
2
2
3
Taxodium distichum
11
18
2
2
Unknown
2
Mynca cenfera
1
1
TOT:
8
15
1 21
5
10
Table 3 Damage by Species
Species
All Damage Categories
(no damage)
Ce halanthus occidentalis
4
4
Clethra alnifoha
1
1
M nca cenfera
2
2
N ssa biflora
1
1
TOT:
Quercus bicolor
1
1
Quercus phellos
7
7
Taxodium distichum
33
33
Unknown
2
2
TOT:
8
51
51
Table 4 Dama e by Plot
lot
All Damage Categories
(no damage)
D06001 -ABET -0001- ear 3
14
14
D06001-ABET-0002-year 3
14
14
D06001- ABET -0003- ear 3
13
13
D06001- ABET -0004- ear 3
10
10
TOT:
4
51
51

Table 5 Stem Count by Plot and Species
Feature/Issue
Species
Total
Planted
Stems
# lots
av # stems
Plot
1,
Year
3
Plot
2,
Year
3
Plot
3,
Year
3
Plot
4,
Year
3
Ce halanthus occidentalis
4
3
1 33
2
VPA 1 -3
1 1
1
M nca cerifera
1
1
1
1
N ssa biflora
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
4
1
4
4
Taxodium distichum
31
4
775
9
4
11
1 7
TOT:
1 5
41
5
1 11
9
12
9
Average per Acre
423
1 454
371
495
371
Table 6 Vegetation Problem Areas
Feature/Issue
Plot
Probable Cause
Photo #
Mortality /poor growth
1 2 3
Saltwater intrusion during
Refer to video on
caused by soil salinity
very high tides
accompanying CD
Heavy herbaceous
All
Cattails /Coffeeweed
VPA 1 -3
competition

VPA 1
Heavy cattail emergence in April, site is dry
VPA 2
Coffeeweed is still present and re- emerging in October

VPA 3
The swamp run in April near gauge 3, low water, heavy cattails

Main run near gauge 3 in October after Tropical Storm Nicole

Appendix B
Geomorphologic Raw Data
Not used in this report

Appendix C
Hydrologic Data Tables

Ln
LO
w
w
N
T
T
T
O
ca
C7
tm
C
0
c
O
2
C
O
N
R
2
(sayOul) sJuan3 Ile;ulea AI1ea
Lq Lq Lq
c') N N r r O O
N
0
r O r N M
(feel) 93eIjng punoa!D 01 anllelaa lana-1 aa}eM
9/22/2010
c
°-
9/8/2010
I �
8/25/2010
_
a�
5/19/2010
c
8/11/2010
ca
4/21/2010
m
7/28/2010
0
O
7/14/2010
6/30/2010
6/16/2010
c
°-
I �
6/2/2010
w
a�
5/19/2010
G
5/5/2010
4/21/2010
4/7/2010
0
3/24/2010
w
U
3/10/2010
t
cn
2/24/2010
m
is
2/10/2010
I
1/27/2010
1/13/2010
12/30/2009
12/16/2009

co
m
ca
N
T
T
N
0
CD
0
m
cm
'i
C
0
C
O
W
ca
2
(sey3ul) Sluan3 Ile;ulea Aliea
U� U
co N N r r O O
N r O 7 N
(lea;) aoeIanS punoaE) 01 anI}elaa lana-j aeJBM
9/22/2010
9/8/2010
8/25/2010
8/11/2010
7/28/2010
7/14/2010
6/30/2010
co
co
°
c
O
I
6/16/2010
C
°
N
6/2/2010
w
m
5/19/2010
.5
M
5/5/2010
4/21/2010
4/7/2010
c
°
3/24/2010
3/10/2010
2/24/2010
2/10/2010
1/27/2010
1/13/2010
12/30/2009
} 12/16/2009
M
io
m
w
a�
U
m

LO
T
T
Ln
RT
N
M
4t
O
0
a
c
O
._
0
C
O
W
m
2
(sa143ul) sluan3 Ile;ulea AI!L'a
U? Lq Lq
C'') N N r- r O O
0
9/30/2010
9/23/2010
9/16/2010
9/9/2010
9/2/2010
8/26/2010
8/19/2010
8/12/2010
8/5/2010
7/29/2010
7/22/2010
7/15/2010
7/8/2010
7/l/2010
6/24/2010
6/17/2010
6/10/2010
6/3/2010
5/27/2010
5/20/2010
5/13/2010
5/6/2010
4/29/2010
4/22/2010
4/15/2010
4/8/2010
4/l/2010
3/25/2010
3/18/2010
3/11/2010
3/4/2010
2/25/2010
N r O 7 N M V
(lea;) 93elinS punojE) 01 anl;elaa lanai Ja;eM
CD
m
0
EI
a�
c
O
I
ri
0
WI
m�
m
c
0
•iu
a�
w
m
V

N
(D
tD
N
r
r
O
R
L
C
O
O
N
O
2
(sayOui) sluan3 Ile ;uiea Ai!ea
L
co N N r
O O
9/22/2010
9/8/2010
N O r N
(JeOl) 03epnS puna!D 01 anileIaa Iana-1 aale/N
8/25/2010
CZ
8/11/2010
C
o=
7/28/2010
c
O
7/14/2010
I
6/30/2010
6/16/2010
c
°
m
6/2/2010
w
-0
5/19/2010
5/5/2010
tl
I
4/21/2010
I
4/7/2010 1 .°
ca
>
a>
3/24/2010 w
a)
U
3/10/2010 t
2/24/2010 a'
2/10/2010
1/27/2010
1/13/2010
12/30/2009
:- 12/16/2009
C`.)

rn
rn
0
co
T
LO
U#
N
CD
CD7
R
O
O
O
N
cv
2
(S043ul) sluan3 ne;uiea Aiiea
Iq
Co N N r O O
N r O 7 N It
(tool) ooeling punoa!E) 01 anileIaa Jana-j aa;eM
c
c
O
I
c
O
co
N
W
C
O
W
N
cn
I
_-�
1 1 1
I /
1 1
-��
��--
I
WE 6 �—�
N r O 7 N It
(tool) ooeling punoa!E) 01 anileIaa Jana-j aa;eM
c
c
O
I
c
O
co
N
W
C
O
W
N
cn
I

0
0
T
co
T
T
cc
N
0
cv
0
i
O
c
O
c
O
W
m
(sayoul) sluan3 Ile;ulea AI1ea
LI? LO Lq
M N N r- *- O O
c
0
R
9/22/2010
9/8/2010
8/25/2010
n
r
z
8/11/2010 a
a
7/28/2010 c
C
7/14/2010 I
6/30/2010
6/16/2010
fi
6/2/2010 u
Iz
a
5/19/2010 a
5/5/2010
4/21/2010
4/7/2010 c
n
3/24/2010 u
a
c
3/10/2010
u
2/24/2010 u
n
2/10/2010 3
I
1/27/2010
1/13/2010
12/30/2009
12/16/2009
N O 7 N M
(}aal) ooeling puna!D 01 anljelaa lanai Ja;eM

N
O
co
T
T_
S�IRR
m V
m O
0 V
CM _
c (D
L
O
c
O
c
O
W
m
2
(sayOul) sluan3 Ile;ulea Allen
Iq L
co N N
45
r O 7 N M d
(Joel) e3eling punoa!D 01 anllelaa lanai JOJeM
9/22/2010
9/8/2010
8/25/2010
8/11/2010
7/28/2010
cz
C
cz
m
co
c
O
7/14/2010
6/30/2010
6/16/2010
ca
>
2
6/2/2010
w
i0
5/19/2010
C
O �
5/5/2010
I
4/21/2010
c
0
4/7/2010
'ru
a)
3/24/2010
w
a)
U
f0
3/10/2010
:3
U)
2/24/2010
a>
s
2/10/2010
I
1/27/2010
1/13/2010
12/30/2009
12/16/2009

N
O
O
oo
coT
T
c
0 O
v
tm O
C L
'L m
c
O
O
W
m
2
(sayoui) sJuan3 Ile;uiea Al!ea
M N N r O O
9/22/2010
9/8/2010
8/25/2010
F�
8/11/2010 c
Ora
co
- 7/28/2010
C
0
- 7/14/2010
I
- 6/30/2010
- 6/16/2010
.°
I C�
- 6/2/2010
w
- 5/19/2010
w
O
�
- 5/5/2010
I
- 4/21/2010
- 4/7/2010
°
1
===Mow
- 3/24/2010
w
m
U
- 3/10/2010
cu
2/24/2010
cz
r 2/10/2010
- 1/27/2010
1/13/2010
12/30/2009
12/16/2009
ir4m
=-=W�
mm��
mmmml�
9/22/2010
9/8/2010
8/25/2010
F�
8/11/2010 c
N r O 7 N M
(Joel) eoelinS punoa!D of anilelaa Jana-1 aa}eM
co
- 7/28/2010
C
0
- 7/14/2010
I
- 6/30/2010
- 6/16/2010
.°
I C�
- 6/2/2010
w
- 5/19/2010
w
O
�
- 5/5/2010
I
- 4/21/2010
- 4/7/2010
°
1
- 3/24/2010
w
m
U
- 3/10/2010
cu
2/24/2010
cz
r 2/10/2010
- 1/27/2010
1/13/2010
12/30/2009
12/16/2009
N r O 7 N M
(Joel) eoelinS punoa!D of anilelaa Jana-1 aa}eM

5% of growing season is 13 days, 8% is 21 days
* ** Gauge 7 showed continuous successful hydrology thru 2010
2010 Reference Precipitation January thru September
Total Normal = 40.33 inches, Total Actual = 37.19 inches
Total cumulative deficit = 3.14"
W to - -
u 8
C
5 6 Normal Preciptiation
.0
a° 4 — Actual Precipitation
S
a 2 Cumulative Deficit
L 0
a
-2 ft--
Table C -I
Longest Consecutive Successful Hydrologic Period
in Days and Success at 5% and 8% of Growing Season
Year I
Current Year
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Gau a
Da s
%
5%
8%
Days
%
5%
8%
Days
%
5%
8%
Da s
5%
8 %
Days
5%
8 %
1
99
38
Y
Y
143 55 Y
Y
30
12 Y
Y
2
86
33
Y
Y
91 35 Y
Y
47
18 Y
Y
3
95
; 36
; Y
Y
79 30 ; Y
Y
49
19 Y
Y
4
88
34
Y
Y
133 51 Y
Y
48
18 Y
Y
5
92 35
Y
Y
91 35 Y
Y
47
18 Y
Y
6
93 36
Y
Y
118 45 Y
Y
48
18 Y
Y
7 (Ref)
158 61
Y
Y
119 46 Y
Y
261
100. Y
Y
8 (Ref)
41 16 ;
Y
Y
129 ; 49 ; Y
Y
47
18 Y
Y
5% of growing season is 13 days, 8% is 21 days
* ** Gauge 7 showed continuous successful hydrology thru 2010
2010 Reference Precipitation January thru September
Total Normal = 40.33 inches, Total Actual = 37.19 inches
Total cumulative deficit = 3.14"
W to - -
u 8
C
5 6 Normal Preciptiation
.0
a° 4 — Actual Precipitation
S
a 2 Cumulative Deficit
L 0
a
-2 ft--

Appendix D
Problem Areas Plan View (Integrated)

Vegetation Plots Latitude
Longitude
#I NorthwestComer 35-27 -4505
7623 - 16.683
#2 Northwest 3527 49J95
7623 11,157
Comer
EXI5 %GRAVE
#3 Northwest 358-27-51.496
76-23- 08.264
Comer
#4 Northwest 35-27-54787
76-23-17,560
Cornet
A5-MIL1 6KA11E
Note, Vegetation Plots are 10 meter by 10 meter 5aua-e
Ord
plots, with one comer of each plot coincidirq with the
VUfAM MONITORING PL01
ocation of the associated monitorlrq well.
A5 -PJlV SPOT ELEVATION
A � i
�1
,I
1
P UP
MONITORING /GAUGE -6 —
i
C
VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT #3
MONITORING GALIOE u3
TI
U.
1 .
S;
sC
+ v/
MONITORING GAUGE 42
VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT u2
t. -
�' RAIN GAUGE
N ACKUP MONITORING GAUGE # 5
�EG�Nn
OR 11 WE
PROPERLY UNE
EASEMEN1�OUNt7A�'
;4—
EXI5 %GRAVE
s
PROPOD GPJ+T%
PLANTING N6 Z ZONE
A5-MIL1 6KA11E
®
Ord
❑2
VUfAM MONITORING PL01
A5 -PJlV SPOT ELEVATION
AREAS LE55 9J6 E f T
mm
I
WIN,
MI
PRIM
�EG�Nn
PROPERLY UNE
EASEMEN1�OUNt7A�'
;4—
EXI5 %GRAVE
s
PROPOD GPJ+T%
PLANTING N6 Z ZONE
A5-MIL1 6KA11E
®
MONITORING WEAL
❑2
VUfAM MONITORING PL01
A5 -PJlV SPOT ELEVATION
AREAS LE55 9J6 E f T
5A11/ 5%12% WAT R
i
y �r
APPU X n NUMP MOMM APN5
MONITRING P OF\f W\ #3
200 0 200 400
o
0
O
- fl07a0
r�
r�
h�
i
U
z
�m
O oZo Op u
Fom
�<u W
C ifw W
cy J 0 a
3 0�
cj
U4
4

• ±- � � - � l .�. � r * mar•
of
` 81
..ti l k� �a�• � r
w } 14 tis
ZA
It-
.ti
ft..
-.76.3
Its
}
�Y
s
A Aim
322
f ,
l
iO( ,I
L

35.463822,-76.386322 - Google Maps
C,O.,-)Sle Address North Carolina
Page 1 of 1
NC 12-42 20061905 -1
Mason Property Wetland Restoration
http: // maps.google.com/ maps ?f--q &source= s_q &hl =en &geocode = &q= 35.463822,+ -76.3 86... 5/6/2012