20061342 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20140121

Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 (2013)
Hyde County, NC
State Construction Office Project No. 05- 0653802
EEP Project No. 38
Prepared for the RECEIVED
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program DEL. s 201.i
NC ECOSYSTEM ,
rAd ~` ENHA,N --0, TENT Pr;OGRANi
timl C11 -Henn 7LI)N w/ PROGRAM 1652 Mail Service Center �6-,+ Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 ;� �'' � �+ - WA1ER ALITY
r Branch
Final Monitoring Report
December 2013

Prepared by:
ECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
11515E Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
919.557.0929
www.ecologicaleng.com
G. Lane Sauls, Jr., Principal
This document is based on the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program's Monitoring Report Submission Template
Version 1.2 (doted 11106106) in the Project Implementation Manual.

Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary/ Project Abstract .......................................... ............................... 2
1.0 Project Background .......................................................... ............................... 3
1.1 Project Objectives ......................................................................... ............................... 3
1.2 Project Structure ........................................................................... ............................... 3
1.3 Restoration Type and Approach ................................................... ............................... 4
1.3.1 Coastal Marsh Wetlands ............................................ ............................... 4
1.3.2 Non - Riparian Hardwood Flat Wetlands ...................... ..............................4
1.3.3 Riverine Forested Wetlands ...................................... ............................... 5
1.4 Location and Setting ...................................................................... ..............................5
1.5 Project History and Background ................................................... ............................... 5
2.0 Project Condition and Monitoring Results ......................... ............................... 9
2.1 Vegetation Assessment ................................................................ ............................... 9
2.1.1 Vegetation Problem Areas ......................................... ............................... 9
2.2 Wetland Assessment .................................................................. ............................... 10
2.2.1 Wetland Problem Areas ........................................... ............................... 10
3.0 Methodology ................................................................. ............................... 12
4.0 References ..................................................................... ............................... 13
Figures
Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Attributes
Figure 3. Vegetation Problem Areas Plan View
Figure 4. Monitoring Well Locations
Tables
Exhibit Table I. Project Restoration Components ................................ ............................... 6
Exhibit Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History ....................... ............................... 7
Exhibit Table III. Project Contact Table ................................................ ............................... 7
Exhibit Table IV. Project Background Table ......................................... ............................... 8
Exhibit Table V. Wetland Criteria Attainment ..................................... .............................11
Appendices
Appendix A. Vegetation Raw Data and Annual Photograph Comparisons
Appendix B. Wetland Raw Data

Executive Summary/ Project Abstract
The Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, hereinafter referred to as the Bishop Road Site or Project Site,
is one of a group of sites purchased by the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to meet its on-
going mitigation needs throughout North Carolina. In 2006, the Project Site was turned over to the NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for project
implementation. Construction was completed during the spring of 2009.
Ecological Engineering, LLP (Ecological Engineering) entered into contract with EEP in October 2009. As
part of this contract, Ecological Engineering was tasked to provide annual monitoring services including,
but not limited to annual vegetation assessments within the existing nine vegetation plots and the
downloading of monitoring gauge data at 10 locations. During 2010, Ecological Engineering added three
additional vegetation plots to the overall assessment. These plots were subsequently removed by EEP in
early 2013. In 2012, two gauges were removed due to ongoing wildlife damage. Two additional gauges
were removed in late 2013 due to malfunction. The downloading of gauge data occurred three times
during 2013. Additional services, including gauge maintenance and replacement, were also provided, as
necessary.
The Bishop Road Site is situated along SR 1156 (Bishop Road), between US 264 and the Pungo River in
Hyde County, North Carolina (Figure 1). It is approximately one mile north of Scranton, five miles
southeast of Leechville and ten miles east of Belhaven. The Project Site is bordered to the northwest by
Tarklin Creek, the south by Scranton Creek and the west by the Pungo River. It is within the Tar - Pamlico
River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020104.
Vegetation Assessment
The Monitoring Year (MY) 5 vegetation monitoring effort was performed by determining density and
survival of planted species, consistent with prescribed Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols. Seven
100- meter 2 wetland and two 100- meter 2 marsh plot locations were assessed. Based on the 2013
assessment, the mean stem count for the seven wetland plots was 400 planted stems per acre and
2,271 total stems per acre. The MY 4 means were approximately 191 planted stems per acre and 2,146
total stems per acre. Six of the seven wetland plots met the 260 - planted stem count threshold required
for Year 5 results. The remaining two marsh plots were evaluated according to percent herbaceous
coverage. One plot was at 98 percent and the other at 50 percent. Supplemental planting was
performed in early 2013 to augment existing planted stems.
Wetland Assessment
Wetland assessments associated with the MY 5 monitoring effort were performed by collecting
groundwater hydrology via monitoring gauges that record daily groundwater elevations. Based on the
results, nine of 10 wells met the criteria established for wetland hydrology. The remaining gauge, a
reference gauge, malfunctioned and the data was corrupt.

1.0 Project Background
1.1 Project Objectives
The project goals were to restore Site hydrology, restore natural diverse wetland communities and
protect the Site from vehicle access, logging or development (EEP, 2009). These goals were
accomplished by the following objectives:
• Removal of earthen roads and fill roadside drainage ditches;
• Removal of bedding rows in selected areas, replanting and establishing natural plant
communities, non - riparian hardwood flats, coastal marshes and riverine forested wetlands;
and,
• Purchase of the property fee simple, record a conservation easement for protection in
perpetuity and installation of vehicle access barriers.
The system of measurement to determine successful implementation includes documentation of
hydrology through groundwater monitoring wells, documentation of vegetation development through
permanent 100 - meter' plots and documentation of no vehicle access, logging or development through
visual observation (EEP, 2009).
1.2 Project Structure
Mitigation components include coastal marsh restoration and preservation, riverine forested wetland
restoration and preservation, non - riparian hardwood flat restoration and preservation and riparian
buffer restoration. Figure 2 depicts the locations of each mitigation component. Exhibit Table 1 denotes
the final calculated acreages of each component.
According to EEP (2009), the restoration types and amounts were modified during construction due to
plant community nomenclature and inaccuracy of the topographic survey. These modifications deviate
significantly from names and amounts presented in the 2006 Restoration Plan. Approximately 36.0 acres
of non - riparian hardwood flat restoration were removed to reduce construction costs. The tidal
freshwater marsh community is now referred to coastal marsh per the request of EEP and the NC
Division of Coastal Management. A 2.2 -acre section of tidal freshwater marsh /coastal marsh located
west of Old Bishop Road was changed to non - riparian hardwood flat due to inaccurate survey
elevations. The design was based on topographic survey information provided by a third party. Based on
the survey elevations and its proximity to open water, this area was slated for marsh restoration. After
the area was cleared during construction, it was obvious that the area was significantly higher than the
survey depicted. A small section of non - riparian hardwood flat restoration (0.171 acres) was changed to
riparian buffer restoration. This change resulted from the need of riparian buffer credits in the area
(EEP, 2009). However, based on low stems counts within this area, buffer assets were determined not
viable after this year's monitoring assessment.
Vehicle access barriers comprised of concrete Jersey barriers, an earthen berm and a metal gate were
installed at strategic locations within the Project Site.

1.3 Restoration Type and Approach
1.3.1 Coastal Marsh Wetlands
According to EEP (2009), the restoration plan includes 0.343 acres of coastal marsh restoration at two
locations. The first and larger area, covering 0.246 acres, is located at the northern end of Bishop Road
along the main branch of Tarklin Creek. The area consisted of an earthen road bed approximately 32
feet wide and approximately 2.5 feet higher than the adjacent marsh. Restoration was accomplished by
removing the earthen fill to an elevation within ±0.2 feet of the adjacent marsh. The restored area was
planted with vegetation representative of the adjacent marsh, including black needle rush (luncus
roemerianus), Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and
pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata). Soils in the marsh consist of Longshoal mucky peat, a hydric A soil
(EEP, 2009).
The second and smaller area, covering 0.097 acres, is situated near the end of Silverthorne Road.
Silverthorne Road crosses a small tidal slough of Scranton Creek at this location. There was no culvert
under Silverthorne Road at this location. This disconnected the small slough upstream of Silverthorne
Road from tidal flow. Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) is the dominant vegetation on the downstream
(the tidal side) of the road. The upstream side was dominated by bare ground. This significant difference
in vegetation is a result of the disconnection from tidal flow. The roadway was removed and graded to
an elevation within ±0.2 feet of the adjacent slough elevations and replanted with the same suite of
coastal marsh herbaceous vegetation as the above location. Soils in the area consist of Bolling loamy
fine sand, a hydric B soil (EEP, 2009).
NC Division of Coastal Management ( NCDCM) representative Steve Trowell inspected both coastal
marsh restoration areas during construction. Final construction elevations of the coastal marsh areas
were provided to NCDCM and concurrence was granted on May 26, 2009.
1.3.2 Non - Riparian Hardwood Flat Wetlands
According to EEP (2009), the non - riparian hardwood flat restoration areas include 56.3 acres of non -
jurisdictional areas within the existing planted pine and roadbed areas throughout the Project Site.
These areas exhibited hydric soils; however, they did not meet the other two parameters necessary for
jurisdictional status. Non - riparian hardwood flat restoration was accomplished by clearing and grubbing
non - jurisdictional 10 to 15 year old loblolly pine plantation then replanting the area with the
appropriate wetland vegetation. The bedding rows were graded to a more natural contour. Existing
roadways were also removed and adjacent ditches were filled with the roadbed material to the
elevation of the adjacent non - riparian hardwood flat community. The depth of cut on the roadways
averages around 1.5 feet. The depth of the adjacent ditches averaged around 2.5 feet. These areas were
also replanted. Soils within the non - riparian hardwood flat restoration areas consist of Acredale silt
loam, Argent loam, Chapanoke silt loam and Yeopin silt loam, all of which are hydric. The Site was
cleared by first removing the pine trees. Trees were cut at the base, leaving the roots in the ground, and
then chipped. The chips were hauled off site. Branches and bark were burned on site. The tree roots
were grubbed using a "rake" attached to a track excavator. This also removed the bedding rows. Root
material was burned on site (EEP, 2009).

1.3.3 Riverine Forested Wetlands
According to EEP (2009), the restoration plan provided restoration of 1.0 acre of riverine forested
wetland. Riverine forested wetlands restoration was accomplished by removing an earthen road bed.
The road material was used to fill drainage ditches adjacent to the roadbed. Target restoration
elevations were designed to be within ± 0.2 feet of the adjacent target community elevations. An initial
survey revealed that the desired elevations had not been met. The contractor was required to re -grade
the area to design specifications. A post construction topographic survey verified that final elevations
were within the target range. Soils within the adjacent riverine wetlands consist of Belhaven muck, a
hydric A soil. Trees removed to accomplish the riverine wetland restoration were a few 10 to 15 year old
loblolly pines located along the ditch banks. After clearing, grubbing and grading, the area was replanted
with riverine wetland species, including bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), water tupelo (Nysso
aquotica), tag alder (Alnus serrulato) and various oaks (Quercus spp.) (EEP, 2009).
1.4 Location and Setting
The Bishop Road Site is situated along SR 1156 (Bishop Road), between US 264 and the Pungo River in
Hyde County, North Carolina. It is approximately one mile north of Scranton, five miles southeast of
Leechville and ten miles east of Belhaven. The Project Site is bordered to the northwest by Tarklin Creek,
the south by Scranton Creek and the west by the Pungo River. The remainder of the Project Site is
bordered by roads, managed timber areas, agricultural fields and wooded or undeveloped lands. The
Project Site is within the Tar - Pamlico River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020104.
1.5 Project History and Background
Based on information provided by EEP (2009), the Bishop Road Site was purchased in the spring of 2001
from Weyerhauser Corporation. As previously mentioned, NCDOT worked with a consultant to complete
the original Wetland Mitigation Plan in 2004, a document that described existing and proposed
conditions. In 2006, the Project Site was turned over to EEP for project implementation. During this time
period, EEP contracted with the same consultant to update the document into a Restoration Plan. Once
the document was approved, final design, quantity estimates, construction bidding and implementation
proceeded. Construction was completed during the spring of 2009 (EEP, 2009).
Project history and background information is presented in the following four tables. The Final Wetland
Restoration Plan (2006) denotes that the Project Site had been managed for timber since the early
1900's and was initially converted from its original vegetative community to pine plantation by removing
the canopy vegetation. This was accomplished by first harvesting merchantable timber and then using
techniques such as shearing, piling and burning of slash debris. The Project Site has been clear -cut and
planted several times. The timber stands across the site were bedded to keep the roots of the planted
pine seedlings above the water table.

Exhibit Table I. Project Restoration Components
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Project No. 05- 0653802, EEP Project No. 38
rdwood R
R 56.3 n/a Loblolly pine and road beds removed and
Enhancement
replanted with suite of nativespecies
rdwood
7Non-Riparian
332.5
n/a
P
332.5
nla
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
Enhancement II
n/a
storation
0
0
R
0.246
n/a
Road beds removed and replanted with suite of
- s
0
R
n/a
n/a
Preservation
nativespecies
Coastal Marsh Restoration
0
332.5
n/a
0.097
High Quality Preservation
Road beds removed and replanted with suite of
— Silverthorne Road
0
R
R
n/a
n/a
nativespecies
Coastal Marsh
184.0
n/a
P
184.0
n/a
n/a
Preservation
0
338.80
n/a
184.343
Riverine Forested
Road beds removed and replanted with suite of
Restoration
R
R
1.0
n/a
native species
Riverine Forested
61.7
n/a
P
61.7
n/a
Preservation
R = Restoration
P = Preservation
Note that Riparian Buffer assets (0.171 acres) are no longer viable due to low stem counts.
Com onent Summations
Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland (ac) Non-Riparian Upland (ac) Coastal Marsh (ac)
(if) Riverine Non- Wetland (ac)
Riverine
Restoration n/a 1 1.0 1 0 1 56.3 1 n/a 0.343
Enhancement
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
Enhancement I
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
Enhancement II
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
Creation
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
Preservation
n/a
61.7
0
332.5
n/a
184.0
High Quality Preservation
n/a
0
0
1 0
n/a
n/a
High Quality Preservation
n/a
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
Totals
n/a
62.7
0
338.80
n/a
184.343
Source: EEP, 2009

Report Activity or
Restoration Plan
Exhibit Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Pro"ect No. 05- 0653802, EEP Project No. 38
Data Collection Complete
December 2006
Actual Completion or
Delivery
August 2006
Construction
801 Corporate Center Drive
n/a
December 2008
Planting Activities
Raleigh, INC 27607
n/a
January 2009
Mitigation Plan / As -Built Year 0 Monitoring — Baseline
February 2009
July 2009
Year 1 Monitoring
Kris-Grey Construction, Inc.
November 2009
December 2010
Warranty Planting
n/a
March 2010
Year 2 Monitoring
Seeding Mix Supplier (Permanent)
November 2010
December 2010
Year 3 Monitoring
November 2011
December 2011
Year 4 Monitoring
November 2012
December 2012
Year 5 Monitoring
November 2013
December 2013
Exhibit Table III. Project Contact Table
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Project No. 05- 0653802, EEP Project No. 38
Designer
801 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 300
ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina, Inc.
Raleigh, INC 27607
Robert Le sic, 919.854.1282
Construction Contractor
P.O. Box 499
Jamesville, INC 27846
Kris-Grey Construction, Inc.
Mitch Dotson, 252.799.6607 mobile
Planting Contractor
9305 -D Monroe Road
Charlotte, NC 28270
Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program, Inc.
Alan Peoples, 704.841.2841
Seeding Mix Supplier (Permanent)
Ernst Seeds
Meadville, PA 16335
800.873.3321
Seed Mix Suppliers (Temporary)
Indian Creek Farms
Midway, AL
888.307.8773
Evergreen Seed, LLC
Rice, VA 23966
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farms Coastal Plain Conservation Nursery
Siler City, NC Edenton, NC
919.742.1200 252.482.5707
SC Super Tree Nursery Weyerhaeuser NR Company
Blenheim, SC Atlanta, GA
843.528.3943 800.221.4898
Monitoring Performer
Ecological Engineering, LLP
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Ca , North Carolina 27518
Wetland Monitoring POC
Lane Sauls, 919.557.0929
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Lane Sauls, 919.557.0929
Source: EEP, 2009

Exhibit Table IV. Project Background Table
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Project No. 05- 0653802, EEP Project No. 38
Project County
Hyde
Drainage Area
n/a
Impervious Cover Estimate
<1%
Stream Order
n/a
Ph sio ra hic Region
Outer Coastal Plain
Ecore ion Griffith and Omernik
Chesapeake-Pamlico Lowlands and Tidal Marshes
Ros en Classification of As -built
n/a
Cowardin Classification
n/a
Dominant Soil Types
Acredale, Argent, H deland
Reference Site ID
n/a
USGS HUC for Project and Reference
03020104120010
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project and Reference
03 -03 -07
Any Portion of any project segment 3034 listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d listed segment.
No
Reason for 3034 listing or stressor
n/a
Percent of project easement fenced
0%
Source: EEP, 2009

2.0 Project Condition and Monitoring Results
Precipitation is one of the most critical factors in determining both vegetation and wetland success.
During the past several years, Hyde and many other counties across North Carolina have faced below
normal precipitation amounts. The Year 2013 results denoted wetter conditions than those experienced
during the past several years. According to the NC Drought Management Advisory Council (2013), Hyde
County has experienced only 11 weeks of abnormally dry conditions this year. For comparison, last
year's results were 15 weeks of abnormally dry and nine weeks of moderate drought and 2011's results
were seven weeks of abnormally dry, four weeks of moderate drought, five weeks of severe drought
and eight weeks of extreme drought conditions.
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation at the Project Site was assessed by general visual assessments and counting stems within the
nine pre- determined vegetation plots. These plots are randomly scattered throughout the Project Site
and used to determine the approximate stems per acre in and surrounding the plot location. Their
locations are depicted on Figure 3. Assessments within each of the plots were completed using
methodology prescribed by the CVS and EEP. Level II assessments were completed on seven of the nine
plots. The two remaining plots were assessed using Level III assessment protocol, noting primarily cover
percentages. Appendix A provides the vegetation related data and information including CVS -EEP output
tables and photographic comparisons. Specific information regarding the CVS protocol is presented in
Section 3.0.
2.1.1 Vegetation Problem Areas
Based on the annual field assessment, three vegetation problem areas exist at the Project Site. These
areas are also depicted on Figure 3 and described in the following paragraphs.
For wetland mitigation success, the USACE et. al. (2003) denotes that planted stem counts should be no
less than 260 planted stems after MY 5. Based on the field data collected in September 2013, six of the
nine total vegetation plots met the success criteria. Two of these were the marsh plots, which exhibit
herbaceous species and we subsequently evaluated for percent cover. The third plot, identified as
Vegetation Plot #23 exhibited a planted stem count of approximately 40 stems per acre and a total stem
count of 364 stems per acre. This plot is situated along a road bed at the headwaters section of Tarklin
Creek. Fluctuations in water elevations, driven primarily by tidal flows, and the intrusion of salt water
have been the likely reasons for poor vegetative success at the plot. A brief reconnaissance of the
natural community surrounding the plot denotes that the existing swamp forest is being naturally
converted to a marsh -type ecosystem.
Overall, stem count averages for seven of the nine total vegetation plots were 400 planted stems per
acre and 2,271 total stems per acre. A supplemental planting was conducted in early 2013 to augment
existing tree counts. Last year's data exhibited means for planted and total stems at 191 and 2,146
stems per acre as compared with the MY 3 results of 235 and 3,549 stems per acre, respectively.
Vegetation Plots #24 and #25, referred to as the marsh plots, were also investigated for percent cover.
Neither exhibited any planted woody stems. Coverage estimates for Year 2013 were approximately 98
percent and 50 percent, respectively, which was better than or equal to last year's data 95 percent and

50 percent. These cover estimates have increased between 15 and 40 percent, respectively, as
compared with MY 3 coverage estimates. The absence of planted stems throughout these two areas is
likely the result of continuous high water levels during the initial planting and subsequent monitoring
years. Exhibit Table V summarizes the vegetation criteria attainment.
Other existing problem areas are associated with exotic invasive vegetation, specifically common reed
(Phrogmites australis). This species is common to Hyde County, especially along roadside and utility
rights -of -way, managed impoundments and upper marsh areas. Wind dispersion is the main culprit for
the spread of common reed. EEP is currently utilizing a contractor to spray this species during the
growing seasons of MY 3, MY 4 and MY 5. Based on the Site visit in November, only two small
populations are present. These are situated along old roadbeds which have been previously treated. The
current locations of controlled and remaining populations are also depicted on Figure 3.
2.2 Wetland Assessment
Wetland areas at the Project Site were assessed by hydrologic data collected and general visual
observations. Hydrologic data was collected using a combination of 24 and 40 -inch groundwater
monitoring gauges (also referred to as wells or piezometers) that collect daily groundwater elevation
levels. These monitoring gauges were placed adjacent to the eight of the existing vegetation plots. Four
original reference monitoring gauges were strategically placed within the Project Site to act as control
for existing and functional jurisdictional wetlands. Ongoing wildlife damage has resulted in the removal
of two of these gauges. The remaining eight monitoring gauges document hydrology throughout the
areas receiving mitigation credit. Figure 4 depicts all of the associated gauge locations. For hydrologic
success, the restoration plan states that groundwater elevations must be within 12 inches of the ground
surface for a consecutive period no less than 5% (approximately 12 days) of the growing season.
All 10 of the monitoring gauges met the hydrologic requirements of saturation within 12 inches of the
ground surface for a period no less than 5 percent of the growing season. The growing season at the
Project Site is estimated at 230 total days, ranging from March 27 through November 12. Nine gauges
exceeded the saturation requirements for more than 12.5 percent of the growing season. The remaining
gauge malfunctioned and data was not retrieved. It was a reference gauge.
Exhibit Table V summarizes the wetland criteria attainment. Additional information including charts
comparing groundwater elevations with respect to precipitation amounts is provided in Appendix B.
2.2.1 Wetland Problem Areas
No wetland problem areas currently exist at the Project Site.

Exhibit Table V. Wetland Criteria Attainment
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
SCO Pro'ect No. 05- 0653802, EEP Proiect No. 38
Hydrology Well ID Well g•
Threshold Threshold
MW# 7 Yes 29%
Reference 100.0%
MW# 14
No
10%
(Reference)Malfunction
MW# 17
Yes
>12.5%
VP# 17
Yes
364 sterns/ac)
MW# 18
Yes
>12.5%
VP# 18
Yes
323 stems/ac)
MW# 19
Yes
VP# 19
Yes
485 sterns/ac)
>12.5%
61%
61 ° /o
Yes
Yes
MW# 20
>12.5%
VP# 20
404 sterns/ac)
MW# 21
Yes
>12.5%
VP# 21
Yes
283 sterns/ac)
MW# 22
Yes
>12.5%
VP# 22
Yes
404 stems/ac
MW# 23
>12.5%
10%
VP# 23
40 sterns/ac No ms /ac
°
10 /°
Not Applicable
MW# 24
29%
VP# 24
98% cover
>12.5%
°
29 /°
Not Applicable
VP# 25
50% cover
Notes: Growing Season Length = 230 days
12.5% = 29 days
5% =11 days

3.0 Methodology
This monitoring report follows methodology consistent with EEP's Content, Format and Data
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports (Version 1.2, dated 11/16/06), available at EEP's website
(http://www.nceep. net).
Vegetation assessments were conducted using the CVS -EEP protocol (Version 4.2). As part of this
protocol, vegetation is assessed using 100- meter 2 plots, or modules. The scientific method requires that
measurements be as unbiased as possible, and that they be repeatable. Plots are designed to achieve
both of these objectives; in particular, different people should be able to inventory the same plot and
produce similar data (Lee et. al., 2006).
According to Lee et. al. (2006), there are many different goals in recording vegetation, and both time
and resources for collecting plot data are extremely variable. To provide appropriate flexibility in project
design, the CVS -EEP protocol supports five distinct types of vegetation plot records, which are referred
to as levels in recognition of the increasing level of detail and complexity across the sequence. The lower
levels require less detail and fewer types of information about both vegetation and environment, and
thus are generally sampled with less time and effort (Lee et. al., 2006). Level 1 (Planted Stem Inventory
Plots) and Level 2 (Total Woody Stem Inventory Plots) inventories were completed on all nine of the
vegetation plots at the Project Site. In addition, Level 3 (Community Occurrence Plots) inventories were
conducted on the two marsh vegetation plots.
Level 1 plots are applicable only for restoration areas with planted woody stems. The primary purpose is
to determine the pattern of installation of plant material with respect to species, spacing, and density,
and to monitor the survival and growth of those installed plants. Level 1 plots are one module in size
(Lee et. al., 2006).
Level 2 plots also are designed specifically for restoration areas and represent a superset of information
collected for Level 1 plots. In these plots planted woody stems are recorded exactly as for Level 1, but in
addition all woody stems resulting from natural regeneration are recorded by size class using separate
datasheets. These plots allow an accurate and rapid assessment of the overall trajectory of woody -plant
restoration and regeneration on a site. Level 2 plots are one module in size (Lee et. al., 2006).
Level 3 plots are used to document the overall abundance and vertical distribution of leaf area cover of
the more common species in a plot. Cover is estimated for all plant species exceeding a specified lower
level (typically 5% cover); species present but with cover lower than the cut -off may be ignored. The
information can also be used to assess vegetation successional status as well as the presence and
abundance of undesirable taxa such as invasive exotics. Additional environmental data are collected in
Level 3 plots. Optionally, woody stem data required for Level 2 plots (tallies of planted and /or natural
woody stems) may be collected for Level 3 plots to allow more accurate assessment of the rate and
direction of succession. Level 3 plots are one module in size (Lee et. al., 2006).
Ten Ecotone WM (24 and 40 -inch) Water Level Monitors record daily groundwater elevations across the
Project Site. These gauges are downloaded electronically in person approximately three times per year.

4.0 References
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1. Prepared for Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
20314 -1000.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., and T.R. Wentworth, 2006. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from: http: / /www.nceep.net.
Miller, K.H., 2009. Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site Background Data. Prepared by NCDENR
Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2012.
Bishop Road Wetland Restoration Site Monitoring Year 4 (2012), EEP IMS# 38, Hyde County, NC.
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2009.
Final As -Built and Monitoring Baseline Report, Bishop Road Wetland Restoration, EEP IMS# 38,
Hyde County, NC. Prepared by ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina, Inc.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2006.
Bishop Road Wetland Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan Report. Prepared by ARCADIS
G &M of North Carolina, Inc.
NC Drought Management Advisory Council, 2013. Summary of Drought Conditions Throughout North
Carolina. Available: http: / /www.ncdrought.org.
Tiner, R.W., 1993. Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States. The
University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.
US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources Commission,
NC Division of Water Quality, (USACE et.al.), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.

DIRECTIONS FROM RALEIGH
Take US 64 east towards Wendell. Merge onto US
264 East. Continue on US 264 approximately 135
miles. Turn right onto Bishop Road. The Site abuts '
the intersection of US 264 and Bishop Road and -
extends to the north, west and south. s
P 00
n
o PROJECT AREA
Iq
po
USGS Quad Names: Ponzer, Belhaven, Scranton
and Pamlico Beach, NC
Terrain Navigator
''- f ����•
Map Source T e g A
Series: 7.5- minute ~ `
Scale: 1:24,000
PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Hyde County, NC FIGURE 1
i�cosystem
EEP Project No. 38 November 13, 2013

Legend
Non - riverine Restoration
- Existing Silverthome Road
- Coastal Marsh Preservation
Riverine Forested 'Wetland Preservation
- Riverine Forested Wetland Restoration
Weyerhaeuser Mitigation Area
Non - riverine Pine Flatwood Preservation
Nonjurisdictional Areas
Coastal Marsh Restoration
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
SCALE: 1:18.00O
Image Sources: 1993 USES DOQQ and EEP
r�
Sj�S�eIIl
II 1O C111Ctit
The subject Project Site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDENR
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is encompassed by a recorded
conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership.
Accessing the Site may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by
authorized personnel of the state and federal agencies or their designees/
contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the
restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles.
Any intended Site visitation or activities by any person outside of these previously
sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with EEP.
Project Attributes
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Hyde County, NC
EEP Project No. 38 November 13, 2013
FIGURE 2

k
Vegetation Plot #17 Vegetation Plot #23
323 planted stems /ac 40 planted stems /ac
Vegetation Plot #24 1,902 total stems /ac 364 total stems /ac
q�% o E Marsh Restoration Plo
t V+ t
98% herbaceous cover
.S
Vegetation Plot #20
485 planted stems /ac
2,914 total stems /ac
Vegetation Plot #21
323 planted stems /ac
3,197 total stems /ac
LEGEND
Vegetation Plot #25
Marsh Restoration Plot
50% herbacous cover
® Vegetation plot meets or exceeds mitigation expectations for Year 5
monitoring L>260 planted stems /acre)
Vegetation plots does not meed mitigation expectations for Year 5
monitoring ( <260 planted stems /acre)
Common reed (Phragmites australis) observed populations
0 Common reed (Phragmites australis) previous treatment areas
(2011 and 2012)
Vegetation Plot #19
404 planted stems /ac
404 total stems /ac
Vegetation Plot #18
238 planted stems /ac
1,983 total stems /ac
Vegetation Plot #22
404 planted stems /ac
2,104 total stems /ac
Aerial Photography Source: www.googlemaps.com
Not to Scale
r; Vegetation Problem Areas Plan View
nSj'stem Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Hyde County, NC FIGURE 3
.Il lilt C]I1CI1� EEP Project No. 38 November 13, 2013

Well #19
�!!O
O�
�� i•
Monitoring Well #7
(Reference)
Well #24
Well #21
LEGEND
40 Monitoring well met 2013 hydrology criteria for mitigation
There are no known wetland problem areas at the Bishop
Road Wetland Mitigation Site.
Well #20
Well #22
Monitoring Well #14
(Reference)
Well #23
Well #18
Well #19
Aerial Photography Source: www.googlemaps.com
Not to Scale
r ` Wetland Problem Areas Plan View L,C0sp eII l
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Hyde County, NC FIGURE 4
i,.�t EEP Project No. 38 November 13, 2013

Appendix A
Vegetation Raw Data and Annual Photograph Comparisons

APPENDIX A. Table 1. Vegetation Metadata
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 38)
Report Prepared By
Lane Sauls
Date Prepared
111121201315:40
database name
cvs- eep- entytool- v2.3.1.mdb
database location
P: \50000 State \EEP 50512\50512 -003 EEP Bishop RoadlBishop Year 5 2013 Monitoring \CVS Data YEAR 5
computer name
LANE
the size 151134464
DESCRIPTION OF • ••
Meladata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of prcject(s) and protect data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and
all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Dames
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species fa each plot dead and missing stems are
ex eluded.
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
38
Project Code
project Name
BISHOP ROAD
Description
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
River Basin
length(tt)
stream- to-edge width (R)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
12

APPENDIX A. Table 2. Vigor By Species
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 38)
Aroma arbutifolia Red C hokeberry 0
Aroma arbutifolia
Red C hokeberry
1
Bacchads halimifolia
eastem baccharis
8
Bacchans halimifolia
eastem baccharis
8
inkberry
1
1
Ilex glabra
inkberry
Ilex opaca
1
0
1
Nyssa aquatica
water tupelo
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
1
2
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
wax myrtle
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherry bark oak
0
1
1
1
Nyssa aquatica
Quercus phellos
willow oak
1
4
11
1
Quercus
oak
Rosa palustns
swamp rose
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
0
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
12
1
Quercus pagoda
1
1
2
Ilex opaca
American holly
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
1
7
Quercus
oak
3
6
swamp rose
I 2
1
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
Salix
2
1 01
1
1
Nyssa
tupelo
14
14
1 271
1
1
23
1
Salix
willow
1
TOTALS:
14
14
21
35
1
9
Aroma arbutifolia Red C hokeberry 0
1
Bacchads halimifolia
eastem baccharis
8
8
Ilex glabra
inkberry
1
1
Ilex opaca
American holly
0
1
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
1
2
1
Morella cenfera
wax myrtle
1
13
1
Nyssa
tupelo
0
1
Nyssa aquatica
water tupelo
0
1
Quercus
oak
4
6
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
0
2
Quercus pagoda
cherry bark oak
1
2
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
9
7
1
8
Rosa palustns
swamp rose
I 2
1
2
Salix
willow
1 01
1
TOTALS:
14
14
1 271
1
21
23
1

E 38-1 -G auge 1 Ty ear: 5 2 8
2
Featurelissue
Vegetation Plot #23
E 38-1 -Gauge 1 8-y ear: 5
0
8
n/a Inundation VP - 24
Vegetation Plot# 25
rlia Inundation VP -25
Phragmites austratis
E 38-1 -G augel 9-y ear: 5
3
9
2
1
E38-1- Gauge20- y ear: 5
6
6
6
E38.1- Gauge2l -year:5
5
4
1
4
E38- 1- Gauge22- year:5
10
10
E 38-1 -G auge23-y ear: 5
1
3
��oo
1
©moo
E 38-1 -Gauge24-y ear: 5
©a ©
1
m�
E38- 1- Gauge25 -year:5
1
©o�oo���������
E38 -EEP -N WScrantorgear..4
1
E 38-E E P S W S cyan torry ear 4
1
E38-E E P-TarklinC reek -year4
1
TOTALS:
12
27
38 5
1
2
23
1
APPENDIX A. Table 5. Planted Stems By Plot and Species
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 38)
Ry G! JCgi
ti m V, 4 O J- �
C '� VS 0 QS RS 0 4f 0 VS QS 4S 4S
v° 5� 4Q
Appendix Table 6. Vegetative Problem Areas
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 38)
Station/Range Probable Cause Photo
Featurelissue
Vegetation Plot #23
Na Inundation, SaltWalef Intrusion VP -23
Vegetation Plot# 24
n/a Inundation VP - 24
Vegetation Plot# 25
rlia Inundation VP -25
Phragmites austratis
nla Invasive Species nta
��oo
©moo
©a ©
©�������
m�
©
©o�oo���������
p p b
-. or
�4
tl�
r
Appendix Table 6. Vegetative Problem Areas
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site (EEP Project No. 38)
Station/Range Probable Cause Photo
Featurelissue
Vegetation Plot #23
Na Inundation, SaltWalef Intrusion VP -23
Vegetation Plot# 24
n/a Inundation VP - 24
Vegetation Plot# 25
rlia Inundation VP -25
Phragmites austratis
nla Invasive Species nta
p p b
-. or
�4
tl�
r

APPENDIX A. Table 7. Planted and Total Stem Count Summary
PPP P.nisrO f.Mo'1R GxnlMMame-RICM(SPRt)An
5 entiec Name
Co nName S-- Type
®�
���_
��'
AZ
Cane.
®MST
PW
WM (MYS
3F.'^':
®M
anal
1•
=GMM
��' iLr `r�t�-
iC.'"^":��w�a�F�iee�lYaa�
= ME=
QxRm
=® =
iWEW�
=Imam
=ME=
=0 Mleeiei WQ-- L== IM&L LZ;alaleaa LeeYOY
MM ==
=M=
IiWiEM L=99aY MUM;; �J=
�riaYi
„Dior tar Tanury
ExaeES rtyui tPh
Exma.Oe Mlassem:
Fags b ma¢I try lass tmr 1m6
Fah b,n el try m N, 10%

Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site Vegetation Plot Photograph Summary

Photograph February 2, 2009 Baseline January 2010 Monitoring ear 1 Jul 2010 Monitoring ear 2 Jul 2011 Monitoring Year 3 Jul 2012 Monitoring ear 4 September 2013 Monitoring Year 5
Information ry ry 9 y 9 Y 9 y 9 P 9

Photograph
Information
Photo #
Scranton SE
Facing
Northwest
Photo #
Tarklin Creek
S Facing
South
February 12, 2009 Baseline January 2010 Monitoring Year 1 July 2010 Monitoring Year 2 July 2011 Monitoring Year 3 July 2012 Monitoring Year 4 September 2013 Monitoring Year 5

Appendix B
Wetland Raw Data

A
C>
4
0
)
4
6
A
c
`" 10
Y
12
C
O 14
e 16
n 18
Y
JO
22
24
-26
-2A
30
31
Monitoring Well #7 (Reference Well)
2013 Data
3.5
1
)S
L
C
C
O
1 a
0
a
1 a`
0.S
0
Note: Calibration point Is at pound surface
serial No: 13D4BB3F —Depth to Grrnmdwater (inches)
- -- Precipitation Data (inches) _
Monitoring Well #14 (Reference Well)
2013 Data
1
f1
J
4
-6
8
G
10
O
12
T
C
-14
e 16
a 1A
Y
° 20
2)
24
21,
28
30
3)
3.S
J o
L
C
C
7
O
1.5
a
d
] si
0.5
0
ZI
N C C C e C 3
Note: Calibration point is at pound surface
Serial No: 000013D64DD(R —owed Nov. 20131 —Depth t0 Groundwater (Inches)
— Precipitation Data (inches) _

Monitoring Well #17
2013 Data
K
x
C
to
d
�3 12
C
e 14
0 16
a -1R
tl
f]
2n
22
24
26
18
30
32
i.5
2.S
2 ^
tl
Y
C
3
O
1.5 a
A
6
t it
0.11
0
N o 0 0 0 0 0 o r o 0 0 0
Not r: Calibration point bat ground surface
Serial No: 130482C8 -Depth toGroundwater (inches)
- Precipitation Data (inches)
R
Ei
4
2
n
z
4
6
R
e
10
m
12
e
0 14
o -16
L
iR
20
-22
24
-26
28
30
32
Mon itoringWel1 #18
2013 Data
3.5
c
0
� a
0
n
n,
0
3 .`�
Note: Calibration point is at ground surface
Serial No:OEBCFB9EtBemoved Nov.2013) -Depth to Groundwater (Inches)
- Precipitation Data (inches)

r
Monitoring Well #19
2013 Data
R
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
R
e
-to
Y
-12
C
e -14
o -16
a -18
0
-20
22
>n
26
)8
30
32
3.5
3
O
E
O
a
t o,
0
N o o ry o 0 o N o 0 o S o 0 0 r d 6 0 o o o
Not.: Calib, Co. polm U 2 Inches above ground surfac•
Solal No: OZ893CB -Depth t0 Groundwater (Inches)
-Precipitation Data (inches)
Monitoring Well #20
2013 Data
1
4
)
n
t
R
C
`" 10
b
j 1)
e -14
e 16
Y
1R
0
20
22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
3.,
M
t
C
O
1.S G
O
n
1 d
0.5
0
0\ 8 o N n
N C C 5 :4, A
Notc Calibration point It in ground surfac*
Sedal No: 13668CS1 -Dept to Groundwater (inches)
- Precipitation Data (inches)

t
s
r,
n
8
C -10
`m
-17
C
u 1Q
O 16
o -18
m
20
22
-24
26
28
30
32
Monitoring Well #21
2013 Data
3.5
�I
3
J
0
I a
0
S
I a
01,
0
n S o 0 0 0
Note•. Calibration point is 2 Inches below {round surface
Serial No: 13D4C9DF — Depth to Groundwater (inc ties)
— Precipitation Data (inches)
Monitoring Well #22
2013 Data
tz
c.
Q
6
8
-10
m
12
C
e -74
o -16
a -18
m
CI
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
• L
C
Oi
1.S a
a
a
'u
1 i
0.5
0
Note: Calibration point is at pound surface
Serial No: 1304Be6F —Depth to ion Data (inches)
(inches)
— Precipitation Data (inches)

z.
oc
Depth to Groundwater(in)
s 121712012
12/17/2012
12/27/2012
i
1/W2U13
1/16/2033
1/26/2013
2/u2013
1/!5/2013
2/2512013
3/7/2013
3/17/2013
3127/2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
4/6/2013
4/16/2013 �
2
4/26/2013
d
516/2013
5/:6/2013
5/26/2013
6/5/2013
6/35 /2013
I6/25/2013
9 G 7/5/2013 _
9 7/1512013
�p S
C 7/25/2013
S ? 8/4/2013
8/14/2013
n
d 8/24/2013 =
CJ 9/3/2013
N
9/13/2013
S A
9/23/2013 i
10/3/2013
10/13/2013 _
10/23/2013 r�
11/2/2013 v
11/12/2013 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
11/22/2013
Precipitation Amount (inches)
0
2.
0 0
w =.
O �
d
y m
A
o
G o Depth to Groundwater(in)
12/7/2012
11/11/2012
g1212712012
1/6/2013
S 1/16/2013
1/26/2013
2/5/2013
1/15/2013
2/25/2013
3/7/2013
3/17/2013
3/27/2013
4/6/2013
4/16/2 013
4/26/2013
5/6/2013
5/16/2013
5/26 /2013
6/5/2013
6/15/2013
6/25/2013
O 7/u2013
7 7115/2013
Z S
0 7/25/2013
8/4/2013
j
= 8/14/2013
y 8/24 /2013
_ 9/3/2013
%o ^
4 9/13[20:3
S
9/23/2013
10/312013
10/13/2013
10/23/2013
11/2/2013
11/12/2013
11/22/2013
Precipitation Amount (inches)
3
O
W 3.
n
O �
d
d N
w

Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Hyde County, NC
30 -70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall - Monitoring Year 5 (2013)
u
Month* Data 2013
30%
_70%
v
v i
L
G
C
C
O
c
a
I
(1
c
A
E 2
O
LL n O
N
Month
i
d d
E E
v v
Z