20051354 Ver 2_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119

Monitoring Report Year 2
Watts Site
DMS Project No. 413
NCDENR Contract # 6113
USACE Action ID SAW -2005-11813
NCDWR Project # 05-1354v2
State Construction Project No. 09-07804-01A-01-1
Perquimans County, NC
Prepared for the
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
F..?
Environmental
Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Submission Date: November 2016
Data Collection Date: August 2016

Prepared by:
0iECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
919.557.0929
Heather Smith, LSS, Project Scientist
This assessment and report are consistent with NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services Template Version Feb. 2014
for Baseline Monitoring Document Format, Data Requirements and Content Guidance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
1.0 Project Summary ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project History and Background................................................................................1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives....................................................................................1
1.3 Project Success Criteria............................................................................................2
1.4 Annual Monitoring Results...........................................................................................2
2.0 Methodology....................................................................................................... 3
3.0 References.......................................................................................................... 3
Appendix A. Project Information Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 7. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 8. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Table 9. Random Vegetation Strip Plots
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology
Cross Sections
Stream Formation Photos
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Rainfall Data
Hydrographs
Table 10. Wetland Hydrology Attainment
Headwater Channel Hydrology Graph

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1 Project History and Background
The Watts Property (Site) is in eastern Perquimans County, approximately 13 miles southeast of US -
17 on Norma Drive. The Site is owned in fee by the State of North Carolina. To access the Site from
Hertford, drive north along US -17 and turn right onto New Hope Rd and follow for approximately 13
miles and turn left on Little River Shores Rd, turn left onto Tuscarora Trail and left on Norma Dr. The
Site is on the left approximately 0.1 mile down Norma Dr. It is situated in the Coastal Plain
physiographic region and the Pasquotank River Basin (Hydrologic Unit 03010205).
The Site encompasses approximately 48 acres of former agriculture land and has a direct hydrologic
connection with the Little River. The Site watershed consists of agricultural land and forest. There is
no impervious area within the drainage area. The drainage area for the Site is 136 acres at the lower
end of the stream.
Prior to construction activities the stream was deepened and channelized and the surrounding
wetland complex was drained for row crop agricultural production. These modifications resulted in
significant alterations to surface and groundwater hydrology in addition to degraded aquatic and
terrestrial habitats within the Site.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is located in the Pasquotank River Basin; eight digit CU 03010205 and the 14 -digit HUC
03010205060020. The Pasquotank River Basin Restoration Priorities (EEP, 2009) restoration goals
for CU 03010205 include supporting implementation of the NC Coastal Habitat Protection Plan
(NCCHPP). The following are the goals of the NCCHPP:
Improve effectiveness of existing rules and programs protecting coastal fish habitats
Identify, designate, and protect strategic habitat areas.
Enhance habitat and protect it from physical impacts.
Enhance and protect water quality.
In addition to the above mentioned CU goals the following are Site specific goals established in the
mitigation plan (NCDENR, 2012):
Restore ditched wetlands to improve the habitat, fishery and flood control functions;
Reduce sediment loading and other pollutants from the surface runoff by increasing the soils
retention, filtration and nutrient uptake functions of wetland and riparian areas;
Restore and protect wildlife corridors and other key links to high value habitat areas; and
Restore and protect natural breeding, nesting and feeding habitat to promote species richness
and diversity.
The goals established in the 2012 mitigation plan were addressed through the following project
objectives:
Promote wetland hydrology by filling drainage ditches;
Reduce pollutant runoff by grading the headwater valley for increased residence time of
stormflows;
Promote wildlife habitat by reforestation with native hardwoods.
Final Monitoring Report Year 2 (2016) Page 1
Watts Site, Perquimans County, NC
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
November 2016

1.3 Project Success Criteria
The stream and wetland restoration success criteria for the Site were established in the approved
mitigation plan. The success criteria were discussed with the Interagency Review Team (IRT) during
the finalization of the mitigation plan. The agreed upon success criteria are a compromise between
the current requirements in the Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for
Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina (USACE, 2013) and the success criteria found in the
Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina (USACE,
2005) which was the current reference document when the Site was originally acquired for mitigation.
The stream and wetland restoration and enhancement sections of the project were assigned specific
performance criteria components for hydrology, vegetation and morphology (streams only).
Performance criteria will be evaluated for a minimum of five years post -construction monitoring. If all
performance criteria have been met the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) may propose the Site
for closeout after five years of monitoring.
The project success criteria for stream, wetland and vegetation are as follows:
Stream restoration success includes visual documentation of flow within the low point of the
valley, during monitoring years 1-4 and visual documentation of a primary flow path, stream
channel or ordinary high water mark, post monitoring year 4;
Wetland hydrology success will include a minimum of a 8% hydroperiod in years of normal of
rainfall;
Vegetation success will include stem densities of 320 stems/acre in MY3 and 260 stems/acre
in MY5.
Two pressure transducers were installed but are not related to project success. The information
gathered from the transducers will be included in the monitoring report as supplemental data.
1.4 Annual Monitoring Results
The headwater channel was visually assessed two times throughout MY2 for success criteria. During
the winter the channel exhibited several visual indicators for the MY 1-4 success criteria. Wrack lines
were observed adjacent to the channel, vegetation was laid over in the direction of stream flow, and
standing water was also observed (Appendix D). The stream restoration met the success criteria
described in the mitigation plan. Additionally, the three (3) cross-sections were stable throughout MY2
and both pressure transducers demonstrated 36 consecutive days of surface water.
Six groundwater gauges were installed to determine the wetland hydroperiod. Four of the six
groundwater gauges met the minimum 8% hydroperiod; successful hydroperiods ranged from 18.6%
to 26.3%. Two gauges (no. 3 and no. 5) did not meet the success criteria. The on-site rain gauge
experienced above average rainfall for the months of April through July. It is expected the Site will
continue to recharge groundwater.
Eight CVS vegetation plots and eight random strip plots have been established to monitor vegetation
success. The random strip plot totals include planted and volunteer hardwood trees. Seven of the
CVS vegetation plots met success criteria of 320 planted stems/acre. Vegetation plot 1 (VP1) did not
meet the success criteria with the inclusion of planted and volunteer specimens. The planted
densities ranged from 283 to 1,052 stems per acre. Five of the eight random plots met the MY2
success criteria; the densities ranged from 122 to 810 stems per acre. Areas with thicker herbaceous
vegetation had lower stem densities across the site.
Final Monitoring Report Year 2 (2016) Page 2
Watts Site, Perquimans County, NC
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
November 2016

2.0 METHODOLGY
Vegetation plot monitoring data were collected following the standard CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Level II, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). Strip plot data was collected in 25m X
4m plots spaced at random throughout the site. The rain gauge, groundwater gauges and pressure
transducers are monitored quarterly. The rain gauge was replaced in June of 2016 due to inaccurate
data collection. Rain data from the CRONOS website, gauge KECG, was used in addition to on-site
rain data. Information for the CCPV was collected using a Garmin GPS.
3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation Version 4.2. Available at:http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-
protocol-v4.2-lev1-2. pdf.
NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services, 2009.
September 2009. Available at
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/c/document libra
056021 e726f8&groupld=60329.
Pasquotank River Basin Restoration Priorities,
et file?uuid=336f3816-416e-4ee1-854e-
NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services, 2012. Watts Final Mitigation Plan. Prepared by Ecological
Engineering, LLP.
NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services, 2014. Annual Monitoring and Closeout Reporting Format,
Data Requirements, and Content Guidance. Available at:
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/qet file?p I id=60409&folderld=18877169&name=
DLFE-86604.pdf
NCDENR Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2010. Basin Overview, Pasquotank River Subbasin
03-01-52. Available at: http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/tmdI/documents/303d Report.pdf.
North Carolina State Climate Office, 2010. Elizabeth City Station, Available:
httD://www.ncclimate.ncsu.edu/cronos/normalS.DhD?station=312719
US Army Corps of Engineers, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. AD/A176.
US Army Corps of Engineers, 2013. Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for
Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina. Wilmington, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers and NCDENR Division of Water Quality (USACE & NCDWQ), 2005.
Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina.
Wilmington, NC.
Final Monitoring Report Year 2 (2016) Page 3
Watts Site, Perquimans County, NC
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
November 2016

Appendix A
Project Information Tables

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Watts/ 413
Mitigation.
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Stream
Riparian Wetland Non-riparian wetland Buffer
Nutrient
Nutrient
Offset
Offset
Type R
RE R RE R RE
Totals 1,003
20.4 0.04
ComponentsProject
Project
Restoration or
Existing Footage/
Restoration
Mitigation
Component
Stationing/Location Acreage Approach Restoration
Footage or
Ratio
Equivalent
Acreage
UT Little River
10+00 to 25+05 1,505 CPHSR* Restoration
1,505
1.5:1
Non-Riparian
n/a 0 ac n/a Restoration
20.4
1:1
Wetland
Component
Restoration Level
Stream (linear feet) Riparian Wetland (acres) Non-riparian Wetland
Buffer
Upland
(acres)
(square feet)
(acres)
Riverine Non-riverine
Restoration
1,505 20.4
26.8
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location I Purpose/Function Notes
BMP Elements
* CPHSR= Coastal Plain Headwater Stream Restoration (USACE et. al., 2007) BR = Bioretention
Cell; SF = Sand
Filter; SW
= Stormwater Wetland;
WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Dentention Pond; FS = Filter Strip;
S = Grassed
Swale; LS =
Level Spreader; NI
= Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Watts/ 413
ReportActivity or Data Collection Complete
Plan October -11
Completion or Delivery
November -12
Final Design - Construction Plans
June -10
June -13
Construction
Firm Information/ Address
February -15
Temporary S&E Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
Bill Wright
June -14
Permanent Seed Mix Applied to Streamside
Firm Information/ Address
June -14
Bare Root, Live Stake and Tubling Plantings Applied
George Morris
December -14 & March -15
Baseline Monitoring Document
January -15 &April -15
May -15
Year 1 Monitoring
December -15
December -15
Site Replant
N/A
February -16
Year 2 Monitoring
August -16 & November -16
November -16
Year 3 Monitoring
ArborGen [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Year 4 Monitoring
Dykes and Son Nursery 931-668-8833
Year 5 Monitoring
Firm Information/ Address
Ecological Engineering, LLP
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Watts/ 413
Designer Firm Information/ Address
Ecological Engineering, LLP 1151 SE Cary Parkway Ste. 101, Cary, NC 27518
Jenny S. Fleming, PE [phone]
Construction Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
River Works, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
Bill Wright
[phone]
Planting Contractors
Firm Information/ Address
River Works, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
George Morris
[phone]
Keller Environmental, LLC
7921 Haymarket Ln. Raleigh, NC 27615
Jay Keller
919-749-8259
Seeding Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
River Works, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
George Morris
[phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource [phone]
ArborGen [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Claridge Nursery 919-857-4801
Dykes and Son Nursery 931-668-8833
Monitoring Performer
Firm Information/ Address
Ecological Engineering, LLP
1151 SE Cary Parkway Ste. 101, Cary, NC 27518
G. Lane Sauls Jr. (stream, vegetation & wetland)
[phone]

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Watts/ 413
Project Information
oject Name
Watts
unty
Perquimans County
oject Area
F
48.09 acres
oject Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Project Watershed
36.1652791 N and 76.2676037 W
Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Pasquotank
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 3010205
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 3010205060020
DWQ Subbasin
03-01-52
Project Drainage Area
136 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
1 0 acres
CGIA Land Use Classification
Reach Summary
I Agricultural Land
Information
Parameters
Reach 1 (upper) Reach 2
Length of Reach
750 755
Valley Classification
n/a n/a
Drainage Area
110 136
NCDWQ Stream ID Score
25 33.25
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
SC (receiving water) SC (receiving water)
Morphological Description (stream type)
G5 or similar G5 or similar
Evolutionary Trend
C to G to F C to G to F
Underlying Mapped Soils
Roanoke silt loam Roanoke silt loam
Drainage Classification
Poorly drained Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric A Hydric A
Slope
< 2% < 2%
FEMA Classification
Zone AE Zone AE
Native Vegetation Community
N/A N/A
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Species
Wetiand
< 5% < 5%
Summary Information
Size of Wetland
0.06 acre
Wetland Type
Hardwood Flat (NCWAM)
Mapped Soil Series
Roanoke silt loam
Drainage Classification
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric A
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater and Surface
Hydrologic Impairment
Clay confining layer
Native Vegetation Community
N/A
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Species
Regulatory
< 5%
Considerations
Applicable Resolved/
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes Resolved/ 404 Permit
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes Resolved/401 Permit
Endangered Species Act
Yes Resolved/Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
Yes Resolved/Categorical Exclusion
Coastal Zone/Area Management Acts (CZMA/CAMA)
Yes Resolved/Email from CAMA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes Resolved/EEP Flood Checklist
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Yes Resolved/Categorical Exclusion

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

�•� "�'���` MONITORING FEATURES PROBLEM AREAS
,� � i ' ` �> ,• f / STREAM � Bare Areas
r
CROSS-SECTIONS(XS) Low Stems
P14VEGETATION PLOTS VP
c , .,r� MY1 Random Transects ( )
° ,
MY 2 Met Success Criteria
MY2 Random Transects No
MONITORING GAUGES (GW)
' RGA • t
111 XS3 MY 2 Met Success Criteria Yes
VP4/GW4 a
`C:�� .. r`� O No
r, C 4
U,
e
°r O Yes
O VP7�
Ir
' Wetland Restoration��
t'
VP5/GW5 20.4 acres : ,Y
F.
• XS2 C
O
GW3 PT Stream
Y
PT UplandO VP6/GW6''
ru VP8
Or
VP2/GW2 �. �;: }
v
VP3., Watts Property Boundary ria h
O
VP1/GW1
E
? t"
Prepared For: Figure 1: Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Watts Property 0 400 800 N
DMS Project # 413
i Monitoring Year 2 w �
Environmental ill = 400' S
Quality Perquimans County

Table 5.
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Watts DMS # 413
Planted Acreage 23.9
Easement Acreage 48.1
CategoryVegetation
D-
CCPV
Number of
Combined
.-
Threshold Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
0.1 ac Yes
2
0.48
2.01%
material
2. Low Stem Density
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
0.1 ac
Yes
5
2.4
10.04%
Areas
based on MY 3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria
Total
7
1.72
12.05%
3. Areas of Poor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that is
0.25 ac
n/a
0
0
0%
Growth Rates or Vigor
obviously small given the monitoring year
Cumulative Total
7-1
1.72
12.05%

Photostation Comparison
Watts- MY 2 (2016)
Photo # and Baseline Condition 2015
Location
Photostation 1.
Facing southwest
along diagonal of
Vegetation Plot 1.
Photostation 2.
Facing southwest
along diagonal of
Vegetation Plot 2.
Photostation 3.
Facing southwest
along diagonal of
Vegetation Plot 3.
Photostation 4.
Facing southwest
along diagonal of
Vegetation Plot 4.
:"jer
MY 1 2015 (9/16/2015)
MY 2 2016 (8/4/2016)
7"19

Photostation
Comparison - Baseline Condition 2015
Page 2
Photostation 5.�4'
Facing southwest
ji
gas^ r YFQt�
along diagonal of
Vegetation Plot 5 z.. :.
Photostation 6.
Facing southwest
along diagonal of
Vegetation Plot 6.
Photostation 7.
Facing southwest
along diagonal of
Vegetation Plot 7.
Photostation 8.
Facing southwest
along diagonal of
Vegetation Plot 8.
MY 1 2015 (9/16/2015)
~
MY 2 2016 (8/4/2016)

Appendix C
Vegetation Data

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Watts DMS # 413
ThresholdVegetation Plot IDJL Vegetation Survival MetIME
1 No
Tract Mean M
88%
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 Yes
5 Yes
6 Yes
7 Yes
8 Yes

Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
Table 7. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Watts -UT Little River DMS # 413
Report Prepared By
Heather Smith
Date Prepared
8/5/2016 13:55
database name
EcologicalEngineering-2015-WattsYear-2.mdb
database location
P:\50000 State\EEP 50512\50512-010 Watts
Required Plots (calculated)
Mon itoring\Reports\MY2_2016
computer name
WKST7
file size
45481984
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead
project Name
stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
Required Plots (calculated)
percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each
plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and
ALL Stems by Plot and spp natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are
excluded.
Project Code
413
project Name
Watts -UT Little River
Description
Stream and Wetland
River Basin
Pasquotank
length(ft)
1,505
Required Plots (calculated)
8
Sampled Plots
8

Table 8. Planted and Total Stems
Project Name: Watts # 413•
. I .
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
413-01-0001
413-01-0002
413-01-0003
413-01-0004 413-01-0005
413-01-0006
413-01-0007
413-01-0008
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4 2
2
2
3
3
3
6
6
6
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
10
20
1
20
20
20
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
Carya
hickory
Tree
2
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
4
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
1
4
1
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1 4
4
4
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
7
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1 3
3
3
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
10
10
10
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
3
3
3
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
21
1
2
2
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
10
10
10
1
1
1
Unknown
Shrub or
Tree
1
1
1
Vaccinium stamineum
I deerberry
IShrub
4-48
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species countl
Stems per ACREI
71
71
7
101
101
23
191
191
48
91
91
14 101
101
11
12
12
32
121
12
32
26
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02 0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
51 51 51
1 1 1 1 41
9 91 131
61 61 81 51 51 61
3 3 41
3 3 41
81 81 10
283.31283.31283.31
404.71404.71930.81
768.9,768.911942.51
364.21364.21566.61 404.71404.71445.21
485.6 485.6 1295.01
485.6 485.6 1295.0
1052.2 1052.2 1942.5

Table 8. Planted and Total Stems
Project Name: Watts # 413
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
MY2 (2016)
!!Pn'oLS
7P
MYO (2015)
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
PnoLS
P -all
T
-all
PnoLS
P -all
T
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
18
18
1919
20
20
20
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
91
6
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Carya
hickory
Tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
8
8
8
Fraxinus pennsylvanic
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Liquidambar styraciflu
sweetgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
8
6
3
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Quercus
oak
Tree
7
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
10
10
10
22
22
24
34
34
34
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
17
17
17
15
15
15
15
15
15
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
Unknown
Shrub or
Tree
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
Vaccinium stamineum
I deerberry
IShrub
1
1
1
5
5
5
8
8
8
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREI
21
21
2
1051
105
215
1191
1191
133
1361
1361
141
8
8
8
0.20
0.20
0.20
171
171
22
16
16
181
171
171
19
531.1
531.1
1087.6
602.0
602.0
672.81
688.0
688.0
713.3

Table 9. Random Vegetation Strip Plots
Strip Plot ID
Stems
Stem/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met
a®�
Note: Plot size is 0.0247 acres (100m2)

Appendix
Stream Geomorphology

3
Pj
1
Watts / UT to Little River - XS 1 MY2
N
-3
-4
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
#Water Surface Baseline XS1 Baseline XS1 MY1 00XS1 MY2
Cross-sections are for general comparisons from year to year. They do not contain the typical features
found in a single thread channel.
Cross-section 1 looking downstream.

2
01
0
Watts / UT to Little River - XS 2 MY2
-3
-4
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
--*- Water Surface Baseline XS2 Baseline XS2 MY1 0 0 XS2 MY2
Cross-sections are for general comparisons from year to year. They do not contain the typical features
found in a single thread channel.
Cross-section 2 looking downstream.

2
1
M
1
W
a, -2
M
3
-4
Watts / UT to Little River - XS 3 MY2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
#Water Surface Baseline XS3 Baseline XS3 MY1 XS3 MY2
Cross-sections are for general comparisons from year to year. They do not contain the typical features
found in a single thread channel.
Cross-section 3 looking downstream.

Stream Formation Photos MY 2
Near VP 3: Water in the channel 2-5-2016
Mid Channel: Bank formation 6-30-2016
Near VP 3: Vegetation in channel 8-4-2016 Near VP 7: Water in channel 8-4-2016
l�g-��yq�
-
*t
Mid Channel: Bank formation 6-30-2016
Near VP 3: Vegetation in channel 8-4-2016 Near VP 7: Water in channel 8-4-2016

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

_
35
25
15
-15
-25
-35

_
10
4l
0
Gauge 2 MY2 9
End of Growing Season o
-15
-20

5
-5
0 0
t
CL
-20
0
-25
-30
-35
T
T
c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 (.
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
LO 0) N c0 T LO M N c0 O M fl T LO M N O M M ti T M N
N N N N N N N M N \O N r N
T T N N M M L j c0 ti 00 CO 07 T O T T T
T T
Date
� Precipitation Gauge 3 —Consecutive Days
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
IF
5 =
0
4.5 a
Q
4
L
IL
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

5
w
c
m -5
a
c
0
L
0
0
-W
-10
CL
0
0
-15
-20
T
T
Cfl Cfl Cfl (0 CO Cfl Cfl Cfl Cfl Cfl (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 Cfl (0 (0 (0 (0 CO CO Cfl O
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
LO O N CO T 00 N - O M T O N CO O M I�
N T 00 N
N N N 't N LO N - - N N N N N
T T N N M M It LO CO I` rl- 00 00 O T O T T T
T T
Date
� Precipitation Gauge 4 —Consecutive Days
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5 _
5 =
0
4.5 a
.Q
4
L
a
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

5
I
_
m -5
a
0
L
0
0
-10
CL
m
0
-15
-20
T
T
Cfl Cfl CO Cfl Cfl Cfl Cfl c0 Cfl Cfl Cfl (0 (0 (0 (0 Cfl Cfl (0 (0 (0 Cfl CO Cfl
T r r r r T r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
LO O N CO T L(7 00 N CO O M I- T LO O N CO O M I- 00
N N N N L N M N N M N \O N
T r N N M M L O (D I` CO 00 M T O T T
T T
Date
� Precipitation Gauge 5 —Consecutive Days
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5 _
5 =
0
4.5 a
.Q
4
L
CL
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
T
N
N
T

50
40
30
c
�= 20
m
a
c
c 10
,Ln
V
0
s
0- 0
0
0
-10
-20
-30
T
T
Cfl Cfl Cfl (0 CO Cfl Cfl Cfl Cfl Cfl (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 Cfl (0 (0 (0 (0 CO CO Cfl O
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
LO O N CO T 00 N - O M T O N CO O M I�
N T 00 N
N N N 't N LO N - - N N N N N
T T N N M M It LO CO I` rl- 00 00 O T O T T T
T T
Date
� Precipitation Gauge 6 —Consecutive Days
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5 _
5 =
0
4.5 a
.Q
4
L
a
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Table
Wetland Hydrology Attainment Table
1 o
Watts Stream and Wetland Restoration
DMS #413
Mtreater
than 8% Continuous
Saturation
MY- 4
MY- 5
Gauge
MY- 1
MY- 2
MY- 3
#
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Yes/25
Yes/54
1
10.2%
21.9%
Yes/63
Yes/65
2
25.6%
26.4%
No/7
No/12
3
2.8%
4.9%
Yes/71
Yes/46
4
28.9%
18.7%
No/8
No/10
5
3.3%
.1%
Yes/25
Yes/61
6
10.2%
24.8%
Growing season is assumed to be 246 days.

14
12
10
8
Watts Property Monitoring Year 2
2016 Monthly Precipitation Data 30/70 Graph
2
N
NIb �CO 11110
1�
t
F
11110 NCO 11110 N"O
Month - Year
2016 Rainfall 70% 30%