20051354 Ver 2_Year 3 Monitoring Report 2017_20180206

Monitoring Report Year 3
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
Environmental
Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Submission Date: November 2017
Data Collection Date: August 2017 and November 2017
NOT AN INSTRUMENT PROJECT

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
Page
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
Hydrographs
Table 10. Wetland Hydrology Attainment
Rainfall Data
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.
Draft Monitoring Report Year 3 (2017) Page 1
Watts Site, Perquimans County, NC
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
November 2017

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
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 MY3 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, a
small bank was starting to form near the upstream portion of the stream, 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 MY3 and the pressure
transducers demonstrated 325 consecutive days of surface water in the restored channel. There
were 98 consecutive days with greater than two inches of water in the headwater channel.
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 10.6%
to 52.8%. Two gauges (no. 3 and no. 5) did not meet the success criteria. The on-site rain gauge
experienced above average rainfall every month this year with the exception of February. 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 7 (VP7) did not
meet the success criteria with the inclusion of planted and volunteer specimens. The planted
densities ranaed from 283 to 931 stems per acre. Seven of the eight random plots met the MY3
Draft Monitoring Report Year 3 (2017) Page 2
Watts Site, Perquimans County, NC
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
November 2017

success criteria; the densities ranged from 90 to 648 stems per acre. Areas with thicker herbaceous
vegetation had lower stem densities across the site. A few stems of Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana)
were noted throughout the site but are not widespread.
2.0 METHODOLGY
Vegetation plot monitoring data were collected following the standard CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Level 11, 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. Rain data from the CRONOS website, gauge KECG, was used
for the months of June, July, and August. The on-site rain gauge was clogged during the month of
June and was corrected during the August 16, 2016 site visit. The remaining months utilized the 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-v4.2-1ev1-2. pdf.
NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services, 2009. Pasquotank River Basin Restoration Priorities,
September 2009. Available at
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=336f3816-416e-4ee1-854e-
056021 e726f8&groupld=60329.
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/get 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:
http://www.ncclimate.ncsu.edu/cronos/normaIs.php?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.
Draft Monitoring Report Year 3 (2017) Page 3
Watts Site, Perquimans County, NC
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
November 2017

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 I 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
Warranty Replant
N/A
February -16 & January -17
Year 2 Monitoring
August -16 & November -16
November -16
Year 3 Monitoring
August -17 & November -17
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
Project Name
Watts
County
Perquimans County
Project Area
48.09 acres
Project 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 1 3010205060020
DWQ Subbasin
03-01-52
Project Drainage Area
136 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
0 acres
CGIA Land Use Classification
Reach Summary
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
x'� rSTREAM Bare Areas
CROSS-SECTIONS (XS) Low Stems
............ VEGETATION PLOTS VP
••• MY 1 & 2 Random Transects ( )
MY 3 Met Success Criteria
r MY3 Transects
A`
No
MONITORING GAUGES (GW)
RG `�
VP4/GW4 XS3 ��,; a'" MY3 Met Success Criteria Yes
°' • No
. � '�� +;� , car c ,,•
O / O Yes
n a
r
VP7
t
Wetland Restoration
VP5/GW5 r 20.4 acres
XS2 O F 4
4
=F GW3 PT Stream ; F
PT Upland Q VP6/GW6
VP8
VPGW2 O ;
/ " a
VP3 Watts Property Boundary �': '�+
O.
VP1/GW1
XS1�
: a ��
t.�
��t;^Y � *,��. ri ��L?ra, � .,A�e 11 � r ti •�Q— - � '�.� ti ��?�'.
K
$,.
Prepares For: WA Figure 1: Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Watts Property 0 400 800 N
DMS Project # 413
Monitoring Year 3 +
Environmental 1 IN = 400' S
Quality Perquimans County

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Watts DMS # 413
Planted Acreage 23.9 Easement Acreage 48.1
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
0.1 ac
Yes
2
0.47
1.97%
material
2. Low Stem Density
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
0.1 ac
Yes
4
2.01
8.41%
Areas
based on MY 3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria
Total
6
2.48
10.38%
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
6
2.48
10.38%

Photostation Comparison
Watts- MY 3 (2017)
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.
MY 1 2015 (9/16/2015)
MY 2 2016 (8/4/2016)
MY 3 2017 (8/16/2017)
r,
S .
s

Photostation
Comparison - Baseline Condition 2015
Page 2
Photostation 5.
Facing southwest
along diagonal of
Vegetation Plot 5
mss..
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)
MY 2 2016 (8/16/2017)
U

Appendix C
Vegetation Data

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

Table 7. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Watts -UT Little River DMS # 413
Report Prepared By Heather Smith
Date Prepared 8/17/2017 13:22
database name Ecological Engineering-2017-WattsYear-3.mdb
database location P:\50000 State\EEP 50512\50512-010 Watts
Monitoring\Reports\MY3_2017
computer name WKST7
file size 45608960
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
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type PnoLS
413-01-0001
P -all T
413-01-0002
Pnol-S P -all T
413-01-0003
Pnol-S P -all T
413-01-0004
PnoLS P -all T
413-01-0005
PnoLS P -all T
413-01-0006
PnoLS P -all T
413-01-0007
Pnol-S P -all T
413-01-0008
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ca rya
hickory
Tree
1
Cornus Florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
2
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon Tree
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
2
1
2
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
Quercus
oak
Tree
1 1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
10
10
10
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
3
3
3
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
2
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
10 10
10
1
1
1
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
Vaccinium stamineum
deerberry
Shrub
Stem count ill
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count 41
Stems per ACRE 445.1542
ill 13
1
0.02
41 5
445.1542 526.0913
101 101 12
1
0.02
11 11 2
404.6856 404.6856 485.6228
101
71
404.6856
101 11
1
0.02
71 8
404.6856 445.1542
81
5
323.7485
81 10
1
0.02
51 6
323.7485 404.6856
91
5
364.2171
1
0.02
5 5
364.2171 364.21711364.21711
91
3
9 11
1
0.02
3 4
364.21711445.15421
71
3
283.27991
71 7
1
0.02
3 3
283.27991 283.2799
231
6
930.7771
231 24
1
0.02
6 7
930.7771 971.2455

Table 8. Planted and Total Stems
Project Name: Watts #413
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY3 (2017) MY2 (2016)MY1
(2015)
MYO (2015)
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
15
15
15
18
18
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
91
6
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
2
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
8
8
8
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
7
8
6
3
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
5
5
5
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
7
Quercus
oak
Tree
4
4
4
10
10
10
22
22
24
34
34
34
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
22
22
22
17
17
17
15
15
15
15
15
15
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
7
7
7
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
21
2
3
3
3
31
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
2
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
11
11
ill
11
11
11
12
121
12
12
12
12
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
8
8
8
Vaccinium stamineum
deerberry
Shrub
2
2
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
87
87
97
105
105
215
119
119
133
136
136
141
8 8
8
8
0.20 0.20
0.20
0.20
17 171 20 17 17 22
16 16 18
17 17
19
440.0956 440.0956 490.6813 531.1499 531.1499 1087.593
601.9699 601.9699 672.7899
687.9656 687.9656
713.2584

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

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology

3
2
1
Watts / UT to Little River - XS 1 MY3
-2
-3
-4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
--W–Water Surface Baseline --4o--XS1 Baseline -XS1 MY1 —O—XS1 MY2 X XS1 MY3

River - XS 2 MY3
idth (ft)
50 60 70 80 90

2
1
a
z
c -1
0
W
-2
-3
-4
-5
Watts / UT to Little River - XS 3 MY3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
--W–Water Surface Baseline --O--XS3 Baseline -XS3 MY1 —O—XS3 MY2 X XS3 MY3

Stream Formation Photos MY 3
Bank formation near VP 3 3-15-2017
Upstream portion: Evidence of flow 3-15-2017
Y55i , . - -,NNW
Flow Path 3-15-2017

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

10
5
1
-15
-20
III h
l l
STT
l .1111
I ���
-
-
-
-
-
M
N
M
N
M
M
M
�
M
N
M
O
M
ti
O
M
N
M
M M
N
N
N
N
M
N
(D
I --
-
M
-
N
-
N
C)
N
N
N
N
M
M
It
M
CO
I,-
ti
00
00
m
M
O
Date
� Precipitation Gauge 1 -Consecutive Days
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
c
5
0
4.5 0
.Q
4 v
L
a
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

_
10
4l
0
-15
-20

5
-5
n L
0 V
CL
-20
-25
-30
-35

_
5
w
2.5
2
1.5s
-15
1 a
0.5
-20 1111 111111,1
11 1"1,
1 ''Y"
1 1. I - II 11 1 111..1 1 11, IIII 1 ,111,111 11, II 1 .. 1 .11 ...11 111.1.. .1. 1 1 . 11 r� 0
ti ti ti ti rl- ti ti ti ti rl- ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti rl- ti ti
— — — — —
M N M N M M M ti M N M O M ti O M N LO M M
N N N N M N M � - M - N - N C) N N
N N M M M CD � 00 00 0')M - O
Date
� Precipitation Gauge 4 —Consecutive Days

5
x
_ -5
2.5
2
1.5s
0
s
0.
CD
-15
-20
1 a
0.5
-25 ;111111111, 1 e II i1�11L.i i.�.�II �.i�� VIII. 11, 1111 .11111 I 1 II 1f, 1 i.11, ,,i,ll���,�,i,�, i 1 I.P1 'I 0
ti ti ti ti � ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti � ti ti � ti ti ti ti ti
M N M N M M M ti M N M O M ti O t M N LO M M
N N N N M N M M N N C) N N
N N M M M CD 1�_ 00 00 0') M O
Date
� Precipitation Gauge 5 —Consecutive Days

_
5
w
2.5
2
1.5s
-10
0.
0
G
-15
1 a
0.5
-20 III 11111
1 II I.I.1,
1 ''Y"
I I. I . II 1 1 Ill.. 1, I, 111 I. 1 II 11111, 11, IIII 11111 " II I , , I .II ...11 ill.l .. .I. 1 1 0
I- ti r- ti � ti ti ti ti � ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti � ti ti
r r r r r r r r r r r r r T r r r r r r r r r r r
M N M N M M M ti M N M O M ti O M N LO M M
N N N N M N M � - M - N - N C) N N
N N M M M CD � 00 00 0')M - O
Date
� Precipitation Gauge 6 —Consecutive Days

Growing season is assumed to be 246 days
Wetland Hydrology Attainment Table
Table 10.
Watts Stream and Wetland Restoration DMS #413
Greater
than :%
Continuous Saturatio
MY- 1
MY- 2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Gauge #
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Yes/25
Yes/54
Yes/53
1
10.2%
22.0%
21.5%
Yes/63
Yes/65
Yes/130
2
25.6%
26.4%
52.8%
No/7
No/12
No/12
3
2.8%
4.9%
4.9%
Yes/71
Yes/46
Yes/54
4
28.9%
18.7%
22.0%
No/8
No/10
No/9
5
3.3%
4.1%
3.7%
Yes/25
Yes/61
Yes/26
6
10.2%
24.8%
10.6%
Growing season is assumed to be 246 days

14
12
10
Watts Property Monitoring Year 3
2017 Monthly Precipitation Data 30170 Graph
2
X
Fe t CP
Month - Year
� 2017 Rainfall 70% 30%

3
2.5
2
Headwater Channel Depth
Pressure Transducer Data MY3
01
-0.5
Date
T
r -I r -I
r -I
r -I
r -I
r -I r -I
O
O
O
O O
-1
-1
O O
O
\
\
\
n \
O
O
O
CN
I
\
\
\ m
\
ci
c -I
N
Date
T
r -I r -I
r -I
r -I r -I
r -I
r -I
r -I
r -I
-1
-1
-1
-1
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CN
\ \
\
\
N
\
\
\
r1i
\
r-
�It*-I
\ \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
0000 0000
m
a)
O
O
r\ -I
-1
Ln
-i
ci
ri
r -I
m
Ln
Ln
t.0
I'D
r,
r,
Date
T
r -I r -I
r -I
r -I
r -I
r -I
ci
r -I
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C14 rN
CN
rN
C14
rI4
C14
CN
\ \
\
\
N
\
\
\
r1i
\
r-
�It*-I
i --I
N
0000 0000
m
a)
O
O
r\ -I
-1
-i
ci
ri
r -I