20040243 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_20120823

E
DwQ
JY-61�j
WHITELACE CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
AND BUFFER RESTORATION SITE
2011 MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 6 OF 6)
Lenoir County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 420
Constructed 2005
Prepared for:
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
�-
AUG 232012
°""W" E artcement
WEt}aIiDS Ate STOii�lVYRTER Bif�
PROGRAM
Status of Plan: Final
Submission Date: November 2011
DECEIVED
MAR 2 7 2012
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM!

i
Monitoring Firm:
stanrtec
Stantec Consulting Services Inc
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606

1 �
�J
f �
tl
Table of Contents
10 Executive Summary
1
20 Methodology
3
2 1 Vegetation Assessment
3
22 Stream Assessment
3
23 Wetland Assessment
3
30 References
4
Project Condition and Monitoring Data Appendices
5
Appendix A General Figures and Plan Views
5
Appendix B General Project Tables
11
Appendix C Vegetation Assessment Data
15
Appendix D Stream Assessment Data
25
Appendix E Wetland Assessment
27
Protect Condition and Monitonng Data Appendices
Appendix A General Figures and Plan Views 5
Figure 1 — Location Map 7
Figure 2 — Consolidated Current Condition Plan View 9
Appendix B General Project Tables
Table 1 — Project Restoration Components 11
Table 2 — Project History and Reporting Activity 1 l
Table 3 — Project Contacts Table 12
Table 4 — Project Background Table 13
Appendix C Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 5 — Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table 15
Photos — Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos 16
Table 6 — Vegetation Metadata Table 21
Table 7 — Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species 23
Vegetation Problem Area Photos (electronic submission only)
Vegetation Problem Area Inventory Table (electronic submission only)
Appendix D Stream Assessment Data
Photos — Stream Station Photos 25
Appendix E Wetland Assessment Data
Figures — Water Level and Precipitation Plots 27
Table 10 — Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment 37
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page i
Stantec — Monitonng Year 6 of 6 — Final November 2011

(This page intentionally left blank)
t

�i
1.0 Executive Summary
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) enhanced 5,182 linear feet of the Whitelace
Creek stream channel located west of Kinston, in Lenoir County, North Carolina Additionally, 2 77 and
8 01 acres of wetland area were enhanced and preserved, respectively Also, 12 99 acres (565,734 square
feet) of riparian buffer were restored The site construction was completed in August of 2005, and
planting occurred in March of 2006 This report provides the monitoring information for year six (6) of
the stream enhancement and wetland restoration project
Previous dredging and straightening of Whitelace Creek had lowered the streambed elevation, thereby
1 causing a reduction in the acreage of riverme wetlands due to a lowered water table Restoration and
enhancement objectives for this project included the restoration of historic stream and wetland functions
that existed on -site prior to dredging and vegetation removal Site alterations at Whitelace Creek included
the excavation or re- establishment of the floodplam and in -situ stream channel modification to the
- existing stream The goals of these activities are as follows
• to introduce surface water flood hydrodynamics from a 10 1 square mile watershed along the
restored length of stream and floodplain
• to restore wetland hydrology
• to reforest the site with streams►de and riparian forest communities
The Year 6 vegetative monitoring was performed on October 5, 2011, using the Carolina Vegetation
Survey Level 2 methodology on 9 of the original 15 plots, as requested by NCEEP Refer to Table 7 and
the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Map in the appendices for the vegetation results Monitoring
revealed that only 2 of the 9 plots (22 %) met the 5 -year vegetative success criteria of 260 planted stems or
greater per acre for streams and wetlands When volunteer stems are included, all of the vegetation plots
meet or exceed the required density of 260 stems or greater per acre, with the average vegetation density
J across the site being 2,788 stems per acre (planted and volunteer) Located within the Neuse River Basin,
this project was instituted prior to October 11, 2007 and is therefore eligible for riparian buffer restoration
credit up to 200 feet from the top of bank of all perennial and intermittent waterways within the
( j conservation easement As such, applicable vegetation plots have been assessed for the vegetation success
r criteria for buffers (320 planted trees or greater per acre) Vegetation Plots 4 and 6 lie within the riparian
buffer restoration areas of the project site (refer to the CCPV Map) Only Vegetation Plot 4 is currently
I meeting the vegetation success criteria of 320 planted trees or greater per acre When volunteer trees are
also included, both Vegetation Plot 4 and Vegetation Plot 6 meet or exceed the required density of 320
trees or greater per acre
Many factors have contributed to the loss of planted species and include drought (2007), direct beaver
damage and excessive flooding due to beaver activity Mowing has occurred along both sides of the main
farm road in the area around the bridge As of the monitoring visit, beavers had not rebuilt any dams in
the project area and there are no signs of new beaver activity However, previous beaver activity,
$,-1
I_ f Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 1
Stantec — Momtonng Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011
�T
I
i

`!
J
flooding, and deer browsing affected many of the planted trees in vegetation plots It should be noted that
vigorous woody volunteer recruitment (especially Betula nigra) is present in the upper section of the
reach near Vegetation Plots 1 and 2
Other problems continue to include the presence of invasive or exotic species such as Typha latifoka and
Lespedeza cuneata Existing areas of Typha are located in small pockets along the middle to lower end of
the project with the densest areas at the downstream end of the site Currently Typha does not appear to be
negatively impacting the planted woody vegetation Lespedeza is present along the drier slopes near
Vegetation Plots 1 and 2 and does not appear to be spreading into the floodplain Murdannia keisak
observed in past years was not observed in significant amounts in W6
As in previous years, a general assessment of stream stability was conducted Results were the same as in
the past in that the stream is stable and is well connected to the floodplam Stream channels bars are still
present which could lead to lateral migration and bank instability, however, migration and instability were
not observed during current monitoring
Groundwater data collected through October of 2011 was used to assess the compliance of the site with r 1
wetland hydrology criteria Seven groundwater monitoring gauges are currently active on the project site `
A site is considered to meet the requirements for wetland hydrology if the groundwater level is within 12
inches of the ground surface for 12 5% of the growing season consecutively All 7 of the gauges met the
criteria during the growing season of 2011 Three reference gauges are also currently active All three of !I
the reference gauges met the success criteria in 2011
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment, and I
�i
statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and
figures in the report appendices Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in
these reports can be found in the mitigation and restoration plan documents available on ESP's website
All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon request _
i
l
J
I
Whrtelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 2 J
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011
'J

I
� I
t -I
1�
2.0 Methodology
2.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
Fifteen vegetative sample plots were quantitatively monitored during the first growing season Species
composition, density, and survival were monitored during Year 0 and Year 1 The number of plots was
reduced to nine for monitoring in the second year, as requested by NCEEP These plots include the
original plots named VP1, VP2, VP4, VP6, VP8, VP9, VP11, VP14, and VP15 The Carolina Vegetation
Survey (CVS) methodology Version 2 2 7 was utilized for vegetative monitoring in Years 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
Level 2 (planted and natural stems) methodology was completed on all monitored plots
- The vegetative success criteria are based on the US Army Corps of Engineers Stream Mitigation
Guidelines (USACE, 2003) In the stream and wetland restoration areas, the final vegetative success
criteria are the survival of 260 5 -year old planted woody stems per acre at the end of the Year 5
monitoring period An interim measure of vegetation planting success was the survival of at least 320 3-
,+ year old planted woody stems per acre at the end of year 3 of the monitoring period A ten percent
mortality rate was accepted in year four (288 stems /acre) and another ten percent in year five resulting in
a required survival rate of 260 trees /acre through year five Located within the Neuse River Basin, this
project was instituted prior to October 11, 2007 and is therefore eligible for riparian buffer restoration
credit up to 200 feet from the top of bank of all perennial and intermittent waterways within the
conservation easement The vegetative success criteria for the riparian buffer restoration areas is 320
planted trees per acre at the end of Monitoring Year 5
The Year 6 stem counts within each of the nine vegetative monitoring plots are included in Exhibit Table
7 in Appendix C Photos of the vegetative monitoring plots are also included in Appendix C
2.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT
Changes in stream profile and pattern were not included in the stream enhancement project for Whitelace
Creek As such, cross - section and longitudinal profile surveys and pebble counts were not performed for
the Year 6 monitonng, as directed by NCEEP However, a general assessment of stream stability and
problem areas was performed during field reconnaissance
2.3 WETLAND ASSESSMENT
A site is considered to meet the requirements for wetland hydrology if the groundwater saturation is
within 12 inches of the ground surface consecutively for 12 5% of the growing season (30 Days) The
growing season in this area is from March 18th to November 8h for a total of 234 days (NRCS 2002)
Seven groundwater monitonng gauges are currently active on the project site Data from these gauges
were collected and analyzed to assess their success Three reference gauges are located northwest of the
project site Reference gauges 1 & 2 are located near the intersection of Sutton Road with Moseley Creek
Reference gauge 3 is located between Hillcrest Road and Moseley Creek, approximately 5,500 feet north
of Route 70 Please refer to the project Vicinity Map (Figure 1) in Appendix A for locations of the
reference groundwater monitoring gauges Graphs of precipitation and water level plots are included in
Appendix E
I
_J Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 3
Stantec — Momtonng Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011

3.0 References
Lee, Michael T, R K Peet, S D Roberts, and T R Wentworth 2008 CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4 2 (http / /cvs bio unc edu/methods htm)
NC CRONOS 2011 NC CRONOS Database — Cunningham Research Station (KINS) North Carolina
State University State, Climate Office of North Carolina http //www nc- climate ncsu edu/cronos
NCEEP 2009 Revised Table of Contents for 2009 Monitoring Report Submissions North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh, NC
Version 12 1 June 1, 2009
NRCS 2002 WETS Table for Lenoir County, NC Natural Resource Conservation Service, National
Water and Climate Center
USACE, EPA, NCWRC, NCDWQ 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines
Weakley, Alan S 2007 Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas University of
North Carolina Herbarium Chapel Hill, NC Working draft as of January 11, 2007
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Weiland Restoration Project Page 4
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011

a �
Project Condition and Monitoring Data Appendices
it
�l
I,
4_J
APPENDIX A. GENERAL FIGURES AND PLAN VIEWS
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 5
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011

This page left intentionally blank for double -sided printing
i�Whrtelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 6
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011

r- • � I . I -, `. rw:. .� ��-' —` „j -1�P, I �� •..:•_ -err' - 'Sr 4. .� � ,, I'� '
I, + .r t• `t# ` ,�' fern ce
35.3138
A-
, N-1
_ Aa
.a. _ I z• J• M 0 \ •rte I + 4 i � ��/ 1:- `' �
�f
y ,p
35:275916 -77.6 34 � Kinston
j
70
,' R
��::I ..,.�. _ _ - _• 1 .:a' _ _ _ - --rr'+ �j -�— -r ; r w.w. .` R?.-''� - Fs•t , i
�- A
Site directions: From Raleigh follow US 70 East toward Kinston. i _ - --
:
Approximately 8 miles east of La Grange, take a right on �� _ �"� -'' k: ; kt :��t. r
Kennedy Home Rd. Continue approximately 0.3 miles and take I I 1 ! -'+ . f �• ! �' Whitelace Project S►te
the first left onto Kennedy Dairy Road. Follow Kennedy Dairy t w r •�"' t ~'� -;'' _ 35.24 N, - 77.689 W
Road through the Kennedy Home complex. Continue through t Y
the traffic circle, stay right, and merge onto Baptist Orphanage _ • — .._, �.. —i '''"' - ;•�� ' ' �" '
µ Data Source:
Road. Travel approximately 0.5 miles until reaching a small r �' r+. r - r ,
`
concrete bridge spanning Whitelace Creek. This point is near I `� - - f i _ t1SGS 7.5 Min. Topoquads:
the middle of the site. v! Y I c "�'« i, Deep Run, Falli Creek, Kin$ton .
- Olivia, La Grange, Seven Springs
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Whitelace Creek Stream and Wetland Enhancement
Reference Gauges and Buffer Restoration, EEP #420
Conservation Easement Lenoir County, North Carolina
November, 2011
v.
0 0.45 0.9 1.8 � � ��/ ✓/ /'�
Lenoir County Miles
�l�tm nt Stantec

This page blank for double sided printing
Whrtelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 8
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011

I�I
i I
f I
I—j
L�
I�
I�
1�
�I
+r
{
I I
APPENDIX B. GENERAL PROJECT TABLES
Table 1 Project Restoration Components
Whitelace Creek Wetland Restoration Site/EEP Pro eCt No 420
El
= Stream Enhancement l
E2
= Stream Enhancement 2
E =
Wetland Enhancement
P =
Preservation
p v
NA
�
pa bo
Aug 2005
NA
Aug 2005
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
NA
°'
Jul 2005
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
NA
Reach ID
Aug 2005
Bare Root Seedling Installation
Mar 2006
° "
I Stationing
Comment
NA
NA
Apr 2005
Final Report
NA
NA
Total accounts for 301 f
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov 2006
Nov 2006
Nov 2006
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov 2007
gap in easement at road
Reach 1
3,293
E1
P2
3,293
7 +84 - 40 +77
crossing
Reach 2
1,889
E2
SS
1,889
40+77 - 59+66
Year 6 Monitoring
Riverme Wetland
Nov 2011
Nov 2011
Enhancement
E
NA
2 77 ac
NA
Rivenne Wetland
Preservation
P
NA
8 01 ac
NA
Neuse River Buffer
Restoration
R I
NA
12 99 ac
NA
R =
Restoration
El
= Stream Enhancement l
E2
= Stream Enhancement 2
E =
Wetland Enhancement
P =
Preservation
P2 = Priority 2
SS = Streambank Stabilization
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Whitelace Creek Wetland Restoration Site/EEP Pro ect No 420
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data
Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
NA
NA
Feb 2004
Final Design - 90%
NA
NA
Nov 2004
Construction
Aug 2005
NA
Aug 2005
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
NA
NA
Jul 2005
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
NA
NA
Aug 2005
Bare Root Seedling Installation
Mar 2006
NA
Mar 2005
Mitigation Plan / As -built Year 0 Monitoring - baseline
NA
NA
Apr 2005
Final Report
NA
NA
Apr 2005
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov 2006
Nov 2006
Nov 2006
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov 2007
Nov 2007
Dec 2007
Year 3 Monitoring
Nov 2008
Nov 2008
Nov 2008
Year 4 Monitoring
Nov 2009
Nov 2009
Nov 2009
Year 5 Monitoring
Nov 2010
Nov 2010
Nov 2010
Year 6 Monitoring
Nov 2011
Nov 2011
Nov 2011
NA =Not Appltcable
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Weiland Restoration Project
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final
Page 11
November 2011

Table 3 Project Contacts
Whitelace Creek Wetland Restoration Site/EEP Project No 420
Designer
EcoScience Corporation
1 101 Haynes Street
Suite 101
Ralciah. NC 27604
Construction Contractor
Shamrock Environmental Corporation
PO Box 14987
Greensboro, NC 27415
Planting Contractor
Emerald Forest Incorporated
4651 Backwoods Road
Chesapeake, VA 23322 -2456
Seeding Contractor
Wheat Swamp Landscaping
4675 Ben Dail Road
LaGran e, NC 28551 -8038
Seed Mix Sources
IKEX, Inc
PO Box 250
Middlesex, NC 27557
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Warren County Nursery
6492 Beersheba Highway
McMinnville, TN 37110
Pinelands Nursery and Supply
323 Island Road
Columbus, NJ 08022
Coastal Plain Conservation Nursery
3067 Connors Drive
Edenton, NC 27932
Monitoring Performers (Year 0-1)
EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh NC 27604
919 828 -3433
Monitoring Performers (Year 2-6)
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc
801 Jones Franklin Road, Ste 300
Ralei NC 27606
Stream Monitoring POC
David Bidelspach (919)851 -6866
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Amber Coleman (919)851 -6866
Wetland Monitoring POC
Amber Coleman [phone]
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 12
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011

Table 4 - Project Attribute Table
Whitelace Creek Wetland Restoration Site/EEP Project No 420
Project County
Lenoir
Drainap,e Area
10 1 sq mi
Drainage impervious cover estimate %
< 1 percent
Stream Order
2nd order
Physiographic Region
Coastal Plain
Ecore ion
Southeastern Flood lams and Low Terraces
Ros en Classification of As -built
C/E
Cowardin Classification
R2UB23Cb (Riverme, Lower Perennial,
Uncosolidated Bottom, Sand/Mud, Seasonally
Flooded, Beaver
Dominant soil types
Riverine Wetland Restoration
Riverme Wetland Enhancement
Johnston stream channels 80% of Site
Johnston, stream channels, 80% of Site
Reference site ID
01- 05471 -OIA
USGS HUC for Protect
USGS HUC for Reference
03020202040020
03020202040020
NCDWQ Subbasin for Project
03 -04 -05
NCDWQ Subbasin for Reference
03 -04 -05
NCDWQ Classification for Project
C SW NSW
NCDWQ Classification for Reference
C SW NSW
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed9
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d listed
se ment9
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
No
Percent of project easement fenced
INo
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Weiland Restoration Project Page 13
Stantec — Momtonng Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011

This page left intentionally blank for double sided printing
I
i
i
1.
r �
�I
!J
it
U
0
r" 1
Whrtelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 14
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011
1
J

`I
J
�I
�t
1`
f �
I7
i�
Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 5 - Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success
Summary
Whitelace Creek Wetland Restoration Site /
EEP Protect No 420
Vegetation
Stream/Wetland
Vegetation
Density Met
Buffer
Vegetation
Density Met
Plot ID
(260 planted
I stems /acre)
(320 planted
trees /acre
VP1
N 202
n/a
VP2
N 81
n/a
VP4
Y 364
Y 364
VP6
N 162
N 162
VP8
N 242
n/a
VP9
Y 283
n/a
VP11
N 40
n/a
VP14
N 243
n/a
V P 15
N 162
n/a
Tract
Mean
22% (198 planted
stems /acre )
50% (263 planted
I trees /acre
i f
Whrtelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 15
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011
f

Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Photo Station 1: Vegetation Plot 1 (10105111)
Photo Station 2: Vegetation Plot 2 (10/05/11).
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page H
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011

Photo Station 3: Vegetation Plot 4 (10105111)
Photo Station 4: Vegetation Plot 6 (10105111)
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 17
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011

Photo Station 5: Vegetation Plot 8 (10105111)
Photo Station 6: Vegetation Plot 9 (12/14/2011)
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 18
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011

Photo Station 7: Vegetation Plot 11 (10/05/11)
Photo Station 8: Vegetation Plot 14 (12/14/2011)
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 19
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011

Photo Station 9: Vegetation Plot 15 (10/05/11)
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 20
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011

I�
i
j
LJ
Table 6. Vegetation Metadata
Report Prepared By
Alex Baldwin
Date Prepared
10/7/201110 52
database name
Stantec Whitelace2011_A mdb
database location
U \175613003 \Whitelace\ ro ect \site data \cvs
computer name
BALDWINA
file size
28180480
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS,IN
THIS DOCUMENT------- - - - --
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and
a summary of project(s) and project data
Pro j, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre,
for each ear This excludes live stakes
Pro j, 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
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of
occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by
each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by e 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
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
PROJ ECT SU M MARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
420
project Name
Whitelace Creek
Description
Wetland restoration and enhancement
River Basin
Neuse
le ngth(ft)
5900
stream-to-edge width ft
100
areas m
80,937
Sampled Plots
9
}
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 21
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011

(This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing)
�I
r
t
I
'-1
'I
H
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 22 _1
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 —Final November 2011
��I

Table 7 - Stem Count Total by Plot and Species Whitelace Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site EEP Project #420
Current Plot Data (MY6 2011)
Annual Means
E420- Amber -0001
E420- Amber -0002
E420- Amber -0004
E420- Amber -0006
E420- Amber -0008
E420- Amber -0009
E420- Amber -0011
E420- Amber -0014
E420- Amber -0015
MY6 (20 1)
1 MYS (2010)
MY4 (2009)
MY3 (2008)
MY2 (2007)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acerrubrum
red maple
Tree
9
3
34
23
13
1
83
84
87
19
4
Acersaccharinum
silver maple
Tree
24
23
Baccharis
baccharis
Shrub
1
5
5
2
5
18
22
6
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
27
81
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
400
1
1
16
1
1
418
1
1
12
2
2
6
2
2
3.58
1
1
3.5
Carpinus caroliniana var. ca
Coastal American Horr
Tree
1
1
1
1
21
2
21
21
2
21
21
2
21
21
2
21
21
2
2
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
Carya aquatica
water hickory
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Atlantic white cedar
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Diospyros
diospyros
Tree
3
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
10
11
4
4
Fraxinus
ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
11
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
2
2
2
2
2
41
4
41
41
4
4
4
4
4
Ilex opaca
American holly
Tree
1
1
1
1
Ligustrum sinense
Chinese privet
Exotic
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
4
2
1
7
7
38
18
7
Liriodendron tulipifera var.
Tulip -tree, Yellow Popl
Tree
2
21
2
Nyssa biflora
swamp tupelo
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
6
6
9
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
g
8
Platanus occidentalis var. o
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
2
21
21
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
11
11
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
25
8
2
3
38
28
38
18
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
31
11
1
1
6
6
6
17
17
17
16
16
16
18
18
18
16
16
16
15
15
15
Toxicodendron radicans
eastern poison ivy
Vine
4
Ulmus americana var. amer
American Elm, White I
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
Unknown
unknown
1
Vitis
grape
IVine
1
Stem count
5
5
21
2
2
402
9
h43
4
4
17
6
6
45
7
7
38
1
1
33
6
6
7
4
4
15
44
44
620
48
48
219
57
57
345
50
50
163.6
53
53
77.5
Tree count
S
5
20
2
2
402
9
4
4
12
6
6
43
7
7
33
1
1
33
6
6
7
4
4
15
44
44
602
48
48
185
57
57
263
50
50
142
53
53
71
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
9
9
9
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
Species count
4
4
9
2
2
3
7
7
11
4
4
6
4
4
8
4
4
8
1
1
4
1
1
2
4
4
6
16
16
23
17
17
29
18
18
28
15
15
23
16
16
20
Trees per ACRE
Stems per ACRE
202.3
202.3
809.4
81
81
16268.4
364.2
364.2
1538
161.9
161.9
485.
242.8
242.8
1740
283.3
283.3
1335
40
40
1335
242.8
242.8
283.3
161.9
161.9
607
197.8
197.8
2707
215.8
215.8
831.9
256.3
256.3
1183
224.8
224.8
636.6
238.3
238.3
317
202.8
202.3
849.8
81
81
16268.
364.2
364.2
1740
161.9
161.9
242.8
242.8
182
283.3
283.3
153
40
40
1335
242.8
242.8[
283
161.9
161.9
60
197.8
197.8
2788
215.8
215.8
984.
256 3
256.3
155
224.8
224.8
735.51238.31
238 31
348.5

(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

Appendix D. Stream Assessment Data
Photo Station 1 (S1) — Overview of Project (looking downstream from Sta.10 +00 (10105111)
Photo Station 2 (S2) - Overview of upstream portion of reach (looking upstream from Sta.10 +00
(10105111)
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 25
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 - Final November 2011

Photo Station 3 (S3) — Looking downstream from bridge (06/15/11)
Photo Station 4 (S4) — Looking upstream from crest gauge (10/05/11)
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 26
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 - Final November 2011

CD
0
CD
@.
s
CrQ
all
ro
n.
a
0
o'
ro
z
0
QN N
O
'- N
20
15
10
5
0
-5
c
-10
CL
m
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
2011 Groundwater Data
Well 1 (SN: 000009BE9090)
1 I
I I
I I
1 I
I
Ground Surface 1
I
I I
Required Depth 1
I� 68 days ► a 200 di ys 1
End of
Beginning of 1
Growing Season Growing Season
03/18/11 11 /08/11
1 I
I I
1 1
J L _ A I_l,l.
O�N O�N 416,
41 14
10
Date
ti0
10
9
8
7
6 c
c
5R
.Q
4
CL
3
2
1
0
i
b
"O
a
CrJ
C.
fD

A
01
a�
o,
a
7d
0
c
0
0
A
z
O
9
m
N OQ
O N
15
10
5
0
-5
S -10
v
r
CL -15
O
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
2011 Groundwater Data
Well 2 (SN. OOOOOEBD106E)
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ground Surface
I
—
Well Download Failure,
Awaiting Data Ext
1
Newly i (stalled well,
action not recXding 12/14/2011
Regwred Depth 1+— 63 days --oo-
—I
I
I
I
I
Beginning of
r Growng Season
03/18/11
End of
Grwng Season \�
11/08/11
I
I
I
I
4 4 1X 4 4 ►.off ►.'`� N
Date [Well Replaced New well SN 0000OA28AOD9
10
9
8
7
6 c
C
0
53
a
U
4
IL
3
2
1
0

C/I.
s� €
� E
rn
o
by E
w �
z
O
w
N CD
O N
-10
20
15
10
5
0
c -5 -
is -10
CL
m
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
2011 Groundwater Data
Well 3 (SN: 0000OA287A2A)
I
I
I
I
I
Ground Surface
I
I
I
I
I VV VT-j
I
Required Dept
I
I
234 Days
I
Beginning of
I
End of
Growing Season
Growing Season
03/18/11
I
I
I
ILI L J 1. A 1 1-1
11/08/11
I
I
I
I
1
ONN
SNP
��W\�0�� D��\�0�N h�4r0
ro
Date
10
9
8
7
sS
C
5
.Q
4
a
3
2
1
0

A�
ri fn
>R
a
0
0
1$
z
�d
N �
O
�w
20
15
10
5
0
-5
c
s -10
S
m
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
2011 Groundwater Data
Well 4 (SN OOOOOEBDA66C)
1 I
I I
I
Ground Surface
j k.,_Ut�
I
— - - -I - - - - - Well Download Failure
— -- Awaiting Data Extracts
I
n 1
- Required Depth 1 ♦ 90 Days —�
1
1
I
Beginning of
Growing Season
1 03/18/11
End of
Growing Season -
11/08/11
I
I
I
I
I
_
I
,e6l 46, 6�,yo o��yo
Date Well Replaced New Well SN 000009BEA5DA
10
9
8
7
6
C
0
5S
a
4
a
3
2
1
0

� w
I �
0
e.
a�
7
CD
0
z
fR
0
0
0
-o
i�
z
0
N N
O
20
15
10
5
0
S -5
v
t
CL -10
O
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
2011 Groundwater Data
Well 5 (SN: OOOOOEBCFF87)
I I
I 1
1 I
1 I
1 I
Ground Surface 1
I
I I
I
I
Required Depth 114 — 69 Days 94 Days
Beginning of
Growing Season
03/18/11
End of
Growing Season 1
11/08/11
L L LI L J 1.
I I
NN
NO
p\ h\ ca\ 1\
Date
O
10
9
8
7
6 c
c
O
5%
CL
4
IL
3
2
1
0

CA
y
e�
9
ON
-
a
0
c
0
0
ro
a
z
0
�m
N �
O
r W
N
20
15
10
5
0
-5
c
w -10
0.
m
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
2011 Groundwater Data
Well 6 (SN- 0000OA28C526)
I 1
I I
I
I
I
I
1 Ground Surface
-- I — —
Reqwred Depth I
I
—
1
I� 99 Days
100 Days
Beginning of
H� Growing Season
03/18/11
End of —I
roHnng
G Season
11/08/11
I
I
1
I
I
I
O��
�"K
Date
10
9
8
7
6S
c
0
5
0.
4a
3
2
1
0

' ___ I _ - I - .�. -- _ __ -_ _- _ - _- _ _
'--- ' - �I 1 - - 1_ - l ---I ' L __ i --� � -.�_� � ---I I I -I � � � - I L -1 I � � - - -�
3�
s
a
0
c
0
0
A
z
0
N CD
O
r W
20
15
10
5
0
S -5
:r
w -10
S
m
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
2011 Groundwater Data
Well 7 (SN OOOOOEBD182C)
I I
I 1
I I
I I
I _ I
Ground Surface
I 1
Required Den 1
YFLA
1 _ 109 Days —� 74 Days
1 Beginning of _ __ End of 1
1*--*' Growing Season Growing Season yl
03/18/11 11/08/11
I I
I I
I I
�Kryo NKtio �\�o boo o�tio o��yo o��yo o��yo o��yo �,yo o ��o
Date
10
9
8
7
6 e
c
0
5 0
a
4
IL
3
2
1
0

w
I n
0
a.
0
(YQ' m
rj
a
w
n.
70
ik
0
A�
z
0
� w
N N
O
10
5
0
-5
-10
c
r -15
CL
m
O
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
2011 Groundwater Data
Well Ref -1 (SN: 000013152443)
I I
I I
Ground Surface
I I
IL kkki
. wl
I Required Depth
I� 49 Days-* v 1
I
1
Beginning of
*/Growing Season
03/18/11
I
I
I
I
NO tIP 41; 411P 41P
Date
ro
�I 1
— 64 Days 8 Days
I
1
I
End of
Growing Season\�.
11/08/11 �1
I
I
I
II
10
9
8
7
6 c
c
5 a
4 2
IL
3
2
1
0

COD
w
0
CD
0
e.
s
•ty 0.
o.
z
A
0
C.
0
0
'v
z
CD
0
3
c
w
N N
O
r U
10
5
0
-5
-10
c
w -15
CL
as
D
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
2011 Groundwater Data
Well Ref -2 (SN: 00O011310FE0)
1 1
I 1 I I I I
Ground Surface
Required Depth/ 65 Days —�
74 Days I ►
I I
I I
1 Beginning of 1
Growing Season
03/18/11
I
1 End of/0I 1
Growing Season
� i 1 L_ I 1 � I I I I 11 1 I 11/08/11 I I
�? 41 �� h� �� �� �� 4
NZ�
Date
10
9
8
7
6 c
c
5 ,v
CL
4 L
a
3
2
1
0

y
A r
I �
y
eo�
rQ
rQ
a,
o.
a
R
0
a
0
0
a
z
0
�d
N N
O
... W
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
G
-20
m
0-25-
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
2011 Groundwater Data
Well Ref -3 (SN 000009DE7694)
I I
Ground Surface
—Required Depth 1�_ 68_Days — ►_ _ —
I
7_4_Days
I
I
I
1 Beginning of
Growing Season
-- — 03/18/11 -- � - --
—
1
1
—
End of�l
Growing Season
I
11/08/11 1
I
I
IL
1
"Krp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AP
Date
10
9
8
7
6 c
c
O
5 w
a
4a
3
2
1
0

� w
o�
s
7 rrl
OQ 7`
-n n.
w
w
0
a
fR
0
0
b
3
z
0
9
Cr
ti w
N CD
O
.- w
18
16
14
12
E
C10
0
A
a8
IL
6
4
2
0
Whitelace Creek 2011 30 -70 Percentile Graph
Lenoir County, North Carolina
30th Percentile---,,,
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept
Month
2011 Rainfall - 30th Percentile - 70th Percentile
Oct Nov

Table 10 - Summary of Groundwater Results for Years 1 - 5
Wlutelace Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project / EEP Project No.
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
ercenta e
Gua a
Year 1 2006
Year 2 2007
Year 3 2008
Year 4 2009
Year 5 2010
Year 6 2011
GW1
Yes/234 days
Yes /73 days
Yes /160 days
Yes /234 days
Yes /234 days
Yes /200 days
1000/.
31 %
(68%)
100%
100%
85%
GW2
Yes /140 days
No
Yes /93 days
Yes /135 days
Yes /58 days
Yes /63 days
60%
(40%)
58%
43%
27%
GW3
Yes /234 days
Yes /92 days
Yes /106 days
Yes /234 days
Yes /153 days
Yes /234 days
1000%
39 %
(45%)
100%
65%
1000/0
GW4
Yes/ 119 days
No
Yes /38 days
Yes /152 days
Yes/ 146 days
Yes / 90 days
(51%)
(16%)
65%
62%
38%
GW5
Yes /234 days
Yes /66 days
Yes /94 days
Yes /141 days
Yes /70 days
Yes /94 days
100%
28 %
(40%)
60%
30%
40%
GW6
Yes /234 days
Yes /146 days
Yes /118 days
Yes /234 days
Yes /110 days
Yes /100 days
100%
(62%)
(50%)
1000/0
47%
43%
GW7
Yes /234 days
Yes /234 days
Yes /107 days
Yes /234 days
Yes /90 days
Yes /109 days
1000/0
(100%)
46 %
1000/.
38%
47%
Reference
Yes /70 days
Yes /450 days
Unknown
Yes /39 days
Yes /44 days
Yes /64 days
Well 1
30 %
19%
17%
190/0
27%
Reference
Yes /70 days
Yes/93 days
Unknown
Yes /45 days
Yes /83 days
Yes /74 days
Well 2
(30%)
40 %
19%
35%
32%
Reference
Yes /70 days
Yes /159 days
Yes /112 days
Ye0125 days
Yes /82 days
Yes /74 days
Well 3
30%
(68%)
(48%)
53%
35%
32%
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 38
Stantec — Monitoring Year 6 of 6 - Final November 2011
J
'0
0
0
FU
i