20080638 Ver 2_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20130129

0 00 — DU3 g V JL'
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
To: Mrs. Jean Gibby -USACE
Mr. Eric Kulz -DWQ
We Transmit to you Herewith:
® Drawings
❑ Specifications
® lfeelar-es -e.F photos
® Correspondence
❑ As per your request
Transmittal
Project #: 7238.E3 Date: 1/29/2013
Project Name: Mar an Property (Hammond
Road Stream & Wetland Restoration Site)
File:
❑ For your information and files
® For comment or approval
❑ Returned for correction, resubmit
❑ Approved as noted
❑
By mail
®
By courier
❑
By express
No. Co ies
Document No.
Date
Descri tion
1
N/A
1/29/2013
Year Three Annual Monitoring Report
Remarks:
013
If enclosures are not as listed as above, kindly notify us at once.
By: David Gainey/kdu
cc: Mr. Victor Bell
Mr. Peter Cnossen

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandBc.com
January 29, 2013 S &EC Project No. 7238.E3
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Mrs. Jean Gibby
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
NCDENR — DWQ
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
Attn: Mr. Eric Kulz
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Reference: Year Three Annual Monitoring Report
Hammond Road Stream & Wetland Restoration Site
USACE No. 200801260
NCDWQ No. 2008 -0638 v2
Raleigh, NC
Enclosed please find the Year Three Annual Monitoring Report dated January 2013 for
the above referenced site. As you will find in the report, it is our opinion that the restored
stream reach and its adjacent wetlands are currently stable and functioning as intended.
Please review the enclosed document and provide any comments at your earliest
opportunity.
We thank you for your assistance to date.
Sincerely,
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, PA
Oai P -
David Gainey
Project Manager
Attachments: Year Three Monitoring Report dated January 2013
Cc: Mr. Victor Bell, Bell Investments Limited Partnership
Mr. Peter Cnossen, Jones and Cnossen Engineering, PLLC

Hammond Road Stream
and Wetland Restoration Site
Year Three Monitoring Report
Wake County, North Carolina n !JAN @
292013 I Janua 2013 " �5 ry
AID: 200801260
DWQ: 2008 -0638 v2
Cataloging Unit — Neuse River Basin 03020201
Prepared For:
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Rah igk North Carolina 27614 • Phonc (919) 846 -5900 • Fax: [phone]
www SandEC.com

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This monitoring report has been prepared by Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S &EC) in
order to present and evaluate site monitoring data for the period January 1, 2012 through
December 31, 2012 for the Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site in Raleigh,
North Carolina. This year serves as Year Three of the required five year monitoring period. This
report includes the following:
Project History
Wetland Hydrologic Monitoring
Stream Bank, Riparian Buffer, and Wetland Vegetation Monitoring
Stream Physical Monitoring
Stream Biological Monitoring
Monitoring Success
Figure 1 — Vicinity Map
Sheet 1 — Monitoring Plan
Appendix A — Stream Photo Station and Bankfull Event Photos
Appendix B — Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix C — Stream Geomorphologic Data
Appendix D — Stream Pebble Count Data
Appendix E — Wetland Soil Data
1.2 Project History
The project site is located immediately northwest of the intersection of Hammond Road and
Rush Street in south Raleigh, North Carolina (Wake County). The total property is under the
sole ownership of Bell Investments Limited Partnership and consists of approximately 49.7
acres. In conjunction with the widening of Hammond Road, a reach of stream adjacent to the
road right -of -way and its adjacent wetlands was restored. Site restoration work included the
construction of approximately 625 linear feet of stream channel and approximately 0.33 acres
(14,375 square feet) of wetlands along an unnamed tributary of Wildcat Branch.
Restoration including stream and wetland construction was performed by Kenneth -West Grading
of Raleigh, NC between August 25 and September 22, 2009. Restoration utilized generally
accepted natural channel design and construction methodologies to restore an appropriate

dimension, pattern and profile for the stream. In- channel log and boulder structures, and coir and
excelsior matting were utilized to stabilize the newly graded channel alignment and portions of
the buffer area. Bank, buffer and wetland planting consisting of live stakes and bare root
seedlings of various native tree and shrub species was performed by Gregory, Inc. of Angier, NC
between January 27 and January 29, 2010. Herbaceous wetland plugs were also utilized within
the restored wetland areas along with select on -site transplants.
2.0 MONITORING
As -built data were collected following construction, between February 16h and February 17`h,
2010. Year Three data were collected on April 22`h and April 23'h, 2012. Benthic Monitoring
initiated in the Spring of 2010 and will be performed annually through Year Three as verbally
agreed upon with NCDENR -DWQ staff.
This section includes; 1) wetland hydrologic monitoring, 2) vegetative monitoring, 3) stream
physical monitoring, 4) stream biological monitoring, and 5) evaluation of overall site
monitoring success. These data are provided for comparison of As -built through Year Three
monitoring data.
2.1 Wetland hydrologic Monitoring
During the as -built limited - engineering survey on February 12, 2010, the approximate
boundaries of relocated wetlands (transplanted wetland soils) were identified. Annual hydrologic
monitoring within these boundaries includes visual observation and soil evaluation utilizing
shallow hand auger borings performed by Mike Ortosky, LSS of S &EC, NC Licensed
Professional Soil Scientist ( #1075), as described below.
Three soils monitoring points (A, B and C, see as -built plans) were established in February 2010
in order to establish a baseline for ongoing evaluation of the hydric soils within the wetland
areas. The as-built evaluation of the soils in February 2010 (prior to growing season — high
groundwater season) indicated hydric soil indicators in all three boring sites.
The Year Three evaluation of the soils was performed in December, 2012 here again by Mr.
Ortosky. Wet conditions and hydric soil indicators were observed at all three boring locations.
Slightly darker colors in surface horizons are likely due to increased moisture and organic matter
content. Also, some variations in soil texture and depth are a result of slightly offset location of
soil borings. Similar evaluation of soil conditions during the late growing season will be
performed for future monitoring years. Please refer to Appendix E for soil descriptions of the on-
site relocated wetlands.
Based on our site observations, wetland soil evaluation and the abundant and diverse
wetland plant coverage (described below) within the relocated wetlands, these areas
currently meet the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands.

2.2 Stream Bank, Riparian Buffer, and Wetland Vegetation Monitoring
Success criteria for riparian buffer and wetland vegetation are based on the average number of
live stems per acre across the site. A mean density of 260 stems per acre is required for riparian
buffer and wetland vegetation plots at the end of the five -year monitoring period. Success
criteria for bank vegetation are based on the survival of 50 percent of the planted live stakes, as
counted during the as -built monitoring.
Six (6) sample plots are located across the site to monitor vegetation within the restored
wetlands, within the riparian buffer, and on the stream banks. The two (2) wetland vegetation
monitoring plots are rectangular 5 meters x 20 meters (100 square meters, or approximately
1,075 square feet). The two (2) riparian buffer vegetation monitoring plots are square, 10 meters
(32.8 feet) on each side (100 square meters, or approximately 1,075 square feet). The two (2)
stream bank vegetation monitoring plots are each located along approximately 25 linear feet of
the restored stream channel to monitor success of live stakes. The locations of all vegetation
plots are identified on the Monitoring Layout (Sheet 1 of 1). Photos of each vegetation plot are
included as Appendix B.
As -built (baseline) vegetation counts were performed on February 11th and February 17th, 2010
by S &EC. Vegetation counts for Monitoring Year Three were performed on April 23`h, 2012 by
S &EC. Vegetation monitoring data for riparian buffer and wetland vegetation plots was collected
using Level 1 of the Carolina Vegetation Survey monitoring protocol.
Live stake survival from the as -built monitoring count to Monitoring Year Three for the site
overall is approximately 69 percent. Live stake counts by species and by plot are presented in the
following tables:
Live Stakes - As -built — Februa 17th 2010
Common Name
SpeGies
Bank 1
Bank 2
Species Total
% of Total
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
24
21
45
50%
Silky Willow
Sal& sericea
18
11
29
33%
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
5
10
15
1 17%
TOTAL
47
42
89
Live Stakes - Year Three — A ri124'h 2012
Common Name
Species
Bank 1
Bank 2
Species Total
% of Total
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
13
18
31
51%
Silky Willow
Salix sericea
15
9
24
39%
Elderbeffy
Sambucus canadensis
3
3
6
10%
TOTAL
31
30
61
100%
Live Stake Survival =
66%
1 71%
69% (overall
survival

Based on the vegetation monitoring plots, the overall site planted woody stem density is 910
stems per acre for the as -built monitoring and 496 stems per acre for Monitoring Year
Three. Tables indicating the total number of live, planted woody stems and species diversity in
each riparian buffer and wetland sample plot for the as -built and Year Three are included below:
Plot Numbers
Buffer 1
Buffer 2
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Total
Planted Woody
19
18
25
28
90
Stems - As -built
Planted Woody
0
0
1
0
1
Stems- Year Three
6
2
20
21
49
Plots
As -built
Planted Woody Stems, As -built
Totals
Buffer 1
Buffer 2
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Monitor' 2/2010
Box Elder
Acer ne ndo
0
0
1
0
1
River Birch
etula ni a
2
0
0
0
2
Buttonbush
Ce halanthus occidentalis
1
0
1
1
3
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
1
0
7
12
20
Green Ash
Fraxinus enn lvanica
1
0
0
0
1
Tulip Poplar
(Liriodendron tuli i era )
2
5
0
1
8
Black Gum
N ssa lvatica
0
0
0
1
1
Willow Oak
( uercus hellos )
1
0
0
0
1
Unknown Oak
uercus s .)
1
3
0
1
5
Black Willow
Salix ni a
3
0
4
0
7
Silky Willow
Salix sericea
0
0
5
0
5
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
0
0
1
11
12
Unknown Species
7
10
6
1
24
As -built Totals
19
18
25
28
90
Calculated Plot Live Stem Density
stems/acre
769
728
1,012
1,133
Site Average
Live Stem Density — As -built
911

There is a total of twelve (12) different identifiable planted woody species represented within the
six (6) sample plots. In general, the survival rate of planted vegetation within wetland areas and
along stream banks is high. Within portions of the stream buffer, the survival rate of planted
vegetation was low at the time of the Year Three monitoring. Areas on -site with low planted
vegetation survival were identified and have been brought to the attention of the Owner.
The average number of planted woody stems per sample plot was 22 (buffer and wetland plots
only) in the as-built condition. The average number of counted woody stems per plot was 12.25
for Monitoring Year Three. Volunteer woody and herbaceous species are appearing due to
surrounding forested areas and the seed bank in the transplanted soil. Volunteer trees on -site are
mainly Sweet Gum (Liquidambar styracif lua) Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) and Red Maple (Acer
rubrum) saplings. Additional volunteer trees and shrubs on -site consist of Mulberry (Morus
rubra), Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), Dogwood (Cornus florida), Persimmon (Diospyros
Plots
Year Three
Planted Woody Stems, Year Three
Totals
Buffer 1
Buffer 2
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Monitoring 4/2012
Box Elder
Acer ne ndo
0
0
1
0
1
River Birch
etula ni a
0
0
0
0
0
Buttonbush
Ce halanthus occidentalis
1
1
1
1
4
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
1
1
7
11
20
Green Ash
(Fraxinus enn lvanica )
1
0
0
0
1
Tulip Poplar
(Liriodendron tuli i era )
1
0
0
0
1
Black Gum
N ssa lvatica
0
0
0
1
1
Willow Oak
(Quercus hellos )
1
0
0
0
1
Unknown Oak
(Quercus s. )
1
0
0
0
1
Black Willow
Salix ni a
0
0
3
0
3
Silky Willow
Salix sericea
0
0
5
0
5
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
0
0
0
8
8
Unknown Species
0
0
3
0
3
Year Three Totals
6
2
20
21
49
Calculated Plot Live Stem Density
stems/acre
242
81
809
850
Site Average
Live Stem Density — Year Three
496
There is a total of twelve (12) different identifiable planted woody species represented within the
six (6) sample plots. In general, the survival rate of planted vegetation within wetland areas and
along stream banks is high. Within portions of the stream buffer, the survival rate of planted
vegetation was low at the time of the Year Three monitoring. Areas on -site with low planted
vegetation survival were identified and have been brought to the attention of the Owner.
The average number of planted woody stems per sample plot was 22 (buffer and wetland plots
only) in the as-built condition. The average number of counted woody stems per plot was 12.25
for Monitoring Year Three. Volunteer woody and herbaceous species are appearing due to
surrounding forested areas and the seed bank in the transplanted soil. Volunteer trees on -site are
mainly Sweet Gum (Liquidambar styracif lua) Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) and Red Maple (Acer
rubrum) saplings. Additional volunteer trees and shrubs on -site consist of Mulberry (Morus
rubra), Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), Dogwood (Cornus florida), Persimmon (Diospyros

viriniana) and Black Willow (Salix nigra). Herbaceous vegetation within the wetland and
stream bank areas on -site is dense and includes Tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), Climbing
Hempvine (Mikania scandens), Asters (Symphyotrichum sp.), Beggar Ticks (Bidens sp.), Sedges
(Carex sp.), St. John's Wort (Hypericum sp.), Pennsylvania Smartweed (Polygonum
pensylvanicum), Soft Rush (Juncus effusus), Lizards Tail (Saururus cernuus) and others.
With an average of 496 stems per acre during Monitoring Year Three, the vegetative
component of the mitigation effort currently meets the established success criteria of at
least 260 live stems per acre by the end of Monitoring Year 5.
2.3 Stream Physical Monitoring
Four (4) cross - sections consisting of two (2) riffle -pool pairs were established on -site and are
shown on the Monitoring Layout (Sheet 1 of 1). S &EC completed the as-built stream record,
including a longitudinal profile and all cross - sections, on February 17`h, 2010. S &EC completed
the field work for Monitoring Year Three on April 23`h, 2012. Comparative cross - section and
longitudinal profile data from the as-built and Monitoring Years One, Two and Three data
collection are included as Appendix C.
Pebble counts were performed at each riffle and pool cross - section location. A total of 100
substrate particles were collected and measured at each cross - section in order to characterize
substrate composition and gauge any change in substrate over time. The comparison of as-built
and Year Three pebble count data shows that substrate composition varies within the restored
stream section. The substrate within Riffle 1 consists mainly of fine to coarse gravel, the
substrate within Riffle 2 consists mainly of very fine sand to coarse gravel, the substrate within
Pool l consists mainly of very coarse sand to very fine gravel, and the substrate within Pool 2
consists mainly of very coarse sand to very fine gravel. Pebble count data from the as-built and
Year Three monitoring is presented in Appendix D.
Based on visual observation of the entire restored stream channel and in- channel structures,
followed by the comparative analysis of the as -built and Year Three data sets, the restored
channel is stable and exhibits little departure (vertical or horizontal) from the as-built conditions.
Success criteria have been met in that the stream bedform features and cross - sections have
remained stable (i.e. the stream has retained its restored Rosgen stream -type classification)
through the current monitoring year. Accordingly, it is our opinion that Year Three
monitoring of the stream channel confirms morphological success.
2.4 Stream Biological Monitoring
On February 11`h, 2010 (As- Built) and April 23`h, 2012 (Year Three), qualitative aquatic species
assessments were performed to evaluate the post- construction and initial recolonization of the
restored stream reach by benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, and amphibians. Samples were taken
via kicknet, dipnet, and visual inspection of rocks and leaf packs within the active channel.
Benthic samples were taken both within the restored stream reach and, for comparison, upstream
of the restored stream reach.

The biological sampling performed during As -built Monitoring showed that the Restoration
Reach contained the following aquatic taxa:
• Amphibians
• Two -lined Salamander (Eurycea cirrigera) — 1 adult
• Green Frog (Rana clamitans) — 20+ tadpoles
• Aquatic Isopods —1
• Crustaceans
• White River Crayfish (Procambarus acutus) — 1 adult, 4 juveniles
• Crayfish (Cambarus latimanus) —1 adult, 20+ juveniles
• Ostracods —1
• Nematodes — 2
• Mollusks
• Physid Snails— 50+ adults, 100+ egg masses
• Limpets — 5
• Insects
• Trichopterans
■ Freeliving/Netspinning Caddisflies — 20+ larvae
• Dipterans
• Chironomid Midges
• Cricotopus sp. larvae — 20+
• Chironomus attenuatus larvae — 2
■ Tipulid Cranefly Larvae — 5
ipt
• Hemerans
■ Water Boatman —1
The biological sampling performed during As -built Monitoring showed that the upstream
Reference Reach contained the following aquatic taxa:
• Amphibians
o Green Frog (Rana clamitans) — 20+ tadpoles
• Amphipods — 3
• Crustaceans
o Crayfish (Cambarus latimanus) — 5 juveniles
• Mollusks
• Physid Snails —10+ adults
• Limpets — 5
• Insects
• Trichopterans
■ Freeliving/Netspinning Caddisflies —1 larva
• Dipterans
• Chironomud Midges —
• Cricotopus sp. larvae — 3
• Chironomus attenuatus larvae — 2
• Tipulid Cranefly Larvae — 2
7

■ Syrphid Fly Larvae (Rat - tailed Maggots) — 2
The biological sampling performed during Monitoring Year Three showed that the Restoration
Reach contained the following aquatic taxa: '
• Amphibians
o Green Frog (Rana clamitans) —100+ tadpoles, several adults
• Aquatic Isopods — 20+
• Crustaceans
o White River Crayfish (Procambarus acutus) — 200+ adults
• Mollusks
o Physid Snails —100+ adults, 50+ egg masses
• Insects
• Trichopterans
■ Freeliving/Netspinning Caddisflies — 50+ larvae
• Hemipterans
■ Water Boatman —100+
■ Giant Water Bug —10+ adults
• Odonates
• Dragonfly Larvae — 100+
■ Damselfly Larvae — 50+
The biological sampling performed during Monitoring Year Three showed that the upstream
Reference Reach contained the following aquatic taxa:
Amphibians
o Green Frog (Rana clamitans) —10+ tadpole
Crustaceans
o White River Crayfish (Procambarus acutus) — 10+ adult
Mollusks
o Physid Snails — 50+ adults
Based on the presence of the above- listed aquatic invertebrates and amphibians, we anticipate
that future samples will show continued progression towards a diverse aquatic fauna. As
vegetation grows and provides shade and decreased water temperatures for the restoration reach,
invertebrates and other aquatic organisms will likely continue to recolonize this area.
2.5 Monitoring Success — Year Three
Based on vegetation data collected within the vegetation monitoring plots, wetland
evaluation, and stream physical and biological data, the site has met the required success
criteria.

0
N
O
O
N
Oo
0
w
rn
0
Oo
z
O
3
N
N
D
V '
Uj
C
-pR-
O
z
O
z
G>
O
C
0
NORTH
5CALE I" = 50'
I I.
PROPERTY I
nl INI)ARY --'1,
I it
1110
5TRE4M BUFFER VEGETATION
MONITORING PLOT 2
I
I
1
STREAM BANK VEGETATION
MONITORING LOT 2
501L BO ING C I
WETLAND VEGETATION
MONITORING PLOT 2
I
,R05-SECTION
;IFFi; 2 I
\ � 1
\ � 1
\1 1
I \
1 W I 1 \ 1
� 1 �
In 1 1
QQ 1
w
`ND STREAM
;E$TORATION
0
o?
HAMMOND ROAD STREAM
0.101
AND WETLAND RESTORATION
o.Mgr: Drawn'
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Location:
Client: BELL INVESTMEPf(5
l� °�
tale:
11010 Raven Ridge Road Raleigh. North Carolina 27614 • Phonc: (919) 946 -5900 • Fax: (919)W -9467
WA Kt: CO., NC
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
I" = 50
w msandEcxonn
51-teet Title:
5hect No.:
A5 -BUILT 4 MONITORING LAYOUT
I OF I

APPENDIX A - STREAM PHOTO STATIONS

Appendix A Stream Photo Station and Bankfull Event Photos
Riffle 1, As -Built Condition, 2/17/2010
Riffle 1, Year One, 7/23/2010
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job No. 723813
January 2013

Appendix A Stream Photo Station and Bankfull Event Photos
Riffle 1, Year Two, 4/13/2011
Riffle 1, Year Three, 4/23/2012
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job No. 723813
January 2013

Appendix A Stream Photo Station and Bankfull Event Photos
Pool 1, As -Built Condition, 2/17/2010
Pool 1, Year One, 7/23/2010
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year Three Monitoring
January 2013
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S &EC Job No. 7238.E3

Appendix A Stream Photo Station and Bankfull Event Photos
Pool 1, Year Two, 4/13/2011
Pool 1, Year Three, 4/23/2012
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job No. 723813
January 2013

Appendix A
Stream Photo Station and Bankfull Event Photos
Riffle 2, As -Built Condition, 2/17/2010
ate. y
�Yih 1
rtl• ��
Riffle 2, Year One, 7/23/2010
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year Three Monitoring
January 2013
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S &EC Job No. 7238.E3
VK
N1
ip�'r°� .fit' l
,➢
•L:
.
� t 11 `fa ass
�l #h yh &�`��
ate. y
�Yih 1
rtl• ��
Riffle 2, Year One, 7/23/2010
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year Three Monitoring
January 2013
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S &EC Job No. 7238.E3

Appendix A Stream Photo Station and Bankfull Event Photos
Riffle 2, Year Two, 4/13/2011
Riffle 2, Year Three, 4/23/2012
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year Three Monitoring
January 2013
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S &EC Job No. 723813

Appendix A Stream Photo Station and Bankfull Event Photos
Pool 2, As -Built Condition, 2/17/2010
Pool 2, Year One, 7/23/2010
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job No. 7238.E3
January 2013

Appendix A Stream Photo Station and Bankfull Event Photos
Pool 2, Year Two, 4/13/2011
Pool 2, Year Three, 4/23/2012
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job No. 723813
January 2013

Appendix A Stream Photo Station and Bankfull Event Photos
Evidence of Bankfull Event, 7/23/2010
Evidence of Bankfull Event, 7/23/2010
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job No. 7238.E3
January 2013

Appendix A Stream Photo Station and Bankfull Event Photos
Evidence of Bankfull Event, 11/3/2011
Evidence of Bankfull Event, 11/3/2011
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job No. 723813
January 2013

APPENDIX B - VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT PHOTOS

Appendix B
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Buffer Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1, As -Built Condition, 2/10/2010
Buffer Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1, Year One, 7/23/2010
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job # 7238.E3
January 2013

Appendix B
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Buffer Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1, Year Two, 4/13/2011
Buffer Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1, Year Three, 4/23/2012
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job # 723813
January 2013

Appendix B
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Buffer Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2, As -Built Condition, 2/10/2010
Buffer Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2, Year One, 7/23/2010
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year Three Monitoring
January 2013
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S &EC Job # 7238.E3

Appendix B
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Buffer Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2, Year Two, 4/13/2011
Buffer Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2, Year Three, 4/23/2012
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job # 7238.E3
January 2013

Appendix B
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Wetland Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1, As -Built Condition, 2/10/2010
Wetland Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1, Year One, 7/23/2010
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job # 7238.E3
January 2013

Appendix B
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Wetland Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1, Year Two, 4/13/2011
Wetland Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1, Year Three, 4/23/2012
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year Three Monitoring
January 2013
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S &EC Job # 7238.E3

Appendix B
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Wetland Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2, As -Built Condition, 2/10/2010
Wetland Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2, Year One, 7/23/2010
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job # 7238.E3
January 2013

Appendix B
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Wetland Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2, Year Two, 4/13/2011
Wetland Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2, Year Three, 4/23/2012
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year Three Monitoring
January 2013
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S &EC Job #t 7238.E3

Appendix B
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Bank Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1, As -Built Condition, 2/17/2010
Bank Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1, Year One, 7/25/2010
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year Three Monitoring
January 2013
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S &EC Job # 7238.E3

Appendix B
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Bank Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1, Year Two, 4/13/2011
Bank Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1, Year Two, 4/13/2011
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job # 7238.E3
January 2013

Appendix B
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Bank Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2, As -Built Condition, 2/17/2010
Bank Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2, Year One, 7/25/2010
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job # 7238.E3
January 2013

Appendix B
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Bank Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2, Year Two, 4/13/2011
Bank Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2, Year Three, 4/23/2012
Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year Three Monitoring S &EC Job # 7238.E3
January 2013

APPENDIX C - STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGIC DATA

250
249
245
u
u
c
247
W
246
245
244
0 +00
HAMMOND ROAD STREAM AND WETLAND RE5TORATION 51TE
CR055- 5ECTION I (RIFFLE)
(5TA. I +75)
0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0 +40
5tation (feet)
Year 3 —0--Year 2 —A Year I BAs Built
0 +50 0 +60

250
240
248
u
u
c
247
u
w
246
245
244
0 +00
HAMMOND ROAD STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION 51TE
CR055- 5fCTION I (POOL)
(5TA. 1 +93)
0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0 +40
5tation (feet)
2 Year 3 --a—Year 2 —A Year I BAs Built
0 +50 0 +60

250
249
248
u
v
247
to
246
245
244
0 +00
HAMMOND ROAD STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
CROSS- SECTION 2 (RIFFLE)
(STA. 3+9G)
Wetland
0 +20 0 +40 0 +60
5tation (feet)
Wetland
0 +80 1+00
+Year 3 —Year 2 —A Year I BAs Built

250
240
248
c
247
u
w
246
245
244
0+00
HAMMOND ROAD STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
CR055- 5ECTION 2 (POOL)
(5TA. 4+ 1 2)
0 +05 0 +10 0 +15 0 +20 0 +25
Station (feet)
+Year 3 —0—Year 2 —A Year I —4--A5 Built
Root Wad of
Log J -Hook
0 +30 0 +35 0 +40

250
249
248
247
q) 246
4+-
Z
O 245
Q
J 244
W
243
242
240 �--
0+00
HAMMOND ROAD STREAM RESTORATION
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
(STA. 0+00 TO 3+ 10)
X
X5 R I
0 +50 1+00 1+50
STATION (feet)
X5 P I
2+00
2 +50
BAs -Built —-Year I --w—Year 2 Year 3 Bankfull Elevation Points ♦ X5 ■ Structures
3+00

250
249
rte:
247
4-1
N
Q) 2 4 6
Z
0 245
H
d
1 244
W
243
242
241
240 4---
3+10
x
HAMMOND ROAD STREAM RESTORATION
LONGITUDINAL PROI`ILE
(5TA. 3+ 10 TO G +20)
XS R2 XS P2
3 +60 4+10 4 +60
STATION (feet)
x
5 +10
5 +60
0---A5-Built —a Year I - *—Year 2 +Year 3 x Bankfull Elevation Points ♦ X5 ■ Structures
G+10

APPENDIX D - STREAM PEBBLE COUNT DATA

C
ca
H
L
a�
C
U_
c
a�
U
L
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
Pebble Count, Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Riffle 1
0.1
1
Particle Size (mm)
—4 Cumulative Percent - As -built
t Cumulative Percent - Year 2
10 100 1000
Cumulative Percent - Year 1
- Cumulative Percent - Year 3
10000

L
U
L
LL
Pebble Count, Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Pool 1
�■1 ■11�■ ■�Inll�■�IIIII� ■ ■�I�: %���� ■I�i�i�llll
, .. �■■ �■ 11�■■ �11111�■ ■�11111� ■�����:�� ®�� ■11� ■■ ■Illr
. , �■■ �■ 11� ■ ■�IIIII� ■ ■��Illl��.i��.�ll���� ■III ■■ ■Illr
■■Inll� ■ ■�Illllv���, "!93 JOAllII =NII■11 =■■ ■IlI
�■■� ■11� ■ ■�11111� ii�lllll�■,��11111���1 ■III ■■ ■1111
�■■ ��Ill�w���!! !��■ ■�11111��.��11111���1■11� ■■ ■1111
. , �■■ i�ll�ir■ �IIIII� ■■��1111�� %■��In1���� ■11� ■■ ■1111
�■■ ��n11�■■ ��1111� ■■�r��::���■��1111���� ■11� ■■ ■1111
. �■n �■ 11�■■ �11111��� /11111�.� ■�11111���1 ■11� ■■ ■1111
, . , �■■��::�����::: Baia■ �iiilllillil� ■ ■�11111���1 ■11� ■■ ■1111
0.01
0.1 1
Particle Size (mm)
�-- Cumulative Percent - As -built
—iw-- Cumulative Percent - Year 2
10
100
1000 10000
—A Cumulative Percent - Year 1
— Cumulative Percent - Year 3

100%
90%
c 80%
ca
70%
60%
50%
40%
C 30%
20%
10%
0% 4-
0.01
Pebble Count, Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Riffle 2
0.1 1
Particle Size (mm)
* Cumulative Percent - As -built
- M Cumulative Percent - Year 2
10
IM
1000 10000
Cumulative Percent -Year 1
)� Cumulative Percent - Year 3

c
c�
H
L
c
U_
c
a�
U
L
a-
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
Pebble Count, Hammond Road Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Pool 2
0.1
1
Particle Size (mm)
Cumulative Percent - As -built
—E-- Cumulative Percent - Year 2
10
100
1000 10000
--�— Cumulative Percent - Year 1
�� Cumulative Percent - Year 3

APPENDIX E - WETLAND SOIL DATA

Hammond Road Site - Soils Monitoring
Mike Ortosky — NCPLSS
Site A
Site B
Site C
December 18th, 2012
0 " -10" 10YR 4/3 (w/ common, medium, faint 10YR 4/2 mottles) sandy loam (w /scl pockets)
10 " -18" IOYR 4/2 (w /common, coarse, faint 7.5YR 4/2 mottles) sandy clay loam
0 " -12. 2.5Y 4/2 & 4/3 gravelly coarse sandy loam
12 " -18" 2.5Y 4/3 coarse sandy loam
0 " -12" 10YR 4/2 (w/ common, medium, distinct 7.5YR 4/4 mottles)
12 - -18" 10YR 5/3
Refer to site as -built plans for boring /monitoring locations
sandy loam
coarse loamy sand