19930818 Ver 4_Year 5 Prelim Monitoring Report_20131007

Burdette, Jennifer a
From:
John.Roberson @wakegov.com
Sent:
Monday, October 07, 2013 10:35 AM
To:
Burdette, Jennifer a; Williams, Andrew E SAW
Cc:
Corri Faquin; Grant Lewis; Kenan Jernigan; Matthews, Monte K SAW; Mcmillan, Ian;
Casey.Fulghum @wakegov.com
Subject:
RE: South Wake Landfill - Stream Mitigation Site
Attachments:
final_SWakeLandfill_2013Yr5.pdf
7ennifer and Andrew,
Per my email below, attached is a "preliminary" final version of the Year 5 report for the
South Wake Landfill - Stream Mitigation Site. For your review and information. Please let
me know if you would like to schedule a site visit once you've had an opportunity to review
the attached.
Thanks,
john Roberson, PE
Solid Waste Management Director
(919) 856 -6365
john.roberson(@wakegov.com
Thanks Ian.
7ennifer - My assumption is that you would want to do a site inspection with USACE
representation (at the same time)? If that is the case, I'll follow up with both you and Mr.
Williams once those folks in DC figure something out... Let us know your thoughts. In the
meantime we'll work to get a draft of the 5th year annual monitoring report sent out soon.
Thanks all. Good luck on future endeavors Ian and Monte! Sorry we won't be able to finish
this one out with you guys.
john Roberson, PE
Solid Waste Management Director
(919) 856 -6365
john.roberson(@wakegov.com
From: "Mcmillan, Ian" <ian.mcmillan(@ncdenr.gov>
To: "John.Roberson(@wakegov.com" <John.Roberson(@wakegov.com>,
"Matthews, Monte K SAW" < Monte .K.Matthews(@usace.army.mil >,
Cc: Grant Lewis < glewis (@axiomenvironmental.org >, Corri Faquin
< cfaquin (@axiomenvironmental.org>, Kenan 7ernigan
< kjernigan (@axiomenvironmental.org >, "Williams, Andrew E SAW
( Andrew .E.Williams2(@usace.army.mil)"
< Andrew .E.Williams2(@usace.army.mil>, "Burdette, 7ennifer a"
<Jennifer.Burdette(@ncdenr.gov>
Date: 10/02/2013 04:02 PM
Subject: RE: South Wake Landfill - Stream Mitigation Site
1

john,
You may want to follow up with Andrew Williams with the USACE Raleigh Field Office (once the
Federal government is funded again) and 7ennifer Burdette with the former DWQ. Monte and I
are no longer in our former roles.
Ian
Ian McMillan, PWS, LISP
Chief, Basin Planning Branch
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources
Main - (919)707 -9000
Direct - (919)707 -9026
Fax - (919)733 -3558
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: 7ohn.Roberson(@wakegov.com [ mailto :7ohn.Roberson(@wakegov.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 3:56 PM
To: Matthews, Monte K SAW; McMillan, Ian
Cc: Grant Lewis; Corri Faquin; Kenan 7ernigan
Subject: South Wake Landfill - Stream Mitigation Site
Monte and Ian,
Axiom is in the process of finalizing the annual monitoring report for the above site - which
happens to be year 5. Prior to finalization, we were wondering if you guys wanted to have a
follow up site visit. As you may recall, there were a couple of locations where we were
monitoring some bank erosion. Wondering about your availability prior to the end of this
month?
I realize,
thoughts on
report for
Thanks,
with the fed. gov. shutdown, this may not be feasible. Anyway, would like your
a site meeting. In the meantime we are working to provide you with a draft
review within the next week or so.
john Roberson, PE
Solid Waste Management Director
(919) 856 -6365
john.roberson(@wakegov.com
E -mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Act and may be disclosed to third parties unless made confidential under applicable
law.
E -mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Act and may be disclosed to third parties unless made confidential under applicable
law.
2

ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 5 (2013)
SOUTH WAKE LANDFILL
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
WAKE COUNTY
WAKE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING, 12TH FLOOR
PO BOX 550
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
AND
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
l }'�1 218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
OCTOBER 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wake County has completed construction and five years of monitoring of streams and wetlands at the
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site ") to offset
impacts associated with the construction of the South Wake Landfill. The Site is located in United States
Geological Survey Cataloging Unit 03030004 of the Cape Fear River Basin in southwestern Wake
County approximately 2 miles northwest of the Town of Holly Springs and approximately 3 miles south
of the Town of Apex. According to the January 2007 detailed Mitigation Plan, the approximately 58.2 -
acre Site encompasses approximately 5982 linear feet of restored and enhanced (Levels I and II) stream
channel and 0.72 acres of enhanced wetlands, which offers 5729 stream credits and 0.36 wetland credits.
Site restoration procedures included 1) floodplain clearing and preparation; 2) floodplain excavation; 3)
construction of a stable, riffle -pool stream channel on new location; 4) abandonment and backfill of old
channels; and 5) creation of a native forest vegetation buffer along stream channels, within the floodplain,
and on side slopes. Site objectives included restoring characteristic groundwater hydrology and
hydrophytic vegetation communities adjacent to the constructed channel, and reestablishing streamside
and riparian hardwood and mixed -mesic forest communities to further protect water quality and enhance
opportunities for wildlife.
In summary, the wetland enhancement area exceeded hydrology success criteria (12.5 percent saturation)
for year 5 (2013) annual monitoring by exhibiting groundwater for a period of 61 days from June 1, 2013
until August 8, 2013 (61 consecutive days). In addition, vegetation success criteria (260 tree stems per
acre) were exceeded for the year 5 (2013) annual monitoring year with 2178 Character Tree Species
stems per acre across the Site. Each individual plot with the exception of plot 3 met success criteria. Plot
3 was only one stem shy of meeting success criteria and is located within a closed canopy.
Annual monitoring for geometric activity includes measurements of approximately 4600 linear feet of
stream profile, 12 permanently monumented channel cross - sections, and substrate pebble counts. As a
whole, monitoring measurements indicate that there have been minimal changes in both the longitudinal
profile and cross - sections as compared to as -built data. The forested upstream reach of the Site is
relatively stable with areas of minor bank erosion and scour. An eroded outer bend located where the
stream leaves the forested upstream reach was repaired with log vanes in the winter of 2012/2013. These
repairs are intact and providing bank stability. Several areas of bank erosion, surface scour, and sediment
deposition /aggradation were occurring within the downstream half of the Site where a bankfull bench was
excavated. Measures to stabilize these areas were implemented in the winter of 2009 including
installation of log vanes and floodplain interceptors, sloping point bars, recontouring eroded banks,
matting and planting herbaceous vegetation in floodplain scour areas, willow staking repaired banks, and
replanting areas disturbed by remedial actions with seedlings. Though slightly more outer -bend erosion
has been observed due to several heavy rain events during monitoring year 5 (2013), stabilization
measures appear to be stabilizing stream banks (Figure 3, Appendix A). Bankfull events have been
documented during each monitoring year.
Annual water quality monitoring has been completed at the Site for the past four years by Mark
Townley's Advanced Placement Environmental Science Class from Holly Springs High School. Results
indicate continued water quality improvement and overall the stream was rated as clean to very clean
(Appendix E). Data collected included measurements of nitrates, phosphorus, alkalinity, and dissolved
oxygen, and collection of benthic macroinvertebrates. Nitrate and phosphorus levels are well below the
lOppm state standard, (ranging from 0- 1.8ppm and 0.75- 1.5ppm, respectively). Alkalinity is above the
20ppm typical to buffer acidity (ranging from 25- 48.75ppm); however, alkalinity levels aren't high
enough to affect pH, which is near neutral (ranging from 6.25- 6.75). Dissolved oxygen is good and high
enough to sustain life (ranging from 6.9 -8.26 ppm) as evidenced by benthic macroinvertebrates collected
at the Site dominated by mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, and riffle beetles.
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site page i
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... ...............................
2.0 MONITORING PROGRAM ....................................................... ...............................
2.1 Wetland Hydrology .................................................................. ...............................
2.1.1 Hydrology Monitoring Procedure .................................... ...............................
2.1.2 Hydrologic Success Criteria ............................................. ...............................
2.1.3 Hydrological Monitoring Results and Comparison with Success Criteria......
2.2 Vegetation ................................................................................ ...............................
2.2.1 Vegetation Monitoring Procedure .................................... ...............................
2.2.3 Vegetation Sampling Results and Comparison to Success Criteria ................
2.3 Stream ...................................................................................... ...............................
2.3.1 Stream Monitoring Procedure .......................................... ...............................
2.3.2 Stream Success Criteria ................................................... ...............................
2.3.3 Stream Sampling Results and Comparison to Success Criteria ......................
3.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................. ...............................
4.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................ ...............................
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Year 5 (2013) Groundwater Gauge Results .....................
Table 2. Plant Community Associations ......... ...............................
Table 3. Year 5 (2013) Vegetation Monitoring Data .....................
Table 4. Year 5 (2013) Bank Pin Exposure Data ...........................
Tables 5A -5C. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table 6. Summary of Bankfull Events ............ ...............................
Table 7. Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results .......................
Table 8. Summary of Vegetation Plot Results ...............................
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1. Site Location Map ................................................................ ...............................
Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View .......................................................... ...............................
Figure 3. Problem Area Plan View ...................................................... ...............................
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures
Appendix B. Gauge Data
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot CVS Data Tables and Photographs
Appendix D. Stream Data
Appendix E. Water Quality Data
....1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
5
..11
..12
2
3
4
6
7 -9
.10
.11
.11
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site page ii
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 5 (2013)
SOUTH WAKE LANDFILL
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Wake County has completed construction and year five monitoring of streams and wetlands at the South
Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site ") to offset impacts
associated with the construction of the South Wake Landfill. The Site is located in United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Cataloging Unit 03030004 of the Cape Fear River Basin in southwestern Wake
County approximately 2 miles northwest of the Town of Holly Springs and approximately 3 miles south of
the Town of Apex (Figure 1, Appendix A). According to the January 2007 detailed Mitigation Plan, the
approximately 58.2 -acre Site encompasses approximately 5982 linear feet of restored and enhanced (Levels
I and II) stream channel and 0.72 acres of enhanced wetlands, which offers 5729 stream credits and 0.36
wetland credits. This report represents the year 5 (2013) Annual Monitoring Report. Monitoring activities
have been performed throughout 2013, including evaluations of wetland hydrology, soils, vegetation, and
stream characteristics.
Site restoration procedures included 1) floodplain clearing and preparation; 2) floodplain excavation; 3)
construction of a stable, riffle -pool stream channel on new location; 4) abandonment and backfill of old
channels; and 5) creation of a native forest vegetation buffer along stream channels, within the floodplain,
and on side slopes. Site objectives included restoring characteristic groundwater hydrology and
hydrophytic vegetation communities adjacent to the constructed channel, and reestablishing streamside and
riparian hardwood and mixed -mesic forest communities to further protect water quality and enhance
opportunities for wildlife. Information on project managers, owners, and contractors follows:
Designer/Engineer Information
Hazen and Sawyer
John Bove
4011 Westchase Blvd.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
(919) 833 -7152
Monitoring Performer Information
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Grant Lewis
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
(919) 215 -1693
Owner Information
Wake County
John Roberson, PE
337 S. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
(919) 856 -6365
EcoScience Corporation
Jerry McCrain
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
(919) 828 -3433
Contractor Information
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc
Lloyd Glover
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, North Carolina 27592
(919) 422 -3392
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site page 1
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

2.0 MONITORING PROGRAM
Monitoring at the Site entails analysis of three primary parameters: hydrology, vegetation, and stream
characteristics. Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed for a minimum of 5 years or until
success criteria are fulfilled. The monitoring program is depicted in Figure 2 (Appendix A) and is
described below.
2.1 Wetland Hydrology
2.1.1 Hydrology Monitoring Procedure
After hydrological modifications were completed at the Site, one continuously recording groundwater
monitoring gauge was installed within the wetland enhancement area in accordance with specifications in
Installing Monitoring Wells /Piezometers in Wetlands (NCWRP 1993). The monitoring gauge was set to a
depth of 24 inches below the soil surface. Screened portions of the gauge were surrounded by filter fabric,
buried in a sand screen, and sealed with a bentonite cap to prevent siltation and surface flow infiltration
during floods.
Hydrological sampling will be performed annually in enhancement areas during the growing season (March
30 to November 5 [221 days]) at daily intervals (USDA 1970).
2.1.2 Hydrologic Success Criteria
Target hydrological goals use regulatory wetland hydrology criteria or reference wetland data for atypically
dry years when success criteria are not achieved. Target hydrological characteristics include saturation
(free water) within 1 foot of the soil surface or inundation for at least 12.5 percent of the growing season
during average climatic conditions. This hydroperiod translates to saturation for a minimum, 28 -day (12.5
percent) consecutive period during the growing season, which extends for 221 days from March 30 to
November 5 (USDA 1970).
2.1.3 Hydrological Monitoring Results and Comparison with Success Criteria
The wetland enhancement area achieved hydrology success criteria for year 5 (2013) annual monitoring by
exhibiting groundwater within one foot of the soil surface for 88 consecutive days (the entire growing
season through September 27, 2013) (Table 1). A hydrograph for the gauge is provided in Appendix B
along with daily rainfall totals for 2013 collected at nearby rain station. In addition, there was a presence of
hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils in the vicinity of the gauge.
Table 1. Year 5 (2013) Groundwater Gauge Results
Gauge
Max Consecutive Days Saturated
During Growing Season (Percent)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Present*
Success Criteria
Achieved
1
61 days (27 %) **
Yes
Yes
*Based on criteria set for in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory (1987).
** Data was collected through September 27, 2013
2.2 Vegetation
2.2.1 Vegetation Monitoring Procedure
Following Site construction, six vegetation monitoring plots (10 meters by 10 meters in size) were
established and monumented with metal fence posts at all plot corners and PVC at each plot origin (Figure
2, Appendix A). In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition,
species density, height and girth measurements, and vigor.
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site page 2
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

During the first year, vegetation received a cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to ascertain the
degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently, quantitative sampling of
vegetation has been performed each year using the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level 1 -2
Plot Sampling Only (Version 4.2) (Lee et al. 2008) in September of the first monitoring year and between
June 1 and September 30 for each subsequent year.
2.2.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for floodplain forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon the density and
growth of characteristic forest species. Additional success criteria are dependent upon density and growth
of "Character Tree Species," which include planted species, those listed by Schafale and Weakley (1990),
and species identified in the reference forest ecosystem (RFE). As outlined in the January 2007 South
Wake Landfill Mitigation Plan, community associations include 1) stream -side assemblage, 2) Piedmont
Bottomland Forest, and 3) Mesic -Mixed Hardwood Forest (Table 2).
Table 2. Plant Community Associations
Stream -side Assemblage
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Mesic -Mixed Hardwood Forest
Acer negundo (box elder)
Carya cordiformis (bitternut hickory)
Acer saccharum (sugar maple)
Alnus serrulata (tag alder)
Carya ovata (shagbark hickory)
Carya alba (mockernut hickory)
Arundinaria gigantea (giant cane)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash)
Carya glabra (pignut hickory)
Betula nigra (river birch)
Liriodendron tulipifera (yellow poplar)
Fagus grandifolia (American beech)
Carpinus caroliniana (ironwood)
Quercus michauxii (swamp chestnut oak)
Liriodendron tulipifera (yellow poplar)
Cornus amomum (silky dogwood)
Quercus pagoda (cherrybark oak)
Ostrya virginiana (hop- hornbeam)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash)
Minus americana (American elm)
Quercus alba (white oak)
Sambucus canadensis (elderberry)
Quercus falcata (southern red oak)
Minus americana (American elm)
Quercus pagoda (cherrybark oak)
Quercus rubra (northern red oak)
As reported in the January ZUU "/ Dbuth Wake Landfill Mitigation Plan
An average density of 320 stems per acre over all sampling transects of Character Tree Species must be
surviving at the end of the third year of monitoring. Subsequently, 290 Character Tree Species per acre
must be surviving at the end of year 4, and 260 Character Tree Species per acre must be surviving at the
end of year 5.
2.2.3 Vegetation Sampling Results and Comparison to Success Criteria
Quantitative sampling of vegetation occurred in September 2013. Results are summarized below in Table
3; CVS output and photographs of each plot are provided in Appendix C. Vegetation success criteria for
year 5 (260 tree stems per acre) were exceeded with 2178 Character Tree Species stems per acre across the
Site. In addition, all vegetation plots met success criteria except plot 3, which was only one stem shy of
meeting success criteria and is located in a closed canopy (Table 3).
2.3 Stream
2.3.1 Stream Monitoring Procedure
Annual monitoring for geometric activity include measurements of approximately 4600 linear feet of
stream profile, 12 permanently monumented channel cross - sections (six riffles and six pools), and substrate
pebble counts. In addition, bank pin arrays were installed in two outer bends to tract lateral erosion in the
reach (Figure 2, Appendix A).
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site page 3
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

Table 3. Year 5 (2013) Vegetation Monitoring Data
Note F —h nl of totals 0.0247 acre in size_
Species
Plot 1
Plot
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot 5
Plot 6
Totals
Totall Acre
Total Tree
Stems /Acre Counting
Towards Success
Criteria
Acer rubrum red maple)
1
1
8
8
Baccharis hahmi oha (ea tem bacchans)
17
15
9
41
332
0
Betula ni a (river birch)
1
28
4
3
36
291
291
Car inus carohniana (American hombeam)
2
4
6
49
49
Celtiis laevi ata (su arbe )
1
1
8
8
Corpus amomum (silky dogwood)
1
1
8
8
Diospyros vi iniana ersimmon)
1
2
1
4
32
32
Fraxinus enns Ivanica (green ash
1
5
4
2
5
17
138
138
Ilex o aca (American holly)
1
1
8
8
Juni eras vir iniana ea tem redcedar
1
1
8
8
Li estrum sinense (Chinese rivet)
1
1
1
8
0
Li uidambar styraciflua sweet um
6
43
53
2
104
842
842
Liriodendrom tuli i era fellow poplar)
3
1
2
6
49
49
Morella s. (ba be )
1
1
8
0
Pinus taeda (lobloll pine)
10
15
3
28
227
227
Platanus occidentalis (Americansycamore)
3
1
4
1
9
73
73
Po ulus deltoides (ea tem cottonwood)
1
1
8
8
uercus michauxii (swmp chestnut oak)
2
5
5
4
16
130
130
uercus phellos willow oak
6
3
3
9
21
170
170
uercus rubra (northern red oak)
2
2
16
16
Salix ni ra lack willow
1
1
12
14
113
113
Ulmus americana (American elm)
1
1
8
8
TOTAL
10
19
5
117
113
49
313
2534
TOTAL COUNTING TOWARDS SUCCESS CRITERIA
10
1S
5
99
98
40
TOTAL /ACRE COUNTING TOWARDS CRITERIA SUCCESS
405
729
202
4005
3965
1619
2175

Data collected for each reach included the following:
Dimension
Bankfull cross - sectional area, bankfull width, average depth, maximum depth, pool width, pool
maximum depth, entrenchment ratio, width -depth ratio, riffle maximum depth /average depth, bank
height ratio, pool depth/average depth, pool width/bankfull width, pool area/bankfull cross -
sectional area.
Profile
Average water surface slope, valley slope, riffle slope, pool slope, riffle slope /average water
surface slope, pool slope /average water surface slope.
Substrate
D16, D35, D50, D84, D95
The stream was subsequently classified according to stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996).
Significant changes in channel morphology were tracked and reported for comparison to data in successive
monitoring years.
2.3.2 Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration includes 1) successful classification of the reach as a functioning
stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel stability indicative of a stable stream system. The channel
configuration will be measured on an annual basis in order to track changes in channel geometry, profile,
and /or substrate as compared to the design plans and previous geometry data to track changes in channel
geometry, profile, or substrate. These data will be utilized to determine the success in restoring stream
channel stability.
Specifically, there shall be no significant change in channel geometry from the constructed channel, pool
depths and widths should remain consistent with the constructed geometry, the profile should continue to
show development of bed features with no significant channel aggradation or degradation, and over time
the channel will be successfully classified as an E/C -type stream. In addition, based on regulatory guidance
for stream restoration projects in North Carolina (USACE et. al. 2003), two bankfull events must occur at
the Site in separate years during the 5 -year monitoring period.
2.3.3 Stream Sampling Results and Comparison to Success Criteria
During the year 5 (2013) monitoring period, 12 cross - sections and approximately 4600 linear feet of
longitudinal profile were measured. Plots of permanent cross - sections, longitudinal profiles, and substrate
analyses are included in Appendix D. Tables summarizing data collected during stream measurements are
included below (Tables 5A -5C).
As a whole, monitoring measurements indicate that there have been minimal changes in both the
longitudinal profile and cross - sections as compared to as -built data. The forested upstream reach of the
Site is relatively stable with areas of minor bank erosion and scour. An eroded outer bend located where
the stream leaves the forested upstream reach was repaired with log vanes in the winter of 2012/2013.
These repairs are intact and providing bank stability. Several areas of bank erosion, surface scour, and
sediment deposition /aggradation were occurring within the downstream half of the Site where a bankfull
bench was excavated. Measures to stabilize these areas were implemented in the winter of 2009 including
installation of log vanes and floodplain interceptors, sloping point bars, recontouring eroded banks, matting
and planting herbaceous vegetation in floodplain scour areas, willow staking repaired banks, and replanting
areas disturbed by remedial actions with seedlings. Though slightly more outer -bend erosion has been
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site page 5
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

observed due to several heavy rain events during monitoring year 5 (2013), stabilization measures appear to
be stabilizing stream banks (Figure 3, Appendix A).
Bank pins were utilized to track the extent of erosion in the two worst eroding bends. Bank pins were
installed in November 2012 and were measured seven times between January 13, 2013 and September 18,
2013. At each measurement, the amount of exposed bank pin was documented; the bank pin was then
pounded flush to the bank.
Both banks are exhibiting continued erosion, as depicted in Table 4. Although the bank pins indicate
significant erosion, the erosion on each bend appears to be contained within an approximately 20 -foot
reach.
Table 4. Year 5 (2013) Bank Pin Exposure Data
Date
Bend
Inches of Bank Pin
Exposed
Total Bank Pin Exposure
to Date
January 13, 2013
Upstream
1 inch
1 inch
Downstream
1 inch
1 inch
February 20, 2013
Upstream
1 inch
2 inches
Downstream
1 inch
2 inches
March 20, 2013
Upstream
0 inches
2 inches
Downstream
0.5 inches
2.5 inches
May 31, 2013
Upstream
8 inches
10 inches
Downstream
4 inches
6.5 inches
July 16, 2013
Upstream
24+ inches*
34 inches
Downstream
4 inches
10.5 inches
August 7, 2013
Upstream
5 inches
39 inches
Downstream
8 inches
18.5 inches
September 18, 2013
Upstream
0.5 inches
39.5 inches
Downstream
0 inches
18.5 inches
*Bank pin had fallen into the stream and was recovered
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site page 6
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

Table 5A. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
S Wake Landfill - Mitigation Site
Parameter
Cross Section 1 Pool
Cross Section 2 Riffle
Cross Section 3 Pool
Cross Section 4 Riffle
Dimension
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYS+
BF Width (11)
17.3
17.5
16.4
17
16.8
15.8
16.4
16.8
16.2
18.5
18.9
21.5
18.9
19.2
19.4
17.2
17.3
17.6
17.6
17.5
Hoodprone Width (ft)
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
150
150
150
150
150
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
150
150
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (tt2)
51.1
55.8
57.9
57.3
55.6
30.1
32.3
31.3
30.5
31
53.7
60
54.4
52.3
53.4
35.2
34.9
34.7
35.4
33.7
BF Mean Depth (ft)
3.0
3.2
3.5
3.4
3.3
1.9
2
1.9
1.9
1.7
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.0
2
2
2.0
1.9
BF Max Depth (ft)
4.8
5.6
5.7
5.5
5.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.9
4.4
5.1
4.9
4.7
4.8
2.7
3
2.9
2.9
2.7
Width/Depth Ratio
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
8.3
8.3
9
8.5
11.0
--
--
--
--
--
8.4
8.6
9
8.8
9.1
Entrenchment Ratio
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
9.5
9.1
8.9
9.3
8.1
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
8.7
8.7
8.5
8.5
8.6
Bank Height Ratio
- - --
I - - --
I - - --
- - --
- - --
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
--
--
--
--
--
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
20.6
21.7
21.5
22.2
22.2
17.2
17.9
18.4
18.0
20.7
21.8
24.9
22.3
22.7
23.1
19.0
19.2
19.4
19.5
19.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.5
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
Substrate
d50 (mm)
11
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
11
3.8
14.1
1.7
1.6
11
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
11
3.8
14.1
1.7
1.6
d84(mm)
90
1
8
54
6
90
15
43
30
32
90
1
8
54
6
90
15
43
30
32
Parameter
MY -01 (2 09)
MY -02 (2010)
MY -03 (2011)
MY -04 (2012)
MY -05 (2013)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
56
115
94
56
115
94
56
115
94
56
115
94
56
115
94
Radius of Curvature (ft)
22
96
38
22
96
38
22
96
38
22
96
38
22
96
38
Meander Wavelength (ft)
116
295
167
116
295
167
116
295
167
116
295
167
116
295
167
Meander Width Ratio
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
Profile
Riffle Length (11)
20
69
37
18
79
36
10
95
38
11
77
40
14
97
37
Riffle Slope (11/11)
NA*
NA*
NA*
0.0%
1 1.3%
1 0.5%
0.01%11.40%10.40%
0.00%11.93%10.78%
0.00%
2.02%
0.69%
Pool Length (ft)
46
128
77
48
1 130
1 82
18
1 123
1 65
46
122
76
20
131
73
Pool Spacing (ft)
57
177
102
57
177
102
57
177
102
57
177
102
57
177
102
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
3382
3406
3396
3317
3293
Channel Length (ft)
4,566
4,598
4584
4479
4446
Sinuosity
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
Water Surface Slope (11/11)
NA*
0.0028
0.0026
0.0028
0.0027
Rosgen Classification
E -type
E-type
E -type
E-type
E -type
* No water in channel during field surveys.

Table 5B. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
S Wake Landfill - Mitigation Site
Parameter
Cross Section 5 Riffle
Cross Section 6 Pool
Cross Section 7 Pool
Cross Section S Riffle
Dimension
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY S+
BF Width (ft)
18.7
18.7
19
18.5
17.8
26.9
24
21.5
21.8
23.1
22.0
22.7
23.4
23.8
23.9
19.6
19.1
20.1
19.6
19.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
150
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
150
150
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
32.9
34.3
31.9
32.1
31.7
62.1
62
62.1
62.8
64.4
55.5
59.3
60
58.4
56.6
34.8
36.8
35.9
35.8
37.1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.3
2.6
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.4
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.9
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.2
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.7
Width/Depth Ratio
10.6
10.2
11.2
10.7
10.0
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
11.0
9.9
11.2
10.7
10.1
Entrenchment Ratio
8.0
1 8
1 7.9
8.1
8.4
- - --
- - --
- - --
I - - --
- - --
- - --
I - - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
7.7
7.9
7.5
7.7
7.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
19.8
20
20
19.7
19.1
29.6
27.1
25
25.5
26.3
24.2
25.1
26.4
26.6
26.7
20.8
20.4
21.2
20.8
20.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.8
Substrate
d50 (mm)
11
9.8
14.1
1.7
1.6
11
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.1
11
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.1
11
9.8
14.1
1.7
1.6
d84(mm)
90
22
43
30
32
90
1
8
54
6
90
1
8
54
6
90
22
43
30
32
Parameter
MY -01 (2009)
MY -02 (2010)
MY -03 (2011)
MY -04 (2012)
MY -05 (2013)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
56
115
94
56
115
94
56
115
94
56
115
94
56
115
94
Radius of Curvature (ft)
22
96
38
22
96
38
22
96
38
22
96
38
22
96
38
Meander Wavelength (ft)
116
295
167
116
295
167
116
295
167
116
295
167
116
295
167
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
20
69
37
18
79
36
10
1 95
1 38
11
77
40
14
971
37
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
NA*
NA*
NA*
0.0%
1.3%
0.5%
0.01%1
1.40%
0.40%
0.00%
1.93%
0.78%
0.00%
2.02%1
0.69%
Pool Length (ft)
46
128
77
48
130
82
18
123
65
46
1 122
1 76
20
131
73
Pool Spacing '11)
57
177
102
57
177
102
57
177
102
57
1 177
1 102
57
1 177
1 102
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
3382
3406
3396
3317
3293
Channel Length (ft)
4,566
4,598
4584
4479
4446
Sinuosity
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
NA*
0.0028
0.0026
0.0028
0.0027
Rosgen Classification
E -type
E -type
E -type
E -type
E -type
* No water in channel during field surveys.

Table 5C. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
S Wake Landfill - Mitigation Site
Parameter
Cross Section 9 Riffle
Cross Section 10 Pool
Cross Section 11 Riffle
Cross Section 12 Riffle
Dimension
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
BF Width (ft)
19.9
20.7
23.3
21.9
20.8
22.6
27.3
27.6
26.8
27.8
19.7
25.9
25.6
25.8
26.3
5.4
5.3
4.7
5.1
5.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
150
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 )
37.8
33.5
34
32.1
30.4
66.1
78.4
81.1
79.2
80.3
29.8
32.5
37.2
36.2
37.5
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.9
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.7
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.4
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.4
2.9
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.5
WidtloDepthRatic
10.5
12.8
16
14.9
14.2
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
13.0
20.6
17.6
18.4
18.4
3.8
3.6
2.9
3.5
3.3
Entrenchment Ratio
7.5
7.2
6.4
6.8
7.2
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
7.6
5.8
5.9
5.8
5.7
27.8
28.4
31.6
29.4
29.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
21.1
21.8
24.2
22.8
21.9
25.6
30.1
1 30.6
29.8
30.8
20.6
26.8
26.8
27.4
28
7.6
7.7
7.4
7.6
7.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.6
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Substrate
d50 (mm)
11
9.8
14.1
1.7
1.6
11
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.1
11
9.8
14.1
1.7
1.6
11
9.8
14.1
1.7
1.6
d84(mm)
90
22
43
30
32
90
1
8
54
6
90
22
43
30
32
90
22
43
30
32
Parameter
MY -01 (2009)
MY -02 (2010)
MY -03 (2011)
MY -04 (2012)
MY -05 (2013)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel BelMidth(ft
56
115
94
56
115
94
56
115
94
56
115
94
56
115
94
Radius of Curvature (ft)
22
96
38
22
96
38
22
96
38
22
96
38
22
96
38
Meander Wavelength (ft)
116
295
167
116
295
167
116
295
167
116
295
167
116
295
167
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
20
69
37
18
79
36
10
95
38
11
77
40
14
971
37
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft )
NA*
NA*
NA*
0.0%
1.3%
0.5%
0.01%
1.40%
0.40%
0.00%
1.93%
0.78%
0.00%
2.02%1
0.69%
Pool Length (ft)
46
128
77
48
130
82
18
123
65
46
122
76
20
1311
73
Pool Spacing (ft)
57
177
102
57
177
102
57
177
102
57
177
102
1 57
177
102
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft
3382
3406
3396
3317
3293
Channel Length (ft)
4,566
4,598
4584
4479
4446
Sinuosity
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
NA*
0.0028
0.0026
0.0028
0.0027
Rosgen Classificatio
E -type
C /E4ype
C/E -type
E4ype
E -type
* No water in channel during field surveys.

Stream Hydrology
Eleven bankfull events have been documented to date during five years of monitoring at the Site.
Table 6. Summary of Bankfull Events
* Weather Underground 2011
* *Weather Underground 2013
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site page 10
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)
Photo (if
Date of Occurrence
Method
available)
Visual observations of wrack lines and flow patterns witnessed
March 13 -19, 2009
during a field visit on April 21, 2009; bankfull flooding likely
Event Photos
occurred during approximately 3.2 inches* of rain fall.
1 -3
Visual observations of wrack lines and flow patterns witnessed
May 24 -June 10, 2009
during a field visit in July 2009; bankfull flooding likely
--
occurred during an approximately 3.8- inches* of rain fall.
November 11, 2009
4.4 inches* of rain fall between November 10 -12, 2009 as the
result of Tropical Storm Ida
Visual observations of overbank event including wrack lines
February 5, 2010
and sediment deposition resulting from a 1.4 inch* rainfall event
on February 5, 2010 that occurred after numerous rainfall
events, within the 3 weeks prior, that totaled 3.9 inches.
May 23, 2010
4.6 inches* of rain fall between May 16 -24, 2010
--
September 26, 2010
Greater than 2.9 inches* of rain fall starting September 26, 2010
--
July 31, 2011
3.2 inches* of rain fall between July 30 -31, 2011
--
August 6, 2011
4.3 inches* of rain fall on August 6, 2011
Event Photo 4
March 20, 2012
3.0 inches ** of rain fall between March 20 -21, 2012
--
June 7, 2013
5.1 inches ** of rain fall documented on June 7, 2013
--
Observations of bankfull event in progress; 0.7 inches ** of rain
E June 10, 2013
fall documented on June 10, 2013 just 3 days after a 5.1 -inch
Event Photo 5
rain event
* Weather Underground 2011
* *Weather Underground 2013
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site page 10
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

3.0 SUMMARY
The wetland enhancement area exceeded hydrology success criteria (12.5 percent saturation) for year 5
(2013) annual monitoring by exhibiting groundwater for 61 consecutive days (27 %) of the growing season
(Table 7).
Table 7. Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results
* Data was collected through September 27, 2013 and will continue to be collected throughout the growing season, data will be available upon request.
Vegetation success criteria for year 5 (260 tree stems per acre) were exceeded with 2178 Character Tree
Species stems per acre counting towards success criteria across the Site. In addition, all plots except Plot 3
met success criteria (Table 3). Plot 3 was only one stem shy of success criteria and is located within a
closed canopy. Stem densities increased across the site from the 2012 monitoring year, the summary of
vegetation plot results is included below (Table 8).
Table 8. Summary of Vegetation Plot Results
Plot
Success Criteria Achieved /Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
Gauge
(Percentage)
Year 3
(2011)
Year 1 2009
Year 2 2010
Year 3 2011
Year 4 2012
Year 5 2013
688
Yes /62 days
Yes /36 days
Yes /69 days
Yes /88 days
Yes /61 days*
1
972
729
3
324
1862
567
(27.9%)
16.3%
31 %
39%
27%
* Data was collected through September 27, 2013 and will continue to be collected throughout the growing season, data will be available upon request.
Vegetation success criteria for year 5 (260 tree stems per acre) were exceeded with 2178 Character Tree
Species stems per acre counting towards success criteria across the Site. In addition, all plots except Plot 3
met success criteria (Table 3). Plot 3 was only one stem shy of success criteria and is located within a
closed canopy. Stem densities increased across the site from the 2012 monitoring year, the summary of
vegetation plot results is included below (Table 8).
Table 8. Summary of Vegetation Plot Results
Plot
Stems /Acre Con ting Towards Success Criteria
Year 1
(2009)
Year 2
(2010)
Year 3
(2011)
Year 4
(2012)
Year 5
(2013)
1
648
769
688
445
405
2
364
1174
1417
972
729
3
324
1862
567
324
202
4
6559
6802
5142
3198
4008
5
2348
2348
3684
2389
3968
6
1 1538
2308
3077
1619
1619
Average for All Plots
1 2202
2583
2704
1757
2178
The forested upstream reach of the Site is relatively stable with areas of minor bank erosion and scour.
Proactive measures along these areas are not recommended at this time. Several areas of bank erosion,
surface scour, and sediment deposition /aggradation were occurring within the downstream half of the Site
where bench was excavated. Measures to stabilize these areas were implemented in the winter of 2009
including installation of log vanes and floodplain interceptors, sloping point bars, recontouring eroded
banks, matting and planting herbaceous vegetation in floodplain scour areas, willow staking repaired banks,
and replanting areas disturbed by remedial actions with seedlings. In addition, an eroded outer bend
located where the stream leaves the forested upstream reach was repaired with log vanes in the winter of
2012/2013. Remedial activies performed in 2009 and 2012/2013 remain stable and are performing as
designed. In addition, eleven bankfull events have been documented during the first five years of
monitoring.
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site page 11
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

4.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1. United States Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.0. (online). Available: http : / /cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). 1993. Installing Monitoring Wells /Piezometers
in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY- IA -3.1). North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
Schafale, M. P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC DEM,
Raleigh NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (USACE et. al.). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
United States. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1970. Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture.
Weather Underground. 2011. Station in Holly Springs, North Carolina. (online). Available:
http: / /www.wunderground. com /weatherstation/WXDailyHistory .asp ?ID= KNCHOLLY2 [August
3, 2011]. Weather Underground.
Weather Underground. 2013. Station at Raleigh- Durham Airport Weather Station (KRDU). (online).
Available: http: / /www.wundeEground .com /US/NC /Apex/KRDU.html [September 30. 2013].
Weather Underground.
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site page 12
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

APPENDIX A
FIGURES
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Appendices
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

D— by. FIGURE
Suitei Enterprise street SITE LOCATION MAP CAF
Raleigh, NC 27607 SOUTH WAKE LANDFILL RESTORATION SITE Date: OCT 2009
[phone] Wake County, North Carolina Project:
Axiom Errviranmerrta9, Inc_ 09 -006

Dwn. By: FIGURE
AxiOmEnvi�Onmental,ln °. MONITORING PLAN VIEW WGL/KRJ
Date:
218 Snow Ave. S. WAKE LANDFILL RESTORATION SITE Oct. 2013
its Raleigh, NC 27603
2
(919)215 -1693 Wake County, North Carolina Project:
12 -026

Dwn. By: KRJ FIGURE
s�f Axiom Environmental, Inc. PROBLEM AREA PLAN VIEW
Date:
218 Snow Avenue S. WAKE LANDFILL RESTORATION SITE Oct. 2013
d r Raleigh, NC 27603
--- (919) 215 -1693 Wake County, North Carolina Project:
12 -026

APPENDIX B
GAUGE DATA
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Appendices
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

South Wake Landfill
Year 5 (2013 Gauge Data)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
�a
(a
0
® 2
�a
-4
6
�a
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
M M
M
M
M
M M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
O O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N N
N
N
N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
I�
In
M
r-
V
N
O
00
lf')
M
(0
N
N
W
N
N
N
(
(
r
W
00
00
Date
6
5
4
(r
S
3 o
.v
1
0

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT
CVS DATA AND PHOTOGRAPHS
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Appendices
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
9/26/2013 12:33
database name
SWake- 2013- A- v2.3.1.mdb
database location
\ \AE -SBS \Redirected Folders \pperkinson \Desktop
computer name
PHILLIP -PC
file size
44560384
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------- - - - --
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 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 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.
ALL Stems by Plot and
spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each
plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
Swake
project Name
S Wake Landfill
Description
stream and wetland restoration site
River Basin
Cape Fear
Sampled Plots
6

Living planted stems, excluding live stakes, per acre: Negative
(red) numbers indicate the project failed to reach
requirements in a particular year.
Project Code I Project Name I River Basin I Year 5
Swake I S Wake Landfill I Neuse 1 553.0703788
Total stems, including planted stems of all kinds (including live stakes)
and natural /volunteer stems:
Project Code Project Name River Basin Year 5
Swake S Wake Landfill Neuse 2111.110104
Plot Info
Vigor
vigor
E
E
E
a
1.1
3
E
E
a
65
73
Missing
7
v�
v>
H
>
aEi
aEi >
'YA
'YA >
V
c au'c
aEi
aEi > au'c
V
tw
C
tw
C J
C tw
{A
{A J
C tw
tw
C J
7 V
H
N J
>
J
J Z
w
O
>
bA
tw l7
Z
>
J
> l7
J Z W
O Q
>
tw
W
tw l7
Z W
v
vD
>
>D
W
v�
vDa
W
a
>ac
J V
>�a
J
VI
y
Gl
C
Gl
C Y
\
i VI
y E
J
(0
J
(0 J Y
Gl V
c Q
Gl
c J Y
i VI
E
(0 Q
M J Y
a+
O
V
M X Y
d
M Y
O
O X Y
4%
X Y
M Y
O W
O X Y
G
G
a
d W IA
Z IA
F
F W IA
a G
d W IA
Z IA
F d
F W IA
U
1
10
10
2
0
10
10
405
405
0
405
405
3
2
9
9
2
10
19
19
364
364
405
769
769
3
3
5
5
1
0
5
5
202
202
0
202
202
3
4
18
18
1
99
117
117
728
728
4006
4735
4735
7
5
28
28
1
85
113
113
1133
1133
3440
4573
4573
8
6
12
12
0
37
49
49
486
486
1497
1983
1983
7
Vigor
vigor
Count
Percent
2
1
1.1
3
16
18
4
65
73
Missing
7
7.9

Visor by Species
Species
CommonName
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Betula nigra
river birch
7
1
3
0
6
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
4
1
17
1
1
5
0
Cornus amomum
silky
1
0
12
1
6
Diospyros vir iniana
common
4
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
9
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp
11
3
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
18
3
Salixni ra
blackwillow
1
Car inus caroliniana
American
3
Quercus
oak
1
Quercus rubra
northern red
1
1
3
Liriodendron tuli ifera
tuli tree
2
2
1
Platanus occidentalis
American
9
Ulmus americana
American
1
14
14
65
16
1
7
Damage
Damage
Count
Percent Of Stems
no damage)
87
97.8
Vine
1
1.1
Deer
1
1.1
Damage by Plot
plot
Count of
Damage
Categories
(no
damage)
Deer
Vine
Strangulation
1
0
12
2
0
11
3
0
6
4
2
17
1
1
5
0
29
6
0
12
6
2
87
1
1

Damage by Species
Species
CommonName
Count of Damage Categories
(no damage)
Deer
Vine Strangulation
Betula nigra
river birch
0
8
6
Betula nigra
Car inus caroliniana
American
0
3
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
0
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
1
1
1
Diospyros vir iniana
common
0
4
sugarberry
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
0
12
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
0
5
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American
0
9
1
Quercus
oak
0
1
3
1.33
Quercus michauxii
swamp
1
15
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
0
21
2.4
1
Quercus rubra
northern red
0
5
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Salix nigra
black willow
0
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
0
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
14
14
2
87
1
1
Planted Stems by Species and Plot
Species
CommonName
Total Planted Stems
# plots
avg# stems
1
2
3
4
5
6
Betula nigra
river birch
8
3
2.67
2
4
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
3
1
3
3
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
1
1
1
1
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
4
3
1.33
1
1 1
2
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
12
5
2.4
1
4
4
2
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
4
2
2
3
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
9
4
2.25
3
1
4
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
15
4
3.75
2
5
5
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
21
4
5.25
6
3
3
9
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
2
1
2
2
Salix nigra
black willow
1
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
1
1
1
1
13
13
82
13
10
9
5
18
28
12

Planted and Natural Recruit Stems by Species and Plot
Species
CommonName
Total
Stems
#
plots
avg#
stems
1
2
3
4
5
6
Acer rubrum
red maple
1
1
1
1
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
41
3
13.67
17
15
9
Betula nigra
river birch
36
4
9
1
28
4
3
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
6
2
3
2
4
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
1
1
1
1
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
4
3
1.33
1
2
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
17
5
3.4
1
5
4
2
5
Ilex opaca
American holly
1
1
1
1
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
1
1
1
1
Ligustrum sinense
Chinese privet
1
1
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
104
4
26
6
43
53
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
6
3
2
3
1
2
Morella
bayberry
1
1
1
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
28
3
9.33
10
15
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
9
4
2.25
3
1
4
1
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
16
4
4
2
5
5
4
Quercus phellos
willow oak
21
4
5.25
6
3
3
9
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
2
1
2
2
Salix nigra
black willow
14
3
4.67
1
1
12
Ulmus americana
American elm
1
1
1
1
22
22
313
22
10
19
5
117
113
49

South Wake Landfill
Year 5 (2013) Annual Monitoring
Vegetation Plot Photographs taken September 2013
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Appendices
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

APPENDIX D
STREAM DATA
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Appendices
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

Ot
...
----------------

�I-
�c7Y$Y'a8ltlf
< ap.. fear
V4'a #er9h
S kk lk, Landfill
XBI
`.XS-
_,Riffle
llraiaa a fret {s 'adlf:
1.9
Tate'
i' 12.20 13
vii 4GtreW:
.
1 erkinson, Jernigan
SL NI M ARY DA I A
`- 1 ,•
i
� -
0.0
98.70
Baarftfi'd1711extian:
98.3
'r r
5.8
98.19
31.0
rr"
IQ(i
98.18
Baidtfull Width
17
13.6
9822
f+'It:irll hro>ae Are.L4�i'e`#tnn;
1012
19.4
98.53
06a M4".10.0
21.4
98.27
Max'lle tla af$ainhtull;'
9
23.2
97.63
,Mean a t1i'af ,l3aakPull:
1.7
24.3
9725
` 1'll'_t2ataos
"-
II.O
i`-',
XS - 2Riffle
24.9
97.40
liknir�nehthearf ]fa`'E9n:
"
8.1
gr* �-m rm � ,St ,
21.1
96.07
Bank Hel' trtltaftn:
I.0
,k �' ," i"�`r`
26.1
95.83
27.3
95.53
treAm'Y'' k . L
29.6
95.51
31.0
95.66
32.1
95.36
Crape Fear River Basin, S Wake Landfill, XS - 2, Riffle
33.4
95.61
34.6
95.7
102
352
96.6
362
97.4
IOI
37.0
98.0
37.5
98.3
100
38.4
98.7
- - - - Hunkfull
40.5
98.7
99
_ -- -- -- Hood hronc area
46.1
98.4
' x''"��---
-------------------
-------
V) 00 3008
SLI
98.6
a 98
V7T -0I ?009
55.7
98.8
'
5w.p33olo
61.3
98.7
97
(i4.5
98.8
max- Vv-o3'011
96
NNNNNNNNNa V) - 04'011
I) ''o,
95
0 IO
20
30 40
i0 60
Slalion (feel)

�c7Y$Y'B'd8ltlf
< ap.. fear
Via #er5h d:`
S kk lk, Landfill
i
XBI�`
kS -3, Pool
r
�+ ,
llraina a free {s 'adlf:
.9
4
Date.
3 12'2013
*'ie119'Gt�ew:
I Mki-on Jernigan
,: flan
,, `lbl at�tan'i^
SL.MMARY DAI :A
-5.0
98.17
Ban%fi'd1711exatYaa:
98.0
�1w
1 ICI I4
-0.5
98.17
Bankfi'dl brass- 6eetlanal t1r611:
53.4
11 1
4.0
98.24
Baidtfall Width;
19.4
7.9
98.15
h'Iald laroae leaaee#itin;
NA
7.9
98.15
06 1*rotre Wllttla.
10.8
9824
Max'lle tla afBainktull:'
4.8
a.
12.8
98.19
atBaaiCi'ufh
2.8
� -
13.8
97.61
)'ll.i2atips
.`-
N- A
' .
-� XS - 3 Pool
14.7
96.47
li�nir nefithearf ]fa`'E9o:
"=
NA
- 9
15.5
94.49
Bank Ret htltatln:
N:\
-- --
17.4
93.53
18.4
93.5 1
stream t ' s.
L
20.3
93.30
21.4
93.17
22.9
9365
Crape Fear River Basin,
S Wake Landfill, XS -
3, Pool
24.3
9422
25.5
94.8
99
26.7
95.5
27.3
96.0
98
- -
-
_ -
28.2
97.2
30.2
33.7
97.7
98.1
97
A
38.9
97.8
m
m
v 90
- - - -B kfudl
y`
45.1
97.9
- V) 00 008
- .- V)''m'009
94
VY- 022010
93
0 IO
20
30
40 i0
Slalion (feel)

�c7Y$Y' Bashi:'
< ap.. I -ear
V�'a #et5h C7,=
S kk ake Landfill
u
X81`
'i
XS - 4, Riffle
llraiira e kia {s 'aiif:
1.9
p
Date•
3 .12'20 13
D
viel$G& W:
-.
Perkins.... , Jernigan
flan ' s
iLl�Malt4iri`?5
Sl M It 1121 U 11 1
njE r t�r�ti'i�wl
✓'`,+ -;lid
rfi'1
(�'t�k� �ff. �S ''
0.0
97 63
Ba�'i :
97.3
1
1i k i
S.5
97.34
Bankfuil taros`s- See4iana1 urea:
"
33.72'
,
11.8
97.16
Banttfoll Wicltk;
17
13.7
97.63
f+'laeli'1FOa'e lea- 1':Lee#itin,
100.0
-
183
9720
06an]'3*tolrce M➢".
150.0
- --
21.6
97.51
Max:'lle' `tla of Bain4ttiall
2.7
23.8
97.46
;MeainW 41taf Wiflifidli
1.9
-
-
25.0
97.08
1'llal4atio's
91 1
-
XS - 4 Riffle
25.7
96.12
7ixril'Relithetff ]fa`'HO.
"=
8.(i
26.4
95.44
Bank Re4 fr4ltattn:
LO
-
26.9
94.68
25.9
94.74
4r-eaiwty e.
L
30.8
94.60
33.7
94.72
36.4
94.80
Crape Fear River Basin, S Wake Landfill, XS
- 4, Riffle
37.7
94.90
382
96.0
IOI
39.0
96.5
39.9
96.6
100
41.1
96.9
41.8
97.3
99
45.9
97.5
- - - - Hunkfull
55.3
97.5
98
...�..Ro rcs
od I r A(i �.
61.6
97.
,5
9'
- + - \9Y -0I ?009
)6
\fti '- fl??f11f1
mot- \77' -03 ?01 I
c
91
V) 04201?
9
0 IO
20
30
40
i0 60
Slalion (feel)

S mu Lund6Il
llraina e3f%a {5 'aii�;
'Ili
3.9
Date;
A
3 12'2013
�'�el$Gt�eW:
led<inson,lerniflun
�1
titln
000
' - ili'ati$n`4
94.57
SL 1111 1141 D 11 1
949
BanttfalT 711exatiaa;
6.86
94.86
Baifttfull rUSS- 6eeti Al 6a:
31.7
13.59
94.85
BankfulT'Width;
17.8
17.43
95.03
914
19.22
94.89
FM
150.0
MAS
94.32
Max:'lle' `ih of $aintttull
15
21.43
93.91
ah�W dtai„tankfidh
1.8
S
- - -.
22.56
93.46
)lla
0.0
iffle -
s m
973
8.4
, -....
24.92
92.65
1.0
27.03
92.47
29.75
92.33
jsiieaiwty k. L
32.34
92.43
34.13
92.54
34.86
93.50
Cape Fear River Basin, S N'ake Landfill, XS - 5, Riffle
35.97
94.14
37.47
95.12
98
40.00
94.83
43.53
95.10
9,
48.86
94.78
55.04
94.55
96
---- B.0,11
m
^•. •^ h I'onc ?.rc�
s
�
- + - \7Y -0I ?009
94
>• Y W mm
93
� -m4 3013
92
0 10
20
30 40
50 60
Two, /Joel)

�c7Y$Y'BaBltlf
< ap.. fear
S VCake Landfill
XBI
XS 6 Pool
llraiaa a free {s 'ni3f:
1.9
t'
-
Tate:
i'12. 2011
viie4G& W:
.
Perkinson, Jernigan
.: 9tatian
' - ill'ati$n`in
S L 11 M 1R1 D 11 1
-I.0
94.88
Banitfnll �aexatian:
947
39
94.77
Baatifnll rnss- 6eetlanalAl611t
64.4
-
10.5
94.80
Baattfnll`Wicltk;
"R
23.1.
'
12.7
93.94
T+76o11',1�rOae A`ren'6:tet'a#iun,
N:\
14.2
93.28
06an] "1*tone Ml".
N:\
14.6
91.72
Max'lle t1i afBainktull;'
4.5
16.2
91.66
;Meah a tiY of Baaki'ufli
2.8
17.6
90.36
)'ll.t2atins
NA
18.2
90.25ntrenefimenf`Yfatlnc
'``
NA
21.2
90.11
Bank Red frtltatla:
N:\
25.5
90.45
27.4
90.97
tream'Y'' L
29.3
92.44
30.9
93.74
32.5
94.43
Cape Fear River
Basin, S N'ake Landfill, XS - 6, Pool
35.3
94.84
41.6
94.8
90
52.7
94.9
64.1
94.7
95
-- „
u•sxFxx,3x �, w .r - .:. -.. -.- ..sari_
.,,.,
94
.
-- - - Bunkfull
93
�;._
• - \9Y- 002008
92
01 1009
V) 022010
91
90
V) 04 1011
V) 052013
89
0 IO
20 30
40 i0
Slalion (feel)

�c7Y$Y' Bashi;'
< ap.. Fear
V�'a #et'Shd;`
S VCake Landfill
XS - 7, Pool
llraiaa a free {s 'adlf:
1.9
Tate;
i'12.2013
vie4t &w:
13,1<i -on, Ieinigan
,: t6n „i.
"iClOx'ati$h� 4
-
SL NI MARY DA7 :A
7.7
92 3(
Ban%fiilT 711exafi'aa;
"I
91.6
15.7
91.67
Ba1Y1'tfi'dl brass- eeti6nalAi 611:
"
16.6
20.9
9L53
BanTti'uiT`Widtk;
23.9
22.8
91.77
T+76011',1�roH¢A`re :lei'a`titili;
N
24.3
90.75
00an1 "1"torie'M4tTtfa;
X:\
25.4
90.19
Max.'lle' `tla of Bainittiall
4.2
26.5
88.79
,Meals e tTY af`Wiflifidli
27.7
88.03
` 1'll i2ataVS
.`-
X �A
,- -.
�17l�15{ XS - 7 Pool
29.0
87.37
li�niraefithearf ]fa`'E9o;
"
NA
32.0
87.38
Bank Red fltltatt6;
X:\
.. - -
'
!,.2
87.99
37.3
88.55
tream'r, L
38.6
88.96
39.5
90.09
41.1
90.81
Crape Fear River Basin, S Wake Landfill, XS - 7, Pool
42.3
90.92
43.8
90.7
93
462
90.7
472
91.9
19.6
91.8
_ __ _
69.7
92.0
m 91
G
____gunkfull
V
c 90
fr
- -- \I} flfl ?f1f14
�
-+- \77' -01 1009
89
-
\Iti'- fl??f11f1
W..
\I) 0 ?011
=
88
�:o-
... ...........................ta \I) 04101'
V) 05 201
87
0 IO
20 30 40 i0
60 70
Slalion (feel)

2sIY$Y'sl}a8ltlf
..Cape
fear
S ma "II fill
1 t
kilo
llraiaa e f en {s 'ni3f:
'Ili
3.9
Date.
�.
�'�el$Gt�eW:
.
Ped<inson, lerniflun
�,
,: flan,,
`lblxtllan`.?n
SL.MIIARY DA7:A
0.00
9127
Ban%fi'd1711exntfan:
90.9
10.30
91.03
Bairftfi'dl rnss- SeetlanalA16at
3ZI
21.55
90.93
Baattfall`Wicith;
19.4
-:
23.77
89.96
916
-
25.42
89.42'lnan]'3*foneltla:
150.0
-
Am
0.77
Max:'lle' `tla of $ainittian
2.7
_
28.00
88.40
;Meaine tiY at,l3aaiCi'ufli '..
IA
31.02
8821
)'llat2atins
10.1
tiz ;
XS - 8 Riffle
33.04
88.23
7.7
35.14
88.36
Bank Hel'Altaftn:
I.0
36.83
88.68
,
37.92
SM2
Istftanery0i
A L:
38.59
89.44
39.60
89.94
40.44
90.40
Crape Fear River Basin, S Wake Landfill, XS - 8, Riffle
41.12
91.05
42.82
9120
94
4740
9162
---.... .. .. .. - .. - .. - .. .... ..
.. .. - .. - .. - .. .... .. .. .. - .. - .. - .. .... .. .. .. - .. -
.. - .. .... .. .. .. - .. - .. -
.. .... .. .. .. - .. -
.. - .. .... .. - .. - .. -
56.51
91.74
93
6021
91.30
92
____gunkfull
- ^• ^•^'N iPronc ?.rca
_
UI ?009
`5
90
'. V) 022010
mot- V) ' -03 2011
-
89
V) 042012
88
AH
0 10
20 30
40
50
60
Two, /Joel)

i
��

�cIY$Y'a8ltlf
< rp, fear
V4'a #e�rshedt
S vv lk, Landfill
XBI
X 10, Pool
lltai�a e kia {s 'atilt
1.9
. l
Tate•
x'122013
3
1
Perki -on, Jernigan
:a#ia1tll
„i. `latlah'4
..
SUMMARY DAI :A
0.0
89.47
Ban%fi'd1711exatYaa:
".;
89.3
10.0
89.40
Ba1Y tfi'dl brass- eellalnalAl 611:
80.3
-
1(i2
8)84
Banlifall Width;
2 7 K
'
-
24.1
8 ).53
N A
-
26.5
88.66
06atu Ptori'e'M4".
28.7
88.11
Max'lle th$ainhtull;'
4.4
302
8748
,Mealse #it at,llaaiCi'ufh
2A
-
31.1
86.57
1'll t2ataos
NA
335
81.71
li�nirnehmearf ]ia`'Ho:
"
NA
16.7
8.19
Ba
NA
38.8
85.38
43.0
85.04
fream'r , L
462
84.88
492
85.60
50.3
88.19
Crape Fear River Basin, S Wake Landfill, XS - 10, Pool
88.75
895
90
57.1
89.4
__-________________
_
---- ° ° ° °--- ° ° ° °-
662
89.3
89
F
70.9
89.5
88
- - - - Bunkfull
IIoo I Prone
V) 00 1008
?
-�- \97' -01 1009
-)!- \I) W ?011
81
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,> \I) _04 1011
84
0 1O
20
30 40 i0
60 70
Slalion (feel)

�� .�';
�iuPY"sj }asiri;'
,.
Cape fear
S Wake Landfill
i
xs 11
xs - l 1. U-11e
llraiira a kia {s 'affil:
3.9
late:
A
3 12'20 13
�'1e1$Gtevv:
.
Ped<inson, leiniflun
. Statitln'-
i>=Iatian`is
SL MM 1R1 D111
58
88.09
Banitfallllexati n:
87.9
16.11
87.96
Bantifall dross SeetianalAl 6a:
370
1923
87.72
Banttfi'd1`Wiclth;
"r
0.3
_
20.70
86.43
918
�
24.13
86.01
'lean] Ftone' 3t#tfa:
" �.
�
150.0
�
Nos
85.48
Max:'�lle' `tla of $aaktiall
19
27.95
8525
.ill eainWe dtattififlCi'ufli
`"
1.4
29.34
84.97
- f1)"t2atini
18.4
-, -
XS- 11Riffle -..
30.12
85.1(1
li�nirnefitaenf ]fa`'E9n:
'``
5.7
- _.
No
31.04
85.83
Bank Hei' t�tltafin:
1.0
-
31.73
86.62
33.57
86.82
Istetaner, CL
35.45
86.72
36.85
86.04
38.43
86.49
Crape Fear River Basin,
S Wake Landfill, XS - 11, Riffle
003
87.41
45.11
8828
91
54.14
88.15
70.51
88.14
90
8823
88.1(1
95.33
88.75
89
v 88
°°` °°`II Il -c \-
--- - __------------------
----------
£i7
w M09
\I}.fl??fllfl
81
aaaaaaaaa„ V) 04 2012
84
U 10
20
30 40 50
60 70
Two, /Joel)

I DATA
A
XS - 12 Riffle
Cap, F'm
S kk alk, Landfill
XS - 11 Rit11,
93 -
0.1
1 1, '01i
11,rki, . ..... krnigan
I DATA
A
XS - 12 Riffle
Cape Fear River Basin, S Wake Landfill, XS - 12, Riffle
93 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
9,
91
— — — — Bankfudl
9()
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — --- — — — — — — — — — — —
V ) 00 1008
V) 01 1009
88
V) 0, 101
8-,
IO 20
30
Slalion (fcc/)

'
�~
�.
�=l
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
��

�Mlllll
S k. Landfill Year 5 (2013) Profile Reach 1-0t. 20100
I-

�Mllll
S k. Landfill Year 5 (2013) Profile -Reach 20.0010 30.00

�Mllll
S k. Landfill Year 5 (2013) Profile Reach 30100-0.00
--2(11) I.d 1— (.11) I.d —1-4 (.12) Bed —1-1 —) I.d

. ~~�
~ ~~
'
'
~
l^
~
�

Weighted Pebble Count
Percent Riffle
Percent Pool:
I 50
Percent Run:
Percent Glide:
Pebble Count,
50
Material
Size Range
mm
Total #
ISouth Wake Landfill
silt/clay
0 0.062
28.0
very fine sand
fine sand
medium san
coarse sand
very coarse sand
0.062 0.13
7.0
0.13 0.25
6.0
Note:
ISouth Wake Substrate 2013
0.25 0.5
6.0
Pebble Count, South Wake Landfill
0.5 1
15.0
1 2
4.0
100
90%
'.
very fine gravel
fine gravel
fine gravel
medium grave
medium grave
coarse gravel
coarse gravel
very coarse gravel
very coarse qravel
2 4
0.0
4 6
2.0
6 8
2.0
80%
70%
8 11
4.0
11 16
6.0
16 22
4.0
60%
50%
22 32
4.0
32 45
3.0
F
45 64
2.0
40%
`m
LL 30%
small cobblE
medium cobblE
large cobble
very lance cobbl
64 90
3.0
90 128
4.0
128 180
0.0
20%
a 1o%
180 256
0.0
small boulder
small boulder
medium boulde
large boulde
very large boulde
256 362
0.0
• • +
• •
• • •
•i:
362 512
0.0
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) �Cumuiative Percent . Percent item Rime Pool -Run -Glide
512 1024
0.0
1024 2048
0.0
2048 4096
0.0
becrockIl
I 0.0
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type
True
Weighted Count:
Total Particle Count:
100
D16
D35
D50
D84
D95
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
100
#N /A
0.13
0.6
22
80
28%
38%
27%
7%
0%
0%
Riffle Pebble Count
Riffle Pebble Count,
Material
Size Range mm
Count
ISouth Wake Landfill
silt/clay
0 0.062
5
very fine sand
fine sand
medium san
coarse sand
very coarse sand
0.062 0.13
0.13 0.25
2
Note:
2013
0.25 0.5
4
Riffle Pebble Count, South Wake Landfill
100%
0.5 1
12
1 2
3
gp
very fine gravel
fine gravel
fine gravel
medium grave
medium grave
coarse gravel
coarse gravel
very coarse gravel
very coarse qravel
2 4
4 6
6 8
2
80%
8 11
3
70%
60%
11 16
4
16 22
4
22 32
3
LL 50
32 45
2
40%
45 64
1
small cobblE
medium cobblE
large cobble
very lance cobblE
64 90
3
30
a
20%
90 128
2
1o%
128 180
180 256
♦
•
• • » ♦
♦'. Hi
small boulder
small boulder
medium bouldei
large boulde
very ar a boulde
256 362
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) - Cumulative Percent . Percent item
362 512
512 1024
1024 2048
2048 4096
Size ercent less than mm
Percent b substrate e
bedrock
D16
535 D50
D84
D95
silt/cla
sand ravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
F
Total Particle Count:
50
0.297
0.73 1 1.6
32
85
10%
42% 38%
1 10%
0%
0%
IPool Pebble Count
Pool Pebble Count,
Material
Size Range mm
Count
ISouth Wake Landfill
silt/clay
0 0.062
23
very fine sand
fine sand
medium san
coarse sand
very coarse sand
0.062 0.13
7
0.13 0.25
4
Note:
2013
0.25 0.5
2
Pool Pebble Count, South Wake Landfill
0.5 1
3
1 2
1
100 %
gp%
very fine gravel
fine gravel
fine gravel
medium grave
medium grave
coarse gravel
coarse gravel
very coarse gravel
very coarse qravel
2 q
4 6
1 2
80%
6 8
70%
8 11
1
m
= 60%
Air, I
11 16
2
16 22
`m
22 32
1
LL 50%
40%
32 45
1
45 64
1
m
small cobbl
medium cobblE
large cobble
very lance cobblE
64 90
a 30%
20%
90 128
2
128 180
•
180 256
10%
• ;
•
•.!
small boulder
small boulder
medium bouldei
large ou er
very lar a boulde
256 362
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) - Cumulative Percent . Percent item
362 512
512 1024
1024 2048
2048 4096
Size ercent less than mm
Percent b substrate e
bedrock
D16
535 D50
D84
D95
si It/cla
sand ravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
IF
Total Particle Count:
50
#N /A
#N /A 0.1
6
54
46%
34% 1 16%
1 4%
0%
0%

APPENDIX E
WATER QUALITY DATA
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Appendices
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)

Period: 2"d, 3rd9 4th Date: 4/10/2012
Water Resource Data Form for SW Landfill
Weather: Clear, Sunny Temperature (°F): 76 Date of Last Precipitation: 4/7/2012
Stream
Lake
Nitrates: 1, 1.8, 0 ppm
Nitrates:
Phosphates: 1, 0.75, 1.5 ppm
Phosphates:
Alkalinity: 48.75, 25, 43 ppm
Alkalinity:
Diss. Oxy: 8, 8.26, 6.9 ppmBOD: ppm
Diss. Oxy:
Turbidity: inches
Turbidity:
Temperature (°F):
Temperature ( °F):
pH: 6.25, 6.25, 6.75
pH:
Discharge (stream
Trials: Seconds:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppmBOD: ppm
inches
Macroinvertebrate type Score
length: 10 feet dragonfly nymphs 2
avg. width: crawfish, water boatsmen 2
avg. depth: riffle beetle 3
pouch snail 1
aquatic worm 1
leech 1
mayfly 3
stonefly, caddis fly 3
cumulative score 14, 23, 16.6
cubic feet per second
stream rating clean to Very clean
Impacts and Influences: We collected the highest macroinvertebrate scores ever this spring.
Nutrient levels are well below the 10ppm state standard, Alkalinity is above 20 ppm to buffer
acidity but not so high as to affect pH which was near neutral. Dissolved Oxygen was good and
high enough to sustain life.
South Wake Landfill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Appendices
Annual Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report Wake County
Year 5 (2013)