20021345 Ver 1_Year 8 Monitoring Report_20140808

SANDY CREEK
Durham County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 322
Contract No. D08039S
2013 Annual Monitoring Report
(Measurement Year -8 — MY8 (2013) — 4th year post- repair)
Site Constructed 2003 /Repaired 2008- 2009/Replanted 2011
November 2013
Prepared for:
r 1%1-
A�J
F'I iai fiment
rR�cxnnv
NCDENR -EEP
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1619

Prepared by:
The
Cateno
Group
The Catena Group
410B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
919 - 732 -1300

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 1
1.1
Goals and Objectives ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- 1
1.2
Vegetative Assessment ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 1
1.3
Stream Assessment--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 2
1.4
Wetland Assessment------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 2
1.5
Annual Monitoring Summary -------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 2
2.0
Methodology------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 3
3.0
References---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 3
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
-1
-7
16
19
24

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Sandy Creek is a wetland restoration and stream enhancement mitigation site located in
Durham County, North Carolina. The project consists of 3.13 acres of wetland restoration
and 2,461 linear feet of Level II stream enhancement. The conservation easement
encompasses 22.6 acres and includes an additional 7.1 acres of preserved existing wetlands.
Wetland and stream construction originally took place in 2003. Wetlands restoration
consisted of grading activities and planting wetland vegetation. Stream enhancement
consisted of the installation of log vanes to create pool features to enhance habitat and water
quality along 2,461 linear feet of stream. The wetland restoration area was again re- graded
between December 2009 and February 2010 to correct final grade elevations to establish
proper wetland hydrology. Topsoil was added to improve soil fertility for plant growth and
the graded areas were replanted with native plant species. This monitoring report represents
the 4" year of wetland monitoring after site maintenance and re- grading. Stream monitoring
has been conducted annually since original restoration activities completed in 2003.
1.1 Goals and Objectives
Project Goals:
• Improve water quality by incorporating log vanes within the stream channel and planting
the stream buffer
• Improve wetland hydrology with the removal of fill material and the sludge drying beds
• Improve in- stream habitat with the installation of log vanes to enhance pool depths
• Restore wetland function with the incorporation of woody and herbaceous wetland plant
species
Project Objectives:
• The Level II stream enhancement of 2,461 linear feet of Sandy Creek
• Restoration of 3.13 acres of wetlands through the removal of fill material and the sludge
drying beds to improve wetland hydrology
• Establishment of a 22.6 acres conservation easement
1.2 Vegetative Assessment
Currently the vegetation is meeting the success criterion with 677 total woody stems /acre. The
success criterion for vegetation is 260 total woody stems /acre at the end of the monitoring
period. Based on the CVS vegetation data there are 313 planted woody stems /acre and 677 total
woody stems /acre. As a result of the wetland re- grading in December 2009, the vegetation in
monitoring plots 2, 3, and 4 was removed, leaving only vegetation monitoring plot 1 intact. The
site was replanted and plots 2, 3, and 4, were re- established in February 2010. Warranty planting
was conducted in February 2011 to replace trees that did not survive initial replanting after the
Sandy Creek Year 8 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number 322 Year 8 of 9
The Catena Group I October 2013

wetland was re- graded. Level Il of the CVS -EEP protocol was administered for plots 1, 2, 3, and
4, which accounts for natural and planted woody stems. Some planted stems are still exhibiting
evidence of being smothered by the herbaceous vegetation (i.e. Juncus effuses, Lespedeza
cuneata). Vegetation problem areas mainly consist of invasive exotic species. Chinese
lespedeza ( Lespedeza cuneata), continues to thrive in patches along the adjacent forest margin
and throughout the wetland in the vicinity of plots 3 and 4. These areas along the woodland
margin have remained undisturbed throughout the monitoring period.
1.3 Stream Assessment
In general the stream banks are well vegetated and stable. The majority of the log vanes are
stable, providing bank protection as intended, and generating scour pools providing habitat. The
cross section shows little change in stream dimension as compared to previous monitoring data.
Some erosion was observed at station 4 +00 on the upstream portion of the log vane. The log
structure and the adjacent banks are stable. Some localized bank erosion and logjams were
observed near stations 23 +00 and 13 +50. Debris is located at the upstream face of the culverts at
US 15 -501. Notification to NCDOT regarding the current blockage is recommended so that
maintenance can be preformed.
1.4 Wetland Assessment
The site was re- graded between December 2009 and February 2010. New groundwater gauges
were installed in the spring of 2010 at three locations — the reference wetland gauge, gauge A,
and gauge C. The reference gauge was installed in its original location and Gauge B remained
undisturbed in its original location. On May 23, 2013 four addition gauges (D, E, F, &G) were
installed. Gauges D, E, F were installed within the wetland restoration area to capture a more
accurate depiction of the groundwater levels. Gauge G was installed within the adjacent alluvial
forest along Sandy Creek as supplemental reference gauge. ]Gauges A, B, and C exhibited
saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface for more than 12.5% of the growing season.
Gauges D, E, F, and G did not collect data for a complete growing season however these wetland
areas have exhibited evidence of wetland hydrology (Table 13). The average annual growing
season for Durham County is 222 days (March 24 to November 1).
1.5 Annual Monitoring Summary
Summary information /data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment,
and statistics related to performance of various projects and monitoring elements, can be found
in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the mitigation and restoration plan
documents available on EEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices are available from EEP upon request.
Sandy Creek
NCEEP Project Number 322
The Catena Group
Year 8 Monitoring Report
Year 8 of 9
October 2013

2.0 METHODOLOGY
All monitoring methodologies are a combination of current NCEEP templates and guidelines and
previous monitoring reports (EEP template version 1.4 11/07/2011). Level II of the CVS —EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation (Lee et al. 2008) was used for vegetation data collection.
Photos were taken with a digital camera. A Trimble Geo XT handheld unit with sub -meter
accuracy was used to collect monitoring feature locations and vegetation problem areas. Stream
assessments followed methodologies outlined in Applied River Morphology ( Rosgen 1996).
Precipitation data were obtained from the State Climate Office of North Carolina
(http: / /www.nc- climate .ncsu.edu /services / request.php) (State Office of North Carolina 2013).
Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas was the taxonomic standard
used throughout vegetation data collection (Weakley 2012). Vegetation monitoring data was
collected on August 16, 2013. Stream monitoring was conducted on June 5, 2013.
3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 ( http : / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm)
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
State Climate Office of North Carolina. 2012. North Durham Water Reclamation Facility
Precipitation Data (Jan 1, 2010 — Oct 31, 2012; Daily Totals). http://www.nc-
climate.nesu.edu/services/request.php.
Weakley, A.S. 2011. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas.
Working draft of May 2011. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina
Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina. 1015pp.
Sandy Creek
NCEEP Project Number 322
The Catena Group
Year 8 Monitoring Report
Year 8 of 9
October 2013

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

f.
4•
f Y,
L ' r> 1�r �,.,.1' — L-• f Iy l) �r F�J ,'►♦YVt1 '�•`+, \ �.
11 /i �
! / J
• , ti
44 r J
or
Conservation Easement
awa '' Y
f ��;1 � ��� � � t•�i��� -mow � �� •� —111' CJ. •��
I f�/
Site Directions: Head west on 1 -40 to Highway 15 -501. Take + -�
15 -501 north approximately 2 miles. Pass under 15 -501 Bypass
and turn left onto Tower Boulevard. Go approximately' /4 mile and
r take a left onto Pickett Road. Take a left onto Sandy Creek Road,
1 directly after crossing over 15 -501 Bypass. Go to the end of Sandy ll
Creek Road until it ends at the entrance to Sandy Creek Park.
6
•
's i
11!
4b !!!
0 1,000 2,000
y Feet
f
Sandy Creek Figure
The Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site rot-
Cateno Site Location Ma )5 3Ce11
Caroup Durham County, North Carolina Date: i taiKC °117+
EEP Project No. 322 USGS 7.5- Minute Topcgraphic Quadrangle Map November 2013 reoun.

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site/ EEP Project No. 322
o L
Linear
Project F
Footage
Segment or H
H �
��. o
or
Reach ID A
Acreage S
Stationing C
Comments
2,461 0
00 +00 to P
Primarily achieved with placement
Reach I E
EII B
BFI 2
linear feet 2
27 +00 o
of log vanes
Wetland R
Wetland site re- graded and
R —
— 3
3.13 acres N
N/A W
Restoration r
replanted in Dec 2009
7.1 acres of preserved wetlands are
Wetland
P —
— 7
7.1 acres N
N/A w
within the 22.63 acre conservation
Preservation P
easement.
EH = Enhancement II, R = Restoration. ** BFI = Bed form Improvement, P= Preservation
* ** Stationing begins at downstream end of project and increases upstream

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 4 years
Elapsed Time Since Planting: 31 Months
Number of Reporting Years': 8
Activity Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data
Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion
or Deliver
Restoration Plan
N /A*
N /A*
Aug 2002
Final Design (90 %)
N /A*
N /A*
Dec 2002
Construction
N /A*
N /A*
Jun 2003
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
N /A*
N /A*
Jun 2003
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
N /A*
N /A*
Jun 2003
Bare root seedling installation
N /A*
N /A*
Jun 2003
Mitigation Plan/As- builts (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
N /A*
Jun 2003
Oct 2003
Year 1 Monitoring
N /A*
May 2004
Dec 2004
Site Replanting (portions of Zone 3)
—
Mid 2004
Year 1 Monitoring re-sampling
N /A*
Sep 2004
Dec 2004
Year 2 Monitoring (Vegetation)
Dec 2005
Oct 2005
Dec 2005
Year 2 Monitoring (Groundwater Gauges)
Dec 2005
Oct 2005
Dec 2005
Year 3 Monitoring (Vegetation)
Dec 2006
Oct 2006
Dec 2006
Year 3 Monitoring (Groundwater Gauges)
Dec 2006
Oct 2006
Dec 2006
Year 4 Monitoring (Vegetation)
Dec 2007
Oct 2007
Dec 2007
Year 4 Monitoring (Groundwater Gauges)
Dec 2007
Oct 2007
Dec 2007
Site Repair Period (Re- grading)
—
—
Nov 2009
Site Replanting
Dec 2009
—
Dec 2009
Year 5 Monitoring (Vegetation)
Nov 2010
Oct 2010
Nov 2010
Year 5 Monitoring (Groundwater Gauges)
Nov 2010
Oct 2010
Nov 2010
Warranty Planting
Feb 2011
—
Feb 2011
Year 6 Monitoring (Vegetation)
Aug 2011
Aug 2011
Dec 2011
Year 6 Monitoring (Groundwater Gauges)
Nov 2011
Nov 2011
Dec 2011
Year 7 Monitoring (Vegetation)
Aug 2012
Aug 2012
Aug 2012
Year 7 Monitoring (Groundwater Gauges)
Nov 2012
Nov 2012
Nov 2012
Year 8 Monitoring (Vegetation)
Aug 2013
Aug 2013
Aug 2013
Year 8 Monitoring (Groundwater Gauges)
Nov 2013
Nov 2013
Nov 2013
Bold items represent those events of deliverables that are variable. Plain -font items represent events that are standard over the
course of a typical project.
*N /A Data not available.
1- Equals the number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
8368 Six Forks Road, Suite 104
Designer:
Raleigh, NC 27615 -5083
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
(919) 870 -0526
email: bward @wce- corp.com
Mr. Greg Kiser
Construction Contractor:
6106 Corporate Park Drive
Shamrock Environmental, Inc.
Browns Summit, NC 27214
(336) 375 -1989
Mr. Greg Kiser
Planting Contractor:
6106 Corporate Park Drive
Shamrock Environmental, Inc.
Browns Summit, NC 27214
(336) 375 -1989
Mr. Greg Kiser
Seeding Contactor:
6106 Corporate Park Drive
Shamrock Environmental, Inc.
Browns Summit, NC 27214
(336) 375 -1989
Seed Mix Sources
N /A*
Nursery Stock Suppliers
N /A*
Monitoring Performers (MY- 01 -04):
1101 Haynes Street, Ste. 101 Raleigh, NC 27604
EcoScience Corporation
(919) 828 -3433
8368 Six Forks Road, Suite 104
Re-Designer:
Raleigh, NC 27615 -5083
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
(919) 870 -0526
email: bward @wce - corp.com
Re-Construction:
1405 Benson Court, Suite C
Environmental Quality Resources, LLC
Arbutus, MD 21227
Tel: [phone]
Re- Planting:
P.O. Box 1197
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Freemont, NC 27830
(919) 242 -6555
Re- Seeding:
P.O. Box 91208
Erosion Supply Company
Raleigh, NC 27675
(919) 787 -0334
410B Millstone Drive
Monitoring Performers (MY -05 +):
Hillsborough, NC 27278
The Catena Group
(919)732 -1300

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Project County
Durham
Drainage Area
7.3 square miles to culvert at Bypass 15 -501
Impervious cover estimate ( %)
10 percent
Stream Order
3r order
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion (Griffith and Omernik)
Triassic Basin
Rosgen Classification of As -built
NA (Enhancement only)
Cowardin Classification
Stream (R3UB2)
Wetlands (PFO1)
Dominant soil types
Stream - Chewacla and Wehadkee soils (Ch)
Wetlands - Urban Land (Ur)
SCO #1D 0
10542301
USGS HUC for Project and Reference
03 03 0002060110 / N/A
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project and Reference
03 -06 -05 / N/A
NCDWQ classification for Project and
Reference
C, NSW / N/A
Any portion of any project segment 303d
listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream
of a 303d listed segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
N/A
Percent of project easement fenced
None

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

> c
26 +12
25 +00
2q +20
22 +66
20 +91
19+72
18 +25
17 +45
Figure 3
15 +39
i
,13 +83
10 +99
8 +88
s
Conservation Easement (22.62 acres)
s +55 CCPV Sheet (Fig 3)
Sandy Creek Thaiweg
Groundwater Gauges
� New Gauge
Wetland Hydrology Met
q +1z ` Wetland Hydrology No #Met
Stream Stations
Cross Section 1
Log Vanes
2 +aq Vegeta #ion Plots
Criteria Met
1 +00 �' _� Vegetation Plot Origin
� �� Wetland Restoration {3.1 acres)
b
o +oo � �,� *� C; Wetland Preservation (7.1 acres)
Sandy Creek: Wetland Restoration Date: November 2013 Figure
The and Stream Enhancement Site
Catena MY -08 CCPV Sheet Index Scale-
0 50 100 200 Feet
EEP Project No. 322 l i ! ,
Group 2010 Aerial Photography Job No: 2
4134
Durham County, North Carolina

17 +45
The
Cateno
—�� Group
Date:
November 2013
Scale:
VP1
0 30 60 Feet
I I
Gauge B
Job No.
15 +39
4161
Title:
Sandy Creek
Wetland
Restoration
VP4
and Stream
VP3
Enhancement
Gauge A 13 +83
Site
Gauge C Conservation Easement (22.62 acres)
MY-08 CCPV
Gauge D Sandy Creek Thalweg
EEP Project No. 322
Groundwater Gauges
2010 Aerial
Orthophotography
A New Gauge MY8
(NC OneMaps)
L Wetland Hydrology Met in MY7
Durham County,
North Carolina
Gauge E A Wetland Hydrology Not Met in MY7
0 Stream Stations
♦♦ °t t
♦�rve ♦♦+°♦� VP2
h
Client:
,>�+ + .� + + ♦ ° -��♦+ Cross Section 1
♦+�►� + i+ �li c� s 0 Log Vanes
��►<�►
♦♦ �♦� Reference Gauge
Vegetation Pilots
�!
♦�is�`�w�" �, � tY,y, to ♦� > GaugeF � Criteria Met
!
i � P ♦ +� +� ; ' 10+99
s♦ °s
s� it
s stcl
�.'$''�b ♦1a � *b % fr s ° f`!' `1S' * y > e Vegetation Plot Origin
iai c
t>;+♦d g
•`r��'�'`�`' >��� c.' U5`':�`� ♦•�y* Vegetation Problem Areas 2013
sir• "-
♦+ ,,+, �+ °� ss ♦w4 WV—+ ♦+t .�� . ~v +°
+ Alligator Weed
wa�3�+�i�i�+♦� ♦i +♦�'i ° ♦+ ♦'ems °"s�+j[°s- ,c'�a. � � .. `;,t�♦se
Figure
�1 s +i +i +� i +i+i+i +� ° ♦or0 ♦A ♦i +i♦i ♦i�iti� {a< �a ♦ ♦��"o� ♦ +s °�i4� . �t., . �► ♦i � Bigleaf Periwinkle
. ♦♦♦+♦i♦♦ ♦♦ ♦mss +♦ ,�•�,st♦e♦� ♦♦♦ � :� � �♦+�►♦a ♦♦� e A, r�r. ,
° d ` +. '
+:�i� +'�►: +: +:•►. +. +����:�:�:�`♦ . + +` +. +: +,►:oti4 +� + ♦.` .��'��' � <�
+��'�� +�♦� d ♦ .� e�, .r r s� ° L es ped e z a
♦ +,t+� + + ♦ ♦ +�� ♦��.°�+♦��� ♦��sP .4�
♦,+�o�+ ♦� ♦,+��0�♦� ♦�����i +�°�'�°�¢'�tii +ens a� ♦+ + +♦ +s +�� ♦� +
+� °++++ +� +i +i +i ♦ +i i�+♦+ �i+ i+'♦+♦++ ��eP+ ��i���e++ o�� + +��♦ +�°♦w� +c�i�i��' ♦ +iam♦�+ d. lands
+►:+°,►••;♦;• +•• ++♦+♦+•:♦ :♦;♦;♦ +•;•;♦e•;•*.+; ♦;•;♦►a♦;•� • *♦;+a•�•�s.: ♦:+:w0`' ^ +w + + +♦� +.
�4 ♦ ♦++♦+♦+ ♦ + ♦,1 ♦�, ♦ +� ♦ ♦ +� ♦- ♦
+♦ +`fit +1 +♦ + ♦ + + +tl ++
fi` +s + ++♦i +i + ♦ +i ♦ +i +i+i� +i♦� +♦�i+i +• ♦♦ + + ♦ + + +� °i�i+ +i'�i,+�i� �� °i+i`s`''i +i +i +i +� � + °��� ~ � +�`��"���g . s. : �.�.. °�' Wetland Restoration (3.1 acres)
++% ��+% i,+%%% ��%% i+% `+ %�f %��%� ♦i +i + ♦+♦4�+i`�i+i +� +s ii +t +i +i +i + +� Wetland Preservation (7.1 acres)

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Not provided as project contains only stream enhancement via log vanes.
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Table G Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 10.91
Easement Acreage' 14
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De irtion
Fol ons
- ea a
Acrea e
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Pattern and
`'
1:01
7:2%
1, Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1 acres
0
0.00
0.00/0
Pattern and
Color
0
0.10
Color
Pattern and
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0 -0%
Easement Acreage' 14
I = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concernlinterest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short -term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established treelshrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1 -2 decades). The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but
can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the
integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, evert modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the
projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact treelshrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the
potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics
are of particular interest given their extreme risk /threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be
mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and
dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygonlarea feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in
the narrative section of the executive summary.
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve2etation Cate2ory
Definitions
Threshold
De irtion
Pal ons
ea a
Acrea e
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Pattern and Color
`'
1:01
7:2%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
Pattern and
Color
0
0.10
I = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concernlinterest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short -term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established treelshrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1 -2 decades). The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but
can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the
integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, evert modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the
projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact treelshrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the
potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics
are of particular interest given their extreme risk /threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be
mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and
dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygonlarea feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in
the narrative section of the executive summary.

Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement Photo Stations
Photo Station 1: Log Vane 91 (Station 2 +04)
Photo Station 2: Log Vane #2 (Station 4 +12)
Photo Station 3: Log Vane #3 (Station 6 +55)
Photo Station 4: Log Vane #4 (Station 8 +88)
Photo Station 5: Log Vane #5 (Station 10 +99)
Photo Station 6: Log Vane #6 (Station 13 +83)

Photo Station 7: Log Vane #7 (Station 15 +39)
L
Photo Station 8: Log Vane #8 (Station 17 +45)
Photo Station 9: Log Vane #9 (Station 19 +72)
Photo Station 10: Log Vane #10 (Station 20 +91)
,;�nrt :.
Photo Station 11: Log Vane #11 (Station 22 +66)
Photo Station 12: Log Vane #12 (Station 24 +20)
Photo Station 13: Log Vane #13 Station (26 + 12)

Vegetation Plot Photos
MY05 Aug 16, 2010
Plot 1
Plot 2
WF4 ".m
Plot 3
Plot 4
MY08 Aug 16, 2013
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Success Summary Table
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP
Project No. 322
Vegetation Survival
Planted Stem Density
Total Stem Density
Threshold Met?
stems /acre
stems /acre
Plot
(260 total woody
ID
stems /acre)
P 1
Yes
161
323
P2
Yes
323
809
P3
Yes
364
1092
P4
Yes
404
485

Table 8. Vegetation Metadata Table
Report Prepared By
The Catena Group
10/31/2013 11:27
Date Prepared
database name
TbeCatenaGroup- 2012- K- SandyCreek MY7.mdb
database location
P:\Jobs\2008 \4130 -34 (EEP Monitoring) \4134 (Sandy Crk)\2013 MY -08
computer name
file size
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,
Plots
and all natural /volunteer stems.
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
Planted Stems by
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are
ALL Stems by Plot
excluded.
and spp
PROJECT SUMMARY ------- -- ----------------------------
Project Code
322
project Name
Sandy Creek
Description
Sandy Creek Wetland Restoration and Stream Enhancement Project MY -06 (2010) EEP project # 322; 1 st CVS
year for VP 1; VP 2,3, &4 reset in February 2010;
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width
ft
area (s m
Required Plots
(calculated)
Sampled Plots
4

Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
EEP Project Code 322. Project Name: Sandy Creek
F Current Plot Data (MY8 2013)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
E322 -01 -0001
E322 -01 -0002
E322 -01 -0003
E322 -01 -0004
MY8 (2013)
MY7 (2012)
MY6 (20 1)
MYS (2009)
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
1
Acer negundo var. negun
boxelder
Tree
1
2
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
Amorphafruticosa
desert false indigo
Shrub
1
1
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
1 2
'1
1
1
1 3
1
1
1 1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
4
41
5
1
1
1
Carpinuscaroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
5
5
5
Carpinus caroliniana var.
Coastal American Ho
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cephalanthus occidentali
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Cornusamomum
siIkydogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
21
2
21
21
1
1
1
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
5
51
81
1
5
51
9
5
5
11
51
5
8
41
4
4
Gleditsia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
I 1
Liriodendron tulipifera v
Tulip -tree, Yellow Pc
Tree
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
3
3
3
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine
Tree
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
6
6
6
Platanus occidentalis var.
Sycamore, Plane-trei
Tree
1
1
11
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
7
7
8
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
7
7
7
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
1
2
Rosa paIustris
swamp rose
Shrub
1
1
1
Salixnigra
black willow
Tree
4
4
4
7
16
2
2
3
6
6
30
5
5
35
5
5
32
7
7
7
Ulmus
elm
ITree
I
1
1
4
Ulmusrubra
slippery elm
ITree
1
1 3
3
5
4
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
41
41
8
8
8
20
91
9l
27
10
10
12
31
31
67
31
31
75
30
30
68
391
391
48
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 4
1 4
4
4
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
1
1
l 3
41
41
6
3
3
6
6
6
7
8
8
12
9
9
13
11
11
15
11
11
14
161.9
161.9
323.7
323.7
323.7
809.4
364.2
364.2
1093
404.7
404.7
485.6
313.6
313.6
677.8
313.6
313.6
758.8
303.5
303.5
6881394.61
394.61
485.6

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Cross Sectional Profiles with Annual Overlays
Section: Cross Section 1
MYOO -2003
e Riffle
A (BKF)
18 +25
W (BKF)
615112
Max d
BW. RZ
Mean d
109.6
MYOO -2003
119.7
MY01 -2005
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
1,00
264.33
9.0
1.00
264.50
5.70
264.44
Elevation
3.00
264.57
264.55
8.00
264.20
264.60
5.00
264.66
264.69
9.50
263.64
TOBL Bankfull Left
7.00
264.60
TOBL
9.90
262.79
264.24
8.00
264.29
263.84
10.30
262.40
263.11
9.00
263.82
Bankfull Left
11.20
261.72
261.48
10.00
262.78
260.37
12.00
261.12
260.32
11.00
261.96
260.49
12.20
260.07
Toe L
11.80
261.04
260.00
13.00
259.97
259.42
12.00
259.54
Toe L
14.00
259.99
258.66
15.00
259.49
258.76
15.00
259.87
262.32
17.00
259.79
264.13
16.00
259.83
264.47
21.00
259.82
264.36
17.00
259.86
264.19
25.00
259.88
18.00
259.83
31.00
259.77
19.00
259.82
33.70
259.71
22.00
259.60
35.00
259.51
23.00
259.72
35.70
259.37
35.50
259.51
TW WS = elev 262.40
37.00
259.27
TW
36.40
259.70
37.90
259.70
Toe R
37.40
259.81
Toe R
38.70
262.01
38.40
260.96
39.60
263.09
39.10
262.08
40.00
263.66
39.70
262.64
41.00
264.11
41.60
264.18
TOBR
42.00
264.35
TOBR
43.00
264.30
45.00
264.35
45.00
264.31
48,00
264.18
48.00
264.13
109.6
114.7
119.7
31.4
31.4
31.2
4.1
4.6
5.3
3.5
3.7
3.8
9.0
8.6
8.1
MY03.2006
Station
Elevation
Notes
1.00
264.55
LPIN
2.00
264.60
10.70 2
4.00
264.69
TOBL
6.00
264.78
Bankfull
8.00
264.47
TOBL
8.70
264.24
9.50
263.84
Bankfull Left
10.00
263.11
11.30
262.01
11.70
261.48
12.40
260.37
14.00
260.32
TW (WS = 2
18.00
260.49
19.50
260.11
23.00
260.00
TOE
27.00
259.42
32.00
258.52
TW
36.00
258.66
38.20
258.76
Toe R
39.00
262.32
41.00
264.13
TOBR
43.00
264.47
46.00
264.36
48.00
264.19
RPIN
110.5
107.9
112.6
31.3
30.7
30.3
4.2
4.2
4.4
3.5
3.5
3.3
8.9
8.7
8.2
MY05 -2010
Station
Elevation
Notes
1.00
264.55
LEFT PI
5.00
264.80
10.70 2
8.00
264.55
TOBL
9.00
263.86
Bankfull
10.00
262.72
11.50
261.58
12.60
260.06
TOE
17.60
259.84
19.00
259.71
22.00
259.85
23.00
259.75
26.60
259.64
TW (WS = 2
31.00
259.93
35.00
260.02
37.20
259.75
TOE
38.40
262.10
39.25
262.85
Bankfull r
40.40
263.97
41.30
264.41
TOBR
44.00
264.52
48.00
264.16
RIGHT
L 12.00 260.95
12.50 260.05 TOE L
14.00 259.80
16.00 259.72
19.00 259.86
59.91) 22.00 259.83 W
28.00 259.43 T
29.OD 259.61
R 32.00 259.68
35.00 259.65
ight 37.80 259.55 TOE R
38.50 262.13
39.50 263.38
41.00 264.47 TOBR
PIN 43.00 264.53
45.00 264.44
48.00 264.16
48.00 264.57 RPIN
MY08 -2013
Station Elevation Notes
1 265.02 [PIN
1 264.72
4.15 264.80
5.65 264.83
8 264.72 TOBL
8.8 264.28
9.2 263.67
9.8 263.17
10.4 262.43
11.2 261.88
11.8 260.90
12.4 259.70 TOE L
14.3 259.79
16.3 259.48
19.4 259.45
20.9 259.39
22 259.30 (WS= 259.
24.5 259.27
26.7 259.51
28.4 259.61
32 259.51
33.9 259.38
35.8 259.41
37.7 259.46 TOE R
37.8 261.22
38.6 262.79
39 263.18
40 264.00
41.4 264.46 TOBR
43 264.44
45 264.35
46.5 264.20
48.00 264.08
48.00 264.50 RPIN
Station E
MY07 -2012
Notes
N 1
1.00 2
265.09 L
LPIN
1.00 2
264.60
6.00 2
264.87
Left 8
8.00 2
264.69 T
TOBL
9.00 2
263.83
10.70 2
262.21
MY08 -2013
Station Elevation Notes
1 265.02 [PIN
1 264.72
4.15 264.80
5.65 264.83
8 264.72 TOBL
8.8 264.28
9.2 263.67
9.8 263.17
10.4 262.43
11.2 261.88
11.8 260.90
12.4 259.70 TOE L
14.3 259.79
16.3 259.48
19.4 259.45
20.9 259.39
22 259.30 (WS= 259.
24.5 259.27
26.7 259.51
28.4 259.61
32 259.51
33.9 259.38
35.8 259.41
37.7 259.46 TOE R
37.8 261.22
38.6 262.79
39 263.18
40 264.00
41.4 264.46 TOBR
43 264.44
45 264.35
46.5 264.20
48.00 264.08
48.00 264.50 RPIN

Downstream facing view of Cross Section 1.

Cross Section 1
266.44
265 40
264.40
i^.
m
263.40
m
LL
^_62.40
p
N
W
^51
00
264.00
258 -00
—
41:06 14.00 20.00 'sr, .1, 40.00 54.40 �.
Station (Feet)
BAs -&Ot + Year i T Year Year 5 —Year 7 Year 8 —BKF

Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Not provided as project contains only stream enhancement via log vanes.
Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Not provided as project contains only stream enhancement via log vanes.
Table 10a and b. Baseline — Stream Data Summary
Not provided as project contains only stream enhancement via log vanes.
Table 11a and b. Monitoring — Dimensional Morphology Summary
Not provided as project contains only stream enhancement via log vanes.

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Not provided as project contains only stream enhancement via log vanes.

Figure 4. Monthly Rainfall Data for Entire Year
12.00
11111117
mm
b
CL
6.00
a
a
ao
ra
a
Q
4.00
2.00
m
Sandy Creek 30 -70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall 2013
ro ro 0 f6
Q 0
E +, E E
Q a " > u
ii CL 0 U1
v z o
Ln
30
70
2013

Figure 5. Precipitation and Water Level Plots
12 11/7/12
Sandy Creek Gauge A
11/
10
12 inches Below
Soil Surface Growing
Season
5
0
9/
15/13
/lea
-10
3
c
-20
,T
c
2
-30
1
-40
-50
0
Date
12 11/7/12
/6/13 3/7/13 5/6/13 9 /1
11/
12 inches Below
Soil Surface Growing
Season

Sandy Creek Gauge B
10
5
0
)P
ace Season
9/
12
11/7/12 1/6/13 3 7 5/6/13 /5/
9/3/13 11/'
-10
3
-20
„a
c
12 inches Below Growing
Soil Surf
2
-30
1
-40
0
-50
Date
ace Season

Sandy Creek Gauge C
10 5
5
13 11 / /
4
0
9/ 8
12 11 /7/12 1 /6/13 3/7/13 /6/1
7 5/13 V1':
13
-5
=
3
m -10
as
J
—
fC
w
C
m
-15
2
-20
-25
1
-30
-35 0
Date
/
Growing Sea on
12 inches Below
Soil Surface
13 11 / /

-1
-1
as
a�
J -2
-2
-3
-3
-4
-4
Sandy Creek Gauge D
Date
3
C
m
C

a�
J
-1
-1
M
Sandy Creek Gauge E
Date
I ,r,
ca
c

Sandy Creek Gauge F
10
5
5
0
4
5/6113
7/5/1 9/3/13
11/,/13
-5
-10
3
d
>
m
J
-15
12 inches Below
Soil Surface
I
-20
2
-25
Growing Season
1
-30
-35
-40
AA
0
Date

Sandy Creek Gauge G
ace
5
5
I ��
0/-/13
0
4
5/
13
9/3/13
11/
/13
-5
3
m
J
Growing Seas
inches Below
Soil Surf
c
R
w
C
-10
2
1
-15
-20
0
Date
ace
I ��

Sandy Creek Wetland Reference Gauge 1
10 5
5
0 4
8/2 /13
-5
-10 3
-15
-20 2
-25
-30 1
-35
-40 0
Date
/12 10/18/12 12/7/12 6 / 6/25/ 8/14/13 10/3/13 11/22
inches Below
Soil Surface
Growing Season
�I

Table 13. Wetland Criteria Attainment 2010 -2013
a— Gauge installed 6/15/2010 — groundwater level monitored for 139 days of the growing season
b - Gauge installed 6/25/2010 — groundwater level monitored for 129 days of the growing season
c — Gauge installed 6/14/2010 — groundwater level monitored for 140 days of the growing season
d - Gauge malfunction — groundwater level monitored for 203 days of the growing season
e - Gauge malfunction — groundwater level monitored for 167 days of the growing season
f — Incomplete growing season; Gauges D, E, F, & G installed on May 23, 2013; Gauge G set in wetland reference
Growing Season: March 24 to November 1 (222 days)
(http: / /www.wcc.nres.usda. gov /ftpref/support/climate /wetlands /nc /3 7063.txt)
2010 MY -05
2011
Y -06
2012 MY -07
2013
MY -08
o
zs
Ts
b
4t a�i
y
y s.
4t d
y 's
;t
y '>~,
;t
��
��
O
\
A
31 b
14%
Yes
62
28%
Yes
58 d
26%
Yes
125
56
Yes
B
21
9%
Yes
36
16%
Yes
33 e
15%
Yes
100
45
Yes
C
7°
3%
No
38
17%
Yes
20
9%
No
124
56
Yes
D
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
22
10
No'
E
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
25
11
No'
No
F
—
.,
—
—
—
—
—
—
10
5
No
G (Ref 2)
—
—
.,
—
—
—
—
—
25
9
Ref 1
6 a
3%
No
29
13%
Yes
16
7%
No
34
15
Yes
a— Gauge installed 6/15/2010 — groundwater level monitored for 139 days of the growing season
b - Gauge installed 6/25/2010 — groundwater level monitored for 129 days of the growing season
c — Gauge installed 6/14/2010 — groundwater level monitored for 140 days of the growing season
d - Gauge malfunction — groundwater level monitored for 203 days of the growing season
e - Gauge malfunction — groundwater level monitored for 167 days of the growing season
f — Incomplete growing season; Gauges D, E, F, & G installed on May 23, 2013; Gauge G set in wetland reference
Growing Season: March 24 to November 1 (222 days)
(http: / /www.wcc.nres.usda. gov /ftpref/support/climate /wetlands /nc /3 7063.txt)