20120658 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20151208

STREAM AND VEGETATION MONITORING
YEAR 2 REPORT
DUKE UNIVERSITY WATER RECLAMATION
POND STREAM RESTORATION
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
DECEMBER 8, 2015
PREPARED FOR:
DUKE UNIVERSITY
T. RYAN LAVENDER, PE
CIVIL ENGINEER
DUKE UTILITY & ENGINEERING SERVICES, FM
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PREPARED BY:
MCADAMS
jp i
Raleigh/Durharn ■ 2905 Meridian Parkway ■ Durham, NC 27713
Charlotte ■ 11301 Carmel Commons Blvd ■ suite 111 ■ Charlotte, NC 28226
McAdamsCo.com
Designing Tomorrow's Infrastructure & Communities

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Location and Description..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Channel Stability Assessment.................................................................................................................2
2.1 Cross Sections.................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Pebble Counts................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Longitudinal Profile......................................................................................................................... 3
2.4 Crest Stage Gauge............................................................................................................................ 3
2.5 Bank Pins.......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.6 Channel Stability Assessment Summary..........................................................................................4
3.0 Vegetation Condition and Comparison................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots............................................................................................................ 4
3.2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Sheets....................................................................... 4
4.0 Invasive Species Monitoring................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 Photo Stations......................................................................................................................................... 6
6.0 References............................................................................................................................................... 7
Appendix A: Site Maps
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figures 2.1 and 2.2: Conservation Easement Maps
Appendix B: Stream Data
Appendix C: Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 1: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 2: Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Vegetation Plot
Table 3: Planted Species Comparison by Vegetation Plot
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix E: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
Appendix F: Annual Invasive Species Monitoring Document
Spring 2015 Treatment at Sandy Creek Campus Drive
Fall 2015 Treatment at Sandy Creek Campus Drive
Appendix G: Photo Stations
1 9 MCADAMs

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration project (Stream
Restoration project) is on the main campus of Duke University, in Durham, Durham County,
North Carolina (Appendix A, Figure 1). More specifically, the Conservation Easement (CE)
for the Stream Restoration project is 7.01 acres in size and starts just south of NC Highway
147, runs parallel to Campus Drive, crosses Campus Drive and ties back in to the receiving
waters at Oregon Street (Appendix A, Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The Stream Restoration project
is approximately 1.5 miles from the proposed stream impacts associated with the Duke
University water reclamation pond.
The Stream Restoration project is located within the Cape Fear River Basin USGS
Hydrologic Unit 03030002 (USGS 1974), local watershed 14-digit basin 03030002060110,
and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) sub -basin 03-06-05. The
unnamed tributary flows directly into Sandy Creek (DWR stream index number of 16-41-1-
11) approximately 2.5 miles downstream of the project terminus.
The drainage area of the unnamed tributary is approximately 141 acres at the downstream
end. Based on a detailed watershed analysis, approximately 27 percent (39 acres) of the
watershed area is impervious. The Stream Restoration project is located within the Piedmont
Physiographic Province of North Carolina. A review of the Ecoregions of North Carolina and
South Carolina (Griffith et al., 2002) shows the geology of the Stream Restoration project is
comprised of quaternary to tertiary red sandy loam to silty clay decomposition residuum,
sandstone, conglomerate, mudstone, shale, coal, dikes, and sills within the Triassic Basin.
There are currently no agricultural croplands or activities within the watershed; however,
there was stream channelization and relocation associated with the sanitary sewer line
installation adjacent to the unnamed tributary.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The purpose of this Stream and Vegetation Monitoring Year 2 report is to assess the Stream
Restoration project in order to determine restoration success. The monitoring plan to evaluate
the success of the Site is based the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (April, 2003) and the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP) Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or
Wetland Mitigation (November, 2011). Monitoring of the Site will occur annually for seven
(7) full years.
Construction of the Stream Restoration project occurred in the summer of 2013. During the
month of November 2013, riparian buffer restoration activities began following construction
of the restored active stream channel. Riparian buffer restoration activities included planting
trees and staking vegetation plots within the CE. The goal of the stream restoration project is
to modify the dimension, pattern, and profile of the channel so that a stable and self -
maintaining channel is created by utilizing natural channel design techniques and procedures.
The design was developed utilizing Rosgen-based natural channel design principles (Rosgen,
1996). Preventing future stream bank erosion will be accomplished by fulfilling the
following general objectives:
1) Conversion of approximately 3,459 linear feet of the tributary from an eroding,
degraded channel to a natural, stable system with restored aquatic habitat.
2 MCADAS

2) Reduction of sediment loading to a river system that flows into Jordan Lake - a
recreational water body.
3) Establishment of a riparian corridor that has a restored floodplain, aquatic, and
morphological functions which provide habitat connectivity to the area and will be
protected in perpetuity.
The following specific objectives will allow the restoration plan to succeed in obtaining the
project's goal:
1) Design a channel with the appropriate cross -sectional dimension, pattern, and
longitudinal profile utilizing the existing channel condition survey, and collected
reference reach data as a guide.
2) Improve upon and create bedform and aquatic habitat diversity (riffles, runs, pools,
and glides).
3) Create a nested floodplain (bankfull bench) that will be accessible at the proposed
bankfull channel elevation along the entire reach.
4) Ensure channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating in -channel grade control
structures, and native vegetation into the proposed restoration design while also
creating a stable and functional aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
5) Establish a native forested riparian plant community within a minimum of 50 feet
from the proposed top of the bankfull channel along with the removal of exotic
vegetation during construction implementation and the elimination of current
embankment maintenance practices.
2.0 Channel Stability Assessment
Stream geometry will be considered successful if the geometry, profile, and sinuosity are
stable or reach a dynamic equilibrium. It is expected that there will be minimal changes in
the designed cross sections, profile, and/or substrate composition. Changes that may occur
during the monitoring period will be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement
toward a more unstable condition (e.g. down cutting, or bank erosion) or are minor changes
that represent an increase in stability (e.g. settling, vegetative changes, coarsening of bed
material, etc.). Deviation from the design ratios will not necessarily denote failure as it is
possible to maintain stability and not stay within the design geometry.
Channel stability will be reflected in the surveyed permanent cross -sections, longitudinal
profile, evaluation of bank stability and cover, evaluation of in -stream structure performance
and to a lesser degree pebble counts compared to the as -built and any previously collected
monitoring data. The general trend should reflect a stable or slightly decreasing riffle cross -
sectional area whereas pools may increase and yet be considered relatively stable. The
longitudinal profile will typically adjust depending on the frequency of bankfull or greater
storm events. Normally the constructed channel profile will adjust (especially in a sand
dominated bed) but it will need to function without significant degradation (bed scour),
aggradation (mid -channel bars), or bank erosion.
The Bank Height Ratio (BHR) shall not exceed 1.2 and the Entrenchment Ratio shall be no
less than 2.2. The stream shall remain stable over seven years, through two bankfull events,
as indicated by visual surveys, cross -sections, and bank pins. If monitoring (including
vegetation) demonstrates success by year five (5) a proposal can be issued by the Owner to
terminate monitoring of the site.
2 2 MCADAMS

2.1 Cross Sections
The stream geometry is considered to be successful if the cross - section geometry, profile,
and sinuosity are stable or reach a dynamic equilibrium. It is expected there will be minimal
changes in the designed cross sections, profile, and /or substrate composition. Changes that
may occur during the monitoring period were evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g. down cutting, erosion, mid- channel bars,
etc.) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (e.g. settling, vegetative
changes, coarsening of bed material, etc.). Deviation from the design ratios will not
necessarily denote failure, as it is possible to maintain stability and not stay within the design
geometry. Morphological data will be collected and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Morphological data used for this report was collected on October 29 and 30, 2015 and is
shown in Appendix B.
2.2 Pebble Counts
The composition of the streambed and banks is an important facet of stream character,
influencing channel form and hydraulics, erosion rates, sediment supply, and other
parameters. The most efficient basic technique in measuring the streambed and banks is the
pebble count method. This requires measuring individuals along a cross section and tallying
the particle size based on class or category. Pebble counts were conducted to determine bed
particle size distribution at each riffle cross section (Cross Sections 1, 3, 6, and 9). Pebble
Counts will be conducted and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 5; and 7. Pebble count data used for
this report was collected on November 18, 2015 and is shown in Appendix B.
2.3 Longitudinal Profile
The longitudinal profile will be surveyed in years 1 and 7. The longitudinal profile was not
surveyed as part of Monitoring Year 2 field assessment.
2.4 Crest Stage Gauge
Indicators of overbank flow were observed within Stream Restoration project during the
Monitoring Year 2 field assessment. A Crest Stage Gauge (CSG) was installed during
Monitoring Year 1 field activities to document bankfull events. The CSG was installed at
Station 15-57 near Vegetation Plot 5 (Appendix A, Figures 2.1 and 2.2) and a photograph
of the CSG is provided in Appendix G. CSG measurements will be conducted and reported
in all years of monitoring. On October 30, 2015, data was acquired from the CSG and it was
determined that a bankfull event occurred during 2015 which read a depth of 2.4 feet. There
was a 2.46-inch rainfall event on October 3, 2015 according to the NC-DH-6 Durham 1.2
NW Station of the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail & Snow Network. The NC-DH-6
Durham 1.2 NW Station recorded a total of 7.88 inches of rain for the 10-day period from
September 25 to October 4, 2015. Table 1, below, provides a list of bankfull events.
Table 1 Verification of Bankfull Events
Monitoring
Year
Collection
Date
Depth
Rainfall
Depth
Date of
Rainfall
Photo
MY2
10/30/2015
2.4 feet
2.46 inch
10/3/2015
Appendix G
MY3
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Note: TBD = Collection of CSG data will occur in the future monitoring year date.
91 MCADAs

2.5 Bank Pins
Bank erosion rates were measured using bank pins that were installed into the stream banks
during the As -Built. The bank pins were installed so that they can be measured over time in
order to observe changes in the stream bank profile. Bank pin measurements can then be
used to estimate rates of erosion and sediment loading. Bank pin measurements will be
conducted and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 5. and 7. Bank pin data used for this report was
collected on October 30 and November 3, 2015 and is shown in Appendix B.
2.6 Channel Stability Assessment Summary
Overall, the stream system appears stable and is not migrating toward lateral or vertical
instability. Based on the As -Built comparison using morphological data, it appears that
minor systemic aggradation has occurred within the reach. This condition does not appear to
pose an imminent threat to the overall stability of the system.
3.0 Vegetation Condition and Comparison
The primary focus of the vegetative monitoring will be solely on the tree stratum, although
shrub and herbaceous species encountered may also be recorded. Vegetation planting
success criteria will be based on the survival of a minimum density of 320 trees per acre (to
include both planted and existing trees) after three (3) years of monitoring. After five (5)
years of monitoring, the density shall be no less than 260 trees per acre (to include both
planted and existing trees). After seven (7) years of monitoring, the density shall be no less
than 210 trees per acre (to include both planted and existing trees). In addition, planted
vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at year seven (7). Vegetation plots will
be sampled and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. If the height standard is met and the stem
density is trending toward success after five (5) years of monitoring, monitoring of
vegetation on the site may be terminated provided written approval is provided by the
USACE and NCDWQ.
3.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots
All vegetation monitoring methodologies followed the most current templates and guidelines
provided by DMS (EEP, 2010; EEP, 2011). Baseline vegetation monitoring was conducted in
accordance to CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (CVS-EEP, V4.2). All six (6)
vegetation monitoring plots installed by McAdams were located in Monitoring Year 2.
Figures 2.1 and 2.2 (Appendix A) depict the location of the vegetation monitoring plots.
Plant species, density, survival rates, and the cause of mortality, if identifiable, were recorded
within each vegetation monitoring plot. Table 1 (Appendix C) provides a success summary
for each vegetation monitoring plot. In Monitoring Year 2, the Stream Restoration project
had six (6) vegetation monitoring plots encompassing 0.1483 acres, containing 74 planted
stems, which yielded a density of 499 planted stems per acre. Monitoring Year 2 field
activities were conducted on November 3, 2015. The planted vegetation survival threshold
was met for all six (6) vegetation monitoring plots. Table 2 (Appendix C) provides a stem
count total and planted stem total by each individual vegetation plot. Table 3 (Appendix C)
provides a summary of only planted stem counts as compared to planted stem counts of the
As Built.
3.2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Sheets
Vegetation monitoring plots were photographed and are located in Appendix D. Vegetation
Monitoring Plot Data Sheets are provided in Appendix E. Each Vegetation Monitoring Plot
4 �1 MCADAMS

Data Sheet provides measurements, location, and vigor of each planted species within a
respective vegetation monitoring plot.
4.0 Invasive Species Monitoring
Construction of the Stream Restoration project required disturbing land within the CE
resulting in the creation of a highly disturbed early successional ecological system that
contains young tree saplings and shrubs species in addition to naturally occurring early
emergent vegetative species. Over time, tree saplings and shrubs species mature and
proliferate while naturally occurring early emergent vegetative species dwindle.
The new, highly disturbed early successional ecological system created during the
construction of Stream Restoration project resulted in prime habitat for many invasive
species that were known to occur within the CE prior to construction activities, in addition to
the surrounding areas (Invasive Species Management Plan, May, 2014). It is understood that
naturally occurring early emergent vegetative species will thrive within the CE during the
early years of the Stream Restoration project. The early emergent vegetative species can be
aggressive and have characteristics of an invasive species; however, they are generally
accepted as part of a naturally occurring ecological system. Therefore, a definition of what is
an invasive species is warranted.
Invasive Species are defined as non-native alien species that have the potential to negatively
affect the environment. These species occupy habitat within the riparian buffer and
outcompete and suppress native vegetation, thereby inhibiting both the establishment and
natural succession of the native riparian community.
Considerable effort was made to remove the vast majority of the observed invasive species
populations during the construction phase of the Stream Restoration project by both
mechanical and chemical means. Although considerable effort was made to remove the
invasive plants species from within the CE, remnant populations of these invasive species
were recorded in a post construction site visit conducted in May, 2014. Future treatment is
likely to be required for the observed invasive species, but additional invasive species may
expand the list.
As part of the Monitoring Year 2 stream and vegetation monitoring efforts, invasive species
monitoring and management was also conducted (Appendix F, Spring 2015 Treatment at
Sandy Creek Campus Drive; May 12, 2015, and Fall 2015 Treatment at Sandy Creek
Campus Drive report; September 3, 2015). Invasive species monitoring efforts included
recording the approximate location and extent of infestation as noted in figures attached to
each Spring and Fall 2015 Treatment reports (Appendix F). A list of invasive species found
during Monitoring Year 2 activities is provided below. It was determined that the northern
section of the project contained the largest amount of invasive plants, while the central and
southern sections were relatively clean of invasive plants. All species were treated with
herbicide as indicated within the Spring and Fall 2015 Treatment reports (Appendix F).
Continued monitoring and prescribed treatments are recommended by a registered landscape
contractor or a certified plant professional is provided.
List of Monitoring Year 2 Invasive Species — Fall Treatment
Ampelopsis brevipedunculata (porcelain berry)
Lonicera japonica (Japanese honeysuckle)
Hedera helix (English ivy)
Ligustrum sinese (Chinese privet)
Ligustrum japonicum (Japanese privet)
(:elastrus orbuculatus (oriental bittersweet)
'J Mc DAMS

Pueraria montana (kudzu)
Wisteria sinensis (Chinese wisteria)
5.0 Photo Stations
Photo documentation is essential to monitoring the success the Bank Parcel. Photos provide a
visual assessment of the vegetation conditions. Photo documentation will be provided and
reported in all years of monitoring. All nine (9) photo stations installed by McAdams were
located in Monitoring Year 2. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 (Appendix A) depict the locations of the
photo stations. Photographs were taken at high resolution using an Olympus FE-115 5.0
megapixel digital camera. Photographs for the photo stations are located in Appendix G.
6 2 MCADAMS

6.0 References
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2.
McAdams and Landscape Sanctuaries, May, 2014. Invasive Species Management Plan, Duke
University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration.
Morris, George; River Works; Spring 2015 Treatment at Sandy Creek Campus Drive; May 12,
2015.
Morris, George; River Works; Fall 2015 Treatment at Sandy Creek Campus Drive; September 3,
2015.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) 2004. Guidelines for Riparian
Buffer Restoration. Available at internet site:
http://www.nceep.net/news/reports/buffers.pdf.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) November 7, 2011. Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation.
Schafale MP and AS Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
The John R. McAdams Company, Inc. October 2012. Stream Restoration Plan for the Duke
University Water Reclamation Pond.
US Army Corps of Engineers April, 2013. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
TIMCADAMS

Appendix A
Site Maps

fwfDAT.E:
ECT NO. DKU�--14060 DUKE UNIVERSITY WATER THE JOHN R. McanAMsNsxE:DKU14060X.DWG RECI_AMATIUN POND COMPANY, INC.
STREAMRESTORATIONMGMIM• PLUM8R -SURVKYM • X?TVBliP J1MNjAL1" =1,000'FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP 'N�� bob— c1"13 vas trewo r.�t..y. aer.. nc mia
10-06-14 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA�'

in
\\ m
O
P z
O Ln — q
Ln
o
a m
m 52
Z-
rn y
� Ao
$ � M
D A I Fp
m Ag2 %�-2
;Z D
�g 6 <
2 C �
z
I ou
S (n
Z
2
ME
O
Z
r m
m
N i
o m
Y = X
D \ \
O
z fq
x
N � \
\
O
DKU-08010 DUKE UNIVERSITY WATER RECLAMATION
- -olo om mn POND STREAM RESTORATION
a.... 1' -zoo'
FIGURE 2.1: CONSERVATION EASEMENT MAP mc""s .+
10-08-2014 ntlRHAM MINTY. NORTH CAROUNA

1
J
n
X
z
f�,I1
I
i
>r
zoo
a
mm
r o
g
d i
44 v�
O
A
r
� >
yr
= m
DKU-08010 I DUKE UNIVERSITY WATER RECLAMATION
---'&U—o+o cm m4 POND STREAM RESTORATION
1. - t00FIGURE 2.2: CONSERVATION E ASEMENT MAP MCADAMSom
°'m 10-08-2014 OURHAM COUNTY. NORTH CA 2OUNA

APPENDIX B
Stream Data

W
V7
4.
try (I]
W
N
O
L
W
%q
M
W
N M b O� 00 M a h h 00 o0 1! 00
h O� d\ W 00 T O� O O �-+ b M Vt b T
O 00 r n h h b b--------- h b- h h h h b
�O b Vl w1 h h h v1 r1 h h v1 h h h
m
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
�a
00 _
h Vi O h"0b �n M-O�oo �00� vt M o0O OO
z
Q
a aN
O O b�� N thn tin V V� a' •t V R�� d' V V dR vi v�i vhi b b b
F~
U
W
V7
NO ^b hDO � M O [�N000 COI O\ao� OON h DD 7 b O
Q
b Vi h h h h Vi Vi h h h h h� b b b h vt b
M M M M M M M M M M
a
U
�
L
W
tbn M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
00 1O V1 O 7 Vl O\ V' V1 � o1 q M h d' aD Q\ h� 0 b o I!O h O 'IM h b O0�
O O '""' N M h W T m 0 .-..-• .-• N V b �D h OD O V� N h 00
♦/
O� b b r 00 O h N N 00 00 h 00 O O ao 00 O. h M h h N N N . N 1. 0
.-..-+ � O� 00 h P b O 7 N -+ -+ '+ N N O O C N �--� .� �---+ �--O� .ti �--�--� �--� N
•L
C a0 Oo t� h l� l� �O 10 10 �D �O ADO �D �O �O �O b b �O l� 00 7
- - - b h - - - - Vi Vi vt Vt vt Vi Vi Vi �n M m vl h h M M m of vi vi vt m h M ran � � tin b
U�
A
��0000\NM�v100M hwa0�D
OO VO�
.'-'
b h l� h l� h 00 a0 a0 00 00 D\ O� O M } 1� pp N o0 00
O

G
d
Fd >L
O
O W
F
¢7
U
0
CG
O
N �
U
W
x
vi
r
>1
M
IL
o`oM�
O W
,� ^:
�O
N
�N.--
..M
O
N
Ys
0
N b
`n
N
C
C
N
3
11
s N
O
E
F
U g
E
E
7www
� C
N.T.w
9
�
c�V N
moaw3wUromaQ
cad
C
A cCV
tad
a�0
CA
r�
V

�p
l W
b
� w
L
b
C'
f7
L
A
O GO O M O 00 M^ Q\ p M O\ M 00 N 00 pp 1 N M N N
a0 �O 1O hO�N �O O MiD OHO
h ba0 MOOS ^00 �^'00 V NO \N
li
O h �n vi V d' h M N vNi vNi N^ vNi h h O N
�O Vt V1 V1 Vl V1 Vl VM1 h h h h h N Vt Y1 �O �O
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
N
N
L�
O- h r-- h M h h b b h 00 00
U
W
i0 h vt 0\ .--• N M b oD Oq ci M 00 N V .N�+ 00 Oo O N ^ ^
h h � h O �O Vl .--. 00 �O M �O N ^ 00 h M .-• O � O\ � h h N d: h O .-. O .-•
�
U
Z
a
h h M n V) M O B^ r �/1 d: O N O O �O N O V O h M O� O�
�In a0 h O vi V V 00 d' M 7 N Oo h O h N ^ 7 N O r h N a0 00 T �O O�
O O� �O v� N N .-. O Q\ W h M .-. 00 �O �D V O O 00 a O� ,-. h Q\ N .-N h ^• O
W
7
�
- M h N h h M V'1 v1 Y1 M v1 h h N Vl Vl Vl Vl Yt Vl Vt M M h h h h M h h M M M
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
iy]
U
L
A
r
O M V 00 cNn 10 MT U
O O O m O M h ^ O� N
�•..� .--N M M eY C' V' d' <Y R V' V a �' t vl h � Vl r h N Vl � � h h �O 00

U o
a❑❑z
�y T
N C
7
0
U
E
X
r
d Y
O
G �
F
U
a
04
a
o
a
Q �
U
E)
aE 4
o F
N
U
W
r
r
r
M
N
r
N
Vu Vl�
N �Na00
�.--�
N
0+
MMU
O`D
0
d'
Id
u[�
0
Id
w
Id
��
0 in
Nb�
�r
>
3
�
E
'M-'
�w
„
E
d
mwaa3wUwmoQ

b
w
Y�
h
L
W
I�
O
L
a
7
N1 W
a
0
h 00 O Q\ M W O •-.• M M .•� �i' ^ ^ O1 oO N Yl ^
l� 0 00
V M V1
N
00 00 OO Oh a, � O .-• N M
w 0
V�
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
a
z
pp
O .�• M ^ W N N O� 1� h M �O O oo �D M O [� vi O vi M �O a^� O� �
U
W
V7
QN
� O �.-• O h�O+T UO�D\Q�T ao ao W 00 W � OO hO N
h rM V aM V aM7 V K��<I' V ��nM Vihh
ci
L
W
O l� U M •-• N M N �O ^
�O r
G0 �G p N C�
v� �D l� O N l� h 00 V � 00 st of �O <Y .-. D\ Q\ ,-. M V d' N st a0 O� a O N .• N t� N N h N -
O N
d' (V .•. O. O h G O\ O\ 01 O+ O\ OC OG 00 00 00 OG OO OO 00 00 00 00 00 00 Oi Oi O� O O h .-• N
h
Vi vl M r h h a M V V M M 7 V M M �Y a n M C '4' M '? h ul Vi can tin
M M
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
U
a
A
00 �0 �D I��OOM 700 T �p W O\ Nit t� U^ Na�DT O N l� ^ f� OOP
OOO�a� .00
C O N �D O M M v� �O a0 O .-• M M 7 R a a d' h h H�� b�� O v� D` W t�

d �
W
5
O
U
N (�
w
w a
Y a
e
F
x
w
C4
e
A
a
U c
v
M
o0N
iD ~LY)
ON
l�
_
r
o
O
r�.
a
q
c
>
www,�
xx
❑
N xx
w
ton anmrn3wUr�wC]Ca
i
9

�o W
i.
a
a
c
C
M
a
OO
�tOma\ m.-. N a�01�.•. 007 V: V V �O �O
M M M M M- a aM MM M V V m h ehn h
M M M M M M M M M M M M
�
N
L
a
Z
O a0 tin a N �O v�i tO�f N r ao0 O O` U n C o0 .M O N vhi aN0 7 N Obi O
o a
F
U
W
a0 w O� N h er d' h �-- : w r
00 O CO CO .-• O .-+ N h N N M h t' 00 Q\ O .-• �O .-- V V V b
T O+ d\
M M M M M M M M
i1i
M M M M M M M M M M
a
oowaMv--o�h�onvh�o �0010OM h�0 oao rn-^oo
S���Nt� N�OO� O� � O a0 hO�aOO+N�OOMo0'-r W NO�a\T O
�.I
� Os of 00 l� vt Cl! �1: \O
`L
W
M vNi vNi O O� O� O� OO l� l� [� l� h l� l� t� l� a0 00 00 00 l� 00 a0 a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 T T O� O� O .-• .-• N
v v a v v <r a a v v a v v m a v a a v v h v M
M M M M M m
O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
CW4
U
L
d
A
O C, h
O �N GO OO V O V OO �1 w O ad r 00N hT M rl
^d
ri!

t
}
t
|
� !
_
)
i
j
!.
§
\
|�{
}
Tj
Gn
I
. 6;
\ M
�
*
y
}
\
_
§
[
_
\
j
\
/
\
»
/
w
�n3
»22-n_
r
ou
@=©j2\
a§
4
)laz
ƒ
)e
))\'\-4
))
G
\

h
L
W
>
V W
W
>
f? (ZI
L
O
T O� 00 00 iD R .-• h N 00 M �O .-. a Q\ � 00 M �O O\ O h a0 [� �O Q\ O
sY.-. O�O� �Q\M 00 h h Mob ��h h Mao oO O� MO+O NN d'
mot' M R M M M M M M M M M� M M M M G M M M M M
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
�a
N
O � hO h h O
00 00 a0 O�
U
W
m D\ h h .-+ N v� O h M V v� N N �O M v� V a O? J� N
O T O
V]
O\ .-• vet
U
W
^oov �oo M hrn v, rn h�aO �O N h v N rn� a .o
O � d. � h [� 00 a N C .-..-' N M M a N h�� h 00 � O .-• eNn M `• N�� d^ V'
^^^^ N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M st Vl h h
h o0 h�q 00 O\000 ^..--'.-• N NNE hN�O 00-. D\aO v�OOO
W
V M M M M M M M M M M m M M M M M m M M M M M M- M M M M a M M d M-
M M M M M M M M M M M. M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MM
M m M
U
�
rR h .M-� ci O\ �O
a0 O+ V 00 D\ � V� �O h O N Vl W N lD a0 O N 7 �O h ^' M O\ N ON N h O h o0
N - N N N - N M M d' h� b h h h h

m
d
O
N
O
ID
N
V
8
a
O �
�
O
O
�
N
M y
o
�
0
1
cO> w
U
s
v
I
In
I
N
I
i
o
t0 N
(
I
O
O N V M N O m CO r O
I�
(v"J
(1j) ¢O!1en3jg
0
� a
U
v�
Q
x
o
N
F
" U
w
x
x
F
C
0
U
a
M
N
�
O�
.%"C",
o
a+
H
� w
Y
O
C
N :d
ro
Rn
X�
C
p
>
.SUN^EE
�.xw
�
E;
m
cCa�o�o
M,CQm
wUmwQQ

aL
n cl -q 11 cl
mm mmm -------
'o m
1IR (3\
t-� C-! C:� cn
u
Z
y N M vi 'R
a� c! M-
^
�%
t� V:
cl

r:
i7
� §
}
�
,
§
\
}
\
|
\
'
!
e
/i/75
(/§§)/§/
(
m
§ 3
/
� [
_
\
j
\
\ \
\
»
}
»
/
�~
J/
d"ll
�©
2!5
0{g\
2§
<
\04
C4
�}\\j
gg/o
EE§
WT
\\

ae
O
oc! 00 t-: u h O� 01
m--mm m-mm
I w ol
ol 11,
m 16 m o6
0 ol
It V:q:q n to
M��I

0
n
�]
to
1
1
O
N
O
LL�
i
S
a
C
I
�
p
I
o
�
I
a
o
�
w
T
�
N
N
u�
m a in
0 0 0
o
N N N
w O N
c `m m m
m } > }
i
0
n co �C1 V'(`�N.-ornmnco �ncc'�c��-o
m Cmmmm M(`�'I MMmmmmmmm')(`m')0
(U) uoj;enajg
d x
o
W
U
N H
w
x
W
a
F
w z
d
U
Ya
H
0
G
u
b
tU
M
N
N
7"
cM�l
N
N
'.
N
M
� w
N
�y
or
U
E
E
7
x
E
E
�
W
cad w
romw3wuxMQQ
w 0�
C
.� cad
c�V

rn
00
�P
f cn N Vi cl
Gn
oq O�lq:tl�ri
0C4
, 6 oq w
.10
10 w
r! m (I cn c!N h cl c7� w oq w w
---
—Imm M--M--M - --
mm-mm-m

V
I
i
.q
I �
I
i
I
i
i
I
I
o
I
M
K
O
� �
N o
�
N
�
a
v,
O
y
�
U
�
�
N
� O
�
U
s
v
3
0
0 o O
N N
m a�0i a16i a10i
o
M W I ID
M
M M M M M M M M N N N N
M M M M M M M M M M M M
N
M
(g) UO!IUAOIJ
e x
o
A W
F
U
w
o
x
Q
C4
O
o
u
o F
N
W
�
a
v
Y a
F
a
t
}
}
v
}
M
}
N
N
�-�NMNNO
O�
N
M
O
~
N
�
M
p w
U�
KQ
Rim
�
id
CwwwL1'
C
Nx.w
Cu
Cu
wrom3wvwa�Qc�
0
w�
oho

cl G0 �q V �p r�
-MM --- mm-mmmm-mmmm-m -M-M
CR q ci -i
. . . . . .
m1mmm M M M M M M M M M - - - - - - - - mm-
o oR N Vl OD ^
r-: 00 W4
lo a
A > -
u
9
--t t� 0, n 4 g V NO
IR c! 'IR "R 9

O
V
I
1 1
1
I
�
C
O
U
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
r
tp
�
Q
O
N �
�
o
U
�
U
�v
a
'-
�
w
,c
3
M a in
O N
C N
O
•
0
M
M M (�') M M M M (N•l M
(g) uO!lena[g
d
A
F
Cw1a
U
w
h
a
O
O F"
N
U
x
w a
a
w
d
a
r a
F
x
c
v
V
M
v
a
O
�=M
M01NN
O'er
m�o".g°
.oC
N.p
NQX�
A
Cam"
>
x3
;, E'�w
rr
�www�
=•_x
= e
e
N
�
�
N �
cCV cCd
waam3wUmwQQ
cCd
C
.=d
oho
rI;

ZI
'o '0
V: h (3\ 10
od o6 C� C,;6 6
- - - - - - - - - -
m a,
-lp 11
4,
MM-MM m
04
ri Iq '0 Cl! r C*i
q
m
ILI !2 02
- - - - - - - -
w - - - oq m w DO w
oq 0D
m
u
wo
. (,\ o . C! m
A>�
2.1

m
N
�
o
0
U
N
I
1
I
I
V
M
N
.7
o
U
Y
U
�
I
I
I
I
'-
N O
s
o
I
I.
1�
h v i2
0 0 0
O N
a N d N
m } Y >-
O
(U) ua!1-13
o
e x
Q W
H
U
u]
0
N F
w
°u
a
w
e
w
c
0
0
U o
Y
M
Nl.NNM
O M
O
m 0
~M
O
1-1
N N
U
�
''
A
nly-
G
7www
c...x
7 e
�
m
m M'
Id
mmm3w�m
c
min
n

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Duke Stream Restoration
Reach Name: Upper
Sample Name: XS1-MY2
Survey Date: 11/24/2015
si ze (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062
0
0.00
0.00
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.00
0.00
0.125 - 0.25
2
2.00
2.00
0.25 - 0.50
6
6.00
8.00
0.50 - 1.0
10
10.00
18.00
1.0 - 2.0
4
4.00
22.00
2.0 - 4.0
10
10.00
32.00
4.0 - 5.7
6
6.00
38.00
5.7 - 8.0
8
8.00
46.00
8.0 - 11.3
10
10.00
56.00
11.3 - 16.0
12
12.00
68.00
16.0 - 22.6
8
8.00
76.00
22.6 - 32.0
8
8.00
84.00
32 - 45
12
12.00
96.00
45 - 64
4
4.00
100.00
64 - 90
0
0.00
100.00
90 - 128
0
0.00
100.00
128 - 180
0
0.00
100.00
180 - 256
0
0.00
100.00
256 - 362
0
0.00
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
0.9
D35 (mm)
4.85
D50 (mm)
9.32
D84 (mm)
32
D95 (mm)
43.92
D100 (mm)
64
silt/Clay (%)
0
sand M
22
Gravel M
78
cobble M
0
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock M
0
Total Particles = 100.

XS 1-MY2
0.125-0.25 0.25-0.50 0.50-1.0 1.0-2.0 2.0-4.0 4.0-5.7 5.t-n.0 n.0 I— II.. i— — —. --1 _., --
Particle Size (mm)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Duke Stream Restoration
Reach Name: Upper
Sample Name: XS3-MY2
Survey Date: 11/24/2015
size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % cum
0 - 0.062
0
0.00
0.00
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.00
0.00
0.125 - 0.25
16
16.00
16.00
0.25 - 0.50
14
14.00
30.00
0.50 - 1.0
2
2.00
32.00
1.0 - 2.0
6
6.00
38.00
2.0 - 4.0
2
2.00
40.00
4.0 - 5.7
2
2.00
42.00
5.7 - 8.0
2
2.00
44.00
8.0 - 11.3
4
4.00
48.00
11.3 - 16.0
6
6.00
54.00
16.0 - 22.6
8
8.00
62.00
22.6 - 32.0
10
10.00
72.00
32 - 45
8
8.00
80.00
45 - 64
6
6.00
86.00
64 - 90
4
4.00
90.00
90 - 128
6
6.00
96.00
128 - 180
2
2.00
98.00
180 - 256
2
2.00
100.00
256 - 362
0
0.00
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
0.25
D35 (mm)
1.5
D50 (mm)
12.87
D84 (mm)
57.67
D95 (mm)
121.67
D100 (mm)
256
(/)
�8
0
sandSilt/(/)y
Gravel (%)
48
cobble M
14
Boulder M
0
Bedrock M
0
Total Particles = 100.

XS3-MY2
Particle Size (mm)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Duke Stream Restoration
Reach Name: Middle
Sample Name: XS6-MY2
Survey Date: 11/24/2015
Size (mm)
TOT #
ITEM %
CUM
---------------------------------------------------
0 - 0.062
0
0.00
0.00
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.00
0.00
0.125 - 0.25
10
9.71
9.71
0.25 - 0.50
11
10.68
20.39
0.50 - 1.0
10
9.71
30.10
1.0 - 2.0
4
3.88
33.98
2.0 - 4.0
10
9.71
43.69
4.0 - 5.7
8
7.77
51.46
5.7 - 8.0
2
1.94
53.40
8.0 - 11.3
20
19.42
72.82
11.3 - 16.0
6
5.83
78.64
16.0 - 22.6
6
5.83
84.47
22.6 - 32.0
10
9.71
94.17
32 - 45
2
1.94
96.12
45 - 64
0
0.00
96.12
64 - 90
2
1.94
98.06
90 - 128
2
1.94
100.00
128 - 180
0
0.00
100.00
180 - 256
0
0.00
100.00
256 - 362
0
0.00
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
0.4
D35 (mm)
2.21
D50 (mm)
5.38
D84 (mm)
22.07
D95 (mm)
37.53
D100 (mm)
128
Silt/Clay (%)
0
Sand (%)
33.98
Gravel (%)
62.14
Cobble (%)
3.88
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total Particles = 103.

XS6-MY2
Particle Size (mm)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
River Name: Duke Stream Restoration
Reach Name: Lower
Sample Name: XS9-MY2
Survey Date: 12/07/2015
Size (mm)
TOT #
ITEM %
CUM
---------------------------------------------------
0 - 0.062
0
0.00
0.00
0.062 - 0.125
4
4.00
4.00
0.125 - 0.25
6
6.00
10.00
0.25 - 0.50
8
8.00
18.00
0.50 - 1.0
4
4.00
22.00
1.0 - 2.0
2
2.00
24.00
2.0 - 4.0
6
6.00
30.00
4.0 - 5.7
8
8.00
38.00
5.7 - 8.0
20
20.00
58.00
8.0 - 11.3
2
2.00
60.00
11.3 - 16.0
8
8.00
68.00
16.0 - 22.6
4
4.00
72.00
22.6 - 32.0
6
6.00
78.00
32 - 45
4
4.00
82.00
45 - 64
8
8.00
90.00
64 - 90
0
0.00
90.00
90 - 128
2
2.00
92.00
128 - 180
4
4.00
96.00
180 - 256
0
0.00
96.00
256 - 362
2
2.00
98.00
362 - 512
2
2.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
0.44
D35 (mm)
5.06
D50 (mm)
7.08
D84 (mm)
49.75
D95 (mm)
167
D100 (mm)
511.99
silt/clay (/)
�
Sand (/)
4
Gravel M
66
Cobble (%)
6
Boulder (%)
4
Bedrock M
0
Total Particles = 100.

XS9-MY2
Particle Size (mm)

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Assessment Data

Table 1. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration Site
Durham, NC
MONITORING YEAR 2
McAdams Proiect #: DKU-14060
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Threshold Met?*
Tract Mean
1
Yes
100 %
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
Yes
$
Yes
6
Yes
* Target density is a minimum of 320 trees (both planted and existing) per acre after three years of monitoring, 260 trees (both
planted and existing) per acre after five years of monitoring, and 210 trees (both planted and existing) per acre after seven years
of monitoring, according to the "Stream Restoration Plan for the Duke University Water Reclamation Pond", October, 2012.

� V
V
d.+ �
N Cn'
6�
0
N
N
7
a'
CG
M
G
h
F^
ram.
q
Q
Z
WO
a
w
ca
Z
O
W
Q
v
N
�i
Cza
M
N
-
N
N
v1
-
N
6a
O
a
�
N
N
O
Oe
�
>
O
Cy
M
N
r
�i
y
N
O
N
O
N
o0
O
�
Y
u
N
C�
W
E
�
o
El
N
Z

Table 3. Planted Species Comparison by Vegation Plot
Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration Site
Durham, NC
MONITORING YEAR 2
McAdams Project #: DKU-14060
VP-1
VP-2
VP-3
VP-4
VP-5
VP-6
Monitoring Year 1 Planted Stem Count Total
12
12
14
10
11
15
As Built Planted Stem Count Total
18
13
14
14
11
1
17
Planted Stem Difference from As Built
-6
-1
0
-4
0
-2
Surivability Rate (%) per Monitoring Plot
67%
92%
100%
71 %
100%
88%
Note: The difference between planted stems from the As Built and Monitoring Year 2 is due to species which were deemed
"missing" or "dead" at the time of monitoring. One possible explanation for "missing' species is due to thick herbaceous
growth obscurring the species from identification during Monitoring Year 2. Therefore, it is possilbe "missing" species could
grow larger than the herbaceous layer and allow for their identification and measurment in subsequent monitoring years. In
addition, species which were deemed "dead" could survive in subsequent years because the species may have gone dormant
at the time of monitoring while the roots of the species are surviving below ground. Therefore, in subsequent years the
species could grow under more favorable conditions.

APPENDIX D
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration
Monitoring Year 2 Report
Durham, North Carolina
DKU-14060
November 3, 2015
Vegetation Plot Photos:
Vegetation Plot 1: View facing 62°NE
Vegetation Plot 2: View facing 51°NE

Vegetation Plot 3: View facing 278°W
Vegetation Plot 4: View facing 250°W

Vegetation Plot 5: View facing 258'W
Vegetation Plot 6: View facing 222'SW

APPENDIX E
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets

c (n
U)
w N O
Y N (h
O
w
m
v
N
(p
`M
M MMM
Ti'll
K
o
4 x
Lo
d
Y G
u
o
C7
=
OM
I�
com I�
O (OM
(n
O
(O
O)(OO
t
O
t _
E
z I.-
0 x
c
�
(mi
~
z
O
m N
O (°
I� (O d'
O O
a
O
M
O
O
O
(O
(° LL] O
O (O
W
O
r (O
O
O
l
a
o)
x v
E
U
£
m
M
LL7 (°
O "t
M
m O
(o "
E
M
Ih N
fl N
N W
Pp
O
TE---
o
o
inmmm
co co
mmmmm
co
mco
mmmmin
o
z
U U
U
C (p
m L
N C N
c
C N ._
(p
L ._
(0 m
L
U U
C C
° w°
C U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U U
�'E
o
E o
E E
E o
o E
E E
E E E
N
J
N N
J J
N N
J J
N N
J J
N N
J J
N N
J J
N N
J J
N N
J J
N N N
J J J
ow'x'x'x3w�°mww5�°wwwwww
c c
c c
c
c
c
2 10
J T
J J
JAE
J
J J
J J J
a
0LLLLu-adadddILo-
dd
N
O r
O o)
O �-
N M
d' (°
O O
m
02
NcL
m
�
r O
w
0

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY2
Date: 11 /3/2015
Area: 10x10
Veg Plot No.: 1
X-axis: 102"
z

aniJd sndwe:
® X
U
♦
00I W 0 a
y
l00
e�
N ♦
N ®
ENO
U
�
V
� T O
N a O
v 41
m
c
m
oa i
n0
o •
=�
C m O
N J a ®
N
t0 CO
m •d c
�
E
c m
O =
c m
C N
o
•
i

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY2
Date: 11 /3/2015
Area: 10x10
Veg Plot No.: 2
X-axis: 94°
z

x
O N M
N O
U �
O
N
V
O
O
m
J
U
a
4:)IlP w n v
m
C m
U

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY2
Date: 11/3/2015
Area: 10x10
Veg Plot No.: 3
X-axis: 306°
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Piatanus occidentalis OFroxinus pennsylvanico OQuercus michauxii Viburnum dentatum

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY2
Date: 11/3/2015
Area: 20x5
Veg Plot No.: 4
X-axis: 278'

d
0
Z
0
m
Q ❑ U
0
�O N O V V r m <O �O
i L
Z 2 C
� V
i9 E
i E
w
�
V � m V (O t0 10
M � c0 � m of m of O) m o)
U E
OD N fo m w m Lo m V O
E
d
U
7
O
N m m m m m m m m m m m
E
Z U U V U
�_ d 775 E m m > >
r. w. C ... > > > >
a
;OU.A.
t�oW LLmcCt0( LLocpc cCCl0x
0
2 2 2 UONN0N
E
L>
A
0Toa>-�<> d
co
O
m U

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY2
Date: 11 /3/2015
Area: 10x10
Veg Plot No.: 5
X-axis: 296'
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Plotanus occidentalis OFraxinus pennsylvanico oAlnus serrulata
Viburnum dentatum ®Corpus amomum oLiriodendron tulipifera
9 10 i

c
0
N
m
0
s
M
N N
N N
M N
M N N
Q
U
Z
aCC)
a
CO N
V
O)
LO 0)
O) O
O
u] W
t9 0
_ =
o
K
O
m
oo)n000)OM
ornorn)n
Z
i
)O
)O N
O
)O )O
r 0)
N
00 0)
r rn
0 v
o
E
v
cocDuiuico<6vvv)riuiuiv)ci
z
W
E
�
N
��
c0 �O
M r
ONO
0r
W
N �
M N
m
U
E
N
M M
O)
OD N
O
O N
1� V
r )O
(O W
O X
K
01 Q7
r t`'1
E
u
7
O
N m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m mica
m
- E
E
x
tO MM
x�
lO
n��
M M
M M
(U M
n
M (O
n n
N (0
y E>
E>
E
E E
E E
E>
E>>
E
E E
C
E
m U
y 0
U U
N 0)
U U
U) N
V l0
0
V (0
0 y
(0 U
y N
V U
N 2
O
O
y
O
J
J J
J J
y�j
J
J
J
J J
o
U
z U
z d
d d
d d
d Z
d Z
z d
d d
a
�NMv)ncormrno.-NMv�ncor
L
22
O
Y
R
p
10 O
N Rl
x
0

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY2
Date: 11/3/2015
Area: 10x10
Veg Plot No.: 6
X-axis: 264'
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Nyssa sylvatica OCornus amomum OQuercus michauxii O Missing X Dead
I

APPENDIX F
Annual Invasive Species Monitoring Document

PWO R K S
s •
To: George Buchholz
JR McAdams Company, Inc
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, NC 27713
From: George Morris
River Works, Inc
6105 Chapel Hill Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607
6 1 05 Chapel Ili] 1 Road
R a i z h. N o r t h C`aroI i na 37 607
P h o n e 9 1 9. 5 8'. 3 5 7 4
Fax: 91 9. 58?. 35 7 5
Subject: Spring 2015 Treatment at Sandy Creek Campus Drive
Date: May 12, 2014
During the week of April 27, River Works conducted a site visit and invasive plant treatment for the
buffer along the Sandy Creek Campus Drive stream restoration. An initial assessment of the species
encountered was conducted and the following species were encountered within the buffer: Lonicera
japonica (Japanese Honeysuckle), Hedera helix (English Ivy), Ligustrum sinense (Chinese Privet),
Ligustrum japonicum (Japanese Privet), Pueraria montana (Kudzu), and Wisteria sinensis (Chinese
Wisteria). A previously untreated population of Celastrus orbuculatus (Oriental bittersweet) was found
in the south easement and scattered populations were seen throughout the buffer. All species
encountered were treated with herbicide.
As noted in previous visits, large populations of invasive species were located outside the buffer and
encroachment of invasives will continue until these populations are addressed.
A site map with approximate locations of the invasive populations, as well as pesticide application
reports, is included with this report.
Thank you for allowing us to assist you in reaching your goals. If there are any questions, feel free to
contact me at 919-818-3984.
George Morris
Botanist/Vegetation Specialist
River Works, Incorporated

T
1
1
4, 6 R✓i S IRSTREAAM
TOP OF BANK
50'=
~' G. PLOT
r BA"
TYPHA LATI`OLIA
TOP OF HEADWALL
RESTORED SKVA Z
CHANNEL
EX. CITY OF
/ \
nuRitEAWMENT
.!
LEGEND
CONSERVATION EASEMENT (TOTAL
f
AREA - 7.01 AC.)
~~�
E?USTINC CITY Or QURHAM SEVl£R
EASEMENT
YEGETAIION PLOTS
— — —
— CONSERVA11ON EASEMENT LIMITS
CREST STAGE GAUGE
PHOTO STATION LOCATION
t
INVASIVE SPECIES INFESTATIONS
4
o .
cnu�u� ara�
VICINITY MAP
N TS
GRAPHIC SCALE
ion®�.�
> inch = 100 rt_
7-
0 a
z V)
<t o
O
_.1 h— I--
ryn Lu
f (n
IJj
li
Q (n
w
Of >
V) I- Fn
ct� (n <
>0 K
-7,c r�
W
V
-j Ll-
0

CENTRAL (2.03 AC.) CONSERVATION I
RESTORED STREAM
CHANNEL
TYPHA LATIFOIJA
SOUTH (2.12
AC.) p
CONSERVATION
RESTORED STREAM
TOP OF BANK
RESTORED STREAM �.
CHANNEL �.
f CREST STA
EX
OUR
i ` y "r. ✓ E
rh
/
VEG. PLOT

River Works, Inc
Vegetation Management Report Form
S ite - 01 L — a ,
Crew deader
Hours
Crew members
v
t oJ'
Pe
Sprayed
:���:►
'. EmM
IIII�II&MAW
Areas completed
4 "Pt,
Target species
SP
Of JS
Date: E�gLjk 'q 0
Applicators License # �qqp— K --
Method of removal
Weather Conditions
004A� - 700

rVER
WO 7Z�
To: George Buchholz
JR McAdams Company, Inc
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, NC 27713
From: George Morris
River Works, Inc
6105 Chapel Hill Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607
Subject: Fall 2015 Treatment at Sandy Creek Campus Drive
6 1 05 Chapel Ili 11 R c-a d
PItonc S> 1 9. 58d.35 7 1
F a x: 9 1 9. 5 S 2. 3 5 7 5
Date: September 3, 2015
During the week of August 24th, River Works conducted a site visit and invasive plant treatment for the
buffer along the Sandy Creek Campus Drive stream restoration. An initial assessment of the species
encountered was conducted and the following species were encountered within the buffer: Ampelopsis
brevipedunculata (Porcelain berry), Lonicera japonica (Japanese Honeysuckle), Hedera helix (English Ivy),
Ligustrum sinense (Chinese Privet), Ligustrum japonicum (Japanese Privet), Celastrus orbuculatus
(Oriental Bittersweet), Pueraria montana (Kudzu), and Wisteria sinensis (Chinese Wisteria). A previously
unnoted population of Ampelopsis brevipedunculata was found in the north easement and scattered
populations were seen throughout the buffer.
North Section
The northern section of the project was where most of the invasive species were found. There were
large populations of Wisteria repopulating the top right buffer of the north section of the project. A
significant number of seedlings of Ampelopsis brevipedunculata was found on both the left and right
buffers, predominantly on the floodplain bench. Pueraria was found along the bottom right as well as
the middle left of the buffer. Elaeagnus, Ligustrum and Hedera seedlings were noted in small numbers
throughout the buffer. All species encountered were treated with herbicide.
Central Section
The central section was relatively clean of invasive plants. Minor populations of Ligustrum, Hedera, and
Lonicera were noted and treated when found. Minor seedling population of Ampelopsis was also seen
on the floodplain bench as was also treated.

61 ()5 Chapel Bill R o a d
1R a i c i g h. d o rt h C a r c, I i n n 2 7 6()7
F>h , n e : 91 9. 552. -457 d
F a x: 9 1 9. 5 S 2. 3 5 7 5
South Section
The south section was relatively clean of invasive plants. Minor populations of Celastrus, Ligustrum,
Hedera, and Lonicera were noted and treated when found. Minor seedling population of Ampelopsis
was also seen on the floodplain bench as was also treated.
As noted in previous visits, large populations of invasive species were located outside the buffer and
encroachment of invasives will continue until these populations are addressed.
A site map with approximate locations of the invasive populations, as well as pesticide application
reports, is included with this report.
Thank you for allowing us to assist you in reaching your goals. If there are any questions, feel free to
contact me at 919-818-3984.
George Morris
Botanist/Vegetation Specialist
River Works, Incorporated

NORTH (2.86
A C . t Qdcc qt w / CONSERVATION EASEMENT
50,
VEG. PLAT #1
RESTORED STREAM
TOP OF BANK

y.--t-� AV-0V) ��%
TYPHA LATIFOLIA
:'TOP OF HEADWALL
EX. CITY OF
DURHAM SEWER
EASEMENT
LEGEND
i CONSERVATION EASEMENT (TOTAL
AREA i 7.01 AC.)
EXISTING CITY OF DURHAM SEWER
i' EASEMENT
VEGETATION PLOTS
_ .-- — CONSERVATION EASEMENT LIMITS
CREST STAGE GAUGE
PHOTO STATION LOCATION
INVASIVE SPECIES INFESTATIONS
s
® � cawrua o�ve�
our uWotmW Raw
1 rwo= arts
VICINITY MAP
NTS
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 0 50 100 200
1 inch = 100 ft.
Z
0 n-
z :2 Z z
QC? � o
�F- F—
Q 4
L.LJ (� U} �
Q LWL.
I- Z U
LijW "
~ w Lam.! O
'�C U z
�� d�
(n z
Lu
Lli
t > ci
U)
III zrK
> C) — c
0 r`ri
W
F-
0
i!
8
a

River Works, Inc
Vegetation Management Report Form
Site - Lark Lunp,,, f�oe
Crew leader Hours
/fli C, L ( ( Rd,,,
Crew members
Chemicals SDraved lRate
Areas completed
Target species
9
PC 1 4A
Date:
Applicators License #
Method of removal
Pf at � 5P(CA�
Weather Conditions Ow`ia�+St )vAAJISlijhV W"iA

River Works, Inc
Vegetation Management Report Form
RIM
e embers
FM "I
Chemicals Spraved JRate
Areas completed
'T4 G"C' (5� A;,A� s7
3
Target, species
ao �0„5 sf(.yc�
[-Date:
Applicators License #
Method of removal
6�
Weather Conditions
SJAA
y
y rNk6c 4001-1

River Works, Inc
Vegetation Management Report Form
Site -I-, i Geek Otive
Crew leader
Hours
Crew members
CheTicals Sprayed Rate
Areas completed
(�,k-U o'Ac -Su"A
Target species
11 ya-)
� t
lDate: I jj�
I Applicators License #
Method of removal
�'c 5P't:;"-j
Weather Conditions I

.C.
River Works, Inc
Vegetation Management Report Form
-7
Site - Fo.-t'A 'R L yt,
Crew, leader Hours
z.
Crew members
lChemicals Sprayed Rate
I
Areas completed
Target species
�141� OU'10's
Date:`
i�
F I
Applicators License #
IMethod of removal -1
4
Weather Conditions

APPENDIX G
Photo Stations

Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration
Monitoring Year 2 Report
Durham, North Carolina
DKU-14060
November 3, 2015
Photo Station Photos:
Photo Station 1: View facing downstream
Photo Station 2: View facing upstream

Photo Station 2: View facing downstream
Photo Station 3: View facing upstream

Photo Station 4: View facing upstream
Photo Station 4: View facing downstream

Photo Station 5: View facing upstream
Photo Station 5: View facing downstream

Photo Station 6: View facing upstream
Photo Station 7: View facing downstream

Photo Station 8: View facing upstream
Photo Station 8: View facing downstream

Photo Station 9: View facing upstream
Photo Station 9: View facing downstream

Photo of Crest Stage Gauge (CSG)