20120658 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_20230101

Stream and Vegetation Monitoring
Year 6 Report
Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration / January 2020 / DKU-16040
MCADAMS

111 MCADAMS WATER RECLAMATION POND STREAM RESTORATION
> MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT
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 and Longitudinal Profile 2
2.2 Pebble Counts 2
2.3 Crest Stage Gauge 3
2.4 Bank Pins 3
2.5 Channel Stability Assessment Summary 3
3.0 VEGETATION CONDITION AND COMPARISON 4
3.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots 4
3.2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Sheets 4
3.3 Photo Stations 4
4.0 INVASIVE SPECIES MONITORING 4
5.0 REFERENCES 6
Appendix A: Site Maps
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Conservation Easement Maps
Appendix B: Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 1: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 2: Planted Stem Count by Vegetation Plot
Table 3: Planted Species Survival by Vegetation Plot
Appendix C: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
Appendix E: Photo Station Photos
creating experiences through experience 2905 Meridian Parkway, Durham, NC 27713 / 919. 361. 5000

111 MCADAMS WATER RECLAMATION POND STREAM RESTORATION
> MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT
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 6 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. Riparian buffer restoration
activities, which included planting trees and staking vegetation plots within the CE, began in November 2013
following construction of the restored active stream channel. 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) 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.
creating experiences through experience 1 of 6

2 MCADAMS WATER RECLAMATION POND STREAM RESTORATION
> MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT
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
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 and 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.
2.1 Cross Sections and Longitudinal Profile
The stream geometry will be considered 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 less stable 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. Cross section survey data will be collected and reported in years
1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. The longitudinal profile will be surveyed in years 1 and 7. Neither the longitudinal profile nor cross
sections were surveyed as part of the Monitoring Year 6 field assessment.
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 Wolman Pebble Count method. This requires measuring individual
substrate particles along a cross section and tallying the size class of each particle. Pebble counts are conducted
to determine bed particle size distribution at each riffle cross section (Cross Sections 1, 3, 6 and 9). Pebble Counts
creating experiences through experience 2 of 6

111 MCADAMS WATER RECLAMATION POND STREAM RESTORATION
> MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT
will be conducted and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. Pebble counts were not collected as part of the Monitoring
Year 6 field assessment.
2.3 Crest Stage Gauge
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). CSG measurements
will be conducted and reported in all years of monitoring. A CSG measurement of 2.8 feet was recorded during
the Monitoring Year 6 field assessment. Table 1 provides a list of bankfull events based on the installed CSG and
observed indicators of overbank flow.
Table 1. Verification of Bankfull Events
Monitoring
Year
Method
Collection
Date
Depth Reading
(CSG)
Largest Rain Event
within Growing Season*
Date of
Rainfall*
MY2
CSG
10/30/2015
2.4 feet
2.46 inches
10/03/2015
MY3
CSG
12/13/2016
2.6 feet
4.46 inches
10/09/2016
MY5
Bankfull Indicators
10/10/2018
N/A
4.48 inches
9/17/2018
MY6
CSG
12/5/2019
2.8 feet
3.69 inches
7/23/2019
*Data from NC CRONOS NC-DH-6— Durham 1.2 NW weather station
2.4 Bank Pins
Bank erosion rates are measured using bank pins that were installed into the stream banks during the As -built
monitoring set up. 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
measurements were not collected as part of the Monitoring Year 6 field assessment.
2.5 Channel Stability Assessment Summary
As part of the Monitoring Year 6 field assessment, the entire stream restoration project was visually inspected.
Below is a summary and recommendations based on the visual inspection.
> As noted in previous years, mowing activities continue to occur within the Northern and Central sections of
the CE. Mowing within the CE needs to cease immediately for the project to receive full credit upon close
out.
> Two large trees have fallen across the channel and sanitary sewer easement in the Southern section of the
stream restoration project. These trees may create obstructions in the channel that could lead to bank
erosion during high flows and cause stability issues. It is recommended that the fallen trees be removed
from the channel.
> There are several areas of bank erosion primarily within the Northern section of the site. Moderate erosion
was noted at several log sills in the Northern section in Monitoring Years 4 and 5, and these areas have
continued to experience erosion in Monitoring Year 6. Repairs are scheduled for winter of 2020. It is
recommended that the log sill repairs be completed as scheduled and that stream banks, particularly in the
Northern section of the site, continue to be monitored for stability.
creating experiences through experience 3 of 6

111 MCADAMS WATER RECLAMATION POND STREAM RESTORATION
> MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT
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). 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. In Monitoring Year 6, the average height of planted vegetation exceeded 10
feet in two of six plots.
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 with CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation (CVS-EEP, V4.2). All six (6) vegetation monitoring plots installed by McAdams were located
in Monitoring Year 6. 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 B) provides a success summary for each vegetation monitoring
plot. In Monitoring Year 6, the Stream Restoration project had six (6) vegetation monitoring plots encompassing
0.1483 acres, containing 63 planted stems, which yielded a density of 425 planted stems per acre. Monitoring
Year 6 field activities were conducted on December 5 and December 10, 2019. The planted vegetation survival
threshold was met for all six vegetation monitoring plots. Table 2 (Appendix B) provides a summary of the planted
stem counts for each vegetation plot. Table 3 (Appendix B) provides a summary of planted stem survival compared
to the As Built.
3.2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Sheets
Photographs of the vegetation monitoring plots are in Appendix C. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets are
provided in Appendix D. Each Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheet provides measurements, location and vigor
of each planted species within a respective vegetation monitoring plot.
3.3 Photo Stations
Photo documentation is essential to monitoring the success of 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 6. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 (Appendix
A) depict the locations of the photo stations. Photographs were taken at high resolution using an iPhone 7 camera.
Photographs for the photo stations are located in Appendix E.
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 tree sapling and shrub species in addition to
naturally occurring early emergent vegetative species. Over time, tree sapling and shrub species mature and
proliferate while naturally occurring early emergent vegetative species dwindle.
creating experiences through experience 4 of 6

2 MCADAMS WATER RECLAMATION POND STREAM RESTORATION
> MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT
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 most 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 stream and vegetation monitoring efforts in previous years, invasive species monitoring and
treatment have been conducted in the spring and fall. However, invasive species monitoring and treatment efforts
for Monitoring Year 6 have been postponed until the scheduled log sill repairs have been completed with the
intention of minimizing disturbance. Invasive species monitoring and treatment is scheduled to resume in the
spring of 2020, by which time the repairs are expected to be complete.
creating experiences through experience 5 of 6

111 MCADAMS WATER RECLAMATION POND STREAM RESTORATION
> MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT
5.0 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.
creating experiences through experience 6 of 6

M MCADAMS WATER RECLAMATION POND STREAM RESTORATION
> MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT
APPENDIX A
SITE MAPS
creating experiences through experience

r
Res "
USGS QUADRANGLE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST DURHAM, NC; 1972 PHOTOREVISED 1987;
36.003118'N,—78.949923'W
PROJECT N0. DKU-14060
PILENANE: DKU14060X.DWG
SCALE:
1° = 1,000'
DATE:
10-06-14
DUKE UNIVERSITY WATER
RECLAMATION POND
STREAM RESTORATION
FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
THE JOHN R. McADAMS
COMPANY, INC.
RESEARCH TRIANGLE HUM • CHARLOTTE
seb r.�. Nam, Dorian NC snw
Na: c-om
eoa �se4e..,,,r�rrn.• Home
ENGINEERS

VICINITY MAP
NTS
RESTORED STREAM
CHANNEL
VEG. PLOT #6
LEGEND
V/1 /f� , !/
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
•
CONSERVATION EASEMENT (TOTAL
AREA - 7.01 AC.)
EXISTING aTY OF DURHAM SEWER
EASEMENT
VEGETATION PLOTS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNITS
CREST STAGE GAUGE
RESTORED STREAM
CHANNEL
•
TOP OF HEADWALL
1
VEG. PLOT /4
'izz.,� VEG. PLOT 13_
— __-- -
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
VEG. PLOT #1
VEG. PLOT #2
i
/
/
EX. CITY OF
DURHAM SEWER
EASEMENT
GRAPHIC SCALE
200 0 100 200
400
1 inch = 200 It.
'imfor
011,1
Z
0
I— 0-
Q
gZ 2
<O Z
-JF w
UQ gz
Ww�
�O <o
w
Z
ct OQ
az
>f
Q wIX
Z o
vn_ U�
> Z N �,
Z
Oct
W 0
w
0

tNORTH (2.86
AC.)
e.
RESTORED STREAM
TOP OF BANK
CENTRAL (2.03 AC.)
RESTORED STREAM
CHANNEL
4/.1://1:
SOUTH (2.12
AC.)
RESTORED STREAM
TOP OF BANK
RESTORED STREAM
CHANNEL
VEG. PLOT #5
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
VEG. PLOT #1
I T
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
EX. CITY OF
DURHAM SEWER
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
A 77
CREST STAGE GAUGE
EX. CITY OF
DURHAM SEWER
EASEMENT
RESTORED STREAM
TOP OF BANK
TOP OF HEADWALL
RESTORED STREAM
CHANNEL
EX. CITY OF
DURHAM SEWER
EASEMENT
7
LEGEND
L ` J
•
CONSERVATION EASEMENT (TOTAL
AREA - 7.01 AC.)
EXISTING CITY OF DURHAM SEWER
EASEMENT
VEGETATION PLOTS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT LIMITS
CREST STAGE GAUGE
VICINITY MAP
NTS
GRAPHIC SCALE
la0 0 50 1ao
200
1 inch = 100 ft.
J
0
0
8
0
8
N
t
1

M MCADAMS WATER RECLAMATION POND STREAM RESTORATION
> MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT
APPENDIX B
VEGETATION ASSESSMENT DATA
creating experiences through experience

Table 1. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration Site
Durham, NC
MONITORING YEAR 6
McAdams Project #: DKU-16040
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Threshold Met?*
Tract Mean
1
Yes
100%
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
Yes
5
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.

Table 2. Planted Stem Count by Vegation Plot
Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration Site
Durham, NC
MONITORING YEAR 6
McAdams Project #: DKU-16040
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
CURRENT PLOT YEAR
ANNUAL TOTALS
VP-1
VP-2
VP-3
VP-4
VP-5
VP-6
MY-6
(DEC. 2019)
MY-5
(DEC. 2018)
MY-3
(NOV. 2016)
MY-2
(NOV. 2015)
MY-1
(SEPT. 2014)
AS BUILT
(JUN. 2014)
Alnus serrulata
tag alder
shrub
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
small tree
0
0
0
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern red bud
tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
shrub
0
0
0
2
5
5
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
small tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
tree
2
2
3
7
7
8
8
8
11
Lindera benzion
spicebush
shrub
0
0
1
2
3
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
tulip poplar
tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Nyssa sylvatica
black gum
tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
Platanus occidentalis
sycamore
tree
4
3
4
6
1
18
18
18
18
20
20
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
tree
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
tree
10
1
2
10
23
19
20
23
24
24
Quercus phellos
willow oak
tree
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
Viburnum dentatum
arrowood
shrub
1
1
2
4
5
5
6
6
Stem Count Total
14
11
9
7
8
14
63
61
66
74
83
87
Size of Vegetation Plot (Acres)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.1483
0.1483
0.1483
0.1483
0.1483
0.1483
Number of Different Species
2
7
4
2
4
2
14
11
11
26
27
28
Stems Per Acre
567
445
364
283
324
567
425
411
445
499
560
587
Total CE Area = 7.01 acres

Table 3. Planted Species Survival by Vegation Plot
Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration Site
Durham, NC
MONITORING YEAR 6
McAdams Project #: DKU-16040
VP-1
VP-2
VP-3
VP-4
VP-5
VP-6
Monitoring Year 6 Planted Stem Count Total
14
11
9
7
8
14
Monitoring Year 5 Planted Stem Count Total
Monitoring Year 3 Planted Stem Count Total
Monitoring Year 2 Planted Stem Count Total
Monitoring Year 1 Planted Stem Count Total
12
11
11
6
9
12
11
11
13
6
10
15
12
12
14
10
11
15
15
13
14
13
11
17
As Built Planted Stem Count Total
18
13
14
14
11
17
Planted Stem Difference from As -Built
-4
-2
-5
-7
-3
-3
Surival Rate (%)
78%
85%
64%
50%
73%
82%

2 MCADAMS WATER RECLAMATION POND STREAM RESTORATION
> MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT
APPENDIX C
VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT PHOTOS
creating experiences through experience

2 MCADAMS
MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT > DKU-16040
VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOS
Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration — Monitoring Year 6 Report
December 5 & 10, 2019
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
creating experiences through experience
2905 Meridian Parkway, Durham, NC 27713 / 919. 361. 5000

M MCADAMS
MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT > DKU-16040
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 4
creating experiences through experience 2 of 3

2 MCADAMS
MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT > DKU-16040
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6
creating experiences through experience
3 of 3

M MCADAMS WATER RECLAMATION POND STREAM RESTORATION
> MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT
APPENDIX D
VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT DATA SHEETS
creating experiences through experience

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Veg Plot No.: 1
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY6
Date: 12/10/2019
Area: 10x10
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA
X
Y
ddh
Height
DBH
Vigor
Notes
Map ID
Scientific Name
Source
meter
meter
mm
cm
cm
1
Quercus michauxii
B
1.3
L. !
8
105
3
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
0.7
3.1
Missing
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
0.8
4.7
Missing
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
0.7
5.1
Missing
5
Platanus occidentalis
B
0.2
5.6
623
3.1
3
6
Quercus michauxii
B
3.8
9.1
Missing
7
Platanus occidentalis
B
2.8
4.3
576
3.8
3
8
Quercus michauxii
B
3.8
1.5
9
110
3
9
Quercus michauxii
B
4.4
3.5
8
135
3
10
Quercus michauxii
B
5.8
8.4
192
0.6
3
11
Platanus occidentalis
B
7.4
2.2
900
8.9
3
12
Platanus occidentalis
B
8.2
3.1
800
4.4
3
13
Quercus michauxii
B
8.1
5.8
10
89
2
Resprout
14
Quercus michauxii
B
7.9
6.5
7
33
2
Dieback
15
Quercus michauxii
B
9.9
9.4
9
124
3
16
Quercus michauxii
B
9.5
6.9
215
1.2
3
17
Quercus michauxii
B
9.9
4.1
10
115
3
18
Quercus michauxii
B
8.7
1.2
210
0.8
3
B = bare root
C= containerized
•
•
y
0,0
Coordinates revised in MY6 to more accurately reflect planted stem location
Campus Drive
•
Volunteers
<50 cm
50-100 cm
100+ cm
Liquidambar styraciflua
1
0
42
Pinustaeda
0
10
80
Liriodendron tulipifera
0
0
6
Platanus occidentalis
0
0
1

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Veg Plot No.: 1
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY6
Date: 12/5/2019
Area: 10x10
Bank erosion caused by a failed
log sill has encroached into VP1
at this location; stem #16 is now
growing in the stream bed
10
9
1
1
1
1
7
5
0
NIII
®
�'�
Q'�
0
0
0,,
',,
0 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 0 Platanus occidentalis OQuercus mchauXii OMissing

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Veg Plot No.: 2
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY6
Date: 12/5/2019
Area: 10x10
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA
X
Y
ddh
Height
DBH
Vigor
Notes
Map ID
Scientific Name
Source
meter
meter
mm
cm
cm
1
Quercus phellos
B
0.0
1.5
460
2.3
3
2
Quercus lyrata
B
4.3
1.0
450
3.2
3
3
Quercus phellos
B
6.8
1.6
10
21
1
Deer
4
Platanus occidentalis
B
9.7
1.4
950
12.4
3
5
Cersis canadensis (sp. nd on planting list)
C
7.9
4.5
500
3.5
3
6
Quercus phellos
B
5.4
4.0
Missing
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
C
2.9
3.3
620
7.1
3
8
Platanus occidentalis
B
2.7
5.7
875
8.6
3
9
Quercus michauxii
B
5.6
6.2
408
3.3
3
10
Cornus florida
C
9.8
7.8
390
3.6
3
11
Alnus serrulata
B
5.6
8.8
Dead
12
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
C
2.8
8.0
675
8.6
3
13
Platanus occidentalis
B
8.1
9.7
550
4.0
3
B = bare root
C= containerized
1
1
1
y
0,0
- ■ - ■
■
Volunteers
<50 cm
50-100 cm
100+ cm
Liquidambar styraciflua
0
1
37
Liriodendron tulipifera
0
0
14
Pinustaeda
0
0
70
Quercus phellos
0
0
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0
0
1
Myrica cerifera
0
0
1
x
Campus Drive

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Veg Plot No.: 2
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY6
Date: 12/5/2019
Area: 10x10
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
0
r
,
',
'
'
,
0
,
8
----mooTT
0
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90. 10.0
OQuercus lyrata OAlnus serrulata OCersis canadensis OCornus florida
OFraxinus pennsylvanica OPlatanus occidentalis OQuercus michauxii 0 Missing
X Dead OQuercus phellos

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Veg Plot No.: 3
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY6
Date: 12/5/2019
Area: 10x10
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA
X
Y
ddh
Height
DBH
Vigor
Notes
Map ID
Scientific Name
Source
meter
meter
mm
cm
cm
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
1.2
2.8
345
3.8
3
2
Viburnum dentatum
B
2.7
1.9
Missing
3
Platanus occidentalis
B
2.7
4.5
425
2.7
3
4
Platanus occidentalis
B
1.1
5.5
Missing
5
Platanus occidentalis
B
3.7
7.6
327
1.1
3
6
Platanus occidentalis
B
4.4
8.1
210
0.8
3
7
Platanus occidentalis
B
1.8
9.9
194
0.6
3
8
Quercus michauxii
B
4.5
5.9
177
0.6
3
9
Quercus michauxii
B
4.6
3.1
80
70
3
10
Viburnum dentatum
B
5.7
1.5
Missing
11
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
7.6
3.3
247
1.2
3
12
Platanus occidentalis
B
9.0
2.5
Dead
13
Viburnum dentatum
B
9.4
7.0
7
58
1
Die back
14
Platanus occidentalis
B
9.8
9.2
Missing
B = bare root
C= containerized
ti
•
♦ •
y
'
mos
0,0 x
Volunteers
<50 cm
50-100 cm
100+ cm
Liquidambar styraciflua
0
1
4
Pinus taeda
0
3
95
Myrica cerifera
0
0
6
Quercus phellos
1
0
0
Ulmus rubra
0
0
3

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Veg Plot No.: 3
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY6
Date: 12/5/2019
Area: 10x10
10
2
0
U
,
,
14
,0
,
,
0
6
6___
yid
'
0
L
i
i
i
00 10 20 30 40 50 60
70
80
9 0 10.0
Platanus occidentalis OFraxinus pennsylvan ca OQuercus michauxii Viburnum dentatum ()Missing XDead

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Veg Plot No.: 4
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY6
Date: 12/5/2019
Area: 20x5
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA
X
Y
ddh
Height
DBH
Vigor
Notes
Map ID
Scientific Name
Source
meter
meter
mm
cm
cm
1
Platanus occidentalis
B
0.3
1.2
418
2.6
3
2
Lindera benzion
B
2.2
3.2
Missing
3
Cornus amomum
B
3.3
0.2
Missing
4
Platanus occidentalis
B
5.6
3.5
530
3.5
3
5
Cornus amomum
B
6.8
4.9
Dead
6
Lindera benzion
B
8.4
2.9
Missing
7
Platanus occidentalis
B
11.3
3.1
405
2.2
3
8
Viburnum dentatum
B
13.9
2.9
10
131
3
9
Platanus occidentalis
B
14.2
4.9
650
4.9
3
10
Asiminatriloba
B
17.1
4.9
Missing
11
Lindera benzion
B
17.2
3.6
Dead
12
Viburnum dentatum
B
19.1
0.3
Dead
13
Lindera benzion
B
19.6
3.2
Dead
14
Platanus occidentalis
B
19.4
5.0
330
1.7
3
Die back/insect
15
Platanus occidentalis
B
0.1
3.9
450
3.5
3
•
•
41.4
B = bare root
C= containerized
•
` • - • - •
y
Coordinates revised in MY6 to more accurately reflect planted stem location
• - •
•
• -
•
0,0
Volunteers
<50 cm
50-100 cm
100+ cm
Liquidambar styraciflua
0
1
0
Liriodendron tulipifera
0
0
3
Pinustaeda
0
6
50
Ligustrum sinense
0
0
1
Alnus serrulata
0
1
0
Myrica cerifera
0
0
6
x

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Veg Plot No.: 4
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY6
Date: 12/5/2019
Area: 20x5
5
4
3
1.
--
Imo.
1
0
3yI
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
OPlatanus occidentalis OAsimina triloba OCornus amomum OLindera benzion 0 Viburnum dentatum X Dead 0 Missing

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Veg Plot No.: 5
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY6
Date: 12/5/2019
Area: 10x10
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA
X
Y
ddh
Height
DBH
Vigor
Notes
Map ID
Scientific Name
Source
meter
meter
mm
cm
cm
1
Cornus amomum
B
2.8
3.1
Dead
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
B
2.1
5.0
171
0.7
3
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
B
5.2
6.6
177
0.7
3
4
Alnus serrulata
B
2.6
7.3
8
136
3
5
Platanus occidentalis
B
9.9
8.4
525
3.1
3
6
Viburnum dentatum
B
5.8
Missing
7
Alnus serrulata
B
8.6
8.9
202
0.6
3
8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
8.5
9.4
180
0.6
3
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
9.9
9.6
236
1.4
3
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
4.4
9.8
227
1.1
3
11
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
1.0
9.5
Missing
i
B = bare root
C= containerized
40.
•
Coordinates revised in MY6 to more accurately reflect planted stem location
— • • - • MN • - • - . - . - . - • - • - . —
y
0,0 x
Volunteers
<50 cm
50-100 cm
100+ cm
Liquidambar styraciflua
34
37
41
Liriodendron tulipifera
0
1
15
Platanus occidentalis
1
0
4
Pinus taeda
20
64
90
Myrica cerifera
0
0
5
Quercus phellos
1
0
0
r

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Veg Plot No.: 5
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY6
Date: 12/5/2019
Area: 10x10
10
10
0
Voi
i 0
s
O ,
4
�
3
I
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10
OPlatanus occidentalis 0 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 0Alnus serrulata .' Viburnum dentatum
OCornus amom um 0 Liriodendron tulipifera X Dead 0 Missing

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Veg Plot No.: 6
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY6
Date: 12/5/2019
Area: 10x10
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA
X
Y
ddh
Height
DBH
Vigor
Notes
Map ID
Scientific Name
Source
meter
meter
mm
cm
cm
1
Cornus amomum
B
0.2
1.2
Dead
2
Nyssa sylvatica
B
3.3
1.1
Dead
3
Cornus amomum
B
6.3
0.8
Dead
4
Nyssa sylvatica
B
9.1
0.8
291
1.1
3
5
Quercus michauxii
B
4.9
2.5
140
0.2
3
6
Quercus michauxii
B
0.8
3.3
275
1.0
3
7
Quercus michauxii
B
2.8
3.7
174
0.6
3
8
Quercus michauxii
B
6.0
4.0
204
0.8
3
9
Quercus michauxii
B
9.2
4.2
146
0.4
3
10
Quercus michauxii
B
1.7
5.9
7
118
3
Browse
11
Nyssa sylvatica
B
4.4
6.6
6
81
3
12
Quercus michauxii
B
5.7
7.7
18
88
3
13
Nyssa sylvatica
B
7.5
6.8
154
0.3
3
14
Nyssa sylvatica
B
9.6
7.2
8
88
3
15
Quercus michauxii
B
9.9
9.1
245
0.7
3
16
Quercus michauxii
B
7.0
9.3
9
123
3
17
Quercus michauxii
B
3.8
9.2
5
69
3
B = bare root
C= containerized
•
y
0,0
• • r
forest edge
Volunteers
<50 cm
50-100 cm
100+ cm
Liquidambar styraciflua
5
10
55
Platanus occidentalis
0
2
6
Pinus taeda
5
15
100
Liriodendron tulipifera
0
1
4
Ulmus alata
0
1
0
Nyssa sylvatica
0
0
1
'Note: Y post not found (washed away?)

Site: Duke Sandy Creek Restoration
Veg Plot No.: 6
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY6
Date: 12/5/2019
Area: 10x10
10
0
,
0
9
8
,
7
0
6
0
5
,
4
3
0
0
,
-
-
,
-
2
1- 4
5
Quercus
13(
6
michauxii
0 -
0
1 2
C
Nyssa
sylvatica
3
OCornus
4
amomum
7
X Dead 0
8
9 10

M MCADAMS WATER RECLAMATION POND STREAM RESTORATION
> MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT
APPENDIX E
PHOTO STATION PHOTOS
creating experiences through experience

2 MCADAMS
MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT > DKU-16040
PHOTO STATION PHOTOS
Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration — Monitoring Year 6 Report
December 5 & 10, 2019
Photo Station 1: View facing downstream
Photo Station 2: View facing upstream
creating experiences through experience
2905 Meridian Parkway, Durham, NC 27713 / 919. 361. 5000

M MCADAMS
MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT > DKU-16040
Photo Station 2: View facing downstream
Photo Station 3: View facing upstream
creating experiences through experience 2 of 8

111 MCADAMS
MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT > DKU-16040
Photo Station 4: View facing upstream
Photo Station 4: View facing downstream
creating experiences through experience 3 o[

M MCADAMS
MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT > DKU-16040
Photo Station 5: View facing upstream
Photo Station 5: View facing downstream
creating experiences through experience 4 of 8

MCADAMS
MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT > DKU-16040
Photo Station 6: View facing upstream
Photo Station 7: View facing downstream
creating experiences through experience 5 of 8

M MCADAMS
MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT > DKU-16040
Photo Station 8: View facing upstream
Photo Station 8: View facing downstream
creating experiences through experience 6 of 8

M MCADAMS
MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT > DKU-16040
Photo Station 9: View facing upstream
Photo Station 9: View facing downstream
creating experiences through experience 7°ot'8

M MCADAMS
MONITORING YEAR 6 REPORT > DKU-16040
Crest Gauge — observed 12/5/2019
creating experiences through experience 8 of 8