20040243 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 2_20080414

•
WHITELACE CREEK STREAM ENHANCEMENT
AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 2 OF 5)
Lenoir County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 420
0

I A z00
0
Prepared for:
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Ecosystem
I 'V1 )(.R AAA
Status of Plan: Final
Submission Date: March 2008
DENR'VVATO MWA??S??K
WEnANDS AND ?
RECEIVED
mw? 1 4 2008
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
•
va
0
0

Monitoring Firm:

L!t:v.- Stantec

Stantec Consulting Services Inc
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
0
0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Ecosystems Enhancement Program (EEP) enhanced 5,901 linear feet of the Whitelace
Creek stream channel located west of Kinston, in Lenoir County, North Carolina. Additionally, 7.7 and
13.0 acres of wetland area were restored and enhanced, respectively. The site construction was completed
in August of 2005, and planting occurred in March of 2006. This report provides the monitoring
information for year two (2) of the stream enhancement and wetland restoration project.
The project consists of a tributary of the Neuse River Basin, located in Lenoir County, within an EEP-
owned conservation easement 6.5 miles west of Kinston. The site is located adjacent to the Kennedy
Home, approximately one mile south of US 70 and comprises approximately 37.0 acres.
Portions of the Whitelace Creek were identified as suitable for stream enhancement and wetland
restoration by the NCEEP. Due to previous dredging and straightening which occurred to accommodate
past land uses (i.e., a large dairy operation and other agricultural practices), the acreage of riverine
wetlands in the area was reduced because of the lowering of the streambed elevation, adversely affecting
wetland hydrology. Restoration activities for this project included excavation of the floodplain to provide
Level 1 stream enhancement, riverine wetland enhancement and restoration, and Neuse River riparian
buffer enhancement and restoration.
On September 18th, 2007 the Year 2 monitoring survey was completed for the vegetation at the Whitelace
Creek project site. As directed by NCEEP, stream stability measurements (i.e., cross-sections,
• longitudinal profile and pebble counts) were not taken, because the stream portion of the project was
enhancement and, therefore, did not involve significant work on the stream channel. The general
assessment of stream stability revealed excellent connection to the floodplain, with a bank height ratio of
approximately one. Despite previous straightening there were no signs of bank erosion anywhere on the
site. Several reaches of the stream had developed several mid-channel bars which were well vegetated. In
some instances, these bars can lead to lateral migration and bank instability. No signs of instability were
identified during the site visits, but these areas should be monitored in the future. Additionally, the crest
gauge on-site was checked in September and November of 2007. A bankfull event was verified in
September. In November, the water level exceeded bankfull, likely due to beaver activity near the crest
gauge. Beaver activity was also likely present further downstream.
Vegetative monitoring was performed using the Carolina Vegetation Survey methodology on nine of the
original 15 plots, as requested by NCEEP. Monitoring revealed that only 3 of the 9 plots (33%) met the 3-
year vegetative success criteria of 320 planted stems or greater per acre. There are a number of issues
causing the failure of the remaining 6 plots. There was a relatively low number of healthy plant species in
vegetation plots 1 through 5, likely due to previous heavy flooding in 2006 as noted in the Year 1
monitoring report. In 2007, the higher areas onsite have been adversely affected by an extreme drought
while the lower areas onsite have been flooded by beaver activity. Other problems included the presence
of invasive or exotic species such as Typha latifolia, Murdannia keisak, and Persicaria sagittata.
Persicaria is currently causing problems with vegetation vigor and survival and should be controlled.
Typha and Murdannia will be watched throughout the monitoring period to ensure that they do not start
causing harm to the planted species. It should be noted that there were a large number of river birch and
silverling volunteers throughout the site. The major issue affecting the poor performance of the vegetation
is on the site is the localized flooding caused by beaver activity. The beavers should be removed, thereby
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page i
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
allowing the site hydrology to return to conditions outlined in the restoration plan. However, beaver •
activity is likely to continue. Therefore, the site should be replanted with trees of appropriate species and
size to withstand periodic inundation.
Groundwater data collected through November of 2007 was used to assess the compliance of the site with
wetland hydrology criteria. Seven groundwater monitoring gauges are currently active on the project site.
A site is considered to meet the requirements for wetland hydrology if the groundwater level is within 12
inches of the ground surface for 12.5% of the growing season consecutively. Five of the gauges met the
criteria for 2007. Two of the seven gauges did not meet the criteria during the growing season of 2007.
Gauge 4 had a maximum of 15 (6%) consecutive days where the groundwater level was within 12 inches
of the surface. Gauge 2 had a maximum of 17 days (7%). However, gauge data could not be collected at
Gauge 2 after September 6, 2007 due to a problem with the gauge. Given that precipitation was below
the 30% percentile for the area, the failure of some gauges to indicate hydrologic success is not cause for
significant concern.
•

Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page ii
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
• Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................i
1.0 Project Background ........................................................................................................................... I
1.1 Project objectives ...................................................................................................................... l
1.2 Project structure ........................................................................................................................1
1.3 Location and Setting ................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Project History and Background ...............................................................................................4
1.5 Monitoring Plan View ...............................................................................................................6
2.0 Project Condition and Monitoring Results ...................................................................................... 11
2.1 Vegetation Assessment ........................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 Vegetation Problem Areas .................................................................................................. 11
2.1.2 Vegetation Problem Area Plan View .................................................................................. 11
2.2 Stream Assessment ................................................................................................................. 12
2.3 Wetland Assessment ............................................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 Problem Areas Plan View ................................................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Wetland Criteria Attainment ............................................................................................... 12
3.0 References ....................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix A. Vegetation Raw Data
Appendix B. Geomorphologic Raw Data
Appendix C. Wetland Hydrology Data
Appendix D. Integrated Problem Area Plan View
L
•
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page iii
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
0
•
•
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page iv
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008

1.0 Project Background
1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Previous dredging and straightening of Whitelace Creek had lowered the streambed elevation, thereby
causing a reduction in the acreage of riverine wetlands due to a lowered water table. Restoration and
enhancement objectives for this project included the restoration of historic stream and wetland functions
that existed on-site prior to dredging and vegetation removal. Site alterations at Whitelace Creek included
the excavation or reestablishment of the floodplain and in-situ stream channel modification to the existing
stream. The goals of these activities were to reintroduce surface water flood hydrodynamics from a 10.1
square mile watershed along the restored length of stream and floodplain. Subsequent objectives were to
restore wetland hydrology and to reforest the site with streamside and riparian forest communities.
1.2 PROJECT STRUCTURE
The project area consists of a tributary of the Neuse River Basin, Whitelace Creek, located in Lenoir
County, within an NCEEP-owned conservation easement west of Kinston, North Carolina. The project
area comprises approximately 37.0 acres and has a watershed area of 10.1 square miles.
Restoration activities included the excavation of the floodplain to provide Level 1 stream enhancement,
riverine wetland enhancement and restoration, and Neuse River riparian buffer enhancement and
restoration. Stream pattern and profile were not altered. The 7.7 acres of riverine wetland restoration
encompassed the excavated floodplain adjacent to approximately 3,500 linear feet of Whitelace Creek,
including two closed hog waste lagoons. The sludge from these lagoons was removed during restoration.
Additionally, 13.0 acres of riverine wetland enhancement was generated primarily within riparian areas
within the eastern (downstream) portion of the site.
0
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 1
Stantee - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
Exhibit Table I. Project Restoration Components
Whitelace Creek Wetland Restoration Site/EEP Project No. 420

w
r
o c
0 e
0
r
•
.'n. y d CY p L ? .2 tp
Reach ID W w 04 ] Stationing Comment
Total accounts for 30 l.f gap in
Reach 1 3693 E1 P2 3693 1.5 2462.0 0+35-37+58 easement at road crossing
Reach 2 2208 E2 P2 2208 2.5 883.2 37+58 - 59+66
Riverine Wetland Stations 0+00 - 37+58 mark the
Restoration R P2 7.7 ac 1 7.7 NA extent of the flood lain grading
Riverine Wetland
Enhancement E NA 13.0 ac * * NA
Neuse River Buffer
Restoration R NA 27.1 ac * * NA
Neuse River Buffer
Enhancement E NA 7.2 ac * * NA
Mitigation Unit Summations
Riparian Nonriparr ian Total Wetland
Stream (If) Buffer (ac) Comment
Wetland (ac) Wetland (ac) (ac)
3345 0.0 0.0
R - Restoration
El = Stream Enhancement 1
S = Stabilization
P=Preservation
*Mitigation Ratios are needed from EEP
1.3 LOCATION AND SETTING
The restoration site is located 6.5 miles west of Kinston, in Lenoir County, North Carolina. The site is
located in a rural area, adjacent to the Kennedy Home complex approximately one mile south of US 70.
The site can be accessed from a bridge on Baptist Orphanage Road, which crosses Whitelace Creek
(Figure 1).
Site directions: from Raleigh follow US 70 East toward Kinston. Approximately 8 miles east of La
Grange, take a right on Kennedy Home Road. Continue approximately 0.3 miles and take the first left
onto Kennedy Dairy Road. Follow Kennedy Dairy Road through the Kennedy Home complex. Continue
through the traffic circle, stay right, and merge onto Baptist Orphanage Road. Travel approximately 0.5
miles until reaching a small concrete bridge spanning Whitelace Creek. This point is near the middle of
the site. The stream enhancement reach begins approximately 2,400 feet upstream of the bridge and ends
approximately 3,500 feet downstream. The 7.7 acres of riverine wetland restoration encompasses the
excavated floodplain adjacent to approximately 3,500 linear feet of Whitelace Creek. The 13.0 acres of
riverine wetland enhancement occurs primarily within the riparian areas within the eastern (downstream)
portion of the project area.
0

•
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 2
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
? 0

1? I
KENNEDY-D?IRY RD. k .
BAPTIST ORPHANAGE RD.
t1 SITE R11
:I LAT 35.244° N
?. f LON 77.689° W
4,000 0 400©
??,• . SCALE IN FE
?$ 903 6 HookertonMt? 7 '?
3
Jason 258 123 ?i ?
or j O Grift
UN r- 112 _ ,,' 58 1.
6 fi
Institute Dawson 6 Graingers
LaGrange 5 2 ??
E 11
903
1
1 3. DoverC 1, 1,
Rive
even
rings ` Wyse
Fork
L E N 0 I R 8

7 ,Deep R
un
/ NEUSE RIVER
BASIN (C 03020202)
$
?, 18 ? 17
tso n
?/ 58
I a N ? a 258

gay 5 „
Pink Hill Pleasant Hill

O $
03 / 01
Trent
111 41 Com -
241 --55
- - -
___-
-

Clients Project Dwn By Ckd ey=
GWN JWG FIGURE
SITE LOCATION MAP Date
® r-ld?m
NOV 2006
EcoScience WHITELACE CREEK STREAM AND Scale:
Corporation WZfie m WETLAND RESTORATION SITE AS SHOWN
, ESC Project No.;
""O2' - LENOIR COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Raleigh, North Carolina , 02-111
1.4 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND •
Exhibit Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
Whitelace Creek Wetland Restoration Site/EEP Project No. 420

Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion Data
Collection
Complete Actual Completion

or Delivery
Restoration Plan NA NA Feb 2004
Final Design - 90% NA NA Nov 2004
Construction Au 2005 NA Au 2005
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area NA NA Jul 2005
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area NA NA Au 2006
Bare Root Seedling Installation Mar 2006 NA Mar 2005
Mitigation Plan / As-built Year 0 Monitoring - baseline NA NA Apr 2005
Final Report NA NA Apr 2005
Year 1 Monitoring Nov 2006 Nov 2006 Nov 2006
Year 2 Monitoring Nov 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007
Year 3 Monitoring NA NA NA
Year 4 Monitoring NA NA NA
Year 5 Monitoring NA NA NA
NA = Not Applicable
0
•
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 4
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
•
Ll
•
Exhibit Table III. Project Component Table
Whitelace Creek Wetland Restoration Site/EEP Project No. 420
Designer EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street
Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Construction Contractor Shamrock Environmental Corporation
PO Box 14987
Greensboro, NC 27415
Planting Contractor Emerald Forest Incorporated
4651 Backwoods Road
Chesapeake, VA 23322-2456
Seeding Contractor Wheat Swamp Landscaping
4675 Ben Dail Road
LaGrange, NC 28551-8038
Seed Mix Sources IKEX, Inc.
PO Box 250
Middlesex, NC 27557
Nursery Stock Suppliers Warren County Nursery
6492 Beersheba Highway
McMinnville, TN 37110
Pinelands Nursery and Supply
323 Island Road
Columbus, NJ 08022
Coastal Plain Conservation Nursery
3067 Connors Drive
Edenton, NC 27932
Monitoring Performers (Year 0-1) EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh NC 27604
[phone]
Monitoring Performers (Year 2) Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Ste 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Stream Monitoring POC David Bidelspach [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC Amber Coleman [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POC Amber Coleman [phone]
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page 5
March 2008
Exhibit Table IV. Project Background Table
Whitelace Creek Wetland Restoration Site/EEP Project No. 420

Project County Lenoir
Drainage Area 10.1 s mi
Drainage impervious cover estimate % < I percent
Stream Order 2nd order
Ph sio ra hic Region Coastal Plain
Ecore ion Southeastern Flood plains and Low Terraces
Ros en Classification of As-built C/E
Cowardin Classification R2UB23Cb
Dominant soil types Johnston stream channels, 80% of Site
Lakeland, u lands/terraces, 15% of Site
Pactolus, u lands/terraces, 4% of Site
Kalmia, terraces, 1% of Site
Reference site ID 01-05471-OIA
USGS HUC for Project 03020202040020
USGS HUC for Reference 03020202040020
NCDW Subbasin for Project 03-04-05
NCDW Subbasin for Reference 03-04-05
NCDW Classification for Project C SW NSW
NCDW Classification for Reference C SW NSW
An portion of an project segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d listed
segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor No
Percent of project easement fenced No
1.5 MONITORING PLAN VIEW
A monitoring plan view map is provided in Figure 2. Figures 3 and 4 include plan views of the riverine
wetland and Neuse buffer enhancement, respectively.
•
•
U
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 6
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008

U 0

??
43

W?
U

I
o

z
M

N ?j

W
oc
WHWI

0
c

W z 0
C0 a i-i
?W ZFW Z D6 oOe

0
W H'

z
-
CC o

N
>
ZZ z

_
.V)
V)
<

Q

Q

w

D

N
z
I' r1?
UU 0
O v CO)
zV=d
W z ~ cc O va 's cc
V y z
W d s
O z

m Z
CD
m ...
z
m
a
w
W
U
m
W
Z
CC uj
ti

d
V N
W
G
C_J
a
>
O
W
U
C
W_
U
W
C
3-D
O
O
ro
BApTtST ORPHANAGE. Rp.
V)
x
w e
G
Q
0
cD
CL
0 Ln
w
o,
U
Q
w
01
wF-?
Q V
X O
O F- F
or? QV,
wUw
d 0 FY
Q J U
6M GADN
G ?
>
Q
C 7 G\
Q
MJ o
d
>
U
CJ
a
U)
x
X
W a
U U
3
C) a
C >
Q
?8 Ob'N o
w
w
w

W
-JG

? cc
O
n
N
n
n '?
N
?
m
n
n M
V
N
N
n
n v

N

n
n v
M
n
T
n
n m
tp
M
m
n
n co
?
GD
n
n
n co
M
O
n
n
n M
O
O
N
r
n m
n
n
?
r:
n
O
(p
M
n
n ao
N
(p
M
n
n 0
N
?
N
n
n o
M
M
N
n
n m
N
o

r?

'O

?
r
W
J et
n
M
u>
e
N
u7
M M
m
tD
?n
o
N
L6
M t0

m
?n
v
N
N
m i[1
v
O
rn
a
N
6
M tp
ao
cp
a
a
N
o
m M
o
Op
a
a
N
N
M N
m
n
o
a
N

m M
n
v
a
v
N

m M
?n

?n
o
N

M N
m
tp
a
v

N
M
a?
fp
v
v
N

m ?
u>
M
?n
a
N

M ?
m
m
a
a
N

m Op

a0
m
o
N

m
o
tp

v
N

M
N
O
a
`o
a
m
OI

1

N
7

m
1

R
1

?n
7

c0
1

n
J
1

tp
> I

a-
>1
o

>1

1
N

>1
M

>1
a
u?
n
o z
N -
C
w
a?i J
o Q
0 O U
E p C/1
m ?
3
0
T
V
d
L

L

L
0
a
0
y

N

Q
f L7
x z
[if
w w
2 U O ~O
w
Q Q z
w w o 2
U
z
C Z n o a
L'i LILJ
Z O D:? U U Q
UA a U Li O
?Q :E V) Q o
Li Q F- Z w
(n p w V) w w D C)
z CL O a_, CD O:D
O I- D? F- w Df Q
U rl) V) U (n > C' C)
x
O
w
Q?
> C
X
0 0 9

U
y u
0
C)

C
z >

W u
e
U

Cc W?? 0 Q

LLI aZ- c 'Z
O
LL, CO) ui
L)OZO
a Oy °C
ZV2a
W _
cc 3: CO) ztc
W o w JZ
a
w
D
V
O
O
O
w
w
z
w
Q
O v
O V)
0 6 1-
a Q w J
~
z O I- ro m

w 0)
o O
N

W N
U7
Q
O
W z
Q z
Q
75
z J J Q
O ~z WF Z
W Z w L Z O
Q W
> u
W Q Ww
ZO WQ
Z? Nw
O N
?N
? W?
Un O Q
W WQ WM
Z
>
>
0 Z W WZ i
U ?W ?? ?w CO U)

' i

W v
\
I ?
U"
6261 CADN
?7g adN
Qo z
0 0 0
N O r-
ZD Z N
aZWCy 0 O
v?
a
a?cnS2z z N Q
LU LY ?-
m
? U w
0 0 0

(u
U O
?Z
W D Z
W Lu ?
0
o
N z
0
..4
U
U Q z
z pCWW?
ZF- LL,
C}Va V app o Z?
?Y ZH Z no
LULU ? m Uv
' ?Z?=p
QN-V?
aW?Z
0
z z
..
N Q N
0

D
U/ C
11-0
O ~?0 Vchz
o
Z
= _?Q -00 o
=0
WN
W
° W
yaLL -
LLH? z
U
W V
a
W o
c
d
H
? y ?? W JZ
Z m?
O
m

m
o
a`
U W
U O
d
;
U U
?
W
BAP161
0
OU
O
0
0
w
w
w
z
w
Q
o U
o ?
U U
Q Q
N
z r
W ? N
W
Q
W ?
W
Z Z
Q Q CC z Z Z
Q S w w w O
W U >
Q w
C7 of Q
W ch u
w w?
J V70 Q wwz ww0
w cnwa cnw?-
0r- wiz wDw
U? U7 Zmw Zmm
w
6261 aAON
?8 GVN
9 0 0
• 2.0 Project Condition and Monitoring Results
2.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
Fifteen vegetative sample plots were quantitatively monitored during the first growing season. Species
composition, density, and survival were monitored during Year 0 and Year 1. The number of plots was
reduced to nine for monitoring in the second year, as requested by NCEEP. These plots include the
original plots named VP 1, VP2, VP4, VP6, VP8, VP9, VP 11, VP 14, and VP 15. The Carolina Vegetation
Survey (CVS) methodology was utilized for vegetative monitoring in Year 2. Level 2 (planted and natural
stems) methodology was completed on all the plots except for plots VP3, VP5, VP7, VP10, VP11, VP12
and VP 13.
As per the mitigation plan, the vegetative success criteria are based on the US Army Corps of Engineers
Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE, 2003). The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of
260 5-year old planted woody stems per acre at the end of the year 5 monitoring period. An interim
measure of vegetation planting success will be the survival of at least 320 3-year old planted woody stems
per acre at the end of year 3 of the monitoring period.
The Year 2 stem counts within each of the nine vegetative monitoring plots are included in Exhibit Tables
A 1 through A5 in Appendix Al. Photos of the vegetative monitoring plots are included in Appendix A3.
Stems per acre for each of the nine plots are reported in Table A5-A of Appendix Al.
2.1.1 Vegetation Problem Areas
Monitoring revealed that 3 of the 9 plots (33%) met the 3-year vegetative success criteria of 320 planted
stems or greater per acre. There are a number of issues causing the failure of the remaining 6 plots. There
was a relatively low number of healthy plant species in vegetation plots 1 through 5, likely due to
previous heavy flooding in 2006 as noted in the Year 1 monitoring report. In 2007, the higher areas onsite
have been adversely affected by an extreme drought while the lower areas onsite have been flooded by
beaver activity. Other problems included the presence of invasive or exotic species such as Typha
latifolia, Murdannia keisak, and Persicaria sagittata. Persicaria is currently causing problems with
vegetation vigor and survival and should be controlled. Typha and Murdannia will be watched throughout
the monitoring period to ensure that they do not start causing harm to the planted species. See Exhibit
Table A6 in Appendix A1, as well as accompanying photos provided in Appendix A2. It should be noted
that there were a large number of river birch and silverling volunteers throughout the site. The major issue
affecting the poor performance of the vegetation on the site is the localized flooding caused by beaver
activity. The beavers should be removed, thereby allowing the site hydrology to return to a conditions
outlined in the restoration plan. However, beaver activity is likely to continue. Therefore, the site should
be replanted with trees of appropriate species and size to withstand periodic inundation.
2.1.2 Vegetation Current Condition Plan View
• Vegetative problem areas are shown on the Current Condition Plan View in Appendix D.
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page I I
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
2.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT
Changes in stream profile and pattern were not included in the stream enhancement project for Whitelace
Creek. As such, cross-section and longitudinal profile surveys and pebble were not performed for the
Year 2 monitoring, as directed by NCEEP. However, a general assessment of stream stability was
performed during field reconnaissance. Additionally, the crest gauge on-site was checked.
Field reconnaissance noted that the stream is an E type channel (Rosgen Classification) which is common
in the coastal plain, with a low width-to-depth ratio and flat slopes (Appendix B4, Photo 1). The stream
has excellent connection to the floodplain, with bank height ratio being approximately one. The channel
shows signs of past straightening, but all banks are stable with little to no signs of bank erosion over the
entire stream reach. In a few sections (mostly downstream) the stream has developed several mid-channel
bars which are well vegetated (Appendix B4, Photo 2). This would indicate that the channel width is too
wide in these areas. Mid-channel bars in some instances can lead to lateral migration and bank instability.
However, with the abundance of bank vegetation and low flows there are currently no signs of instability.
These areas should be monitored in the future.
During field reconnaissance, an abundance of different species of mussels were observed in the stream at
the upstream end of the project site.
The crest gauge was checked during two site visits to Whitelace Creek in September and November of
2007 (Appendix B4, Photo 4). The September visit indicated that an overbank event had occurred since
the last visit. In November, the water level was above bankfull, likely due to beaver activity near the crest
gauge. In addition, the water level across the site rose throughout the Year 2 monitoring period. Since
North Carolina has been in an extreme drought throughout this time it is likely that the overall rise in
hydrology can be attributed to beaver activity downstream.
2.3 WETLAND ASSESSMENT
2.3.1 Current Condition Plan View
The plan view of the wetland problem areas is in Appendix D.
2.3.2 Wetland Criteria Attainment
A site is considered to meet the requirements for wetland hydrology if the groundwater saturation is
within 12 inches of the ground surface consecutively for 12.5% of the growing season. Seven
groundwater monitoring gauges are currently active on the project site. Five of the gauges met the criteria
during the growing season of 2007, but two did not. The growing season in this area is from March 18'h
to November 8`b for a total of 234 days (NRCS 2002). Gauge 4 had a maximum of 15 consecutive days
(6%) where the ground was saturated within 12 inches of the surface. Gauge 2 had a maximum of 17 days
(7%). It should be noted that Gauge 2 malfunctioned and data after September 6, 2007 was not obtained.
A new gauge will be placed onsite as soon as possible and the old gauge brought back for possible data
retrieval.

Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 12
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
Three reference gauges are located northwest of the project site. Reference gauges 1 & 2 are located near
the intersection of Sutton Road with Moseley Creek. Reference gauge 3 is located between Hillcrest Road
and Moseley Creek, approximately 5500 feet north of Route 70 (Figure 5). Exhibit Table VI includes the
latitude and longitude coordinates for the three reference gauges.
Exhibit Table VI. Coordinates of Groundwater Reference Gauges
Whitelace Creek Wetland Restoration Site/EEP Project No. 420
Groundwater Reference Gauges Latitude Longitude
RW 1 35.313311 77.731836
RW2 35.313736 77.732833
RW3 35.276123 77.691827
•
•
All three reference gauges met the success criteria of saturation within 12 inches for 12.5% or of the
growing season in 2007. Drought conditions did not appear to have a great effect on these gauges meeting
the criteria. Reference gauge 1 decreased from 70 to 45 days of consecutive saturation from 2006 to 2007.
Gauges 2 and 3 actually increased in the number of consecutive days of saturation between 2006 and
2007. Reference gauge 2 increased from 70 to 93 consecutive days, while gauge 3 increased from 70 to
159 days.
Exhibit Table VII. Wetland Criteria Attainment
Whitelace Creek Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 420

Tract

Well ID
Well Hydrology
Threshold Met?
Tract
Mean
Vegetation
Plot ID Vegetation
Density Met
(320 stems/acre)

Tract Mean
Site 1 Y N (162
2 N VP2 N (162
3 5 30%
4 N 71% N 1
5 Y
6 Y VP9 Y (405
7 Y N 1
Reference Ref Site 1 (238
stems/acre)
Ref Site 2 Y 100% N
Ref Site 3 Y
While all of the reference gauges succeeded, the failure of 2 of the 7 on-site gauges to meet the criteria for
wetland hydrology is not cause for significant concern. As shown in the Graph on Page C11, data from
the nearest meteorological station indicates that precipitation was below the 30% percentile for the area.
The area experienced an extreme drought during 2007. With normal precipitation, the gauges should
meet the criteria.
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project Page 13
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
40
s
z
IQ h '1ti Qt7 q S f
o
$ ? a+L ? °" 1 y?? 4 +
rt ?
fi
15.
I
tattm yf F Referents Monitoring
t>rfsc rtrta,patCo@ Gauge Looatione C3T
'?'? FVT+/SJ `' T
S F?F _ S'V 1
C -
line
f
,
1: rye :t..i.
rJtk ;' 4y??r 1?1
{7 ,
"e
`a 4, cap !? RD
et• .
Restoration Site
Location
" 1 Srxk6?yfw?7tni Vol Nt%k
M
Jackowns
s,aoo o 6.000
- t•
SCALE IN FEET
Olen[: Projevfr Dan 89, God I!r
REFERENCE GROUNDWATER GWN Mr. FIGURE
MONITORING GAUGE L=TIONS a°b°'
WHITEIME CREEK STREAM AND NOV 2006
FOOSClif.'.S1OB see.
WE LAND RESTORATION SITE AS SHOWN
corpmdon j ells P Ilia. MIII ESC Profmt nn.:
•
•
•
3.0 References
Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. United States Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO.
Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm)
NCEEP. 2005. Content, Format and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, NC.
Version 1.2 November 16, 2006.
NRCS. 2002. WETS Table for Lenoir County, NC. Natural Resource Conservation Service, National
Water and Climate Center.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Weakley, Alan S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of
North Carolina Herbarium. Chapel Hill, NC. Working draft of January 11, 2007.
Whitelace Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page 15
March 2008

•
•
•
0
•
Appendix A. Vegetation Raw Data
A.1 VEGETATION DATA TABLES
EXHIBIT TABLE Al. VEGETATION METADATA
database name Whitelace CVS EEP Ent Tool v220.mdb
database location U:\171300168
computer name COLEMANA
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT

Metadata This worksheet, which is a summary of the project and the project
data.

Pro', planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems, for each year. This
excludes live stakes and lists stems per acre.

Pro', total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems, for each year. This
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer
stems. Listed in stems per acre.
Plots List of lots surveyed.
Vigor Fre uenc distribution of vigor classes.
Vigor bS Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed b species.

Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences
d percent of total stems impacted b each.
Damage b S ama a values tallied b e for each species.
Damage b Plot Damage values tallied b type for each lot.
[

Planted Stems b Plot and S ount of planted living stems of each species for each plot; dead
missin stems are excluded.
and
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code 420
project Name Whitelace Creek
Description Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
River Basin Neuse
length(ft)
stream-to-eda width ft
areas m
Required Plots calculated
Sam led Plots 9
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Project (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page A 1
March 2008
EXHIBIT TABLE A2. VEGETATION VIGOR BY SPECIES
Species 4 3 2 1 0 Missing
Betula ni ra 1
Ca inus caroliniana var. caroliniana 1 1
Ca rya a uatica 1 1
Chamaec aris th oides 1 2 3
Ce halanthus occidentalis 1
Corpus amomum 2 4 3 3
Liriodendron tuli ifera var. tuli ifera 2 2
Platanus occidentalis var. occidentalis 1 1 1 1
Quercus laurifolia 1 1
Quercus 1 rata 1 3 1
Quercus ni ra 1 1
Quercus pagoda 1
Quercus hellos 5 1 1
Salix sericea 1 5 2 2
EXHIBIT TABLE A3. VEGETATION DAMAGE BY SPECIES
to
COQ
4 w
?0 ?0 p
Betula ni ra 1 1
Caminus caroliniana var. caroliniana 2 2 1?
I IFraxinus pennsylvanica I 41 41 ( 1 1
Liriodendron tuligifera var. tulioifera 2 2
I I Platanus occidentalis var. occidentalis 1 11 11 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus
Quercus pagoda
Quercus Phellos
Taxodium distichum 15 12 2 1
Ulmus americana var. americana 1 1
Unknown 1 1
TOT: 117 59 W 1 2 5 2 8
•
•
•
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Project (EEP Project No. 420) Page A2
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
•
EXHIBIT TABLE A4. VEGETATION DAMAGE BY PLOT
A.-
0 4 BOOLo C
\ce ??? ??? Jr?
I AWL-Amber-0001-year:2 1 41 41 1 1 1 1 1
WL-Amber-0002-vear:2 6 4 2
WL-Amber
WL-Amber-0011- ear:2 2 2
2 1 1
WL-Amber-0014- ear:2 [ 1 1
WL-Amber-0015- ear:2 5 5
TOT: 9 59 41 1 2 5 2 8

C
EXHIBIT TABLE A5-A. PLANTED STEMS BY PLOT AND SPECIES
0y
u
ti
caroliniana var. caroliniana
Liriodendron tulivifera var.
occidentalis var. occidentalis
Taxodium distichum
Ulmus americana var.
TOT: 16
Stems per acre
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Project (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Fy
wm
a
K? y
Q\?c wmF
w? ?0
1 1 1
2 2 1
2 2 1
3 2 1.5
4 3 1.33
2 1 2
6 4 1.5
1 1 1
2 2 1
4 3 1.33
2 2 1
3 3 1
3 3 1
2 2 1
15 7 2.14
1 1 1
0 QN 1:y sr 5§i 0
ADO `DO i?0 i00 `DO i00 `QO
Qi ? 10 0 Qi 0
6F QF QF QF QFSO QFO QFO ?!
pf ,v
41 -
K wh
?`OO`OO
?QF
Page A3
March 2008
EXHIBIT TABLE A5-B. ALL STEMS BY PLOT AND SPECIES
Qiy
C-2Q
halimifolia
o° o°ry o°? o°° 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Fy Fy 4' 4' 4' ?4
yw? wy y F,o F,o F,o F,o F,o F,o
Carpinus caroliniana var. caroliniana 1 21 21 11 1 11 11 1 1 1
Liriodendron tuli ifera var tuli ifera 2 1 2 2
N ssa biflora 8 2 4 41 1 4
Platanus occidentalis var occidentalis 1 1 11 1 1
Quercus
michauxii
Taxodium distichum
Baccharis
Quercus
Acer rubrum
19
EXHIBIT TABLE A6. VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS
Feature/Issue Station # / Range Probable Cause Photo #
weak numbers of
healthy plant VP1-VP5, upstream end of flooding in 2006 on upstream
species project end
invasive/exotic between V137 and VP9, leftbank
species flood lain 30+00 Monoculture of T ha latifolia A2 -1
invasive/exotic VP11, right bank floodplain
species 40+00 Invasion of Murdannia keisak A2 - 3
VP13 and VP14, left bank Monoculture of Persicaria
monoculture flood lain 40+00-50+00 sa ittata A2 - 2 & 4
throughout - primarily
downstream of road and around
flooding crest gauge beaver activity A2 - 4, 7/8

Whitelace Wetland Restoration Project (EEP Project No. 420) Page A4
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
0 A.2 VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA PHOTOS
1`•?4
F r Y k J?#r j'1 Y ?J?•`
r
Photo 1. Typha latifolia has invaded the floodplain on the left bank upstream of Veg Plot 9, presumably
in response to beaver induced flooding (7/31/07)
0
Photo 2. Persicaria sagittata is out competing planted woody species at Veg Plot 13 (7/31/07)

M.. s .j
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Project (EEP Project No. 420) Page A5
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
•
Photo 3. Murdannia keisak is competing with desired herbaceous species at Veg Plot 11 (7/31/07)
•
Photo 4. Flooding, dead planted tree and Murdannia keisak at Veg Plot 11 (9/23/07)
0
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Project (EEP Project No. 420) Page A6
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008

•
•
•i1?1K?'p: t+4 ti'a a ._ ?.: yp?
?jY
l t I js?
Photo 5. The stream channel is choked with Persicaria near Veg Plot 14 (looking downstream, 7/31/07).
w+grA yi-W I w -.N
x
N•
77
Photo 6. At Veg Plot 1 there was limited planted vegetation found on floodplain - probably due to
previous flood events. On the face of the slope up to the original ground elevation, the planted vegetation
was doing better. (Stream is on left side of photo, 7/31/07)
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Project (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page A7
March 2008
•

'
``
o
`bi
YiR.c?tS,, -•?
Photos 7/8. Looking downstream from the bridge (upper photo, 7/31/07) and (lower photo 11/16/07).
Flooding likely due to beaver activity downstream.

Whitelace Wetland Restoration Project (EEP Project No. 420) Page A8
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
0 A.3 VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT PHOTOS
0
Photo Station 1: Vegetation Plot 1 (9/18/07)
Photo Station 2: Vegetation Plot 2 (9/18/07)
•
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Project (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page A9
March 2008
•
Photo Station 3: Vegetation Plot 4 (9/18/07)
•
Photo Station 4: Vegetation Plot 6 (9/18/07)
•
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Project (EEP Project No. 420) Page A10
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008

Photo Station 5: Vegetation Plot 8 (9/18/07)
•
Photo Station 6: Vegetation Plot 9 (9/18/07)
•
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Project (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page A I I
March 2008
•
Photo Station 7: Vegetation Plot 11 (9/18/07)
0
Photo Station 8: Vegetation Plot 14 (9/18/07)
0
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Project (EEP Project No. 420) Page A] 2
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008

,l
t??w
R,
Photo Station 9: Vegetation Plot 15 (9/18/07)
•
•
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Project (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page A 13
March 2008
Appendix B. Geomorphologic Raw Data
BA CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW (STREAM)
The stream was only assessed visually during Monitoring Year 2. Problem areas were not found.
B.2 STREAM PROBLEM AREAS TABLE
Stream Problem Areas were not found.
B.3 REPRESENTATIVE STREAM PROBLEM AREAS PHOTOS
Stream Problem Areas were not found.

E
C]
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420) Page B1
Stantee - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
0 BA REPRESENTATIVE STREAM PHOTOS
s

77, 71 r
?Y
Photo 1. Looking upstream at crest gauge location (7/31/07).

Photo 2. Looking downstream near station 10+00 (7/31/07). Note formation of mid-channel bars. Stand of
trees is near vegetation plot 4.
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page B2
March 2008
L'
Photo 3. Flooding downstream of road near Veg Plot 7 - looking downstream (11/16/07)
•
Photo 4. Crest gauge showing water above bankfull (11/16/07)

Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420) Page B3
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
0
•
•
Appendix C. Hydrology Data
? r
? O
? O
M
? m
d
V O
C O
? O
? Z
N
O
N j
0
0
N
O
N
O
. . . O
N
O C C
'O 0
W O
CO N
O)
C C
O
0
0
N
D1
f0
O
O
N
CO
O
o ?
N },
O _O Q
N r
v
CO O
N 0
N
N
(00
O
0
N
M
O
O
N
O
_ O
O O N
C
L C D M
C
f0
m .3
O
N
a N? O N
C
O C a
f0
O
O
N_
O 0 O to O 0 O 0 O LO O LO O N O r"
M N N N N M M
(ul) y;dea
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C I
March 2008
•
(ul) Ile;ulea
0
O) 00 r CO In Nt M N O
0 C
a v0i
ti
r
O
M
M
CD
? O
O
.a O
O
aO
,On Z
V N
O
N j
C cc
W U)
CA
C
3
0
c9
CU
U T

?
7 N
a
CO
n
a
C
7
0

----- --- -- -----------
0 C

t CA N
C 0
C U
C
? y C
o m 3
a ?
N
. (?
j
Cr
57
C?
O LO O O tn a Lf)
' I I N N
(ul) 43daa
I -
CD,
0
N
W
N
r
0
0
r;
0
0
N
C
0
r
0
0
N
t0
m
r
O
N
0
0 to
N r+
?e cc
r Q
O
N
fD
r
0
C.
N
Z6
r -
C)
N
sf
V
r
O
N
a
CI)
00
N
N
r
0
0
_N
O L) oq
M M

0
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420) Page C2
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
•
•
•
?a
oW
L ?
aZ
'o cZn
C7 N
to
O G)
N
CO
O
O
N
00
N
r
f0
. . O
N
o= ?
CO
WU o
to O N
CO
3 0
o
? m
0
0
N
CO
O
O
O
N
C\D
00
CO
O
N ate.
C\O ?
0
0
N
CO
U"
CD
O
O
N
CO
O
N
zt
CD
- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
_ O
O N
C71 N ?
C N M
L C U)
C
CCI a)
C CO
7 (U ._ O
m
O
2
=O N
CO
O
O
N
O LO O LO O O O LO O 1f) O O O LC) O zz
CO N N r-
? ? N N CO M ?
(u!) yidap
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C3
March 2008
•
(ul) Ile;uleb
O
O CO r fD LO M N O
M .-.
Q
W
L. LO
m
3 CO
-a z
o (Z
L v
C7 N
ti
N
r -
C>
O
N
N
r -
C)
O
N_
e
r
0
0
N
0
p-
0
0
N
W
r
O
O
N
Sp
00
r
O
CD 2
r ?
r
0
O
N
N
f0
r -
C)
0
N
Q
N
r -
C>
0
N
V
r
O
O
N
M
a. F-
N / ?o
o m '? N
°
a
a
r
? o
N
O O L? 0 N N M M I
i i
(ul) 4;daa
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C4
March 2008
•
•

•
L CO
O
3 0
-a O
L Z
N
1- M
O
N '
(ul) Ile;uleb
0
O 00 r• f0 LO It M N O
r
0
0
N
W
a
r
0
0
N
C
n
0
0
N
C
O
n
O
O
N
f0
0)
r
0
0
N
t0
Go
O
0 0)
N a+
f? Q
r0
0
N
N
(O
r0
0
N
N
N
r
O
0
N
R
,It
r
0
0
N
M
•
ca. ? w
m o
0 N
O
? a
CT
N r
o
0
N
O LO O In O In O l() O LO O
? ? N N M M
`-
(u!) 43dea
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C5
March 2008
•
N
Cl
L CO
d
3 ?
-a O
? O
? O
O Z
C!) N
O M
O
O
N '
O
0
0
N
W
N
Cfl
- - . O
r N
C r
O N
-47
C O
w CU fn O
O N
C ?
'3 0
o
CO
0
0
N
C\O
O)
CO
O
0
N
N CO
fd
CO
O
d
N
0
O
N
U)
CO
(D
O
O
N
LO
LO
CO
O
O
N
. O
O /J? N
? N
C N M
V L C
C V)
C t3) CO
in m 3 00
.o O O N
C :3 0
Cr N
O N
?-' Cfl
O
O
N
M N N O O CC> O O O i i i i
N N M M
r-
(ui) y;daa
Whitely a Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C6
March 2008
•
E
•
•
N?
00
L- n
V
00
O
O Z
N
ti M
CV j
(ul) Ile;ulem
0
? O M r- CO LO It M N •- O
r
0
O
N
W
N
r
0
0
N
r
0
0
N
C
O
r
0
0
N
(e
m
r -
C)
0
N
(O
r
°o
N w
(O A
r Q
r
0
0
N
LLi
(O
r
0
N
N
h
r -
C)
0
N
a
v
r
0
0
N
M
r
0
0
N
a
•
o
r--ice-i r Q
O In O In O to O L O M O
N N M M IT
(ui) yldaa
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C7
March 2008
•
M :z
LO
LL
3M
z
? Z
0
V v
0 d
Q 3
N
0
0
N
CO
N
r
(C)
O
- - - - - - O
r N
O C ?
Cc
a) O
lL U) O
O N
C ?
O
0
? o
0
0
N
0)
CO
O
O
N
P2
O
Cfl
O
O
N ?)
Q
CO
O
O
N
H ?
C6 CO
U
CA to
O
O
N
Cn
CO
O
O
N
- - - - - - - - - -- - - -
O
_ O
O N
rr
'IT
C N M
V L C C C1)
'C ? rn G cp
m '3 O
'a p N
C
O 0' N
CO
O
O
N
O Cn O 0 O 0 O Cn O C1) O CA O O O
M N N - ' N CV M M
(ui) y;dea
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C8
March 2008

11
•
(u!) Ile;uleb
0
r O CO ? CO to It M N ? O

•
0
aZ
Z
0
V
d
N
f6
7
c
O
O3
r
0
0
N
a
0
0
N
C
O
O
N
O
n
O
O
N
fD
W
0
0
N
c0
CD
O
o ?
N r
f0 R
r Q
r
O
O
N
O
(O
r
0
0
N
N
N
n
0
0
N
v
v
r
0
0
N
M
N N C o
0 m N
O
? a
Cr
0
N
O In O O to O In O LO O
N N M M
(u!) 44daa
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420) Page C9
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
•
00
m 00
CO
Q m
P.
1 5
0 Z
N
co
O
N j
CO
0
O
N
so-
N
CO
. . . O
?? N
0 p r
C l0 CO
W d1 O
O N
c
'3 0
p <-
Cp
0
0
N
CEO
O
O
O
N
CO
O
o ?
N
Q
N ?
f0
a CO
't O
M O
N N
0
CO
CO
O
O
N
lr)
O
O
O
N
'IT
- - - - - - - - - -- -
CO
w O
p O N
tT N
C N M
? Q C
? N CA ZT CO
U) m 3 O
p N O N
C j 0
3 CS N
O N
0 ? CD
O
O
N LO C) M N N O O O O L9 O O N N M M 0\
(u!) 4ldea
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C10
March 2008
•
•
•
0
?J
00
M Go
GoMM
Q W
L
lQ O
3 0
-CIO
O
? O
O Z
O to
N '
(ul) Ile;ulou
0
r O 00 r O In ? M N ? O
---- - - -
V1 --
f C -- ----
O
C N
' W f
n

C
3
0

C
)

.
W
c
7
In cc
?
C COO
7
O

- - - / - - - - - - - - - -
O C
C
(D N C
o m 3
o

Cr
7
4)
O LO O u O0 0 N N
i
(ul) 43dea
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
t.-
0
O
N
eo
a
r
O
0
N
C
r
0
N
C
O
r
0
0
N
(O
W
O
N
f0
00
r
O
o
N a+
(O l0
n Q
r
0
N

n
0
0
N
N
N
r
O
N
a
v
r -
CD
O
N
zt
A
r
00
a
r
0
0
N
O lr) C)
M M
Page C1 I
March 2008
•
M
r?+ M
M
D t4)
M
L m
d Q
3 ?
-C O
C O
? O
O Z
O U)
t0 ?p
O
N j
0
00
N
EO-
N
CO
N
o C
a voi
c (a co
w in o0
QI N
C ?
'3 0
o
0
0
N
10
0
O
0
N
w
0
O
O
Vl N
Cu
a
N CO
0
N
0
0
O
O
N
LO
(O
O
O
N
0
C O
O N
O N
? N M
U +L.' r N
? C
N Fm O (O
0.9 0
m
a m 3 O
C 3
? Q N
O ?
0
O
O
N
O Un O LO O Un O to O LO O 0 O U') O
M N N ?-- i - - N N M M (u l) y;dap
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C12
March 2008

•
r1
LJ
(ul) Ila;ula21
0
? O M r O O ? M N ? O
C Z
a w
u
rM
r M
? M
Q
M
?• m
Z Q
1Q O
C ?
? O
0Z
N
O
N
C m
W
C
3
0
C7 _
-
; 3r p
m
/ r
7 ,0 ?

C
7
O

. . . .
- . . . . .
C C
N . . . . . . . .
/
?
C N
d
L C ?
a 'rn ?

p
3
CO
? o

r0
0
N
CO
a
n
0
0
C
O
O
N_
C
0
0
0
N
(O
W
0
0
0
N
0
0
N
(D ?
n Q
00
N
N
t0
r
0
0
N
N
N
r -
C)
O
N
v
0
r
0
0
N
V
M
00
a
n
0
0
N_
O O O In O M O O O O O
i N N M M
• (u!) y3daa
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420) Page C13
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
r?
01
?U
? m
L 00
r
0
30
?o
O Z
N
t0 ?
O
O
N 4)
0
0
N
Go
N
J
O
. . . . . . o
N
O ?
111 fn O
O N
C ?
3 0
0
C7 co
0
0
N
rn
CO
O
O
N
w
CO
0
0
d
o
to
l0 O
O
N
CO
LO
O
CO
0
O
N
U')
O
CO
O
O
N
_ O
0 O N
tm y
C N M
U L C
f6 C
C N O O O
7 'D m 00
p N
Cr N
O N
O
O
O
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
M N N - - ' - N N M M
(ui) 41dad
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C14
March 2008
r1
LJ
•
•
(ul) 118;u18a
0
CA 00 h (D Cn ? M N ? O
0 C
O
'O N
l?J
R ?
R U
pm
V
0
30
? O
? O
O Z
N
O=
N G1
3
C
W N
U)
C
3
0
U
7
C
7
O
V

- - - - - /- -

O O
- - C /
CA N
C R
C N
L (0
C
?. _
ZA O
R
p O .?
O
O

a

r --
C)
0
N
W
a
r
O
O
C
n
°o
N
r
O
n
0
N
W
r
O
O
N
n
0
o N
N w
R
n p
r
N
N
(O
r
0
0
N
N
N
n
0
0
N
R
a
n
O
0
N
a
M
r
0
N
a
0
0
N
O UI) O to O Cn O U) O U) O
' I CV N M M
• (u!) 4ldad
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420) Page C15
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
•
. . . . ?
O C
p N
C M
y W(D
f6 p?
? C
O O
A
00
00
0
L 0
4 M
3Z
C Z
0 r
V d
w
O .
O ?
N
. ?
? ? .
O

f6
C
V _
C
C
? C
7 0 N
(? .a m 3
0
L
j 7

O
O
O
N
00
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
N_
C
O
r
CO
O
O
N
t?D
O
O
O
N
Se
CO
CO
O
O
? Q
n
O
O
O
N
O
(0
0
O
N
Lr)
LO
O
O
O
N
zt
O
O
O
N
CO
CO
O
N
N
O
O
O
N
O LO O LO O O O O O O O O O O ?O
M N N •- ' - - N N M M
(u!) U3dea
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C16
March 2008
•
•
r?
?J
LJ
t0 CO
a+ CO
0
V Q
3Z
cZ
N
V NN
Inf.
N 4)
3
(ul) Ila;ulea
0
O CO r CO M IT M N ? O
---- ---- ------ -
? C
? y
C l0
W
C
O
0
tO
O
N
m
a
r
0
0
N
C
P-
C)
0
N
C
O
0
0
N
rn
n
0
0
N
O
r
0
N ?+
f0 (Q
r Q
r
O
N
fD
r
0
0
N
N
N
r
O
O
N

U?
7
CO
C ?
7
2
r
O
O
N
M
O
N
N
O
O U) O W) Oa N N U) 0 U) M M O0
i
(u!) 4;dad
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420) Page C17
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
•
? Q
f? LO
V ?
++ M
3Z
c Z
O N
C7
O ?
O
CV d
CO
O
O
N
00
N
O
. . . . O
N
O C
O •-
C N O
y Lll fn O
(a 04
0 0
CO
0
0
N
((O
0)
(O
O
O
N
CO
CO
CO
0
O
o
;pp
0
0
N
CO
CO
O
O
N
LO
O
CO
O
O
N
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
CO
_ O
O O N
O N ?
O ) M
O C
C
C N 5 O CO
7 N O
LT]
(n -O 3 O
O O O N
> > N
O
fr CO
O
O
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
m N N CV N M (0
(ui) 41dad
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C18
March 2008
•
•
•

!Q Q
Q
L
d
3Z
r. Z
N
O N
LL
O
N
(ul) Ile;ulyam
O O Co r CO LO It M N O
---- ---- ----- ---
O C
0
C C6
W (n
C
3
0
r
O
0
N
a
r
0
N
C
r
°o
N
C
O
r
0
0
N
W
r
N
(O
W
p -
CD
(O {Q
f? Q
U?
7
c
7
r
N
N
r
0
0
N
U)
r
0
0
N
R
r
0
0
N
V
M
CL 0 )- O
N •-
p m 3
0
? a
(D o
? o
N
O LO O L9 O O U') O U') O
N CV M M
• (u!) W3daa
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420) Page C19
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
•
? m
?+ a
!0 00
3Z
? Z
C N
O C)
O
N 0)
3
0
O
0
N
CO
N
r
CO
. . . O
r N
o C ?
'a N
C (0 (0
h W N O
> U) o
'0 m N
° c o
0
0
0
0
N
CEO
0)
CO
O
O
N
CO
CO
O
O
CO R
ti 0
0
O
N
LO
CO
0
O
0
N
Cn
CO
O
O
N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CO
w O
O N
O N ?
C d M
U L C
C CA
? Q
N .? tT
6 CO
3 O
y O N
> > N
O ?
CO
O
O
N
O M) O C!> O 0 O U') O LO O 0 O 0 O)
C) N N - ' - - N N M C?
(ui) y;daa
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C20
March 2008
•

•
i?
CO
?+ Q
m CO
V Q
M
3Z
'13 Z
C ?
C9 ?
0
N j
(ul) IlameN
0
- O 00 r O Ur> M N O
---- ---- ---------
O C
C
W CO
rn
C
O
(D
4V
fQ
7
U)
v
c
7
O

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O O
01 N
C f6

t E N
C U)

N m
(D C
o m 3
.0 0

n
O
0
N
a
n
0
0
N
C
n
0
0
N
r
0
0
0
N
Of
n
0
N
n
0
o ?
N a.?
S A
n Q
n
0
N
N
r
0
0
N
N
n
0
N
v
v
I,-
0
0
N
M
O
O
a
n
0
0
N
O LO O LO O U') N N O 0 O0 \
i i i i i
• (u!) 4ldaa
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420) Page C21
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
•

•
Z
Q
R
L
0>
c
d
V
d O
av
o 'o
r> c
Y d
y J
d
V
d
V
t0
d
t
3
1? (O L a M N O
• (•ui) uol3eldiaa-ld
0
z
U
O
a
N
N
D1
Q
T
R
o
m
2

N
LL
C
f0
N O
Uo
O N
by t
Q.

s
N
V
O
z
0
a
a
W
W
y?
O ?
Q? Vl
F
O 0
O
N
O y
Q4 bOp
w.
O
3°
L

0
Appendix D. Current Condition Plan View
Whitelace Wetland Restoration Projects (EEP Project No. 420)
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page Dl
March 2008
Legend
Stream Monitoring Gauges
Crest Gauge Successful
Conservation Easement * Not meeting success criteria for MY2
o Located Beaver Dam Approximate Veg Problem Areas
Vegetation Plots Murdannia
-•- Not Monitored
Persicaria
<320 stems/acre
Typha
>320 stems/acre
weak woody vegetation
Appendix D Current Condition Plan View Map
Whitelace Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration, EEP #420
Lenoir County, North Carolina
March 2008
rY
Ecosystem _ - V-.W?
Stantec
0 150 300 600 900 1,200 Feet