20090133 Ver 3 _Final Stream and Vegetation MY2 _20180620

Action History (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Submit by Anonymous User 6/20/2018 8:26:07 AM (Message Start Event)
Accept by Montalvo, Sheri A 6/20/2018 1:14:17 PM (NON -DOT Project)
The task was assigned to Montalvo, Sheri A. The due date is: June 25, 2018 5:00 PM
6/20/2018 8:26 AM

Staff Review
ID#* Version* 3
20090133
Is this project a public transportation project?* r Yes
r No
Reviewer List:* Stephanie Goss: eads\szgoss
Select Reviewing Office:* Raleigh Regional Office - [phone]
Submittal Type:*
401 Application
Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?*
r
Yes
r
No

Project Submittal Dated 6/20/2018
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type:* r New Project
r Pre -Application Submittal
r More Information Response
r Other Agency Comments
F For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
New Project - Please check the new project type if you are trying to submit a new project that needs an official approval
decision.
Pre -Application Submittal - Please check the pre -application submittal if you just want feedback on your submittal and
do not have the expectation that your submittal will be considered a complete application requiring a formal decision.
More Information Response - Please check this type if you are responding to a request for information from staff and
you have and ID# and version for this response.
Other Agency Comments - Please check this if you are submitting comments on an existing project.
Project Contact Information
Name: Kelly Roth
Who is subrritting the information?
Email Address:* [e-mail]
Project Information
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Project Name:* UT to Stirrup Iron Creek Stream and Vegetation Monitoring Year 2 Report
Is this a public transportation project?
r Yes
r No
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?*
r Yes' No r Unknown
County (ies)*
Durham
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docunent
2018-06-18 Final Stream and Vegetation MY2.pdf 2.86MB
Only pdf or Wm files are accepted.
Describe the attachments:
Monitoring Year 2 Report for the UT to Stirrup Iron Creek stream restoration site at the Bethpage residential
development in Durham.
* V By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that
o I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
o I agree that submission of this form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the
"Uniform Electronic Transactions Act")
o I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes

(the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written
signature; AND
I intend to electronically sign and submit the online form."
Signature:
Submittal Date:

STREAM AND VEGETATION MONITORING
YEAR 2 REPORT
UT TO STIRRUP IRON CREEK
RAP -12020
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 18, 2018
'J
McADAMS
Raleigh/Durham ■ 2905 Meridian Parkway ■ Durham, NC 27713
Charlotte ■ 11301 Carmel Commons Blvd ■ Suite 111 ■ Charlotte, NC 28226
MCAdomsCo.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................................................................................................................ 1
2.1 Channel Stability Assessment Summary.......................................................................................... 2
3.0 Vegetation Condition and Comparison.................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots............................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Sheets....................................................................... 3
4.0 References..............................................................................................................................................4
ADUendix A: Site Mans
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Conservation Easement Map
Appendix B: 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 C: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
i 91MCADAMS

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Location and Description
The UT to Stirrup Iron Creek Stream Restoration project (Stream Restoration project) is on the
site of the Creekside at Bethpage residential development, in Durham, Durham County, North
Carolina (Appendix A, Figure 1). The project is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest
of the intersection of Page Road and Chin Page Road. The constructed Stream Restoration
project is part of the compensatory mitigation plan to offset stream and wetland impacts
associated with the Creekside at Bethpage project. The Conservation Easement (CE) for the
Stream Restoration project is 2.89 acres in size, and is located within the west central portion
of the overall project. The Stream Restoration project flows west and southwest, and ties back
in to another UT to Stirrup Iron Creek (Appendix A, Sheet No. 1-1). The restored stream
length is 1,958 linear feet. The Stream Restoration project is approximately 0.25 miles from
the proposed stream impacts associated with the Creekside at Bethpage residential
development.
The Stream Restoration project is located within the Neuse River Basin USGS Hydrologic
Unit 03020201, local watershed 14 -digit basin 03020201080010, and the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (DWR) sub -basin 03-04-02. The unnamed tributary flows into
Stirrup Iron Creek (DWR stream index number 27-33-4-2) approximately 1.0 mile
downstream of the project terminus.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The purpose of this Stream and Vegetation Monitoring Year 2 Report is to assess the success
of the Stream Restoration project. The monitoring plan evaluates the success of the Site, and
is based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) "Stream Mitigation Guidelines"
(April, 2013) 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 five (5) years.
Construction of the Stream Restoration project occurred in the fall of 2015. During the month
of November 2015, 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. Baseline vegetation sampling was conducted on
February 18, 2016 within the vegetation monitoring plots.
According to the Restoration Plan for the Stream Restoration project (issued July 2009),
project specific goals and objectives related to vegetative assemblages within the stream
restoration project were the following:
1) Ensure channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating native vegetation into
the restoration design while also creating a stable and functional aquatic and
terrestrial habitat.
2) 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
91MCADAMS

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
less stable 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
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. Typically, 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 five years, through two bankfull events, as
indicated by visual surveys, cross-sections, and bank pins.
Morphological data (cross sections, longitudinal profile, and bank pin data) were not collected
as part of Year 2 monitoring activities. Channel stability was visually assessed in Monitoring
Year 2.
2.1 Channel Stability Assessment Summary
Most of the stream system appears stable and is not migrating toward lateral or vertical
instability. Several areas of erosion and channel and bank instability were noted in Monitoring
Year 1. Vegetation growth on the banks seems to have stabilized most of the problem areas
noted during Monitoring Year 1. No major areas of instability were observed in Monitoring
Year 2 and no remedial actions are recommended.
While the stability issues observed in Monitoring Year 1 appear to be moving toward a more
stable condition due to vegetation growth, sediment laden runoff from the adjacent Creekside
at Bethpage construction site continues to present a threat to water quality within and
downstream of the stream restoration project. During Year 1 monitoring activities, excessive
sediment loads were observed from the contributing watershed, likely from the construction
activities associated with the Bethpage development. During Monitoring Year 2 activities, it
was noted that the observed sediment load from the contributing watershed and construction
site continues to be an issue.
Between Year 1 and Year 2 monitoring activities, a stormwater pond was installed in the
Creekside at Bethpage site adjacent to the CE north of Vegetation Plot 3. During Year 2
monitoring activities, water with high levels of suspended sediment was observed discharging
from this pond adjacent to the CE, and pooling on the floodplain within the CE. There
continues to be a high level of suspended sediment throughout the restoration reach, which will
compromise the ability of the system to provide habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates and
other aquatic organisms that would constitute a healthy and thriving restored ecosystem. It is
recommended that the outlet of the stormwater pond near Vegetation Plot 3 be evaluated for
compliance with applicable stormwater regulations and that the area be monitored periodically
to ensure that no stability issues develop. Additionally, it is recommended that the Duke Power
easement crossing, which was repaired in November 2016, continue be monitored for stability,
2 91MCADAMS

and that the sediment and erosion control measures on the Creekside at Bethpage construction
site be monitored regularly to ensure that they remain in compliance with City of Durham
regulations.
3.0 Veeetation 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). Vegetation plots will be sampled and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Four (4) vegetative monitoring plots (Appendix A, Figure 2) were installed during As -Built
monitoring. The vegetation monitoring plots were installed randomly throughout the Stream
Restoration project. Because many canopy trees within the easement were preserved during
construction, the planted area is largely limited to narrow areas along the stream banks. This
limited planting area made it difficult to establish 100 -square -meter vegetation plots; thus, the
plots vary in size from 31.0 to 96.5 square meters. All four (4) corners of the vegetation
monitoring plots were permanently installed and surveyed. Baseline vegetation monitoring
was conducted in general accordance with CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Ve eta (CVS-
EEP, v4.2) as a basis for subsequent vegetation monitoring activities and reports.
3.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Monitoring Year 2 field activities were conducted December 12, 2017. Monitoring
methodologies followed the most current templates and guidelines provided by EEP (EEP
2004; EEP 2011). All four (4) vegetation monitoring plots installed by McAdams were located
in Monitoring Year 2. Figure 2 (Appendix A) depicts 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 2, the Stream Restoration
project had four (4) vegetation monitoring plots encompassing 0.07 acres, containing 44
planted stems, which yielded a density of 629 planted stems per acre. All four (4) vegetation
monitoring plots met the interim vegetation monitoring criteria with a range of 585 to 914
stems per acre. Table 2 (Appendix B) provides a stem count total and planted stem total by
each individual vegetation plot. Table 3 (Appendix B) 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
Photographs of the vegetation monitoring plots are provided 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.
91MCADAMS

4.0 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.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) 2004. Guidelines for Riparian
Buffer Restoration. Available at internet site: https:Herp.unc.edu/files/2014/12/buffer-
restoration.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. July 2016. As -Built Monitoring Report, UT to Stirrup Iron
Creek.
US Army Corps of Engineers April, 2013. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
4 91MCADAMS

Appendix A
Site Maps

USGS - SOUTH EAST DURHAM QUAD
LAT / LONG LOCATION: 35.9024310° N 178.8318007° W
cilliv
Roo
40"Rl
VICINITY MAP
NTS
®
P80J6L'C N0. CPR -08000
VICINITY IAP
klEcoEngineering
A ,9ivlsion of1La John R McAdam Company, Inc.
M
FILENAME: CPRO800OX
a
FIGURE 1
UT t0 STIRRUP IRON CREEK
TRIANGLE PARK, NC
P.O. Rox 14005 ZIP 27709-4005
SCALE: n 2.000'RESEARCH
DATE: 7-9-2009
rn
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
1 (910) 38l�aoao

APPENDIX B
Vegetation Assessment Data

Table 1. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
UT to Stirrup Iron Creek Stream Restoration Site
Durham, NC
VEGETATION MONITORING YEAR 2: December 12, 2017
McAdams Project #: RAP -12020
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Threshold Met?*
Tract Mean
1
Yes
100%
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
Yes
* Tree survival should consist of at least 320 trees per acre for the first 3 years after construction with no more
than 10% mortality in subsequent years or a minimum of 260 trees per acre after 5 years, according to the "UT
to Stirrup Iron Creek Stream Restoration Plan", July 2009.

Table 2. Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Vegation Plot
UT to Stirrup Iron Creek Stream Restoration Site
Durham, NC
VEGETATION MONITORING YEAR 2: December 12, 2017
McAdams Project #: RAP -12020
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
AS BUILT
ANNUAL MEANS
VP -1
VP -2
VP -3
VP -4
MY2
(DEC 2017)
MY1
(OCT 2016)
AS -BUILT
(FEB 2016)
Planted Stems
Betula nigra River birch
tree
1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
tree
0
2
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis button bush
shrub
0
0
0
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
small tree
0
0
0
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
tree
4
7
11
12
9
Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar
tree
2
2
4
9
26
Myrica cerifera wax myrtle
shrub
2
2
4
3
7
Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo
tree
1
1
2
2
Persea palustris swamp bay
small tree
2
3
5
5
11
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak
tree
1
1
2
34
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
tree
1
1
0
1
Quercus nigra water oak
tree
3
3
3
0
Quercus phellos willow oak
tree
1
Quercus sp. oak species
tree
5
2
Salix nigra black willow
tree
0
0
0
Salix sericea silky willow
shrub
0
0
0
Ulmus americana American elm
tree
1
2
1
2
6
6
20
Vaccinium corymbosum blueberry
shrub
0
1
8
Stem Count Total
13
14
7
10
44
47
121
Size of Vegetation Plot (Acres)
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.07
0.07
Number of Different Species
5
4
5
5
19
21
26
Stems Per Acre
608
587
914d
585
629
672
1730
Total CE Area = 2.89 acres

Table 3. Planted Species Comparison by Vegation Plot
UT to Stirrup Iron Creek Stream Restoration Site
Durham, NC
VEGETATION MONITORING YEAR 2: December 12, 2017
McAdams Project #: RAP -12020
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.
VP -1
VP -2
VP -3
VP -4
Monitoring Year 2 Planted Stem Count Total
13
14
7
10
As Built Planted Stem Count Total
37
28
21
35
Planted Stem Difference from As Built
-24
-14
-14
-25
Surivability Rate (%) per Monitoring Plot
35%
50%
33%
29%
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 C
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

UT to Stirrup Iron Creek Stream Restoration
Monitoring Year 2 Report
Durham, North Carolina
RAP -12020
December 12, 2017
vegetation riot Fnotos:
Vegetation Plot 2: View facing 345°N

Vegetation Plot 3: View facing 250°W
Vegetation Plot 4: View facing 30°N

APPENDIX D
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets

Site:
Bethpage
Page:
1
Monitoring Year:
MY2
Date:
12/12/2017
Area:
9.2 x 9.4
Veg Plot No.:
1
X-axis:
B
Plot Location:
1.1
120°E
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X Y
Source meter meter
ddh
mm
Height
cm
CURRENT YEAR DATA
DBH
cm Vigor Notes
1 Quercus sp.
B
1.8
1.2
9.04
65
3
2 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
3.1
1.1
Missing
3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
7.3
0.8
Missing
4 Ulmus americana
B
8.6
0.7
Missing
5 Quercus sp.
B
8.2
1.6
Missing
6 Quercus sp.
B
6.1
2.1
Missing
7 Ulmus americana
B
6.9
1.7
Missing
8 Quercus sp.
B
3.3
2.9
Missing
9 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
4.1
3.5
Missing
10 Vaccinium corymbosum
B
1.8
2.8
Missing
11 Quercus sp.
B
0.3
2.8
9.77
64
3
12 Quercus sp.
B
1.5
4.3
Missing
13 Quercus sp.
B
4.5
4.5
Dead
14 Fraxinus pennsylvanica"
B
7.8
4.4
5.78
39
3 Deer
15 Ulmus americana
B
8.7
4.0
Missing
16 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
8.3
5.7
Missing
17 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
7.3
6.0
Missing
18 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
7.1
7.1
Missing
19 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
7.1
7.1
Missing
20 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
6.6
6.8
Missing
21 Quercus sp.
B
6.6
7.7
Missing
22 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
4.7
6.1
Dead
23 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
3.3
6.7
9.72
80
3
24 Quercus phellos
B
3.6
6.0
4.61
34
3 Deer
25 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
2.5
5.0
4.92
35
3
26 Quercus sp.
B
1.6
4.4
5.19
30
3
27 Ulmus americana
B
0.1
5.8
6.43
71
3
28 Quercus sp.
B
0.1
7.4
8.31
40
3
29 Betula nigra`
B
1.7
9.1
8.60
67
3
30 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
2.4
7.6
5.09
47
3 Deer
31 Quercus sp.
B
2.8
8.4
6.83
60
3
32 Fraxinus pennsylvanica`
B
4.3
8.4
11.78
81
3
33 Fraxinus pennsylvanica`
B
5.1
9.4
11.74
91
3
34 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
6.5
9.3
Missing
35 Quercus sp.
IB
1 6.5
7.81
1
1
1 Imissing
361 Quercus sp.
I B
1 7.8
8.21
1
1
1 IMissing
37 Liriodendron tulipifera
I B
1 7.91
8.41
1
1
1 Imissing
B = bare root
C= containerized
*Species identified differently in MY2 than during As -built and/or MY1 monitoring
Tree line
v
E
v
Volunteer Species Height Class (cm) w
Scientific Name 1 10-50 150-1001 >100 N
Liquidambar styraciflua 1 21 1
Y (0, 9.4)
(0,0) X (9.2, 0)
.............................
Tree line

Site:
Bethpage
Page:
2
Monitoring Year:
MY2
Date:
12/12/2017
Area:
9.2 x 9.4
Veg Plot No.:
1
X-axis:
1201E
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0 -
0
I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Liriodendron tulipifera
0 Quercus phellos
0 Ulmus americana
0 Vaccinium corymbosum
0 Quercus sp.
* Missing
* Dead
4
-WT
------
------ ------------
--------
01 ------
------ ------------
--------------
I
2D8 --- -------------------
----
------------
------------
---------
-
------------
------
------
------
------ ------------
------
3
--- -- -------------------
--------------------
0
----
------ ------------
------
9
-------------------
17
---------------
(0-
7
--------------
-------------------
------
------ --
------------------
------- L ----------
15
------
------ ------------
------
--- -------
/5
9 -------
----- -------
-------------
------
------
------
------
------ ------------
------
------ ---------
---------------
-------------------
-------------------
------
------ ------------
------
------ ------------
7
--
-----
4 ------ --
2
----------------------------------
------
------ ------------
-------
u,
-----------
W --
I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Liriodendron tulipifera
0 Quercus phellos
0 Ulmus americana
0 Vaccinium corymbosum
0 Quercus sp.
* Missing
* Dead

Site:
Bethpage
Page:
1
Monitoring Year:
MY2
Date:
12/12/2017
Area:
20.1 x 4.8
Veg Plot No.:
2
X-axis:
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Plot Location:
0.6
345°N
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
__X
Source meter
TY
meter
ddh
mm
Height
cm
CURRENT YEAR DATA
DBH
cm Vigor Notes
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
0.9
0.1
8.36
54
3
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
0.6
1.6
10.96
51
3
3 Ulmus americana
B
0.9
3.0
6.44
49
3
4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica'
B
0.8
3.7
8.19
50
1 3
5 Ulmus americana
B
1.4
4.4
6.59
56
3
6 Ulmus americana
B
1.4
1.3
Dead
7 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
4.3
0.5
7.76
43
3
8 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
3.5
1.2
Missing
9 Quercus nigra'
B
3.7
2.7
6.13
66
3
10 Quercus nigra'
B
4.3
2.1
7.70
63
3
11 Fraxinus pennsylvanica'
B
5.7
0.8
2.94
21
Resprout
12 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
6.0
1.3
Dead
13 Quercus sp.
B
6.2
3.0
Dead
14 Quercus sp.
B
7.3
4.6
Dead
15 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
8.1
0.7
8.30
45
3
16 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
8.0
1.9
Missing
17 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
8.4
2.6
Missing
18 Quercus sp.
B
8.8
4.8
Missing
19 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
8.9
0.4
Missing
20 Fraxinus pennsylvanica'
B
10.8
0.9
8.26
44
3
21 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
10.2
2.5
7.10
60
3
22 Vaccinium corymbosum
B
10.8
4.5
Missing
23 Ulmus americana"
B
12.6
4.1
Missing
24 Quercus nigra'
B
13.0
2.6
6.46
52
3 Deer
25 Fraxinus pennsylvanica'
B
13.0
0.7
12.68
49
1 3
26 Ulmus americana
B
14.4
3.1
Missing
27 Quercus sp.
B
17.2
2.5
Missing
28 Ulmus americana
B
18.31
3.7
1
1 Missing
B = bare root 'Species identified differently in MY2 than during As -built and/or MY1 monitoring
C= containerized
SS Easement
ream
Y (0, 4.8) (15, 4.8)
(0,0) X (20.1,0)
■Trip.Iiri�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Volunteer Species Height Class (cm)
Scientific Name 10-50
1
150-1001
>100
Pinus taeda 11
1

Site: Bethpage
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY2
Date: 12/12/2017
Area: 20.1 x 4.8
Veg Plot No.: 2
X-axis: 345'N
: 4
3
� 5'N
15
---- --
---- ----
---- ---
---- ---
---- --------
----
----
--- ----
---
---
-- -
---- I ---------
----
--- ----
--- ----
---- ----
---- ---
----
4 -
0 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
6
j -----
--------
...
....
OLiriodendron tulipifera
3
3
0 Quercuss p.
--------
--------
-------
---
---- ---
----
Ulmus
0 americana
2
nm
16
0 Quercus nigra
--02----
--
--------
----
----
--- I ----- --- ----
---- ---
---- ---
---- --- ------------------
--- ----
---------
--------
---------
---------
0 Vaccinium corymbosum
0 Missing
5
4
----
01
---- --------
--------
-- --- --
---
X Dead
5,�__:
c
0
Cl)
:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
: 4
3
� 5'N

Site:
Bethpage
Page:
1
Monitoring Year:
MY2
Date:
12/12/2017
Area:
15.5 x 2.0
Veg Plot No.:
3
X-axis:
1.5
Plot Location:
2.27
250°WCURRENT
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X Y
Source meter meter
ddh
mm
YEAR DATA
Height DBH
cm cm Vigor Notes
1 Ulmus americana
B
0.4
1.7
Missing
2 Ulmus americana
B
1.5
0.5
2.27
70
3
3 Persea palustris
B
2.0
0.9
1.12
26
3
4 Myrica cerifera
B
2.5
0.7
4.00
108
3
5 Vaccinium corymbosum B
2.9
1.5
Missing
6 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
3.2
1.1
Missing
7 Quercus laurifolia
B
4.5
0.5
4.49
53
3
8 Myrica cerifera
B
5.7
1.3
Missing
9 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
5.7
1.1
Missing
10 Vaccinium corymbosum B
6.3
1.6
Missing
11 Persea palustris
B
7.0
1.4
1.35
28
3
12 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
8.0
0.7
Missing
13 Persea palustris
B
9.3
1.1
Missing
14 Quercus michauxii
B
9.5
0.9
2.85
30
3 Missing
15 Persea palustris
B
9.6
0.9
16 Ulmus americana
B
10.11
0.8
Missing
17 Myrica cerifera
B
12.6
1.8
4.49
85
3
18 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
12.3
0.6
Missing
19 Persea palustris
B
13.3
1.9
Missing
20 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
14.4
1.5
IMissing
21 Quercus sp.
B
15.4
1.9
IMissing
B = bare root 'Species identified differently in MY2 than during As -built and/or MY1 monitoring
C= containerized
Stream /
■
■
■
.0) ■
■
■
■
■
(0,0) X (15.5, 0 F
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Tree line
Note: SCM outlet pipe adjacent to VP3 has released sediment laden water onto floodplain adjacent to VP3.

Site: Bethpage
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY2
Date: 12/12/2017
Area: 15.5 x 2.0
Veg Plot No.: 3
X-axis: 2501W
2 250*W
2
19
OLiriodendron tulipifera
0 Myrica -rife-
5
---------------
------------ I ----
----- -----
---- I -----------
0 Persea palustris
6
0 Quercus laurifolia
0 Quercus michauxii
I-----------
I -----
--
----- -----
-
---- I ------
----- -
---------
----
-----
0 Ulmus americana
0 Vaccinium corymbosum
0
0 Quercus
sp.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 Missing
2 250*W

Site:
Bethpage
Page:
1
Monitoring Year:
MY2
Date:
12/12/2017
Area:
19.2 x 3.6
Veg Plot No.:
4
X-axis:
1.7
Plot Location:
39
30°NCURRENT
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X Y
Source meter meter
ddh
mm
YEAR DATA
Height DBH
cm cm Vigor Notes
1 Nyssa biflora
B 0.2
1.5
Missing
2 Persea palustris
B 0.5
1.7
1.25
39
3
3 Quercus laurifolia
B 0.4
2.2
Missing
4 Quercus sp.
B 1.1
1.6
Missing
5 Nyssa biflora
B 2.11
1.1
Missing
6 Ulmus americana
B 2.8
1.5
Missing
7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B 2.8
2.2
Missing
8 Persea palustris
B 3.4
2.3
2.34
65
3
9 Ulmus americana
B 3.8
1.7
Missing
10 Myrica cerifera
B 4.7
2.6
162
0.289
3
11 Liriodendron tulipifera
B 6.5
2.0
Missing
12 Carpinus caroliniana
B 6.7
1.5
Missing
13 Ulmus americana
B 6.7
0.3
198
0.228
3
14 Carpinus caroliniana
B 7.5
1.0
Missing
15 Persea palustris
B 6.9
2.6
Missing
16 Myrica cerifera
B 7.7
3.0
2.17
126
3
17 Ulmus americana
B 8.2
2.4
171
0.132
3
18 Vaccinium corymbosum
B 7.9
2.1
Missing
19 Quercus sp.
B 8.4
1.5
2.95
41
3
20 Carpinus caroliniana
B 8.9
1.1
Missing
21 Nyssa biflora
B 9.2
0.4
4.59
112
3
22 Ulmus americana
B 10.3
1.7
Missing
23 Persea palustris
B 10.6
1.4
Missing
24 Quercus sp.
B 10.8
0.6
4.64
85
3
25 Vaccinium corymbosum
B 11.5
1.3
Missing
26 Quercus sp.
B 11.8
1.9
Missing
27 Myrica cerifera
B 11.4
2.0
Missing
28 Ulmus americana
B 11.0
2.3
Missing
29 Persea palustris
B 13.0
3.5
2.60
62
3
30 Persea palustris
B 13.4
2.2
Missing
31 Vaccinium corymbosum
B 13.1
1.9
Missing
32 Liriodendron tulipifera
B 12.9
1.2
Missing
33 Liriodendron tulipifera
B 14.8
1.5
Missing
34 Myrica cerifera
B 14.4
2.6
Missing
35 Liriodendron tulipifera
I B 16.91
2.2
Missing
B = bare root "Species identified differently in MY2 than during As -built and/or MY1 monitoring
C= containerized XS 8 1
(0,0) I X (19.2, 0)
Volunteer Species Height Class (cm) Tree line
Scientific Name 1 10-50 150-1001 >100
Pinus taeda 1 31 1

Site:
Bethpage
Page:
2
Monitoring Year:
MY2
Date:
12/12/2017
Area:
19.2 x 3.6
Veg Plot No.:
4
X-axis:
WIN
30'N
I
3-mmmmmm
0
01 11
c
0
WEVOINI
2-�
(09)
CIAD
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
• Carpinus caroliniona 0 Fraxinus pennsylvanka 0 Liriodendron tulipifera 0 Myrica cerifera
O Nyssa biflora 0 Persea palustris 0 Quercus lourifolia 0 Ulmus americana
O Vaccinium corymbosum 0 Quercus sp. 0 Missing
30'N