20180866 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2021_20220224

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20180866 Version* 1
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/24/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/24/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Kelly Phillips [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20180866 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Shaw's Run Mititgation Site
County: Columbus
Document Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: ShawsRun_100055_MY1_2021.pdf 8.22MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Kelly Phillips
Signature:*
Zeilpt P Ellis

FINAL
MY1 (2021) MONITORING REPORT
SHAW'S RUN MITIGATION SITE
Columbus County, North Carolina
Lumber River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03040203
DMS Project No. 100055
Full Delivery Contract No. 7515
DMS RFP No. 16-007337
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01169
DWR Project No. 2018-0866
Data Collection: January—October 2021
Submission: December 2021
. ,...4„4,1
... , .. ..
. .
., . . . .
..,
� t
.. . ,, ..,, ,,,_i".„„)..„,„,,,,,_.,..,
„,... ,„.;. ..,,...,:,,,,.„?...„.„...,
. .., „:, .,.,„.. ... ,...„,„..,„„.
, , ,...-v,..-.•T;;,...,;5,;;!..:;.•..1::;5:::;:,--.-,e ,..
4i, -:..., ,,,Ar,;- ;-,-r.::,i .,;-'4.,-,.v.A,.'4.•:',.',..•:-.,,'',',...,-.'. •'- '
}
Y�oR,r.. '� ems. 3�' �
� i .tea e,�' r:�sa:„M1 , a•,.`
Prepared for:
NCNORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
Mitigation Services RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
ENVIRONMENTAL O1IA LITV

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St.Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone] RESTORATION
Response to Monitoring Year 1(2021) DMS Comments SYSTEMS I LLC
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Lumber River Basin—CU#03040203—Columbus County
DMS Project ID No. 100055
Contract#7515
DMS Comments Received (Black Text)& RS Responses(Blue Text)
1. Monitoring Summary: Thank you for adding the monitoring summary with tables to the beginning of the
document. Please indicate if the malfunctioning gauge has been repaired and if all gauges are now
functioning. Please add the 12%hydroperiod to the table.
Response: The malfunctioning gauge has been replaced and all monitoring gauges are now functioning
properly.The 12%hydroperiod has been added to the table.
2. 1.3 Success Criteria: Coordinate data (x,y,z)are required for volunteer stems to be included in future stem
count totals.
Response: Understood.
3. 2.1 Monitoring: Please reference the visual assessment results for each section.
Response:The visual assessment results have been referenced for each section.
4. 2.1 Monitoring Stream Summary: Provide summary information that identifies the major stream
components including the constructed channel,in-stream structures,floodplain interceptors and pools and
indicate the general status of their function.
Response:We have provided summary information regarding the major stream components in section 2.1.
5. 2.1 Monitoring—Growing Season:The March 1st start date relied on bud burst only during MY1 due to the
gauge malfunction and loss of data. The WETS table was used for the end date. Information from IRT
indicates if temperature and vegetative indicators are used to determine the beginning of the growing
season earlier in the year, you must also use the same indicators to determine the end of the growing
season.The growing season is determined in the final mitigation plan and a modification to the plan would
be required to change the growing season dates.A modification will require supporting pre-data including
temperature, bud burst/leaf drop.
Response: As requested, we have returned to the growing season determined from the final mitigation
plan.
6. 2.1 Monitoring-Vegetation: Please include discussion of the plots where a single species exceeded 50%or
where too few species were present.Are these localized or was there a trend observed onsite?
Response: We have included a discussion of plots 2 and 3,where dominant species composition exceeded
50%, and included the text here: "In plots 2 and 3, the dominant species composition exceeded 50%for
bald cypress(Taxodium distichum). Plot 2 experienced high mortality for sugarberry(Celtis laevigata)trees
that were planted at as-built, which resulted in bald cypress composing 55%of woody stems in the plot.
Plot 3 had a higher number of bald cypress trees planted at as-built when compared to other plots,however,
the species composition is localized and there is no evidence to suggest an onsite trend. Species
composition will continue to be monitored in subsequent Site visits and visual surveys will be conducted to
ensure species diversity is maintained."
1101 Haynes St.,Suite 211 • Raleigh,NC 27604•www.restorationsystems.com• Ph 919.755.9490• Fx 919.755.9492

7. Appendix A-Visual Assessment Tables:Add the date of data collection to the tables.
Response:The date of data collection has been added to the tables.
Digital Deliverable:
8. Please update"#of Encroachments noted"to 0 in Table 5.
Response:#of Encroachments has been updated to 0 in Table 5.
9. Please include the vegetation performance summary table in the report.
Response:The vegetation performance summary table has been added to the report.
Page 2 of 2

Shaw's Run--Year 1 (2021) Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• No encroachment was documented during Year 1.
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity(i.e., heavy deer browsing, beaver, etc.) observed.
Streams
• All stream restoration reaches were stable and exhibited no signs of erosion, all structures were
stable (Appendix C).
Vegetation
• Measurements of all 7 permanent plots resulted in an average of 544 planted stems/acre.
Additionally, all individual plots met success criteria (Appendix B).
Wetlands
• All groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 1 (2021) monitoring period except
Gauges 1 and 2 (Appendix D). Gauge 2 likely would have met success criteria, however,the gauge
malfunctioned at the beginning of the growing season.
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
12%Hydroperiod Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season(Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2021) (2022) (2023) (2024) (2025) (2026) (2027)
1* No-5 days(1.9%)
2^ No- 15 days(5.8%)
3 Yes-44 days(17.1%)
4 Yes-38 days(14.8%)
5 Yes-34 days(13.2%)
6 Yes-52 days(20.2%)
7 Yes-36 days(14.0%)
8 Yes-38 days(14.8%)
9 Yes-37 days(14.4%)
* Gauge 1 is not located in a credit generating area.
"Gauge 2 likely would have met success criteria, however, logger failure occurred at the start of the growing
season.
Site Maintenance Report(2021)
Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
5/21/2021
Privet,Chinaberry, Mimosa,Cattail,Chinese None
Tallow,and veg within tribs
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Executive Summary
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

FINAL
MY1 (2021) MONITORING REPORT
SHAW'S RUN MITIGATION SITE
Columbus County, North Carolina
Lumber River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03040203
DMS Project No. 100055
Full Delivery Contract No. 7515
DMS RFP No. 16-007337
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01169
DWR Project No. 2018-0866
Data Collection:January—October 2021
Submission: December 2021
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Mitigation Services
NV IRQNMENTAL QUALITY
Prepared by:
And
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Restoration Systems,LLC Axiom Environmental,Inc.
1101 Haynes Street,Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact:Worth Creech Contact: Grant Lewis
919-755-9490(phone) 919-215-1693(phone)
919-755-9492(fax)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 1
1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 3
1.3 Success Criteria ..5
2.0 METHODS 6
2.1 Monitoring 6
3.0 REFERENCES 10
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View
Table 4A-B. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix B. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Planted Bare-Root Woody Vegetation
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
Table 9. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Appendix C. Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Table 10A-B. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 11. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Appendix D. Hydrologic Data
Table 12.Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 13. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Tables 14 A-B. Channel Evidence
Surface Water Gauge Graphs
Figure D1. 30/70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Soil Temperature Graph
WETS Tables
Appendix E. Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 15. Project Timeline
Table 16. Project Contacts
Appendix F. Other Data
Preconstruction Benthic Results
Preconstruction Benthic Habitat Assessment Data Forms
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Table of Contents page i
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site.
1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure
The Shaw's Run Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses 9.44 acres of disturbed
forest and agricultural fields along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Greene Branch.The Site is located
approximately 2 miles west of Chadbourn, NC, south of NC Highway 76 in Columbus County.
Before construction, Site land use consisted of agricultural row crops and disturbed forest. Row crop
production extended to, and abutted, ditched stream margins. Herbaceous vegetation and a few shrubby
species grew within the ditches, which were regularly maintained by bush hogging and herbicide
application.As the ditch descended the valley towards Greene Branch, soils changed from the Goldsboro
and Lynchburg soil series (moderately well and somewhat poorly drained) to the Muckalee soil series
(poorly drained), and disturbed forest vegetation became more prevalent along stream margins and
floodplains. Stream channels were cleared, dredged and straightened, plowed annually for row crops,
eroded vertically and laterally, and received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from agriculture
chemicals and sediment. The entire stream channel was ditched and cleared of vegetation which
contributed to sediment export from the Site. In addition,stream-side wetlands were cleared and drained
by channel downcutting, drain tile installation, and adjacent land uses. Preconstruction Site conditions
resulted in degraded water quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention,
and unstable channel characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an increase
in erosive forces to channel bed and banks). Site restoration activities restored riffle-pool morphology,
aided in energy dissipation, increased aquatic habitat, stabilized channel banks, and greatly reduced
sediment loss from channel banks.
Proposed Site restoration activities generated 2285.000 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 5.862
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs) as described in Table 1.
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Planting 7.7 acres of the Site with 8300 stems (planted species are included in Table 6, Appendix
B).
Deviations from the construction plans included the following.
• The easement was updated from the construction plans. Construction plans had an older
easement that was not the proper(recorded) easement boundary.
• Woody material was placed in the channel riffles.
• Several log cross vanes were not installed due to Site conditions, including low slope causing the
vanes to not be necessary. Log vanes removed from the project include stations 0+30,7+20,7+85,
and 9+10 along UT1, and stations 0+30, 0+80, 1+10, 1+75, 2+05, 2+40, and 4+05 along UT2.
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) page 1
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 1.Shaw's Run(ID-100055)Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
Original
Mitigation Original Original Original
Plan As-Built Mitigation Restoration Mitigation
Project Segment Ft/Ac Ft/Ac Category Level Ratio(X:1) Credits Comments
Stream
UT1 1919 1912 Warm R 1.00000 1,919.000
UT2 366 366 Warm R 1.00000 366.000
Total: 2,285.000
Wetland
Wetland R 5.852 5.852 R REE 1.00000 5.852
Wetland E 0.103 0.103 R P 10.00000 0.010
Total: 5.862
Project Credits
Stream Riparian Non-Rip Coastal
Restoration Level Warm Cool Cold Wetland Wetland Marsh
Restoration 2,285.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Re-establishment 5.852 0.000 0.000
Rehabilitation 0.000 0.000 0.000
Enhancement 0.000 0.000 0.000
Enhancement I 0.000 0.000 0.000
Enhancement II 0.000 0.000 0.000
Creation 0.000 0.000 0.000
Preservation 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000
Totals 2,285.000 0.000 0.000 5.862 0.000 0.000
Total Stream Credit 2,285.000
Total Wetland Credit 5.862

Site design was completed in March 2019. Construction started on March 13, 2020, and ended within a
final walkthrough on June 25, 2020. The Site was planted on December 20, 2020. Completed project
activities, reporting history,completion dates, project contacts are summarized in Tables 15-16(Appendix
E).
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Project goals were based on the Lumber River Basin Restoration Priorities(RBRP) report(NCEEP 2008)and
on-site preconstruction data collection of channel morphology and function observed during field
investigations.The Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)03040203191010 and subbasin
03-07-51. The project is not located within a Local Watershed Planning area. Project goals identified in
the RBRP include the following.
1. Improve water quality through increased riparian buffer area (Project will restore approximately
7.7 acres of riparian buffer).
2. Reduce impacts from agricultural practices (Project will remove agricultural row crops from the
Site).
3. Reduce impacts from impervious surfaces (Project will incorporate one marsh treatment area to
treat ditches that receive roadside runoff).
4. Protection of existing resources (Project will be protected with a permanent conservation
easement).
In addition to the defined Cataloging Unit (CU) goals for the Lumber River, additional goals for the area
generally revolve around reducing stressors to water quality. Stressors and how each will be addressed
by project activities are as follows.
1. Sedimentation -(reduction of 15.8 tons/year after mitigation is complete).
2. Nutrients—(direct reduction of 89 pounds of nitrogen and 156 pounds of phosphorus per year
by removing agricultural row crops; eliminate fertilizer application; and installing a marsh
treatment area).
3. Land Use Impacts (imperviousness)—(incorporation of one marsh treatment area to treat
ditches that receive roadside runoff).
4. Stormwater—(reduction of bank height ratio, restoration of wetlands, reforestation, and
installation of a marsh treatment area will reduce stormwater pulses).
5. Lack of Riparian Buffer—(restoration of 7.7 acres of riparian buffer).
Site-specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed through the use of North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of
preconstruction and reference stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010) (see Table
2 below).
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) page 3
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow(Floodplain Access) • BHR not to exceed 1.2
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation • Attenuate flood flow across the Site. and restore jurisdictional wetlands • Document four overbank events in separate monitoring years
(4) Floodplain Access • Minimize downstream flooding to the • Plant woody riparian buffer • Remove agricultural row crops from the easement
maximum extent possible. • Cease row crop production within the easement
• Monitoring wells will be successful if the water table is within 12 inches of the
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer soil surface for 12%of the growing season
• Connect streams to functioning and • Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil surface • Vegetation plots will be successful if the plant density is 210 stems per acre with
(4) Microtopography degraded wetland systems. roughness
• Protect riparianperpetual an average plant height of 10 feet at 7 years following planting
Wetland—Surface and Sub-Surface buffers with a er etual conservation easement • Conservation Easement recorded
Storage and Retention
(3)Stream Stability • Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel
• Visual documentation of stable channels and structures
• Construct channels with proper pattern,dimension,and longitudinal profile • BHR not to exceed 1.2
• Increase stream stability within the Site • Cease row crop production within the easement • ER of 2.2 or greater
so that channels are neither aggrading • Construct stable channels withgrade control structures. • < 10%change in BHR and ER in anygiven
(4)Stream Geomorphology nor degrading. gyear
• Plant woody riparian buffer • Remove agricultural row crops from the easement
• Vegetation plots will be successful if the plant density is 210 stems per acre with
an average plant height of 10 feet at 7 years following planting
(1)WATER QUALITY
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation
• Reduce agricultural land/inputs • Remove agricultural row crops from the easement
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration • Install marsh treatment areas
• Remove direct nutrient and pollutant • Monitoring wells will be successful if the water table is within 12 inches of the
(3)Thermoregulation • Plant woody riparian buffer
inputs from the Site and reduce soil surface for 12%of the growing season
• Restore jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance contributions to downstream waters. • Vegetation plots will be successful if the plant density is 210 stems per acre with
o Remove drain tile an average plant height of 10 feet at 7 years following planting
Wetland- Pathogen, Particulate, o Promote overbank flooding by P1 stream restoration.
Soluble,and Physical Change
(1) HABITAT
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3)Substrate • Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel
• Construct stable channels • Visual documentation of stable channels and in-stream structures.
(2)Stream-side Habitat • Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade • Monitoring wells will be successful if the water table is within 12 inches of the
• Improve instream and stream-side • Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows
(3)Stream-side Habitat soil surface for 12%of the growing season
habitat. and plant woody riparian buffer • Vegetation plots will be successful if the plant density is 210 stems per acre with
(3)Thermoregulation • Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
an average plant height of 10 feet at 7 years following planting
Wetland- Physical Structure, • Restore jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams • Conservation Easement recorded
Landscape Patch Structure, and
Vegetation Composition
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) page 4
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

1.3 Success Criteria
Project success criteria have been established per the October 24, 2016, NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Monitoring and success
criteria relate to project goals and objectives. From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and
objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct measurement.
Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving success criteria. The following
table summarizes Site success criteria.
Success Criteria
Streams
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High-Water Mark(OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
• Bank height ratio(BHR)cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
• Entrenchment ratio(ER) must be no less than 2.2 at any measured riffle cross-section.
• BHR and ER at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10%from baseline condition
during any given monitoring period.
• The stream project shall remain stable, and all other performance standards shall be met through four
separate bankfull events,occurring in separate years,during the monitoring years 1-7.
Wetland Hydrology
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 12 percent of the
growing season,during average climatic conditions
Vegetation
• Within planted portions of the site,a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3;a minimum
of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at
year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5,and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the
site; natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case-by-case basis.
Visual Assessment
• Photographs at vegetation plots and cross-sections should illustrate the Site's vegetative and morphological
stability on an annual basis, including no excessive erosion or degradation on the channel banks, no mid-
channel bars,or vertical incision. In addition,grade control structures should remain stable.
Note: BHR will be calculated using procedures outlined in the latest approved guidance from NCDMS.
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.1000585) page 5
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

2.0 METHODS
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 1 of each
monitoring year data is collected.The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.
Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Streams X X X X X
Wetlands X X X X X X X
Vegetation X X X X X
Macroinvertebrates X X X
Visual Assessment X X X X X X X
Report Submittal X X X X X X X
*Visual Assessment will be complemented by permanent photographic points located at each permanent cross-
section and vegetation plot.
2.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table.
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.1000585) page 6
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Monitoring Summary
Stream Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Stream Profile Full longitudinal survey As built(unless otherwise All restored stream channels Graphic and tabular data.
required)
Stream Dimension Cross-sections Years 1,2,3,5,and 7 Total of 10 cross sections on Graphic and tabular data.
restored channels
Areas of concern will be depicted on a plan view
Visual Assessments Yearly All restored stream channels figure with a written assessment and
Channel Stability photograph of the area included in the report.
Additional Cross-sections Yearly Only if instability is documented Graphic and tabular data.
during monitoring
Continuous monitoring surface water Continuous recording through Surface water gauges on UT 1 and
Stream Hydrology Surface water data for each monitoring period
gauges and/or trail camera monitoring period UT2
Continuous monitoring surface water Continuous recording through Surface water gauges on UT 1 and Surface water data for each monitoring period
gauges and/or trail camera monitoring period UT2
Bankfull Events
Continuous through Visual evidence,photo documentation,and/or
Visual/Physical Evidence monitoring period All restored stream channels rain data.
Preconstruction,Years 3,5,
2 stations(one at the lower end of
"Qual 4" method described in Standard UT 1 and one at the lower end of UT Results*will be presented on a site-by-site basis
and 7 during the"index
Benthic Operating Procedures for Collection and 2); however,the exact locations will and will include a list of taxa collected,an
Macroinvertebrates Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates, period"referenced in Small be determined at the time enumeration of Ephemeroptera,Plecoptera,and
Version 5.0(NCDWR 2016) Streams Biocriteria preconstruction benthics are Tricopetera taxa as well as Biotic Index values.
Development(NCDWQ 2009) collected
Wetland Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Years 1,2,3,4,5,6,and 7 Soil temperature at the beginning of each
Wetland throughout the year with the 9 gauges spread throughout monitoring period to verify the start of the
Reestablishment Groundwater gauges growing season defined as restored wetlands growing season(no earlier than March 1),
March 1-November 12 groundwater and rain data for each monitoring
period
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247
Vegetation acre(100 square meters)in size;CVS- Species,height,planted vs.volunteer,
establishment and As-built,Years 1,2,3,5,and 7 7 plots spread across the Site
EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, stems/acre
vigor Version 4.2(Lee et al.2008)
*Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling data will not be tied to success criteria; however,the data may be used as a tool to observe positive gains to in-stream habitat
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) page 7
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Stream Summary
All streams are functioning as designed, and no stream areas of concern were observed during year 1
(2021) monitoring. The constructed channel exhibits characteristics of a stable coastal plain stream with
minimal changes in cross-sections when compared to the as-built stream measurement data.All in-stream
structures are all functioning as designed. Grade control and bank protection structures are intact and
performing as intended by controlling stream flow while preventing erosion. No floodplain interceptors
installed during construction. The marsh treatment area at the top of UT-1 has been successful in
intercepting surface waters draining through agricultural areas prior to discharge into UT-1. Stream
morphology data is available in Appendix C. Visual assessment data is available in Appendix A,Tables 4A-
B.
Wetland Summary
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Monitoring Period Used for 12 Percent of
Burst Documented Determining Success Monitoring Period
2021(Year 1) March 1,2021* March 1-November 12 31 days
(257 days)
*Based on observed/documented bud burst on the Site on March 1,2021,and soil temperature of 49.99°F documented March
8,2021.When checked on March 1,the soil logger was damaged and wasn't replaced until March 8.
All groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 1 (2021) monitoring period except Gauges 1 and
2 (Appendix D). Gauge 2 likely would have met success criteria; however,the logger malfunctioned at the
start of the growing season. Gauge 1 is not located in a credit generating area.
Vegetation Summary
Year 1 (2021) vegetation measurements occurred on August 6, 2021. During quantitative vegetation
sampling, 7 sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within the Site as per guidelines
established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,Version 4.2(Lee et al. 2008). Measurements of
all 7 plots resulted in an average of 544 planted stems/acre, excluding livestakes. All individual plots met
success criteria (Tables 7-8, Appendix B). In plots 2 and 3, the dominant species composition exceeded
50% for bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Plot 2 experienced high mortality for sugarberry (Celtis
Iaevigata) trees that were planted at as-built, which resulted in bald cypress composing 55% of woody
stems in the plot. Plot 3 had a higher number of bald cypress trees planted at as-built when compared to
other plots, however, the species composition is localized and there is no evidence to suggest an onsite
trend. Species composition will continue to be monitored in subsequent Site visits and visual surveys will
be conducted to ensure species diversity is maintained.Visual assessment data is available in Appendix A,
Table 5.
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) page 8
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 3.Project Attribute Table
Project Name Shaw's Run
County Columbus County,North Carolina
Project Area(acres) 9.44
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude decimal degrees) 34.31932N,78.8666 2W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Coastal Plain
River Basin Lumber
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 3040203191010
DWR Sub-basin 03-07-51
Project Drainage Area(acres) 106
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <2%
Land Use Classification Cultivated&Other Broadleaf Deciduous Forest
Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT 1 UT 2 Reach 3
Pre-project length(feet) 1474 283
Post-project(feet) 1912 366
Valley confinement(Confined,moderately confined,unconfined) Alluvial,moderately confined to unconfined
Drainage area(acres) 106.5 24.6
Perennial,Intermittent,Ephemeral Perennial/Intermitternt Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C,Sw
Dominant Stream Classification(existing) G5/6 F5/6
Dominant Stream Classification(proposed) E/C5 E/C5
Dominant Evolutionary class(Simon)if applicable III/IV III/IV
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland R Wetland E Wetland 3
Pre-project(acres) 0 0.103
Post-project(acres) 5.852 0.103
Wetland Type(non-riparian,riparian) Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series Muckalee
Soil Hydric Status Hydric
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes JD Package(App D)
Water of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes JD Package(App D)
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes CE Document(App E)
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes CE Document(App E)
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA or CAMA) No -- NA
Essential Fisheries Habitat No -- NA

3.0 REFERENCES
Griffith, G.E.,J.M. Omernik,J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat,T.F. MacPherson,J.B.
Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation.Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online). Available:
https://fi les.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Qua l ity/Environmental%20Sciences/BAU/NCDW RMacroi n
vertebrate-SOP-February%202016 final.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality(NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-82fd-
04005f48eaa7&groupld=38364
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2008. Lumber River Basin Restoration
Priorities (online).Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Lum ber_River_Basi n/Lu
mber_RBRP_2008_FINAL.pdf(January 9, 2018).
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) User Manual.Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee
Streams:An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and
Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Pub1.167.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of Columbus County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) page 10
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2017. Web Soil Survey(online). Available:
https://websoilsurvev.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm [May 7, 2018]. United States
Department of Agriculture.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2021. Natural Resources Conservation Service National
Weather and Climate Center.AgACIS Climate Data. Whiteville 7 NW WETS Station (online).
Available: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) page 11
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Appendix A
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 4A-B. Stream Visual Stability Assessment
Table 5. Visual Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

- ='-
-- _ -- -_-- � =��=ma=-ma �f--
- `-
fi�
zs k7G5:
,,- i0m Enw'ranmenlai,inc.
GW-8 awe -_' -
Prepared for:
Rs....„.. .,c
L.#.
/cam ••s ,.3"" RESTORATION
a SYSTEMS LLC
- Project:
GW-4
6 •
SHAW'S RUN
o• . ,, :-,-,��;, • Ai.-.ifSTREAM
AND WETLAND
•
GW-5
_
GW-6 ,:.=Y MITIGATION SITE
--
cn H, A x
X
�._ 'LL N.N.trw .'.' Columbus County, NC
•G �5, l =, - , _f ,.. ,' : � Title:
. i TorA...-. ' .r t,,,,4.
..4:1 F 4., .
x_ '- , 0-- ��_ , ' Current
x" ` ' T` 1, Conditions
:t
Plan View
•
.. "° Drawn by:
'' •
:' . • -,; KRJ`" -X,S-2 =;, Date:
Legend • � �,:.. ' Mar 2021
QShaw's Run Easement=9.44 ac �8' } ••'
—Stream Restoration ae i �- %N ` , Scale:
-Stream Generating No Credit '.4...hyyyas .a • 1:1 400
;op Adi Wetland Reestablishment A '
Wetland Preservation Sys Avg.'-.,., - Project No.:
i Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria in MY1 (2021) 4. ' .�:; �'ti, 18-014
C Vegetation Plot Origins 4. 4...e. + ,.• „, ,... ....4.
-Cross-Sections ` �F f :P+
• Groundwater Gauge4Pr A`, ,� !s:;. ' ,.r
A Stream Flow Gauge f.- . •, `. . .�' M� ,p • FIGURE
Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature Logger •a.2.• •..
'4 -•y• �+
t '''''
{ Pre-Construction Benthic Sampling Locations ,A»1Vyr ' K
'•ys-A• ,'
♦,f R .Y•• 'I ,. . ..
0 150 300 600 A+ )r, .+ ' �S.,� � h..
�1' ilk`
�
Feet t ,. � P :, _

Table 4A. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 1
Assessed Stream Length 1912 Survey Date:September 24,2021
Assessed Bank Length 3824
Number
Stable, Amount of %Stable,
Performing as Total Number Unstable Performing as
Major Channel Cate or Metric Intended in As-built Foota a Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 0 100%
Bank and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Toe Erosion Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,calving,or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the 36 36 100%
sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection exceed 15%.(See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 36 36 100%
guidance document)
Table 4B. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 2
Assessed Stream Length 366
Assessed Bank Length 732
Number
Stable, Amount of %Stable,
Performing as Total Number Unstable Performing as
Ma'or Channel Cate or Metric Intended in As-built Foota a Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 0 100%
Bank and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Toe Erosion Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,calving,or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the 9 9 100%
sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection exceed 15%.(See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 9 9 100%
guidance document)

Table 5. Visual Vegetation Assessment
Planted acreage 7.7 Survey Date:September 24,2021
Mapping Combined %of Planted
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Acreage Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria. 0.10acres 0.00 0.0%
Total 0.00 0.0%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard. 0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
Cumulative Total 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage 9.44
Mapping Combined %of Easement
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Acreage Acreage
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will therefore be calculated
against the total easement acreage-Include species with the potential to directly outcompete native,
Invasive Areas of Concern 0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
young,woody stems in the short-term or community structure for existing communities. Species
included in summation above should be identified in report summary.
Encroachment may be point,line,or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists of any violation of
Easement Encroachment Areas restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common encroachments are mowing,cattle access, none 0 Encroachments noted
vehicular access.Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact
area.

Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
MY1 (2021) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken August 2021)
Plot 1 Plot 2
•
I
Plot 3 Plot 4
A
jj
Plot 5 ( ; Plot 6
PM1a I
'.,
Plot 7
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data
MY1 Monitoring Report—December 2021

Appendix B
Vegetation Data
Table 6. Planted Bare-Root Woody Vegetation
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
Table 9. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 6. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Species Total*
Acres 7.7
Betula nigra 800
Celtis laevigata 100
Cephalanthus occidentalis 800
Corn us amomum 700
Diospyros virginiana 300
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 300
Liriodendron tulipifera 500
Nyssa sylvatica 1000
Platanus occidentalis 1000
Quercus laurifolia 400
Quercus lyrata 400
Quercus nigra 300
Quercus pagoda 400
Quercus phellos 300
Taxodium distichum 1000
TOTALS 8300
Average Stems/Acre 1078
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 7. Planted Vegetation Totals
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Plot# Planted Stems/Acre Success Criteria Met?
1 607 Yes
2 445 Yes
3 648 Yes
4 486 Yes
5 526 Yes
6 648 Yes
7 445 Yes
Average Planted Stems/Acre 544 Yes
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December2021

Table 8.Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
Planted Acreage 7.7
Date of Initial Plant 2020-12-20
Date(s)of Supplemental Plant(s) #N/A
Date(s)Mowing #N/A
Date of Current Survey 8/6/2021
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Tree/S Indicator Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F
Scientific Name Common Name hrub Status Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1 1 4 4
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW 2 2 1 1 1 1
Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree FACU 1 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL 1 1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 1 1 2 2
Species Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1
Included in Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW 2 2
Approved
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 2 2 2 2
Mitigation
Plan Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 3 3 2 2 2 2
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 2 2 1 1 1 1 7 7
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL 1 1 1 1
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 1 1 4 4 2 2 1 1
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree FACW 1 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FACW 3 3 2 2 1 1
Quercus sp. 3 3 1 1 5 5 2 2 1 1 3 3
Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree OBL 6 6 10 10 3 3 3 3
Sum Performance Standard 15 15 11 11 16 16 12 12 13 13 16 16 11 11
Current Year Stem Count 15 11 16 12 13 16 11
Mitigation Stems/Acre 607 445 648 486 526 648 445
Plan Species Count 7 5 3 7 8 6 5
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 20 55 62 42 23 44 36
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
%Invasives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Current Year Stem Count 15 11 16 12 13 16 11
Post Stems/Acre 607 445 648 486 526 648 445
Mitigation Species Count 7 5 3 7 8 6
Plan
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 20 55 42 23 44
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
%Invasives 0 0 0 0 0
1).Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year,italicized species are not approved,and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2).The"Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan"section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan.The"Post Mitigation Plan Species"section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the
current monitoring year(bolded),species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum(regular font),and species that are not approved(italicized).
3).The"Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan,whereas the"Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"includes data from mitigation plan approved,post mitigation plan approved,and proposed
stems.

Table 9.Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year rr607 2 7 0 445 2 5 0 648 2 3 0
Monitoring Year 688 2 7 0 607 2 6 0 648 1 3 0
Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1 486 2 7 0 526 2 8 0 648 2 6 0
Monitoring Year 0 567 2 8 0 607 2 8 0 769 1 7 0
Veg Plot 7 F
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1 i 445 2 5 0
Monitoring Year 567 1 6 0 A
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot"groups".Random plots are denoted with an R,and fixed plots with an F.

Appendix C
Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Table 10A-B. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 11. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Site Shaw's Run CC r a Y ii.'
Watershed: Lumber River Basin,03040203 ( + 1 i I A ,�
XS ID UTl,XS-1,Riffle i�1'.'�-1 i) \1 i � �rAli � / I�I /
II It Jt'Feature Riffle , .`'11. /;3�� ��!�'! •Date: 3/23/2021 'i,�� ��i, ��,��I � � �' ,
Field Crew: Harris,Perkinson
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA -
0.0 90.7 Bankfull Elevation: 90.8 +Fsa
2.5 91.0 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.0
2.5 91.0 Thalweg Elevation: 89.8
5.1 91.1 LTOB Elevation: 90.8
6.9 91.0 LTOB Max Depth: 1.0
8.2 90.9 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 3.7
9.0 90.7
9.7 90.3
10.2 90.1 t�' ._2021/O3/23
10.8 89.9
11.9 89.9
12.7 89.8
13.2 90.3 Stream Type E/C 5
13.7 90.4
14.4 90.7
15.0 90.8 Shaw's Run,UT!,XS-1,Riffle
16.0 91.0
17.2 91.0 92
18.6 91.1
20.1 91.0
21.4 90.92
22.4 90.9
t
Z
0
6
W 90
-----Bankfull
MY-00 12/16/20
MY-01 3/23/21
89 ,
0 10 20 30
Station(feet)

Site Shaw's Run ;,� �� t I+, i I A /
Watershed: Lumber River Basin,03040203 b J f PI
r
XS ID UT1,XS-2,Poo1 �^i` �j�i J 1'' If�i�� �
Feature Pool , Er
Date: 3/23/2021
Field Crew: Harris,Perkinson
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
^-0.3 90.9 Bankfull Elevation: 90.9 i
1.3 91.0 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.0 1',
3.9 91.0 Thalweg Elevation: 89.6
5.6 90.9 LTOB Elevation: 90.9
7.1 90.9 LTOB Max Depth: 1.2 -
7.9 90.7 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 5.7
8.6 90.5
9.3 90.2
10.1 89.9
10.8 89.7
11.4 89.6
12.2 89.7
13.0 89.7 Stream Type = E/C 5
13.7 89.9
14.1 90.2
14.6 90.9
15.3 91.2 Shaw's Run,UT1,XS-2,Pool
16.2 91.4
17.4 91.4 92 _
18.7 91.5
20.1 91.5
91
t
z
2
90
W -----Bankfill
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-Ol 3/23/21
89 , I I
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Site Shaw's Run +
Watershed: Lumber River Basin,03040203 l ;- ill, i(
XS ID UT1,XS-3,Pool , 4+iu 11'1
Feature Pool
Date: 3/23/2021
Field Crew: Harris,Perkinson
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 92.6 Bankfull Elevation: 92.1
1.9 92.6 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.0
3.9 92.5 Thalweg Elevation: 90.7
5.0 92.4 LTOB Elevation: 92.1
5.9 92.1 LTOB Max Depth: 1.4 v' \y'
6.4 91.9 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 6.1
7.3 91.1 �;
8.1 90.9 ,
9.2 90.8 / -
10.0 90.7
10.6 90.8 "�' �_
11.0 91.1
11.4 91.4 Stream Type E/C 5
12.0 91.7
12.5 92.1
13.5 92.2
14.2 92.3 Shaw's Run,UT1,XS-3,Pool
15.1 92.5
16.0 92.6 93
17.2 92.7
18.6 92.6
t
92 9I -----Bankfull
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-01 3/23/21
90 I ,
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Site Shaw's Run ,
Watershed: Lumber River Basin,03040203 .1 i
XS ID UT1,XS-4,Riffle ►= I .-
Feature Riffle o:
Date: 3/23/2021
Field Crew: Harris,Perkinson
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
-0.1 92.8 Bankfull Elevation: 92.2
2.7 92.8 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.0
4.9 92.7 Thalweg Elevation: 91.3
6.4 92.6 LTOB Elevation: 92.2
7.6 92.2 LTOB Max Depth: 0.9
8.3 92.0 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 2.5
8.8 91.8
9.3 91.5
9.9 91.5
10.8 91.3
11.1 91.5
11.7 91.8
12.4 92.1 Stream Type E/C 5
13.3 92.1
14.1 92.4
14.7 92.4 Shaw's Run,UT1,XS-4,Riffle
15.9 92.4
17.3 92.5 94
19.3 92.6
m
93
t
z
0
t
W 92
-----Bankfull
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-01 3/23/21
91 -, 1 ,
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Site Shaw's Run
Watershed: Lumber River Basin,03040203
XS ID UT1,XS-5,Pool
Feature Pool :: �_• -.
Date: 3/23/2021 I
Field Crew: Harris,Perkinson ,t,^ ,a _
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA ^`
0.0 94.1 Bankfull Elevation: 93.8
•
2.4 94.0 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.0
4.0 94.0 Thalweg Elevation: 92.6 _
5.2 94.0 LTOB Elevation: 93.8
6.2 93.8 LTOB Max Depth: 1.2
7.0 93.5 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 5.6 v 10;i�vyvl
7.7 93.1so
�� i �'°41. `44eu �1
8.6 93.0 ; < r u
9.4 92.7
9.9 92.6
10.5 92.6 ' , '
11.4 92.7
12.2 93.0 Stream Type E/C 5
12.8 93.2
13.5 93.5
14.0 93.6 Shaw's Run,UT1,XS-5,Pool
14.5 93.8
15.6 93.8 95
17.4 93.8
18.7 93.9 -
20.2 93.9
21.0 94.0 t
9493 -----s�ksu
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-01 3/23/21
92 , I I ,
0 10 20 30
Station(feet)

We Shaw's Run
atershed: Lumber River Basin,03040203
XS ID UT1,XS-6,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 3/23/2021
Field Crew: Harris,Perkinson
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 94.2 Bankfull Elevation: 94.2
1.5 94.2 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.0
3.5 94.2 Thalweg Elevation: 93.3 1
4.7 94.2 LTOB Elevation: 94.2
5.4 94.1 LTOB Max Depth: 0.9
5.9 93.9 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 4.8
6.5 93.7 �'
s3
7.1 93.5 - 1
7.4 93.3
_. tiz:,� a...�
8.2 93.3
9.1 93.3 *Photo taken June 26 2020
9.7 93.3
10.5 93.4 Stream Type E/C 5
11.0 93.6
11.7 93.7
12.3 93.9 Shaw's Run,UT1,XS-6,Riffle
12.8 94.1
13.5 94.3 96
15.0 94.3
16.8 94.5
19.1 94.33
m
95
t
o �.
6 _
W 94
-----Bavkfull
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-01 3/23/21
93 I I '
0 10 20 30
Station(feet)

Site Shaw's Runs
Watershed: Lumber River Basin,03040203 _
XS ID UT1,XS-7,Pool ,
Feature Pool
Date: 3/23/2021 e , Irk a: ,. d
Field Crew: Harris,Perkinson
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA ,"l lt x
0.2 95.7 Bankfull Elevation: 95.5 •
2.5 95.8 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.0 r,`s
4.3 95.8 Thalweg Elevation: 94.1 \`' Y "\i t.�
5.8 95.6 LTOB Elevation: 95.6 ‘q'�4 0,-- "-"A ',�1i
6.8 95.3 LTOB Max Depth: 1.5 �'
7.1 94.8 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 5.6
7.7 94.4 �
8.2 94.3
8.7 94.1 � 0,,
9.1 94.1 y
9.5 94.2
10.0 94.4
10.5 94.4 Stream Type A E/C 5
10.9 94.8
11.3 94.9
11.9 95.1
12.7 95.5 Shaw's Run,UT1,XS-7,Pool
13.3 95.6
13.9 95.7 97
15.3 95.7
17.0 95.7
18.7 95.7 96
20.3 95.7 & - a
m _
t ARIC
0 95
W -----Bavkfull
94 MY-00 1/21/20
MY-Ol 3/2321
93 -, I I ,
0 10 20 30
Station(feet)

Site Shaw's Run
Watershed: Lumber River Basin,03040203 ili •�
XS ID UTl,XS-8,Riffle'
iffle riB ���i+Yi uiq�a►► � .y�
rrvF.e . L::k
Feature Riffle
Date: 3/23/2021 �{'4
Field Crew: Harris,Perkinson �f '�
_,+` '4 DO G1 t ' ` 1
I " yi l 1',�l''!7; Ili ,"P�' 1 4utiJ
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
ab' k y J
0.7 95.7 Banldull Elevation: 95.5
2.7 95.5 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.0 4,s` ``i :
5.1 95.5 Thalweg Elevation: 94.6 � � y ��' "
6.4 95.6 LTOB Elevation: 95.6 y�'' ��
7.2 95.3 LTOB Max Depth: 1.0 3 -<'a ` I ' .
7.7 95.0 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 3.2
8.2 94.9 .kx `
8.6 94.6 .- '... w ''- ir� ' s,' a-
s
9.2 94.6 fr°` {° c�
y ,� s,,ffi 4 e� 1T ty i.IIll /U�s - ,„1
9.7 94.7
10.1 94.8 ':;0'71 111 6 x:?SIOW 90®k`i3_� \`•tilliViiiiId 5.➢ '• ��<
10.5 94.9
11.1 95.1 Stream Type E/C 5
11.7 95.4
12.5 95.3
13.6 95.5 Shaw's Run,UT!,XS-8,Riffle
14.4 95.7
15.4 95.7 97
16.9 95.8
18.6 96.0
z
0
a
m
W 95
-----Bankfull
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-Ol 3/23/21
94
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Site Shaw's Run
Watershed: Lumber River Basin,03040203
XS ID UT2,XS-9,Pool
Feature Pool �`� ,,.;
Date: 3/23/2021
Field Crew: Harris,Perkinson
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 94.6 Bankfull Elevation: 94.4
2.1 94.4 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.0
3.7 94.5 Thalweg Elevation: 93.3
4.9 94.5 LTOB Elevation: 94.4
5.7 94.4 LTOB Max Depth: 1.1
6.1 94.1 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 2.4
6.7 93.6
7.3 93.3
7.7 93.4
8.3 93.6
8.7 93.7
9.0 93.8
9.4 94.1 Stream Type E/C 5
9.9 94.4
10.4 94.6
11.0 94.6
11.9 94.6 Shaw's Run,UT2,XS-9,Pool
13.3 94.7
14.9 94.8 96
95 -
z
94
W -----Bavkf ll
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-01 3/23/21
93
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Site Shaw's Run
Watershed: Lumber River Basin,03040203
XS ID UT2,XS-10,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 3/23/2021 _
Field Crew: Harris,Perkinson � ^'�"
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
-0.2 94.7 Bankfull Elevation: 94.6 L.
1.9 94.6 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.1 al
3.6 94.5 Thalweg Elevation: 94.0 _��
4.6 94.5 LTOB Elevation: 94.6 r"'"" ",
5.2 94.4 LTOB Max Depth: 0.6
5.6 94.4 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 1.8
5.9 94.2
6.5 94.0
6.9 94.0
7.3 94.1
7.9 94.0 *Photo taken June 26 2020
8.2 94.2
8.7 94.4 Stream Type E/C 5
9.2 94.3
10.0 94.5
11.4 94.6 Shaw's Run,UT2,XS-10,Riffle
12.8 94.6
13.9 94.8 96
15.1 94.7
5)
m
t
I
95 - .�
-----Bavkfull
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-01 3/2321
94 , I ,
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Table 10A. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Shaw's Run-UT 1
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition(applicaple) Design Monitoring Baseline Monitoring Year 1
Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 4.1 5.9 6.9 6.1 7 5.6 8.2 4 5.8 9.3 4
Floodprone Width(ft) 5.4 7 9.4 30 70 100 100 4 100 100 4
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 4 0.4 0.5 4
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.6 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.7 1.0 4 0.9 1.0 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.5 4.8 4 2.5 4.8 4
Width/Depth Ratio 5.3 10.9 14.9 12 16 12.7 17.7 4 13.7 18.1 4
Entrenchment Ratio 4.6 7.6 10.6 4.6 10.6 12.2 17.9 4 10.7 17.1 4
Bank Height Ratio 2.8 3.4 4.7 1 1.2 1.0 1.0 4 1.0 1.0 4
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification G 5/6 E/C 5 C 5 C 5
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
Sinuosity(ft) 1 1.15 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0033 0.0029 0.004 0.004
Other
Table 10B. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Shaw's Run-UT 2
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition(applicaple) Design Monitoring Baseline Monitoring Year 1
Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.2 7.9 8.3 3.6 4.2 4.5 4.5 1 7.9 7.9 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 7 9 12 30 70 100 100 1 100 100 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 1 0.2 0.2 1
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.8 1 1.8 1.8 1
Width/Depth Ratio 24.6 56.9 62.6 12 16 11.2 11.2 1 34.8 34.8 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 1.2 1.6 7.6 17.8 22.0 22.0 1 12.6 12.6 1
Bank Height Ratio 6 6.8 9.5 1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification F 5/6 E/C 5 E/C 5 E/C 5
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Sinuosity(ft) 1 1.15 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.01 0.0087 0.0028 0.0028
Other

Table 11. Monitoring Data-Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
(Shaw's Run/DMS:100055) UT land UT 2
UT 1-Cross Section 1(Riffle) UT 1-Cross Section 2(Pool) UT 1-Cross Section 3(Pool) UT 1-Cross Section 4(Riffle) UT 1-Cross Section 5(Pool)
MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY] MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY] MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY] MY+ MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY] MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY] MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull'Area 90.88 90.81 92.29 92.21
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull'Area 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Thalweg Elevation 90.15 89.80 89.]5 89.63 90.8011 90.66 91.46 91.31 92.64] 92.56
LTOB'Elevation 90.88 90.80 90.939 90.87 92.21 92.07 92.29 92.20 93.805 93.76
LTOB'Max Depth(ft) 0.74 1.00 1.19 1.24 1.41 1.42 0.83 0.89 1.16 1.21
LTOB'Cross Sectional Area(ft) 3.7 3.7 5.7 5.7 6.1 6.1 2.5 2.5 5.6 5.6
UT 1-Cross Section 6(Riffle) UT 1-Cross Section 7(Pool) UT 1-Cross Section 8(Riffle) UT 2-Cross Section 9(Pool) UT 2-Cross Section 10(Riffle)
MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY] MY+ MY0 MY1 MY] MY3 MY5 MY] MY+ MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY] MY+ MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull'Area 94.16 94.18 95.60 95.52 94.60 94.55
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull'Area 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.05 r 1.00 1.11
Thalweg Elevation 93.11 93.25 94.258 94.09 94.79 94.57 93.4402 93.33 94.054 94.00
LTOB'Elevation 94.16 94.19 95.609 95.59 95.60 95.56 94.37 94.39 94.60 94.61
LTOB'Max Depth(ft) 1.05 0.93 1.35 1.50 0.81 1.00 0.93 1.06 0.54 0.61
LTOB'Cross Sectional Area(ft) 4.8 4.8 5.6 5.6 3.2 3.2 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.8
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS,the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners.The outcome
resulted in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward.They are the bank height ratio using a constant As-built bankfull
I area and the cross sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank.These are calculated as follows:
1-Bank Height Ratio(BHR)takes the As built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.For example if the As-built bankfull area was 10 ft2,then the MY1 bankfull
elevation would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey=10 ft2.The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank(LTOB)
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull'Area elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator.This same process is
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull'Area then carried out in each successive year.
Thalweg Elevation 2 LTOB Area and Max depth-These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey(The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation).Area below the LTOB elevation will be used
LTOB'Elevation and tracked for each year as above.The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation(same as in the BHR calculation)will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.
LTOB'Max Depth(ft)
LTOB'Cross Sectional Area(ft)
Note:The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection,therefore inter-annual variation in morphological measurement(as a percentage)is by default magnified as channel size decereases.Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed.

Appendix D
Hydrologic Data
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 13. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Tables 14 A-B. Channel Evidence
Surface Water Gauge Graphs
Figure D1. 30/70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Soil Temperature Graph
WETS Tables
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 12.Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data Date of Photo
Collection Occurrence Method (if available)
A bankfull event was documented on UT1 by trail camera and
February 18,2021 February 18,2021 stream gauge evidence after 3.02 inches of rain were 1
captured at an onsite rain gauge.
Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed on the TOB of
March 1,2021 February 18,2021 UT2 after 3.02 inches of rain was documented on February 2
18,2021 at an onsite rain gauge.
Photo 1: Bankfull event documented on UT 1
downstream after 3"of rain fell on February 18, 2021
•
41111111110140s-
-- • . -
30.17 1 8 33°F I 02 11 812021 09 : 09PM SHAWUT1
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Photo 2:
Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed on the TOB
of UT2 after 3" inches of rain fell on February 18, 2021.
r ti
f ;
_ •..ice'"' -,,,-..- ' .+� `I k,'.- s p,. ', k' 1 i
S -"ti .!.�� i - jam tielli� i:.,.' y 4_ ''f I.:,j �
!-;(ti"<-1-,-..:::'7".-5."1,..;e4f Yfr,• :7,c. .7.!.•-`--.‹..ci,e-".(- _ •,, „ 1,,,c . , ,,'y , , , ,
i 7.'. )1 ,'4tit\\ iie . s•
if.
„ ,-, r a 7,-,r 3 ° - W ' to iV { -
--.-A. .---1•.-:*'*
" -..
.a..7,,,.
11 f- /1
"+j�Iy.-/ �+ .1 r ; l 1/ ' �� .7 \ '`t�. r) -'�,d4 ti�'�U�fy / {���y�/,� 5'
+ 1" �F .6 tys ` B1i7r•i ., zI'1J ' 1rTh i Ir!'/��',. ,)"'.4.'_!"' l Y; .1 l.1
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December2021

Table 13. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
12%Hydroperiod Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2021) (2022) (2023) (2024) (2025) (2026) (2027)
1* No-5 days(1.9%)
2A No- 15 days(5.8%)
3 Yes-44 days(17.1%)
4 Yes- 38 days(14.8%)
5 Yes- 34 days(13.2%)
6 Yes-52 days(20.2%)
7 Yes- 36 days(14.0%)
8 Yes- 38 days(14.8%)
9 Yes- 37 days(14.4%)
* Gauge 1 is not located in a credit generating area.
A Gauge 2 likely would have met success criteria, however, logger failure occurred at the start of the growing
season.
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 1 (2021 Data)
12 3.5
10 Start Growing Season End Growing Season
8 March 1
6 November 12
4 1 J 5 days- 1.9% _, - 3.0
2 •-- 1
0 I _I
-4 A - 2.5
Tv
-64
11
a I c
J -8 _
ar -10
as - 2.0 C
10
3a -12 - III o
E
3 -14 4
-16 m
-18 - 1.5 =
-20 kce
-22
il
-24 111—t
-26 1.0
-28 t
-30 Gauge malfunction
-32 - 0.5
-34
-40-36
-38
�.�. rLI ._1 _J I. . I R. .1 lid Lail Alit . . I i 0.0
1--, 1--, 1--, I-3 NJ NJ W W W 43. 43. 43. Ul Ul Ul Ul 01 Cl Cl V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 lO 1--, FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 I-. I-. I-. NJ NJ NJ
I-, I-, NJ W I-. NJ NJ I-. NJ I-. I-. NJ I-. I-. NJ W I-, NJ W I-, NJ W lO I-. NJ 00 I-. NJ
1-4 I—, I— 0 0 - NJ NJ I— I—, I—, I— I— 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 00 00 00 I—' NJ V I—, NJ V I— NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ . NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ 00 00 - V V - V V
I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ
I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 NJ NJ I4 NJ NJ I4 NJ NJ
I4 I4 I4 I4 I4 FA

Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 1 (2021 Data)
12 - I 3.5
10 — Start Growing Season — End Growing Season
8 — March 1 — November 12
6 Itioivi\Ictili 15 days 5.8%
4 3.0
2
0 I
c 2 I I 2.5
a -4 _
a ai -6
J N
3- -8
ar C
3 -10
2.0 0
i il 11 i
-a -12 - A
14 4
6- -16 Gauge malfunction
-18 \ � - 1.5
-20
-22
-24 1 , n,
26 J t...14�1 1.0
-28
-30
-32 - 0.5
-34-38 Ji . Iii I `,■I`-40 I.L. _ L . 1 I .� .L,. ail"Lai�aii �i 0.0
1--3 1--3 1--3 1--3 N N W W W . . . Ul Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-,
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 F-` F-` F-` N N N
I-, I-, N W I-, N N I-, N I-, I-, N I-, I-, N W I-, N W I-, N W l0 I-, N 00 I-, N
F, I-, I- 0 0 N N \ I- N N I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 00 00 00 F, N V I-, N V I- N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ 00 00 \ V V \ V J
I-, N N N N N I-, N N I-, N N I-, N N N N N N N N N I-, N N I-, N N N N N
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, N N F-, N N F-, N N
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, FA

Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 1 (2021 Data)
12 — - 3.5
10 — Start Growing Season End Growing Season
8 — March 1
6 — _ November 12
3.0
4 44 Days- 17.1%
2
0
I( 1 1 i —I
_ 2 - 2.5
5 -4
Tu -6
ar -8
J
• -10 - 2.0 E'
3 -12 o
c -14 1
E
4
o -16 11
m
W -18 - 1.5
73
-20 cc-22
-24
-26 - 1.0
-28 -
-30 -
-32 - - 0.5
-34-36
-38 I
I
40 ■I. Jj
1 IIh I. . 1 I .� . ,. Lid mil tali 0.0
I— I— I— I— N N W W W . . . Ul Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-,
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 F-` F-` F-` N N N
I-, I-, N W I-, N N I-, N I-, I-, N I-, I-, N W I-, N W I-, N W l0 I-, N 00 I-, N
F, I-, I- 0 0 - N N \ I- N N I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 - l0 l0 - 00 00 00 F, N .J I-, N V I- N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ 00 00 - .J V \ V V
I-, N N N N N I-, N N I-, N N I-, N N N N N N N N N I-, N N I-, N N N N N
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, N N F-, N N F-, N N
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, FA

Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 1 (2021 Data)
12 - - 3.5
10 — Start Growing Season
8 — End Growing Season
March 1 November 12
6 — — 38 Days- 14.8%
4 /\/►.v \1\ - I - 3.0
2 I
1111 II
4..-
-4 2.5
a -6
U
ar -8 N
J
a 10 2.0 3
3 -12 E
c -14 4
o -16
0 -18 - 1.5 c
-20
-22
-24
26 -
1.0
-28 -
-30 -
-32 - 0.5
-34 Al I
'` I Lill
-403368 J.LL JI I .J I . 1 I .._ .L„ Ili hill Aall ,
-40 0.0
F-, F-, F-, F-, NJ NJ W W UJ .0. .0. .0. Ul Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 lO F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-,
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 I-` I-` F-` NJ NJ NJ
I-, I-, NJ W I-. NJ NJ I-, NJ I-. I-. NJ I-. I-. NJ W I-. NJ W I-. NJ U) lO I-. NJ 00 I-. NJ
F, I-, I- 0 0 NJ NJ \ I- N N I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 00 00 00 F, NJ V I-, NJ V I- NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ . NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ 00 00 - V V - V V
I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, NJ NJ F-, NJ NJ F-, NJ NJ
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, FA

Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 1 (2021 Data)
12 — - 3.5
10 Start Growing Season End Growing Season
8 March 1 November 12
6
4 34 Days- 13.2% _I - 3.0
2
07.41‘..4"44.*A"VIVIIY4 2.5
IT ri 11 r -' -
°1 -6
J -8 c
L
r+ -10 2.0
3 -12 c
-0 O
14 I E
LC-16
-18 1 1.5 c
-20 z
22 \)
-24 & �.4 IYI 4.4 0
26 1•••ftr - 1.0
-28
-30
-32 - 0.5
-34
36
--38
• .40J.I. Ji . . Ili! I . I , .. .l. LW�Y1gij.
0.0
I- I- I- F-, NJ NJ W W UJ 4N 4N 4N Ul Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 lO F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-,
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 I-` I-` I-` NJ NJ NJ
I-, I-, NJ W I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ I-, I-, NJ I-. I-. NJ W I-. NJ W I-. NJ U) lO I-. NJ 00 I-, NJ
F, I-, I- 0 0 NJ N \ I- N N I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 lO l0 00 00 00 F, NJ V I-, NJ V I- NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ 00 00 \ V V \ V V
I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, NJ NJ F-, NJ NJ F-, NJ NJ
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, FA

Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 1 (2021 Data)
Start Growing Season
12 - March 1 3.5
10 — — End Growing Season
8 November 12
64 Villi
Gauge -
I malfunction - 3.0
,v ,,\IfIvi
2 ir - 2.5
c
4 1
-6 - _
> -8 V
-10VI
C
2.0
12 - o
-14 4
3 -16 a
0 4-
-18 1.5
52 Days-20.2%
-20 cc
-22
i 1
-24
-26 - 1.0
-28
-30
-32 I i - 0.5
-34
-36
1 I
38 A. [III .� .l LU�iil�iji 0.0
-40
F-, F-, F-, F-, N N W W W . . . Ul Ul Ul Ul al al al V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-,
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 F-` F-` F-` N N N
I-, I-, N W I-, N N I-, N I-, I-, N I-, I-, N W I-, N W I-, N W l0 I-, N 00 I-, N
F, N I- 0 0 N N I- N N I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 00 00 00 F, N V I-, N V I- N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ 00 00 \ V V \ V V
I-, N N N N N I-, N N I-, N N I-, N N N N N N N N N I-, N N I-, N N N N N
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, N N F-, N N F-, N N
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, FA

Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 7
Year 1 (2021 Data)
12 I 3.5
10 Start Growing Season End Growing Season
8 —
March 1 November 12
6 -
—
4 - 3.0
2
0 36 Days- 14.0%
-2 - 2.5
k \fitrAv
-4 �/in\A:
c -6
i c
ar 8
tn
J -10 \LI ilik 2.0 =
ta
3
• -12 £
16• -14 - 4
3 —
c -1
o -18
1.5
0 -20 or
-22
-24
26 - 1.0
-28
-30
-32 - 0.5
-34
-40-36
-38 dm III I 1 Ii I [ . I I R. .i L ii Lai AA
�l • . - 0.0
F-, F-, F-, F-, N N W W W . . . Ul Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-,
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 1- 1- 1- N N N
I- I- N W I- N N I- N I- I- N I- I- N W I- N W I- N W l0 I- N 00 I- N
F-, I- I- 0 0 N N I- I- I- I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 00 00 00 F-' N V I- N V I- N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ 00 00 \ V V \ V J
I- N N N N N I- N N I- N N I- N N N N N N N N N I- N N I- N N N N N
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, N N F-, N N F-, N N
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, FA

Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 8
Year 1 (2021 Data)
12 - 3.5
10 End GrowingSeason
8 Start Growing Season i —
6 — March 1 — November 12
4 I 38 Days- 14.8% I - 3.0
2 - ,.\.4.4‘dik%I\
1\41\1
2 III' - 2.5
Irl k
-4
c -6
Tv 8
J -10 - 2.0
• 12 , _
3
3 14 £
-0 -16 4
c
o -18 1.5 I
c7 -20 if (73
-22 -
-24 -
26il - 1.0
-28 - " �.,..I
-30 -
-32 - - 0.5
-34
-36
40 �.I. Jill I . . I I .� .1... hiii.11ik i1 gait 0.0
I-, I-, I-, I-, N N W W W . . . Ul Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-,
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 F-` F-` F-` N N N
I-, I-, N W I-, N N I-, N I-, I-, N I-, I-, N W I-, N W I-, N W l0 I-, N 00 I-, N
N N I- 0 0 N N I- N N I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 00 00 00 I-' N V I-, N V I- N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ 00 00 \ V V \ V V
I-, N N N N N I-, N N I-, N N I-, N N N N N N N N N I-, N N I-, N N N N N
1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, N N 1--, N N 1--, N N
1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, F-,

Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 9
Year 1 (2021 Data)
12 I 3.5
18 — End GrowingSeason
8 _ Start Growing Season
6 — March 1 — November 12
4 37 Days- 14.4% - 3.0
0 I
7 0
-2 - , , , i
4 II1 T Iill - 2.5
c -6
Tv 8 a
J 10 2.0 0
-12 =
3
3 -14 £
-43 c -16 4
o -18 - 1.5 w
IIIFI
C7 -20
-22
-24 1 I
-26 LN V .1 - 1.0
-28
-30
-32 - 0.5
-34 lii
I
ILIA Alia_
1--1 1--1 1--1 1--1 NJ NJ W W W . . . Ul Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 V �I V 00 00 00 lO lO lO 1--1 1--1 1--1 1--1 1--1 1--1 1--1 1--1 1--1
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 I-` I-` I-` NJ NJ NJ
I-. I-. NJ W I-. NJ NJ I-. NJ I-. I-. NJ I-. I-. NJ W I-. NJ W I-. NJ W lO I-. NJ 00 I-. NJ
N N N 0 0 - N N - I- N \ N I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 lO lO 00 00 00 N N V N N V I- N
N \ \ \ \ . N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N —. \ \ 00 00 - V V - V V
I-• N N N N N I-• N N I-• N N I-• N N N N N N N N N I-• N N I-• N N N . . N . . N
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N N NA N N NA N N

Table 14A UT-1 Upstream Channel Evidence
UT-1 Upstream Channel Evidence Year 1(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 107
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or otherwise) Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)at natural
Yes
topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No
Other:
Table 14B UT-1 Downstream Channel Evidence
UT-2 Channel Evidence Year 1(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 109
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,including Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)at natural Yes
topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No
Other:
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 14C UT-2 Channel Evidence
UT-2 Channel Evidence Year 1(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 70
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or otherwise) Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)at natural
topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No
Other:
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Shaws Run UT1 Upstream
Year 1 (2021 Data)
30 3.5
28
26
3.0
24
22
20 - 2.5
c 18 -
16
v
J
• 14 2.0 c VI
+..
,a o
12 - a
10 lajd\i ‘.%4,\L1.5 I
8 107 Days cc
6
4 71,1 �I 1.02
0 - -
0.5
-2--6 . • I Ii I, . 1IL ,60.0
I- N N N N NJ W W W -P 4 U1 Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 �I v v Co Co Co l0 l0 l0 I- I-- I-- I-- I-- I--
I- I- NJ W I- NJ NJ I- NJ I— I— NJ I— I— NJ W I— NJ W I— NJ W l0 I- NJ CO I- NJ \ \ \ \ \ \
I- I- I- 0 0 NJ NJ I- I- N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 00 00 00 i- NJ v I- NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ co co \ V V
I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ NJ \ \ NJ \ \
I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ
I- I- I- I-

Shaws Run UT1 Downstream
Year 1 (2021 Data)
30 3.5
28
26
3.0
24
22
20 2.5
18
I
c 16 c
v 14111! 2.0
a)
L 12 °
E
co 10
1.5 70
8 109 Days 'o
6 IL41/4/
toN.Ob
4 °I
.//‘
0.5 1.0
ce
0 -
-2
-4 ji-6 0.0
I—, I—, N I— NJ NJ W W W - - -N Ul Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 v v v 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 I- I- I- I- I- I-
I- I- NJ W I- NJ NJ I- NJ I- I- NJ I- I- NJ W I- NJ W I- NJ W lD I- NJ CO I- NJ \ \ \ \ \ \
I- I- I- 0 0 NJ NJ I- I- I- I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 00 00 00 I- NJ v I- NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ 00 00 \ V V
I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ NJ \ \ NJ \ \
I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ
I- I- I- I-

Shaws Run UT2
Year 1 (2021 Data)
20 3.5
18
IP
16 - 3.0
14
- 2.5
12 1
10
c
70 Days - 2.0 0
> 8 c
v o
J
L
co
- 1.5 -
l'‘61
4
2
0 `6
- 1.0
1/1:(\r \LIJ
-2 - 0.5
ii ii . _.1 I .1 . . . , .. ..L.- auildlid iiiii.iiia_ . . I
-6 0.0
. . . . N N W W W A A A C!1 C!1 C!1 C!1 01 01 01 -.1 -.1 -.1 00 00 00 (..0 -tID lD I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I ,
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O I- I- I-
I--, I--, N W I--, N N I--, N I- I- N I- I- N W I- N W I- N W lD I--, N 00 I--, N \ \ \ \ \ \
\ I- I- I- O O \ N N \ I- I- \ I- I- I- O O O O O O \ lD lD \ 00 00 00 I- N V I-, N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ 00 00 \ J J
I-, N N N N N I-, N N I-, N N I-, N N N N N N N N N I-, N N I-, N N N \ \ N \ \
I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, N N I--, N N
I--, I--, I--, I ,

Figure Dl: Shaw's Run
30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Current year data from onsite rain gauge
30-70th percentile data from WETS Station: Whiteville, NC
10
9
8
.m 2021
7 2022
6 2023
2024
5
2025
4
-30th Percentile
3
-70th Percentile
2
1
0
�e4 'C)ei

Shaw's Run Soil Temperature Data
Year 1 (2021)
85
83
81
79
77
75
73
114 VArri\141\f*
s 71
cu• 69
s
i 67,
a+ 65 —
au
63
cu
• 61 —
cu
59
co
El
March 8
:
51 — 49.99°F —�
49 —
47 Logger malfunction
45
I- I- I- I- N N W W W U'I U'1 U'1 U'1 Ol CT) CT) V V V CO CO CO l0 l0 l0 I- I- I- I- I- I-
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 I_, I_, I_,
I I NJ W I- NJ NJ I- NJ I- I- NJ I- I- NJ W I- NJ W I- NJ (N l0 I- NJ CO I- N \ \ \ \ \ \
\ I- I-, I-, 0 0 \ NJ NJ \ I- I- \ I- I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ l0 l0 \ CO CO CO I-, NJ V I-, NJ
I NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ NJ00 00
NJ
I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ
I- I- I- I-

WETS Table
WETS Station:WHITEVILLE 7
NW,NC
Requested years:1990-
2020
Month Avg Max Avg Min Avg Avg 30% 30% Avg number Avg
Temp Temp Mean Precip chance chance days precip Snowfall
Temp precip less precip 0.10 or more
than more than
Jan 56.1 32.9 44.5 3.40 2.23 4.08 7 0.8
Feb 59.5 34.9 47.2 3.23 2.24 3.85 6 0.2
Mar 66.7 40.6 53.7 3.76 2.73 4.42 6 0.0
Apr 75.2 48.7 61.9 3.35 2.24 4.01 5 0.0
May 82.1 58.1 70.1 4.25 2.98 5.05 6 0.0
Jun 88.1 66.2 77.2 4.33 2.77 5.22 7 0.0
Jul 91.1 70.0 80.5 5.24 4.00 6.10 8 0.0
Aug 89.4 68.6 79.0 6.09 4.47 7.15 9 0.0
Sep 84.5 62.9 73.7 6.45 3.36 7.88 6 0.0
Oct 76.1 51.2 63.6 3.61 1.61 4.40 5 0.0
Nov 66.8 40.7 53.8 3.16 1.80 3.85 5 0.0
Dec 58.9 35.4 47.2 3.49 2.43 4.15 6 0.3
Annual: 44.30 54.05
Average 74.6 50.9 62.7 - - - - -
Total - - - 50.36 77 1.4
GROWING SEASON DATES
Years with missing data: 24 deg= 28 deg= 32 deg=
2 1 1
Years with no occurrence: 24 deg= 28 deg= 32 deg=
0 0 0
Data years used: 24 deg= 28 deg= 32 deg=
29 30 30
Probability 24 F or 28 F or 32 F or
higher higher higher
50 percent* 2/23 to 3/9 to 3/27 to
12/13: 11/19: 11/7:225
293 days 255 days days
70 percent* 2/17 to 3/3 to 3/23 to
12/20: 11/25: 11/11:
306 days 267 days 233 days
*Percent chance of the
growing season occurring
between the Beginning and
Ending dates.
STATS TABLE-total
precipitation(inches)
Yr Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annl
1954 2.30 2.13 5.75 5.21 1.78 5. 1.54 2. 26.
20 34 25
1955 4.08 1.56 2.82 4.21 2.68 5.50 2.46 8.90 12. 4. 2.44 1. 52.
77 35 08 85
1956 1.77 5.03 3.57 2.81 4.68 8.40 0.82 3.98 5.17 3. 0.94 1. 41.
03 37 57
1957 2.48 3.36 4.73 0.58 5.72 5.63 1.78 3.12 5.48 0. 5.54 4. 43.
98 15 55
1958 5.22 3.33 M4.78 4.34 2.40 9.86 4.21 9.01 2.95 5. 1.51 3. 56.
56 27 44
1959 1.61 5.59 7.17 5.22 4.43 2.44 10.52 5.22 5.78 7. 1.29 4. 60.
25 24 76
1960 4.53 5.28 3.63 1.37 2.90 4.85 10.86 3.83 6.28 3. 1.58 1. 49.
08 60 79
1961 M1.53 2.75 5.37 6.13 3.93 10.77 10.22 4.34 4.32 1. 2.17 1. 53.
16 02 71

1962 4.92 3.77 4.66 5.55 2.13 8.84 6.52 3.10 5.49 0. 7.07 2. 54.
55 37 97
1963 6.21 3.09 1.29 1.77 6.47 4.60 5.66 2.13 6.49 0. 6.55 1. 47.
94 88 08
1964 5.88 6.78 2.71 3.77 3.49 5.55 6.34 4.56 4.95 8. 1.56 3. 58.
85 71 15
1965 1.13 6.20 6.76 3.89 4.30 6.72 6.94 4.51 5.17 2. 1.15 0. 49.
15 55 47
1966 5.69 4.91 3.45 2.84 4.62 4.79 7.40 5.97 3.52 0. 1.43 4. 50.
86 75 23
1967 3.80 3.60 1.95 2.35 3.83 5.17 6.29 4.24 5.87 1. 3.20 4. 45.
20 45 95
1968 3.90 1.13 3.27 3.40 2.57 2.24 5.47 0.92 0.89 4. 3.80 2. 33.
25 07 91
1969 2.45 2.95 4.57 4.15 5.37 9.56 5.37 5.83 2.15 3. 3.67 3. 52.
23 36 66
1970 2.25 5.15 6.64 1.11 2.39 1.79 7.54 6.40 5.42 4. 2.77 2. 47.
03 14 63
1971 4.64 3.52 7.73 3.23 5.71 2.72 7.33 8.34 3.42 7. 1.58 1. 56.
44 33 99
1972 4.76 5.12 3.53 1.34 4.39 4.16 4.01 3.97 2.67 1. 5.57 3. 44.
45 29 26
1973 4.35 7.36 5.28 6.95 4.09 5.56 3.24 3.54 3.06 1. 0.65 6. 52.
74 39 21
1974 5.01 4.77 3.87 2.69 7.53 5.25 4.72 11.68 6.82 1. 1.92 5. 60.
06 30 62
1975 3.95 4.51 4.70 5.19 6.04 2.90 6.46 1.20 4.78 1. 1.75 4. 47.
71 45 64
1976 3.71 1.33 3.26 0.13 4.17 5.70 3.84 3.59 3.78 3. 3.46 4. 40.
12 56 65
1977 2.20 2.13 6.12 0.99 4.90 4.32 4.19 6.68 2.08 3. 5.50 5. 48.
93 82 86
1978 5.63 1.08 3.83 4.08 6.16 5.50 5.53 6.26 3.28 1. 4.10 2. 48.
09 24 78
1979 3.64 4.67 5.82 1.95 9.04 8.64 4.56 1.92 11. 0. 3.76 2. 58.
87 59 28 74
1980 4.63 1.48 8.62 1.68 4.89 2.56 5.39 1.10 3.83 3. 1.62 3. 42.
05 32 17
1981 1.12 2.38 2.93 0.78 6.71 9.76 10.19 9.39 2.17 1. 0.51 5. 52.
62 22 78
1982 6.95 5.35 1.43 4.16 2.03 4.78 5.02 2.89 3.80 5. 2.05 4. 47.
23 13 82
1983 3.67 6.38 8.81 5.88 2.98 6.01 3.95 1.30 2.77 2. 3.37 4. 52.
69 81 62
1984 2.81 6.13 6.09 3.32 M3.84 1.61 12.70 2.96 8.02 0. 1.04 0. 49.
34 45 31
1985 3.46 5.29 1.13 1.24 2.40 3.41 5.86 3.57 6.98 M4. 4.16 1. 43.
16 58 24
1986 1.25 1.65 2.52 0.30 5.15 5.62 6.93 5.28 0.47 2. 3.66 3. 39.
80 76 39
1987 6.83 3.85 4.18 2.56 0.53 6.26 5.22 M7.49 7.68 1. 3.64 2. 51.
29 36 89
1988 3.68 0.91 2.58 3.20 4.99 2.62 6.32 7.69 4.27 1. 1.07 0. 38.
06 33 72
1989 2.42 2.46 5.75 5.01 5.68 4.54 5.26 7.25 2. 2.35 4. 47.
92 07 71
1990 1.70 2.12 3.38 1.35 6.59 0.46 3.63 7.37 0.15 7. 1.81 2. 38.
25 75 56
1991 6.88 1.96 6.03 2.27 2.67 3.45 9.72 6.48 5.89 1. 2.24 1. 51.
93 90 42
1992 4.23 1.94 2.76 2.31 4.21 4.32 4.06 13.45 4.54 3. 6.07 3. 55.
61 64 14
1993 6.18 2.11 3.90 5.45 1.38 3.28 4.15 5.31 7.18 4. 0.91 2. 46.
12 39 36
1994 5.36 1.82 4.26 2.31 4.59 5.56 6.20 6.93 4.82 5. 2.35 3. 52.
34 26 80
1995 6.08 4.73 3.25 0.72 5.08 6.48 5.58 3.17 4.29 4. 3.79 1. 50.
89 97 03

1996 3.02 M2.57 5.26 4.70 3.69 4.72 6.88 7.42 16. 5. 2.51 3. 65.
11 06 08 02
1997 3.78 3.17 M1.92 3.78 1.26 2.39 4.57 1.88 5.19 2. M5. 4. 40.
54 56 57 61
1998 6.68 7.98 M7.38 3.79 6.85 7.08 4.52 7.26 3.59 0. 2.17 4. 62.
36 90 56
1999 8.04 2.35 2.88 4.29 5.59 2.39 3.26 5.39 18. 7. 0.98 1. 62.
05 35 75 32
2000 5.37 1.14 5.49 2.56 3.08 8.69 5.92 8.53 5.61 0. 3.53 2. 52.
02 28 22
2001 0.88 2.63 5.41 M0.69 4.65 3.87 3.56 7.34 M2. 0. 1.34 1. 34.
20 46 08 11
2002 4.23 2.04 3.63 1.10 2.86 3.54 4.27 4.77 3.13 3. 3.33 3. 39.
77 03 70
2003 1.51 4.40 5.06 5.54 7.16 2.76 10.35 3.62 7.47 4. 0.99 3. 56.
55 54 95
2004 1.66 5.92 0.70 4.25 4.28 2.94 4.13 9.02 3.18 0. 4.74 2. 43.
86 04 72
2005 1.71 3.37 2.73 1.46 4.05 5.08 3.96 4.28 3.83 6. 3.22 3. 43.
29 19 17
2006 3.12 3.16 1.09 4.68 3.66 9.31 4.09 4.29 7.10 3. 7.58 3. 55.
55 45 08
2007 3.00 2.26 1.53 3.90 1.81 3.51 1.98 1.83 1.27 3. 0.20 3. 28.
79 69 77
2008 2.19 4.24 4.83 4.33 4.60 2.82 5.59 5.39 7.76 0. 3.25 2. 48.
99 43 42
2009 1.76 M1.77 4.23 3.66 7.83 3.36 5.04 6.30 2.52 3. 6.47 7. 54.
23 91 08
2010 4.30 3.50 3.26 0.74 4.35 4.26 2.28 2.61 10. 1. 1.72 1. 40.
69 48 67 86
2011 1.37 3.99 3.78 3.81 2.18 1.20 5.59 10.49 3.80 1. 3.99 0. 42.
76 67 63
2012 1.80 2.35 4.85 2.89 9.11 2.59 6.30 7.68 3.16 2. 1.58 4. 49.
92 40 63
2013 1.13 4.37 2.66 4.19 2.21 13.28 8.59 5.10 1.55 0. 3.55 5. 53.
91 52 06
2014 3.35 2.97 4.64 3.13 5.34 2.10 7.77 9.81 8.70 1. 3.67 2. 55.
31 96 75
2015 2.36 4.62 4.58 3.29 2.09 3.69 2.31 2.68 3.93 11. 5.55 6. 52.
18 25 53
2016 3.19 8.61 M1.81 4.40 5.65 7.37 10.21 M4.55 M 11. 10. 0.85 4. 72.
34 60 28 86
2017 2.25 2.01 3.17 4.58 4.77 3.48 4.33 M6.68 6.14 3. 0.90 4. 45.
06 27 64
2018 2.71 M0.93 3.62 4.82 4.69 M3.68 4.15 M6.07 23. M2. M3. 7. 67.
31 74 57 47 76
2019 2.06 M1.94 2.62 5.54 1.35 2.29 4.66 5.80 5.40 3. M3. 38.
38 29 33
2020 4.87 7.19 8.14 2. 6.45 4. 33.
48 34 47
2021 6.28 8.50 1.62 16.
40
Notes:Data missing in any
month have an"M"flag.A"T"
indicates a trace of
precipitation.
Data missing for all days in a
month or year is blank.
Creation date:2021-12-07

Appendix E
Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 15. Project Timeline
Table 16. Project Contacts
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 15. Project Timeline
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100055
Data Collection Task Completion or
Activity or Deliverable
Complete Deliverable Submission
Project Instituted NA 20-Apr-18
Mitigation Plan Approved NA 02-Dec-19
Construction (Grading) Completed NA 25-Jun-20
Planting Completed NA 20-Dec-20
As-built Survey Completed Jan-21 Jan-21
MY-0 Baseline Report Jan-21 Mar-21
MY-1 Monitoring Report Oct-21 Dec-21
Table 16. Project Contacts
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100055
Provider Restoration Systems
Mitigation Provider POC 1101 Haynes Street,#211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Raymond Holz
919-755-9490
Designer Axiom Environmental
Primary project design POC 218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis
919-215-1693
Construction Contractor Land Mechanics
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Loyde Glover
919-639-6132
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

Appendix F
Other Data
Preconstruction Benthic Results
Preconstruction Benthic Habitat Assessment Data Forms
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Columbus County,North Carolina December 2021

AXIOM, SHAWS RUN, COLUMBUS CO., NC, BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED 6/9/2020.
PAI ID NO 53928 53929
STATION UT-1 UT-2
DATE 6/9/2020 6/9/2020
Functional
Tolerance Feeding
SPECIES Value Group
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Isopoda
Asellidae SH
Caecidotea sp. 8.4 CG 4
Amphipoda CG
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp. 7.2 CG 1
Insecta
Hemiptera
Corixidae PI 1
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae P
Copelatus sp. 2 3
Neoporus sp. 5 1
Thermonectus sp. P 2
Uvarus sp. 1
Hydrophilidae P
Enochrus sp. 8.5 CG 1 1
Tropisternus sp. 9.3 P 4 9
Diptera
Ohironomidae
Chironomus sp. 9.3 CG 10 40
Goeldichironomus sp. 46 4
Psectrotanypus sp. 1
Psychodidae CG
Pericoma sp. CG 1
Sciomyzidae 2
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 66 68
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 7 12
EPT TAXA 0 0
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED VALUES 9.24 8.78
PAI, Inc. Page 1 of 1 Axiom shaws run 6 20CL

S /e uT
3/06 Revision 7
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Coastal Plain Streams
TOTAL SCORE 4
Biological Assessment Unit,DWQ
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream,preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream.To complete the form,select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream?-.Q,tt ' taw u T— ` Location/road: 04 Qdt9 0((orii '(Road Name 1" 7-0"ic.-e t[ )County mac it4 of Ifc5
Date '\Q °6 01 CC#O3010( 03 Basin Lk,,,Pr f— Subbasin v 3-69 7-- U
Observer(s) l C.1- Type of Study: 0 Fish C1Benthos 0 Basinwide ❑Special Study(Describe)
Latitude3Li-)In3 aiongitude 75-$6107 I Ecoregion: ❑CA 0 SWP ❑ Sandhills 0 CB
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/1 Conductivity(corr.) µS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location. Check off what
you observe driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: ¶ %Forest /0 %Residential %Active Pasture e'S-1%Active Crops '
%Fallow Fields %Commercial %Industrial %Other-Describe:
Watershed land use 0 Forest 0 Agriculture❑Urban 0 Animal operations upstream
Width:(meters) Stream ( Channel(at top of bank) j,a Stream Depth:(m) Avg .Z Max i 5—
❑Width variable ❑Braided channel OLarge river>25m wide
Bank Height(from deepest part of channel to top of bank):(m) I-)-
Flow conditions: ❑High formal ❑Low
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A.Water reaches base of both banks,minimal channel substrate exposed X,
B.Water fills>75%of available channel,or<25%of channel substrate is exposed 0
C.Water fills 25-75%of available channel,many logs/snags exposed 0
D.Root mats out of water 0
E.Very little water in channel,mostly present as standing pools 0
Turbidity: ❑Clear oil Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tan q.c ❑Milky ❑Colored(from dyes)❑Green tinge
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? •'6-YES ❑NO
Details prlopkt,e ci 54 ea w, a'-,/ trit,i 1.4.-I fled/c,...,,z_
❑Channelized ditch
j242eeply incised-steep,straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Sewage smell
❑Excessive periphyton growth ❑Heavy filamentous algae growth
Manmade Stabilization: CT ❑Y: ❑Rip-rap,cement,gabions 0 Sediment/grade-control structure❑Benn/levee
Weather Conditions: + C dt7 ( Photos: ON ❑Y ❑Digital 035mm
Remarks: c ado( 4 v P-kc( rt4(,,,. .. f
TYPICAL STREAM CROSS SECTION DIAGRAM ON BACK
35

I.Channel Modification
Score
A.Natural channel-minimal dredging 15
B.Some channelization near bridge,or historic(>20 year old),and/or bends beginning to reappear.. �110
C.Extensive channelization,straight as far as can see,channelized ditch (J
D.Banks shored with hard structure,>80%of reach disrupted,instream habitat gone 0
Remarks _ _ Subtotal
II.Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If>50%of the
reach is snags,and 1 type is present,circle the score of 16.Definition: leafpacics consist of older leaves that are packed together and
have begun to decay(not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare,Common,or Abundant.
/ticks Snags/logs Undercut banks or root mats Macrophytes kLeafpacks
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>50% 30-50% 10-30% <10%
Score Score Score _ Score
4 or 5 types present 20 15 10 5
3 types present 18 13 �8q 4
2 types present 17 12 l% 3
1 type present 16 11 6 2
No substrate for benthos colonization and no fish cover 0
❑No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks _ Subtotal 7
III.Bottom Substrate(silt,clay,sand,detritus,gravel) look at entire reach for substrate scoring.
A.Substrate types mixed Score
1.gravel dominant 15
2.sand dominant 13
3.detritus dominant 7
4.silt/clay/muck dominant 4
B.Substrate homogeneous
1.nearly all gravel �2
2.nearly all sand 7
3.nearly all detritus 4
4.nearly all silt/clay/muck 1 Remarks Subtotal 1 y
`
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow.
A. Pools present Score
1.Pools Frequent(>30%of 100m length surveyed)
a.variety of pool sizes 10
b.pools about the same size(indicates pools filling in) 8
2.Pools Infrequent(<30%of the 100m length surveyed)
a.variety of pool sizes
b.pools about the same size 4
B. Pools absent
1. Deep water/run habitat present 4
2. Deep water/run habitat absent 0
Subtotal
Remarks _ Page Total 'a C
36

V.Bank Stability and Vegetation Score Score
A. Banks stable or no banks,just flood plain
1. little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure,little potential for erosion 10 10
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees,shrubs,grass; plants healthy with good root systems 9 9
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy 7 7
3. sparse vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 4 4
4. mostly grasses,few if any trees and shrubs,high erosion and failure potential at high flow I 0
5. little or no bank vegetation,mass erosion and bank failure evident 0
Total b
Remarks
VI.Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration 10
B.Stream with full canopy-breaks for light penetration absent 8
C.Stream with partial canopy-sunlight and shading are essentially equal 7
D.Stream with minimal canopy-full sun in all but a few areas
E.No canopy and no shading 0
Subtotal
Remarks
VII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition:A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream. Breaks refer to the near-stream portion
of the riparian zone(banks);places where pollutants can directly enter the stream.
Lft.Bank Rt.Bank
Score Score
A.Riparian zone intact(no breaks)
1.zone width>18 meters 5 5
2.zone width 12-18 meters 4 4
3.zone width 6-12 meters 3 3
4.zone width<6 meters 2 2
B.Riparian zone not intact(breaks)
1.breaks rare
a.zone width> 18 meters 4 4
b.zone width 12-18 meters 3 3
c.zone width 6-12 meters 2 2
d.zone width<6 meters 1. 1
2.breaks common
a.zone width> 18 meters 3 3
b.zone width 12-18 meters 2
c.zone width 6-12 meters t'
d.zone width<6 meters 0 0
Total
Remarks _
Page Total 8
TOTAL SCORE 33
37

II 1
T�ical Stream Cross-section
I,
n j 3Extreme High Water
+;q/'t�gb, qa KIP,,iI.�y `
. �eyr,"r \ t„C fr.ib /
L/.4;1 _ Normal High Water___ _ �/
to tr. Normal Flow '•0:
_ i
U` . -�� =._ �.�4F r-Upper Bank -►•
■� / / Zs—..+mo
Lower
Bank
Stream Width • This side is 45°bank angle.
38

5 12, 4T4
3/06 Revision 7
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Coastal Plain Streams
TOTAL SCORE Li ',`
Biological Assessment Unit,DWQ
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream,preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream.To complete the form,select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score.
score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream 4 w K.� I L wv 4 T- (l'1_ : r)a•'I.. (Road Name 13 ru 5 41 I )County (O I U wt"/it
5
Date -d O C,O Ck CC# 0 0 D_ d 3 Basin LA Qr- Subbasin a 3-d 7'Sd
Observer(s) /I Type of Study:
0 Fish 1pBenthos 0 Basinwide ❑Special Study(Describe)
Latitude •
3 1.31?fl 0'Longitudes'+ D 106vvi EcoregiQn: 0 CA 0 SWP 0 Sandhills 0 CB
V Cq-a�.co,ct �taNt./5
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO —mg/1 Conductivity(corr.) µS/cm pH —
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location. Check off what
you observe driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest 10 %Residential %Active Pasture gS %Active Crops
%Fallow Fields %Commercial %Industrial %Other-Describe:
Watershed land use 0 Forest 0 Agriculture❑Urban 0 Animal operations upstream
Width:(meters) Stream_ Channel(at top of bank) ,- Stream Depth:(m) Avg ' Max 4 5
.'Width variable ❑Braided channel ❑Large river>25m wide
Bank Height(from deepest part of channel to top of bank):(m)
Flow conditions: ❑High Cormal ❑Low
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A.Water reaches base of both banks,minimal channel substrate exposed .0'
B.Water fills>75%of available channel,or<25%of channel substrate is exposed ❑
C.Water fills 25-75%of available channel,many logs/snags exposed 0
D.Root mats out of water 0
E.Very little water in channel,mostly present as standing pools 0
Turbidity: ❑Clear !'Slightly Turbid OTurbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored(from dyes)❑Green tinge
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? RYES ❑NO
Details "o , -'3 e d c 4,--e u w, a.
❑Channelized ditch
,eeply incised-steep,straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Sewage smell
❑Excessive periphyton growth ❑Heavy filamentous algae growth
Manmade Stabilization: ciN ❑Y: ❑Rip-rap,cement,gabions 0 Sediment/grade-control structure❑Berm/levee
Weather Conditions: ((.P0— L40 Photos:yN ❑Y ❑Digital 035mm
Remarks: _
TYPICAL STREAM CROSS SECTION DIAGRAM ON BACK
35

5/4 14
I.Channel Modification
Score
A.Natural channel-minimal dredging 15
B.Some channelization near bridge,or historic(>20 year old),and/or bends beginning to reappear.. 10
C.Extensive channelization,straight as far as can see,channelized ditch
D.Banks shored with hard structure,>80%of reach disrupted,instream habitat gone
Remarks _ _ Subtotal c
II.Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If>50%of the
reach is snags,and 1 type is present,circle the score of 16.Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and
have begun to decay(not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare,Common,or Abundant.
%Sticks Snags/logs Undercut banks or root mats Macrophytes ,'leafpacks
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>50% 30-50% 10-30% <10%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present 20 15 10 5
3 types present 18 13 8 4
2 types present 17 2 7 3
1 type present 16 11 6 2
No substrate for benthos colonization and no fish cover 0
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks _ _ _ Subtotal 1pk
III.Bottom Substrate(silt,clay,sand,detritus,gravel) look at entire reach for substrate scoring.
A.Substrate types mixed Score
1.gravel dominant 1
2.sand dominant (13)
3.detritus dominant
4.silt/clay/muck dominant 4
B.Substrate homogeneous
1.nearly all gravel 12
2.nearly all sand 7
3.nearly all detritus 4
4.nearly all silt/clay/muck 1
Remarks Subtotal 13
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow.
A. Pools present Score
1.Pools Frequent(>30%of 100m length surveyed)
a.variety of pool sizes 10
b.pools about the same size(indicates pools filling in) 8
2.Pools Infrequent(<30%of the 100m length surveyed)
a.variety of pool sizes 6 b.pools about the same size
B. Pools absent
1. Deep water/run habitat present 4
2. Deep water/run habitat absent 0
Subtotal 6
Remarks Page Total 3 r
36

V.Bank Stability and Vegetation Score Score
A. Banks stable or no banks,just flood plain
1.little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure,little potential for erosion 10 10
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees,shrubs,grass; plants healthy with good root systems 9 9
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy 7 7
3. sparse vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 4 4. mostly grasses,few if any trees and shrubs,high erosion and failure potential at high flow
5. little or no bank vegetation,mass erosion and bank failure evident 0 0
Total
Remarks — 12-v W Cr ). -c 5 ';,(')a.1 la S f—Go w1
VI.Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration 10
B.Stream with full canopy-breaks for light penetration absent 8
C. Stream with partial canopy-sunlight and shading are essentially equal 7
D.Stream with minimal canopy-full sun in all but a few areas �VJ
E.No canopy and no shading 0
Subtotal 0")s,
Remarks
VII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition:A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream. Breaks refer to the near-stream portion
of the riparian zone(banks);places where pollutants can directly enter the stream.
Lft.Bank Rt.Bank
Score Score
A.Riparian zone intact(no breaks)
1.zone width> 18 meters 5 5
2.zone width 12-18 meters 4 4
3.zone width 6-12 meters 3 3
4.zone width<6 meters 2 2
B.Riparian zone not intact(breaks)
1.breaks rare
a.zone width> 18 meters 4 4
b.zone width 12-18 meters 3 3
c.zone width 6-12 meters 2 2
d.zone width<6 meters 1. 1
2.breaks common
a.zone width> 18 meters 3 3
b.zone width 12-18 meters 2 2
c.zone width 6-12 meters
d.zone width<6 meters
1 Total
�
Remarks f Ci/w"d ri 1-1•1 / 4ifr ( ►yS P- d If f 4 4 to—"4
(w•U i.. t..444 *—SKP�
Page Total
TOTAL SCORE
37

M1 r Typical Stream Cross-section
?v04 �;i.+�ki
g' .g•-/• Extreme High Wateri. .1
I aI H �,'•t• _ Normal High Water——— ,.�r;ilio.
. tilt o. Normai Hon .,:�.
r, ' -a ��* Upper Bank
Laver
Bank
r Stream Width • This side is 45°bank angle.
38