HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180866 Ver 1_Shaw'sRun_100055_MY2_2022_20230214MY2 (2022) 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 — November 2022
Submission: February 2023
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
Mitigation Services RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
FNYIRQNMENTALQVA( 1TY
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: (919) 755-9490
Fx: (919) 755-9492
Response to Monitoring Year 2 (2022) DMS Comments
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Lumber River Basin — CU# 03040203— Columbus County
DMS Project ID No. 100055, Contract # 7515
DMS Comments Received (Black Text) & IRS Responses (Blue Text)
Report
1. Site Maintenance Report: Invasive species have been treated this year but is not mentioned in the report.
Please discuss the work that's been completed in the narrative of section 2.1 and add to CCPV/Table 5 if
greater than 0.1 acres.
Response: Invasive species treated are sporadic in nature and do not pose a threat to young woody stems
in the short-term, nor are they suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems, and
thus do not meet the criteria of "high concern" nor "low/moderate concern" as denoted by footnote 4 of
Table 6 (Vegetation Conditions Assessment), which states:
"The list of high concern species are those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody
stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for
existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades).
The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the
timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if
in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density,
or growth of planted woody stems."
As such — we feel the location and detail of the invasive species work completed are appropriate within the
yearly monitoring report. In general, IRS uses Section 2.1 to provide a written narrative regarding the annual
monitoring tasks/outcomes — as defined within the Monitoring Summary table of Section 2.1. Vegetate
management conducted during the monitoring period is detailed in the Monitoring Summary section of the
report.
2. 2.1 Monitoring Stream Summary: In the wetland summary section there's a reference to abnormal rainfall
conditions as a contributing factor for the failure of gauge 7. Please discuss the abnormal conditions and
provide supplemental rainfall/drought data if necessary.
Response: additional drought related data was added to the report.
3. Please include dates on all photographs for future reports.
Response: Understood and will do.
SItP Vl iit
1. As discussed in the field there are multiple farming encroachments. Within the report, please detail the
remedial actions for the encroachments (timeline, marking, planting, landowner coordination, etc.) and
include all encroachment areas on the CCPV/Table 5 and as a shapefile. Photo documentation of completed
work must be included in the MY3 report.
Response: A narrative regarding the small farming encroachments around the Site (0.057 acres total) was
added to the Monitoring Summary portion of the report which includes corrective actions. The
encroachment areas were also added to the CCPV and Table 5.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492
Shaw's Run -- Year 2 (2022) Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• Six (6) small areas of encroachment were observed after the harvest of row crops adjacent to the
Site totaling 0.057 acres. A corrective action plan is provided on page two of the Monitoring
Summary.
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., heavy deer browsing, beaver, etc.) was 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 503 planted stems/acre.
Additionally, all individual plots met the success criteria (Appendix B).
Wetlands
• All groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 2 (2022) monitoring period except Gauges
1 and 7 (Appendix D). Gauge 1 was installed outside the credit -generating area to confirm the
drainage influence from the Greene Swamp Canal. It had a similar hydroperiod during year 1
(2021). The gauge would likely have met success criteria under normal rainfall conditions,
especially early in the growing season (Figure D1, Appendix D). Gauge 7 read within 12 inches of
the surface for just 11 consecutive days (4.3%); however, readings hovered between 12 and 15
inches from the surface for the first 80 days of the growing season. Groundwater gauge data is in
Appendix D.
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hvdrologv Success Criteria by Year
12% Hydroperiod Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1
(2021)
Year 2
(2022)
Year 3
(2023)
Year 4
(2024)
Year 5
(2025)
Year 6
(2026)
Year 7
(2027)
1*
No - 5 days (1.9%)
No — 4 days (1.6%)
2
No - 15 days (5.8%)^
Yes — 53 days (20.6%)
3
Yes - 44 days (17.1%)
Yes — 57 days (22.2%)
4
Yes - 38 days (14.8%)
Yes — 58 days (22.6%)
5
Yes - 34 days (13.2%)
Yes — 58 days (22.6%)
6
Yes - 52 days (20.2%)
Yes — 59 days (23.0%)
7
Yes - 36 days (14.0%)
No —11 days (4.3%)
8
Yes - 38 days (14.8%)
Yes — 54 days (21.0%)
9
Yes - 37 days (14.4%)
Yes — 53 days (20.6%)
* 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.
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Executive Summary
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
Site Maintenance Report (2022)
Invasive Species Work
Maintenance work
06/03/2022
Privet, Multiflora rose, Chinese Tallow, Chinaberry,
Cattail, Sweetgum
None
09/08/2022
Multiflora rose, Privet, China Berry, Chinese tallow,
Sweetg u m
2023 Corrective Action Plan for Agricultural Encroachment
• Six areas of encroachment were observed in 2022 post -crop harvest (Appendix A, Figure 1. Current
Conditions Plan View). The total area equaled 0.057 acres (2,483 sq. ft.).
Corrective Action Plan
Completed /
Step Number
Action Item
Planned Date
#1
Meet with Landowner to review areas of encroachment
Completed
02/03/2023
#2
Add additional easement posts (4-inch treated) along encroachment
March 2023
lines as needed +/- every 50-100 feet, and add additional signage
#3
Meet with tenant farmer ahead of 2023 field preparation for crops
March/April 2023
Site check for encroachment from 2023 ag. planting, and review planted
#4
vegetation along areas of 2022 encroachment to determine if larger
April/May 2023
caliber trees need to be planted. A current review of the encroachment
areas indicates no planting is necessary.
#5
Ahead of harvest, confirm boundary marking is adequately visible, and
September 2023
remind tenant farmer of the easement.
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Executive Summary
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
MY2 (2022) 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 — November 2022
Submission: December 2022
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Prepared by:
And
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Contact: Worth Creech
919-755-9490 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Grant Lewis
919-215-1693 (phone)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ....................................................
1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure.......
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives .......................................
1.3 Success Criteria............................................................
2.0 METHODS...................................................................
2.1 Monitoring...................................................................
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................
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
...............................................................1
.................................................................... 1
.................................................................... 3
.................................................................... 5
...............................................................6
.................................................................... 6
.............................................................10
Appendix D. Hydrologic Data
- Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
- Table 13. Groundwater Hydrology Data
- Groundwater Gauge Graphs
- Tables 14 A-C. Channel Evidence
- Surface Water Gauge Graphs
- Figure D1. 30/70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
- Drought.Gov Data
- Soil Temperature Graph
Appendix E. Project Timeline and Contact Info
- Table 15. Project Timeline
- Table 16. Project Contacts
Appendix F. Site Photo Log
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055)
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Columbus County, North Carolina
Table of Contents page i
Restoration Systems, LLC
February 2023
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 unnamed warm water 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.
Site design was completed in March 2019. Construction started on March 13, 2020, and ended with a final
walkthrough on June 25, 2020. The Site was planted on December 20, 2020. Completed project activities,
reporting history, completion dates, and project contacts are summarized in Tables 15-16 (Appendix Q.
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) page 1
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
Iable 1. Shaw's Kun (IU-1QDOSS) 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
Stream
UT1
1919
1 1912
1 Warm
I R
1 1.00000
1 1,919.000
UT2
366
1 366
1 Warm
I R
1 1.00000
1 366.000
Total:
1 2,285.000
R 5.852 5.852 R REE 1.00000 5.852
E 0.103 0.103 R P 10.00000 0.010
Total: 5.862
Proiect Credits
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian
Non -Rip
Coastal
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 1
0.000
0.000
0.000
Enhancement 11
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
Comments
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).
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) page 3
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow
(Floodplain Access)
• Attenuate flood
• Construct new channel at
historic floodplain elevation to
. BHR not to exceed 1.2
•Document four overbank events in
(3) Streamside Area
flow across the
restore overbank flows and
Attenuation
Site.
• Minimize
restore jurisdictional wetlands
• Plant woody riparian buffer
separate monitoring years
Remove agricultural row crops from the
(4) Floodplain
Access
downstream
• Cease row crop production
easement
flooding to the
within the easement
.Monitoring wells will be successful if the
(4) Wooded
water table is within 12 inches of the soil
Riparian Buffer
maximum extent
•Deep rip floodplain soils to
surface for 12% of the growing season
possible.
•Connect streams to
reduce compaction and
increase soil surface
.Vegetation plots will be successful if the
(4)
Microtopography
functioning and
roughness
plant density is 210 stems per acre with
degraded wetland
• Protect riparian buffers with a
• an average plant height of 10 feet at 7
Wetland —Surface
and Sub -Surface
systems.
perpetual conservation
years following planting
. Conservation Easement recorded
Storage and
easement
Retention
(3) Stream Stability
• Cross-section measurements indicate a
stable channel
• Visual documentation of stable channels
• Construct channels with
and structures
• Increase stream
proper pattern, dimension,
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
stability within the
and longitudinal profile
• ER of 2.2 or greater
Site so that
• Cease row crop production
• < 10% change in BHR and ER in any given
(4) Stream
channels are
within the easement
year
Geomorphology
neither aggrading
• Construct stable channels
• Remove agricultural row crops from the
nor degrading.
with grade control structures.
easement
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• 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
( Upland Pollutant
• Remove direct
• Install marsh treatment areas
easement
Filtration
nutrient and
pollutant inputs
. Plant woody riparian buffer
. Restore jurisdictional
• Monitoring wells will be successful if the
water table is within 12 inches of the soil
(3)
Thermore ulation
g
from the Site and
reduce
contributions to
wetlands adjacent to Site
streams
surface for 12% of the growing season
• Vegetation plots will be successful if the
(2) Aquatic Life
Tolerance
downstream
- Remove drain tile
- Promote overbank
plant density is 210 stems per acre with
an average plant height of 10 feet at 7
Wetland - Pathogen,
waters.
flooding by P1 stream
years following planting
Particulate, Soluble,
restoration.
and Physical Change
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 1000585) page 4
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results (Continued)
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
Success Criteria
(1) HABITAT
(2) In -stream Habitat
• Construct stable channels
• Plant woody riparian buffer to
provide organic matter and
• Cross-section measurements indicate a
stable channel
(3) Substrate
(2) Stream -side
shade
• Visual documentation of stable channels
Habitat
• Construct new channel at
historic floodplain elevation to
and in -stream structures.
• Monitoring wells will be successful if the
(3) Stream -side
Habitat
. Improve instream
restore overbank flows and
water table is within 12 inches of the soil
and stream -side
plant woody riparian buffer
surface for 12% of the growing season
(3) Thermoregulation
habitat.
• Protect riparian buffers with a
perpetual conservation
• Vegetation plots will be successful if the
plant density is 210 stems per acre with
Wetland - Physical
Structure, Landscape
easement
• an average plant height of 10 feet at 7
Patch Structure, and
• Restore jurisdictional
years following planting
Vegetation
wetlands adjacent to Site
• Conservation Easement recorded
Composition
streams
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
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 1000585) page 5
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
Success Criteria (Continued)
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.
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.
Monitoriniz 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.
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 1000585) page 6
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
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
Stream Hydrology
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
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
All restored stream channels
monitoring period
rain data.
2 stations (one at the lower end of
"Qual 4" method described in Standard
Preconstruction, Years 3, 5,
UT 1 and one at the lower end of UT
Results* will be presented on a site -by -site basis
Benthic
Operating Procedures for Collection and
and 7 during the "index
2); however, the exact locations will
and will include a list of taxa collected, an
Macroinvertebrates
Analysis of Benthic Macroin vertebrates,
period" referenced in Small
be determined at the time
enumeration of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Version 5.0 (NCDWR 2016)
Streams NCD tWQ
preconstruction benthics are
Tricopetera taxa as well as Biotic Index values.
Development NCD2009)
(
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
EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
As -built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
7 plots spread across the Site
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
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) page 7
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina December 2022
Stream Summary
All streams are functioning as designed, and no stream areas of concern were observed during year 2
(2022) 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. 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
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Burst
Monitoring Period Used for
12 Percent of
Year
Documented
Determining Success
Monitoring Period
2021
March 1, 2021
March 1-November 12
31 days
(Year 1)
(257 days)
2022
March 1, 2022*
March 1-November 12
31 days
(Year 2)
(257days)
*Based on observed/documented bud burst on the Site on March 1, 2022, and soil temperature of 53.9oF.
All groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 2 (2022) monitoring period except Gauges 1 and
7 (Appendix D). Gauge 1 was installed outside of the credit generating area in order to confirm the
drainage influence from the Greene Swamp. It had a similar hydroperiod during year 1 (2021). Gauge 7
read within 12 inches of the surface for just 11 consecutive days (4.3%), however, readings hovered
between 12 and 15 inches from the surface for the first 80 days of the growing season. The gauge likely
would have met success criteria under normal rainfall conditions, especially early in the growing season
(Figure D1, Appendix D). Groundwater gauge data is in Appendix D.
Vegetation Summary
Year 2 (2022) vegetation measurements occurred on September 12, 2022. During quantitative vegetation
sampling, 7 sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were monitored 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 503 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). In monitoring year 1, 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. Visual assessment data is available in
Appendix A, Table 5.
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) page 8
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
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)
34.31939N, 78.8666 9W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Lumber
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03040203
D W R 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 ofthe United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
JD Package (App D)
Water ofthe 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
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://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%2OQuaIity/Environmental%2OSciences/BAU/NCDWRMacroin
vertebrate-SOP-Februarv%202016 final.0df
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&grou pld=38364
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2008. Lumber River Basin Restoration
Priorities (online). Available:
https://fi les. nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation / 20Services/Watershed_Pla n n i ng/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.
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 Publ.167.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of Columbus County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2022. Natural Resources Conservation Service National
Weather and Climate Center. AgACIS Climate Data. Whiteville 7 NW WETS Station (online).
Available: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) page 10
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
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
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 4A. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 1
Assessed Stream Length 1912
Assessed Bank Length 3824
Survey Date: November 16, 2022
Number
Stable,
Amount of
%Stable,
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Performing as
Major Channel Category
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Footage
Intended
Bank
Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour
0
100%
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%
Totals
0
100%
Structure
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill.
36
36
100%
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
Major Channel Category
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Footage
Intended
Bank
Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour
0
100%
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
sill.
100%
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
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
Combined
Acreage
%of Planted
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
of
Mapping
Combined
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
restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common encroachments are mowing, cattle access,
6 Encroachments noted
Easement Encroachment Areas
vehicular access. Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact
none
(0.057 ac)
area.
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
MY-02 (2022) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (Taken September 2022)
i PII of 2 I
2022 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 7515)
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Columbus County, North Carolina
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data
Restoration Systems, LLC
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
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
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
Cornus 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
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 7. Planted Vegetation Totals
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Plot #
Planted Stems/Acre
Success Criteria Met?
1
526
Yes
2
405
Yes
3
567
Yes
4
486
Yes
5
486
Yes
6
607
Yes
7
445
Yes
Average Planted Stems/Acre
503
Yes
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation
Data Entry Tool
Planted Acreage
7.7
Date of Initial Plant
2020-12-01
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
NA
Date(s) Mowing
NA
Date of Current Survey
2022-09-12
Plot size (ACRES)
0.0247
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tree/Shrub
Indicator
Status
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
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 laevi ata
sugarberry
Tree
FACW
2
2
1
1
1
1
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
FACU
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
OBL
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
FACW
1
1
2
2
Diospyros vir iniana
common persimmon
Tree
FAC
1
1
Species
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
FACW
2
2
Included in
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
FACU
2
2
Approved
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
FAC
3
1 3
2
2
1
1
2
2
Mitigation Plan
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 hellos
willow oak
Tree
FACW
3
3
2
2
1
1
Quercus sp.
2
2
1
1
5
5
2
2
1
1
3
3
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
OBL
6
6
9
9
2
2
3
3
Sum
Performance Standard
Perf
13
13
11
11
15
12
5
12
12
1
12
15
15
11
11
Current Year Stem Count
13
11
15
12
12
15
11
Mitigation Plan
Stems/Acre
526
405
526
486
486
607
445
Performance
Species Count
6
5
3
7
8
6
5
Standard
Dominant Species Composition (%)
23
-11 -
60
42
17
47
36
Average Plot Height
3
4
3
3
4
4
% Invasives
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Current Year Stem Count
13
11
Ili
12
12
Ili
11
Post Mitigation
Stems/Acre
526
405
526
486
486
607
445
Plan
Species Count
6
5
3
7
8
6
5
Performance
Dominant Species Composition (%)
23
55
60
42
17
47
36
Standard
Average Plot Height
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
% 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
A, Ht ft
NSpecies
%Invasives
Stems/Ac.
A, Ht ft
NSpecies
%Invasives
Stems/Ac.
A, Ht ft NSpecies
%Invasives
Monitoringyear7
Monito ring year 5
Monitoringyear3
Monitoringyear 2
Monitoringyear l
52
607
2
6
0
405
2
5
0
5
567
3
2
0
Monitoringyear 0
688 2 6 0
Veg Plot 4 F
607 6 0
Veg Plot 5 F
567 1 0
Veg Plot 6 F
Stems/Ac.
A, Ht (ft) N Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
A, Ht. (ft)
N Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
A, Ht. (ft)
N Species
%Invasives
Monitoringyear7
Monito ring year 5
Monitoringyear3
Monitoringyear 2
Monitoringyear l
86
3 7
2 7
0
0
486
526
4
2
8
8
0
0
607
688
4
2
6
7
0
0
Monitoringyear 0
2 0
Veg Plot 7 F
607 2 8 0 810 1 8 0
Stems/Ac.
A, Ht ft
NSpecies %Invasives
Monitoringyear7
Monito ring year 5
Monitoringyear3
Monitoringyear 2
445
4
5
Monitoringyearl
445
2
5
0
Monitoringyear 0
567
1
6
0
Each monitoring year represents different plot tort he 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
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
Site
Shaw's Run
Watershed:
Lumber River Basin, 03040203
XS ID
UTl, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
5/4/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
90.7
2.2
91.0
4.2
91.0
6.7
91.0
8.1
90.9
8.7
90.7
9.7
90.4
10.4
90.2
11.0
90.0
11.5
89.8
12.5
89.9
13.0
89.8
13.5
90.0
14.0
90.3
14.7
90.5
15.8
90.8
17.6
91.0
20.1
91.0
22.8
90.9
Y`
./�..?,tip '`' _`Y v• ,
9
V�
�L
f S,
.:
`-:.
..er
Stream Type E/C 5
Shaw's Run, UT1, XS - 1, Riffle
92
91
__---------- - �___________________
0
W 90
----- B-kfull
MY-00 12/1N20
MY-Ol 3/23/21
f MY-02 5/4/2022
89
0 10 20
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
90.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Thalweg Elevation:
89.8
LTOB Elevation:
90.8
LTOB Max Depth:
1.0
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
4.2
..• l• •q
}�L.
.ji •i
r �' -"
■
6 e`
'i
Stream Type E/C 5
Shaw's
Run, UTl, XS - 2, Pool
92
91 -----------------
-----------------------------
0
a
° 90
MY-00 1/21/20
89
MY-01 3/23/21
� MY-02 5/4/2022
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Shaw's Run
Station
Elevation
-0.3
90.9
2.4
91.0
4.7
91.1
6.8
91.0
8.1
90.6
8.7
90.2
9.5
89.9
10.0
89.7
11.0
89.6
11.9
89.7
12.7
89.8
13.2
90.0
13.9
90.7
14.2
91.0
15.4
91.3
17.4
91.4
19.7
91.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
90.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Thalweg Elevation:
89.6
LTOB Elevation:
91.0
LTOB Max Depth:
1.3
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
6.2
Site
Shaw's Run
Watershed:
Lumber River Basin, 03040203
XS ID
UTl, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
5/4/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
92.6
1.7
92.5
4.3
92.2
5.5
92.2
6.4
91.7
7.0
91.3
7.8
90.8
8.3
90.7
8.8
90.7
9.3
90.7
10.3
90.8
11.0
91.0
11.5
91.6
12.0
92.1
12.5
92.1
13.9
92.3
15.7
92.6
18.5
92.5
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
92.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Thalweg Elevation:
90.7
LTOB Elevation:
92.2
LTOB Max Depth:
1.5
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
6.6
$
70.1
. Y% ...
Stream Type E/C 5
Shaw's Run, UTl, XS - 3, Pool
93
92
m
0
a
91
'00-tr
- - - - - B.kf.11
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-01 3/23/21
MY-02 5/4/2022
90
0 10
20
Station (feet)
a
-.
Ft
Stream Type E/C 5
Shaw's Run, UT I, XS - 4, Riffle
94
93
m
0
_ _
ti
W 92
----- B-kf.11
MY-00 1/21/20
91
MY-01 1/2111
MY-02 5/4/2022
0
10 20
Station (feet)
Site
Shaw's Run
Watershed:
Lumber River Basin, 03040203
XS ID
UTl, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
5/4/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
1.5
92.8
5.1
92.5
7.2
92.4
8.4
92.2
9.2
91.8
10.0
91.4
10.7
91.6
11.2
91.7
11.4
91.8
11.9
92.0
12.3
92.2
13.6
92.5
15.2
92.7
16.9
92.8
19.1
93.0
20.6
92.9
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
92.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Thalweg Elevation:
91.4
LTOB Elevation:
92.4
LTOB Max Depth:
1.0
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
2.6
Site
Shaw's Run
Watershed:
Lumber River Basin, 03040203
XS ID
UTl, XS - 5, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
5/4/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
94.1
1.8
94.0
3.9
93.9
5.7
93.9
7.3
93.6
8.2
93.3
9.1
93.0
9.5
92.8
10.4
92.8
11.2
92.7
11.9
92.8
12.5
93.0
13.2
93.3
13.7
93.5
14.6
93.9
15.2
94.0
16.1
94.0
17.5
94.1
19.1
94.0
21.3
94.1
SUMMARY DATA
Banldull Elevation:
93.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Thalweg Elevation:
92.7
LTOB Elevation:
93.9
LTOB Max Depth:
1.1
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
5.8
Stream Type E/C 5
Shaw's Run, UTl, XS - 5, Pool
95
94
m
------------------- --- -- -----------
0
a
W
93
--- -- Bankfull
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-01 3/23/21
MY-02 5/4/2022
92
0 10
20
Station (feet)
6=
1
Stream Type E/C 5
Shaw's Run, UT I, XS - 6, Riffle
96
95
o
_
m
W 94
-- --- Barkfull
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-01 3/23/21
� MY-02 5/4/2022
93
-5
0
5 10 15 20
Station (feet)
Site
Shaw's Run
Watershed:
Lumber River Basin, 03040203
XS ID
UTl, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
5/4/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-1.0
94.4
2.0
94.5
4.0
94.4
5.2
94.2
5.7
94.0
6.7
93.7
7.2
93.5
8.1
93.4
8.9
93.3
9.8
93.3
10.4
93.4
11.2
93.7
11.8
94.0
13.0
94.1
14.5
94.2
16.5
94.3
18.1
94.3
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
94.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Thalweg Elevation:
93.3
LTOB Elevation:
94.3
LTOB Max Depth:
1.0
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
4.9
..._.j�cccy.f
ly�yp'18r
66yypp
Stream Type E/C 5
Shaw's Run, UTI, XS - 7, Pool
97
96
m----------------
---------------
`�=-------------
o 95
�j
m
94
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-01 3/23/21
93
� MY-02 5/4/2022
-2
8
18
Station (feet)
Site
Shaw's Run
Watershed:
Lumber River Basin, 03040203
XS ID
UTl, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
5/4/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-1.5
95.9
0.3
95.8
2.7
95.9
4.7
95.5
5.4
95.4
6.7
95.2
7.2
94.7
7.6
94.5
8.3
94.4
8.8
94.3
9.7
94.3
10.7
94.5
11.4
95.0
11.7
95.2
12.5
95.6
13.6
95.6
15.8
95.7
18.3
95.7
20.6
95.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
95.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Thalweg Elevation:
94.3
LTOB Elevation:
95.6
LTOB Max Depth:
1.3
LTOB
f; .-
`6'
-_. •fan
r.
k
g a1
Stream Type E/C 5
Shaw's Run, UT1, XS - 8, Riffle
97
96
0
W 95
----- Baneful.
MY-00 U2U20
94
MY-Ol 3/23/21
MY-02 5/4/2022
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Shaw's Run
Watershed:
Lumber River Basin, 03040203
XS ID
UTl, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
5/4/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.4
95.6
3.2
95.6
4.8
95.6
6.2
95.6
7.4
95.4
8.3
94.9
8.8
94.6
9.4
94.8
10.0
94.9
10.7
95.1
11.7
95.3
12.2
95.3
13.3
95.5
15.4
95.8
17.4
95.9
18.8
96.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
95.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Thalweg Elevation:
94.6
LTOB Elevation:
95.6
LTOB Max Depth:
1.0
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
3.3
:..
:any
a - -
Stream Type E/C 5
Shaw's Run, UT2, XS - 9, Pool
96
95
° -------------------
-------------- ------------------
a
W 94
___ -- Bar�kfull
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-01 1/2111
MY-02 5/4/2022
93
0
10
Station (feet)
Site
Shaw's Run
Watershed:
Lumber River Basin, 03040203
XS ID
UT2, XS - 9, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
5/4/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
94.4
1.7
94.4
4.4
94.5
5.6
94.3
6.0
93.9
0
Site
Shaw's Run
Watershed:
Lumber River Basin, 03040203
XS ID
UT2, XS - 10, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
5/4/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.2
94.7
1.7
94.6
5.2
94.5
5.3
94.4
5.6
94.3
6.6
94.1
7.4
93.9
7.9
93.7
8.7
93.8
9.4
94.1
10.0
94.4
10.9
94.6
11.4
94.7
12.4
94.6
13.9
94.7
15.7
94.8
NOW op -
AA
r,
' 4�a r ..;.: ..�. ..
�. �:eC��'� It;�`il, �,���' . ' •�' . � 1. � '�: !� `'�".
'4pfy .• �ti,yr t 1
a
Stream Type E/C 5
Shaw's Run, UT2, XS - 10, Riffle
96
95
0
a
m
W 94
- - - - - B-kf.11
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-01 3/23/21
MY-02 5/4/2022
93
0 10
Station (feet)
A.
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
94.
Table 10A. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Shaw's Run - UT 1
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition (applicable)
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Min
Max
Min
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.1
5.9
6.9
6.1
7
5.6
8.2
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
5.4
7
9.4
30
70
100
100
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.6
4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.6
0.8
0.7
1.0
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.5
4.8
4
Width/Depth Ratio
5.3
10.9
14.9
12
16
12.7
17.7
4
Entrenchment Ratio
4.6
7.6
10.6
4.6
10.6
12.2
17.9
4
Bank Height Ratio
2.8
3.4
4.7
1
1.2
1.0
1.0
4
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
G 5/6
E/C 5
C 5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
2.8
2.8
2.8
Sinuosity (ft)
1
1.15
1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0033
0.0029
0.004
Other
Table 10B. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Shaw's Run - UT 2
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition (applicable)
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Min
Max
Min
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.2
7.9
8.3
3.6
4.2
4.5
4.5
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
7
9
12
30
70
100
100
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.8
1
Width/Depth Ratio
24.6
56.9
62.6
12
16
11.2
11.2
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1
1.2
1.6
7.6
17.8
22.0
22.0
1
Bank Height Ratio
6
6.8
9.5
1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
F 5/6
E/C 5
E/C 5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
0.9
0.9
0.9
Sinuosity (ft)
1
1.15
1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.01
0.0087
0.0028
Other
Table 11. Monitoring Data - Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
(Shaw's Run/ DMS:100055) UT 1 and UT 2
UT 1 - Cross Section I(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)
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY'
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY]
MY.
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY]
MY.
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY]
MY.
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Basedon AB-Bankfull'Area
90.88
90.81
90.76
92.29
92.21
92.35
Bank Height Ratio_Basedon ABBankfull'Area
1.00
0.99
1.06
1.00
0.99
1.03
Thalweg Elevation
90.15
89.80
89.77
89.75
89.63
89.65
90.80
90.66
90.74
91.46
91.31
91.40
92.65
92.56
92.]3
LTOB'Elevation
90.88
90.80
90.82
90.94
90.87
90.9]
92.21
92.07
92.19
92.29
92.20
92.38
93.81
93.76
93.87
LTOB' Max Depth ft
0.74
1.00
1.05
1.19
1.24
1.32
1.41
1.42
1.46
0.83
0.89
0.98
1.16
1.21
1.14
LTOB' Cross SeRional Area (ft')
3.72
3.72
4.1]
5.71
5.71
6.24
6.06
6.06
6.63
2.47
2.47
2.64
5.57
5.57
5.82
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 30 (Riffle)
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY]
MY.
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY]
MY.
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
94.16
94.18
94.24
95.10
95.52
95.60
94.55
94.41
Bank Height Ratio_Basedon ABBankfull'Area
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.05
1.02
j9460
1.11
1.03
Thalweg Elevation
93.11
93.25
93.28
94.26
94.09
94.28
94.79
94.57
94.64
93.44
93.33
93.59
94.00
93.66
LTOB2 Elevation
94.16
94.19
94.25
95.61
95.59
95.58
95.60
95.56
95.62
94.37
94.39
94.32
94.61
94.44
LTOB'MaxDepth(ft1051.35
1.50
1.30
081
100
098
0.93
1.06
0.73
0.61
0.78
LTOB'Cross SeRional Areft
4.78
4.78
4.90
5.65
5.65
5.70
316
3.16
3.29
2.37
2.37
2.23
1.84
1.96
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018guidance 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 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 A,built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As -built bankfull area was SO ft2, then the MY1
bankfull elevation would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey= 1Oft2. The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank
(LTOB) 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 then carried out in each successive year.
2 - LTOBArea and Max depth - These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used forthe LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area belowthe LTOB elevation will be used
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.
Bankfull Elevation (ftl -Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
Bank Height Ratio Based on AS Bankfull' Area
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB' Elevation
LTOB' Max Depth (ft
LTOB' Cross SeRional Area(,)F
Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore interannualvariation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) N by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variability above N the re ult of this factor and some N 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-C. Channel Evidence
Surface Water Gauge Graphs
Figure D1. 30/70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Drought.Gov Data
Soil Temperature Graph
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo
Collection
(if available)
A bankfull event was documented on UT1 by trail camera
February 18, 2021
and stream gauge evidence after 3.02 inches of rain were
and
February 18, 2021
captured at an onsite rain gauge. Additionally, wrack and
1-2
March 1, 2021
laid-back vegetation were observed on the TOB of UT2
during a site visit on March 1, 2021.
A bankfull event was documented on UT1 downstream by
March 12, 2022
March 12, 2022
trail camera and stream gauge evidence after 1.20 inches
3
of rain were captured at an onsite rain gauge.
Stream gauge data indicate a bankfull event occurred on
September 30, 2022
September 30, 2022
UT1 and UT2 after of 3.39 inches of rain was documented
--
on September 30, 2022 at an onsite rain gauge.
Photo 1: Bankfull event documented on UT 1
downstream after 3.02" of rain fell on February 18,
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055)
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Columbus County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
February 2023
Photo 3: UT 1 swelling to bankfull during a 1.20"
rainstorm on March 12, 2022
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055)
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Columbus County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
February 2023
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
(2021)
Year 2
(2022)
Year 3
(2023)
Year 4
(2024)
Year 5
(2025)
Year 6
(2026)
Year 7
(2027)
1*
No - 5 days (1.9%)
No — 4 days (1.6%)
2
No - 15 days (5.8%)^
Yes — 53 days (20.6%)
3
Yes - 44 days (17.1%)
Yes — 57 days (22.2%)
4
Yes - 38 days (14.8%)
Yes — 58 days (22.6%)
5
Yes - 34 days (13.2%)
Yes — 58 days (22.6%)
6
Yes - 52 days (20.2%)
Yes — 59 days (23.0%)
7
Yes - 36 days (14.0%)
No —11 days (4.3%)
8
Yes - 38 days (14.8%)
Yes — 45 days (17.5%)
9
Yes - 37 days (14.4%)
Yes — 45 days (17.5%)
* 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.
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
14
3 -16
v
3 18
° -20
C7
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 2 (2022 Data)
W W A A A U, U, U, U, m m m V V J W W W W W W F�
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N \ \ N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
0
2.0 Q
c
OC
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
i -10
-12
-14
3 -16
c -18
3
o -20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 2 (2022 Data)
W W A A A U, U, U, U, m m m V V J W W W W W W F� F� F� F�
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N \ \ N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5
c
0
E
a
2.0
w
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
3 -16
v
-18
3
° -20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 2 (2022 Data)
W W A A A U, U, U, U, 01 01 01 V V J
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N \ \ N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
3
2.0 Q
m
w
c
1.5 °C
1.0
0.5
0.0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
c
-6
-_ -8
10
-12
14
3 -16
c -18
3
o -20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 2 (2022 Data)
N N W W W A A A U, U, U, U, m m m J J J
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N \ \ N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5 -=
0
0
E
2.0 Q
ra
w
m
OC
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
c
w
w
J
d
Y
3
0
0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 2 (2022 Data)
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N \ \ N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
N
Y
C
3
O
2.0
Q
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
c
v
v
J
d
Y
3
v
c
3
O
u
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 2 (2022 Data)
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N \ \ N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 c
N
C
3
O
2.0 Q
w
C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
c
v
v
J
d
3
v
c
3
O
u,
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 7
Year 2 (2022 Data)
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N \ \ N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
3
O
2.0 Q
w
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
c
v
v
J
d
Y
3
v
c
3
O
u
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 8
Year 2 (2022 Data)
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N \ \ N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
M
C
3
2.0 £
Q
c
1.5 m
n:
1.0
0.5
0.0
c
v
J
d
Y
3
v
c
3
O
M
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Shaws Run Groundwater Gauge 9
Year 2 (2022 Data)
W W A A A U, U, U, W m m m V V V W W W W W W F� F� F� F�
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N \ \ N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
N
Y
3
2.0 £
a
w
C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Table 14A. UT-1 Upstream Channel Evidence
UT-1 Upstream Channel Evidence
Year 1(2021)
Year 2 (2022)
Max consecutive days channel flow
107
107
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
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 hydrophytes)
Yes
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)
at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems
Yes
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
No
Other:
Table 14B. UT-1 Downstream Channel Evidence
UT-1 Downstream Channel Evidence
Year 1(2021)
Year 2 (2022)
Max consecutive days channel flow
109
113
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
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 hydrophytes)
Yes
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)
at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems
Yes
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
No
Other:
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055)
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Columbus County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
February 2023
Table 14C. UT-2 Channel Evidence
UT-2 Channel Evidence
Year 1(2021)
Year 2 (2022)
Max consecutive days channel flow
70
124
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
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 hydrophytes)
Yes
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)
at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems
Yes
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
No
Other:
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
c
Shaws Run UT1 Upstream
Year 2 (2022 Data)
30
28
26
107
Days
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
ILA
6
4
2
0--
Lk
-2
-4
1-
-6
F-
F-
N
N W
W
W A
A
A U,
U,
U,
U,
M
M
M
4
V
V 00
00
00 W
W
W
F� F-�
F-�
F-� F-�
F� F�
N
W
F\-�
N N
F�
N FF-
FF-
N FF-
FF-
N
W
FF-
N
W
FF-
N
W W
F\-�
N 0000
F\-�
N
NJ
NN N
N
N
N
NJ
N N
N
N
NI-
NJ
N N
N
--
NJ
N N
F�
N
F�
N
F�
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O--
N N
w
N
w
N N
00
N
00 00
N N
\
N V
\ N
\
N V
\ N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N
N N
N
N N
N N
N
N
N
N
N N
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Y
c
0
0
2.0
Q
w
c
1.5 s
1.0
0.5
0.0
Shaws Run UT1 Downstream
Year 2 (2022 Data)
30
4.0
28
26
3.5
24
22
113
Days
3.0
20
18
2.5
c 16
14
>
3
J 12
2.0 E
LJNa
10
3
w
8
1.5
of0c
6
—
4
—
1.0
2
-
0
0.5
2
-
-4
-6
0.0
N W
W
W
A A
A U,
U,
U,
U,
M
M
M
V
V
V 00
00
00 W
W
W
F-�
F-� F-�
F-�
W
F\-�
N N
F-
N
FF- FF-
N FF-
FF-
N
W
FF-
N
W
FF-
N
W W
F\-�
N 0000
F\-�
N
N N
N
N
N
O-1
N N
N
N
N-1
N
NJ N N
--
N NJ N
F�
N
F�
N
F�
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O--
N N
W
N
W
N N
00
N
00
N
00
N \
N
\ N
\
\
V F�
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N N
N
N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Shaws Run UT2
Year 2 (2022 Data)
20
18
16
14
12
10
c
8
v
J
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
F� F� F� F- N N W W W A A A w U, U, U, m m m V V V w w w w w w F�
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N \ \ N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
c
3
2.0 £
Q
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Figure D1: 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
� 2021
7
� 2022
0/1
6
� 2023
5
� 2024
Lt
V.,
� 2025
-30th Percentile
3
'
-70th Percentile
1
0
Mon
60.OR
4.
MUM
a.
rj
ID C>
n� Pi
DO (AbnormaIly Dry)
Columbus County (SIC) Percent Area in U.S. Drought Monitor Categories
i
w -DL Lff a,
0 IIJ
re K-+ Kj NI K3 K3
rya r-+ 711: NY rya rya
DI (!Moderate Drought) M D2 (Severe Drought)
1
C) � C3
r r) o a a M K) tj
D3 (Extreme Drought) D4 (Exceptional Drought)
US Drought Monitor, https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DmData/TimeSeries.aspx (accessed Feb. 2, 2023)
Switch Basemap
-- I tt View
k,
Shaw's Run
Mitigation Site
#tA iye ' i
y � _
t r
State of North Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE. G armin, USGS, N..
US Dept of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
https://water.weather.gov/precip/index.php (accessed Feb. 2, 2023)
UIzMWTq
Sl`
20
16
12
s
6
4
z lg
-2 -
-4 -
-6 -
-8
-12
-16
-20
Shaw's Run Soil Temperature Data
Year 2 (2022)
A.
V w-
AA IV
March 1:
53.85°F
March B:
52.38T
Sensor wire was chewed
through causing logger
malfunction; however it was
replaced 3/1 during a site visit
to document bud burst.
Appendix E — Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 15. Project Timeline
Table 16. Project Contacts
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 15. Project Timeline
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100055
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Task Completion or
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
MY-2 Monitoring Report
Nov-22
Dec-22
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
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
Appendix F — Site Photo Log
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina February 2023
Shaw's Run
MY-02 (2022) Photo Log
MY2 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Shaw's Run
MY-02 (2022) Photo Log
MY2 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Shaw's Run
MY-02 (2022) Photo Log
MY2 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Shaw's Run
MY-02 (2022) Photo Log
MY2 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Shaw's Run
MY-02 (2022) Photo Log
MY2 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Shaw's Run
MY-02 (2022) Photo Log
MY2 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Shaw's Run
MY-02 (2022) Photo Log
MY2 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Shaw's Run
MY-02 (2022) Photo Log
MY2 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Shaw's Run
MY-02 (2022) Photo Log
MY2 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Shaw's Run
MY-02 (2022) Photo Log
MY2 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC