HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071843 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20150521Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank
Annual Monitoring Report – Year 3
(Phase Two and Three)
Brunswick County, NC
Lumber River Basin
(Cataloging Unit #03040207)
Prepared on behalf of:
Stone Farm Mitigation Bank, LLC
(Sponsor)
Prepared by:
Wilmington, N.C.
May 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
2.0. PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 2
A. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2
B. MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................. 2
C. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................... 2
3.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 6
A. WETLAND RESTORATION SUCCESS CRITERIA..................................................................... 6
4.0 MONITORING RESULTS (YEAR 3) ...................................................................................... 7 A. PHASE II ...................................................................................................................................... 7
1. VEGETATION MONITORING ................................................................................................... 7
2. HYDROLOGIC MONITORING ................................................................................................ 11
3. STREAM MONITORING ......................................................................................................... 13
(a) Photo Documentation........................................................................................................ 13
(b) Ecological Function........................................................................................................... 13
(c) Channel Stability/Survey Procedures ............................................................................. 14 (1.) Cross-Sections .......................................................................................................... 14
(2.) Longitudinal Profiles ................................................................................................. 14
(3.) Pebble Counts............................................................................................................ 15
(4.) Stream Flow Monitoring ............................................................................................ 15
4. CONTINGENCY MEASURES ................................................................................................ 19
B. PHASE III ................................................................................................................................... 19
5.0 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................22
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
Figure 1 ...................................................................................................... Phase II Restoration Plan/As-Built
Figure 2 .................................................................................................... Phase III Restoration Plan/As-Built
Figure 3. ........................................................................................................Phase Boundary Overview Map
Figure 4. ................................................................................................ Phase II Plot and Well Location Map
Figure 5 ............................................................................................................... Cross Section Location Map
Table 1. ........................................................................... Phase II Planting List (March 2011/February 2012)
Table 2. ............................................................................... Summary of Tasks Completed – Phase II and III
Table 3 ................................................................................ Vegetation Plots and Wells by Community Type
Table 4 ................................................................ Annual Monitoring Data Sheets, Year 3 – Planted Species
Table 4A ............................................................ Annual Monitoring Data Sheets, Year 3 – Volunteer Species
Table 4B ...................................................... Annual Monitoring Data Sheets, Year 3 – Unidentified Volunteer
Table 4C ....................................................................................... Stem Counts By Year (Phase II – Planted)
Table 5 ........................................................ Summary of Year 3 Hydrologic Monitoring (Phase II – Streams)
Table 6 .......................................................................................Stream Lengths and Cross Section Stations
Table 7 ............................................................................................... Longitudinal Profiles by Stream Reach
Table 8. ................................................. Summary of Year 3 Bankfull Event Monitoring (Phase II – Streams)
Table 9. ...................................................................... Summary of Year 3 Hydrologic Monitoring – Phase III
Appendix A. ........................................................................................................................ Site Photographs
Appendix B ................................................................ Individual Plot Data Sheets (Year 3 Monitoring – 2014)
Appendix C. ........................................................................ Hydrographs (January 2014 – December 2014)
Appendix D. ........................................................................ NC Division of Water Resources Drought Maps
Appendix E. .............................................. Longitudinal/Cross-Section Surveys, Cross-Section Photographs
Appendix F. .......................................................................................... Ordinary High Water Mark Indicators
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On behalf of the Bank Sponsor (Stone Farm Bank, LLC), Land Management Group (LMG) has completed
Year 3 annual monitoring of Phase Two and Phase Three of the Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank.
Phase Two consists of 418 acres of the total 968-acre mitigation bank site and includes 15,338 linear feet
of stream restoration, 103 acres of Riparian (Non-Riverine) Wetland Restoration (i.e. small stream swamp);
28 acres of Riparian (Non-Riverine) Wetland Preservation; 40 acres of Riparian (Non-Riverine) Wetland
Restoration (i.e. headwater swamp forest); 66 acres of Non-Riparian Wetland Enhancement; 160 acres of
Non-Riparian Wetland Preservation; and 21 acres of upland buffer (Figure 1). Phase Three consists of 192
acres and includes 7.40 acres of Riparian (Non-Riverine) Wetland Restoration; 31.5 acres of Non-Riparian
Wetland Restoration; 68 acres of Non-Riparian Wetland Enhancement; and 85 acres of Non-Riparian
Wetland Preservation (Figure 2).
The Phase Two project area connects the 145-acre Carolina bay on the southern portion of the tract to the
Little Caw Caw Canal (a third-order tributary of the Waccamaw River) on the north boundary of the Bank
site. The Phase Three project area comprises the entire headwater wetlands of the South Tributary. As
was documented in the Mitigation Plan, the streams and wetlands of these watersheds had been
historically impaired by agricultural and silvicultural practices for over a hundred years. The wetlands of the
Main Stem and its tributaries (North Tributary and South Tributary) had been cleared and drained for rice
production. A network of dirt roads and canals dissected the site and resulted in the disconnection of first-
order tributaries from adjacent, former floodplain wetlands. Restoration work in Phase Two and Phase
Three involved the removal of over two miles of dirt roads, backfilling of four miles of canals, plugging of an
approximate 5,000-lf section of canal, 15,388-lf of Priority I stream restoration, restoration of valley grades,
and planting of approximately 96 acres of restored wetlands. Construction of the South Tributary of Phase
2 was completed in October 2011. The remaining areas of Phase Two and Phase Three were completed
in February 2012.
The following Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) presents the findings of the third year of monitoring for both
Phase Two and Phase Three.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 1
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
A. Introduction
As approved by the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT), the bank Sponsor began implementation of
Phase Two of the restoration project in September 2010. Figure 3 depicts the location and extent of the
three phases of the project. One remaining phase (Phase 4) consists of stream restoration within an
independent watershed (Hunters Creek) on the western portion of the site. Implementation of Phase Three
of the restoration project began in January of 2012. Placement of fill material within existing ditches (Figure
2) was authorized under Nationwide Permit 27 issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on
January 25, 2008 (Action ID# 2003-00682) and the corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification issued on
January 2, 2008 (DWQ Project #20071843).
B. Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The larger Bank restoration project is intended to provide suitable, high-quality wetland and stream
restoration to mitigate for authorized impacts within the Lumber River Basin (USGS 8-digit Hydrologic Unit
03040207; DWQ Subbasin 03-07-57). The objective of the project is to restore natural vegetative and
hydrologic conditions throughout the nonriparian, riparian, and Coastal Plain stream habitat that have been
compromised by previous land use activities. The primary functions to be restored or enhanced as a result
of the restoration project include: surface water storage (i.e. flood attenuation); sediment/nutrient retention;
organic carbon transport to downstream food-webs; and wildlife habitat. The project provides an invaluable
opportunity to restore an entire watershed within a region currently experiencing acute development
pressures.
C. Project Implementation
Earthwork initially included the construction of a dry Priority I stream channel. The first stream channel
restored was the South Tributary. As construction progressed downstream, existing ditches and canals
were filled. Clay plugs were used at prescribed intervals to reduce potential subsurface drainage within
backfilled ditches. Soil removed for the construction of the Priority 1 channel was used to fill in the existing
channels. Existing roadbeds and adjacent spoil piles were removed, and the material was used to backfill
the road-side canals. Construction of the Main Stem and North Tributary was implemented in a similar
manner. Stream valleys were restored through converted agricultural fields to re-establish the natural
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 2
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
hydrologic connection of small stream swamp and headwater bay forest (Carolina bay) and swamp forest
wetlands to the first-order reach of Little Caw Caw Canal. Restored wetlands were planted with
characteristic wetland trees corresponding to the targeted community type (headwater swamp forest and
small stream swamp).
Approximately 63,250 hardwood tree seedlings were planted throughout the restored small stream swamp
and swamp forest communities between March 2011 and February 2012. Seedlings were planted on
approximate 9-ft centers, corresponding to an average density of 659 seedlings per acre. Planting was
supervised by LMG personnel to ensure proper spacing and planting depths. Swamp black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica) and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) comprised a majority of the seedlings planted, totaling
approximately 30,400. Species such as swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), pond pine (Pinus serotina), and
river birch (Betula nigra) were also planted (See Table 1 for seedling quantities by species). Tulip poplar,
Atlantic white cedar, and pond pine were planted in slightly higher landscape positions in the swamp forest
communities, while the remaining species were planted in the small stream swamp communities that will
likely experience longer flooding durations. The transition between the small stream swamp community
and the swamp forest community in the outer Coastal Plain represents subtle shifts in composition rather
than distinct breaks between wetland types. An overlap of planted species occurs along the boundaries
between the two wetland communities. In addition, live stakes were planted on approximate 4-ft centers
and interspersed along the top of bank and side bank of the stream channels to provide for enhanced bank
stabilization and vegetative cover.
Restoration work for Phase Three consisted of the installation of four (4) armored earthen clay plugs at
prescribed locations and backfilling 200-ft upstream of each plug along a channelized ditch upstream of the
Southern Tributary. Given the limited amount of earthwork required for the hydrologic restoration and the
existing forested condition, there were no additional planting requirements for Phase Three.
Refer to Table 2 for a list of tasks and associated completion dates for the implementation of Phase 2 and
Phase 3.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 3
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
Table 1. Phase Two Planting List (March 2011/February 2012)
Non-Riverine Restoration
(2011) Southern Tributary Swamp Forest 6-ac
Common Name Scientific Name # Planted
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 1,000
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 1,350
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1,200
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 2,000
Swamp Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica 2,000
Total 7,550 Riverine Restoration (2011)
Southern Tributary Small Stream Swamp 14-ac
Common Name Scientific Name
Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 1,000
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 800
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 1,000
Swamp Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica 1,000
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 2,000
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 2,000
Total 7,800 Non-Riverine Restoration
(2012) Mainstem/North Trib. Swamp Forest 20-ac
Common Name Scientific Name
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 4,300
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 6,000
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 3,000
Swamp Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica 3,500
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 2,400
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 2,000
Total 21,200
Riverine Restoration (2012) Mainstem/North Trib. Small Stream Swamp 56-ac
Common Name Scientific Name
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 10,000
River Birch Betula nigra 2,000
Swamp Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica 4,900
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 2,000
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 2,000
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 500
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 2,300
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 500
Black Willow Salix nigra 1,500
Silky Willow Salix sericea 1,000
Total 26,700
Grand Total 63,250
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 4
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
Table 2. Summary of Tasks Completed on Phases Two and Three
Description of Task Date
Logging within Limits of Clearing September 2009
Completion of Earthwork (Southern Tributary) October 2010
Site Planting (Southern Tributary) March 2011
Completion of Earthwork (Mainstem & Northern Tributary) October 2011
On-site Meeting with COE Staff – Construction Review November 2011
Site Planting (Mainstem & Northern Tributary) February 2012
Completion of Earthwork (Phase III) February 2012
On-Site Meeting with COE Staff March 2012
Year 1 Monitoring November 2012
Year 1 Monitoring Report Submitted March 2013
Year 2 Monitoring September 2013
On-Site Meeting with COE Staff – Phase II & III Review November 2013
Year 2 Monitoring Report Submitted May 2014
On-Site Meeting with COE Staff – Phase II & III Review May 2014
Year 3 Monitoring Report Submitted May 2015
Per the approved restoration plan, monitoring of Phase Two includes the assessment of both hydrologic
and vegetative conditions over the course of a five year monitoring period. Following the completion of the
earthwork, a total of twenty-nine (29) permanent 0.10 acre plots were established throughout the planted
and restored (i.e. former) small stream swamp and swamp forest communities (Table 3). A total of fourteen
(14) automated shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed within the Phase Two project area
(Table 3). In addition, a total of seven (7) automated water level gauges have been installed within the
stream banks to document bankfull and normal flow events (Table 3). Wells and gauges have collected
data from January 2012 through the present.
Table 3. Vegetation Plots and Wells by Community Type
Community Type Acreage Vegetation Plots Monitoring Wells Stream Gauges
Phase II - Swamp Forest 315 15 6 0
Phase II - Small Stream 103 14 8 7
Phase III - Swamp Forest 190 0 8 0
TOTAL 608 29 22 7
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 5
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring of Phase Three includes the assessment of hydrologic conditions over a five year monitoring
period. Following the completion of earthwork, a total of eight (8) automated shallow groundwater
monitoring wells were installed within the project area (Table 3). Wells have collected data from mid-March
2012 through the present.
3.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring is being conducted near the end of each growing season for a period of five years. The
monitoring includes both a vegetative and hydrologic component per the approved mitigation banking
instrument. The specific success criteria for the bank are listed below.
A. Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
(1) Demonstrated density of planted species to meet or exceed 320 trees per acre at the end of 3
years (post-planting) and 260 trees per acres at the end of 5 years (post-planting). 1
(2) No single volunteer species (most notably, red maple, loblolly pine, and sweet gum) will comprise
more than 50% of the total composition at year 2 or 3. If this occurs, remedial procedures will be
implemented. During years 4 and 5, no single volunteer species, comprising over 50% of the total
composition, may be more than two times the height of the planted trees. If this occurs, remedial
procedures will be implemented.
(3) Hydrology during the growing season must be sufficient to at least meet the guidelines set forth
within the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1).
Therefore, the hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a static water table at, or within, 12”
of the soil surface for 12% of the growing season2 (equivalent to 32 days based upon SCS-
established growing season March 7th through November 28th) during periods of normal rainfall.
1 Volunteer species may be counted toward meeting the success criteria upon evaluation of site-specific conditions and
concurrence by IRT members.
2 As defined by the Soil Conservation Service, the growing season for Brunswick County is 266 days.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 6
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
The vegetative component for Phase Two includes an assessment of the conditions within each of the
twenty-nine (29) permanent monitoring plots that have been established throughout the project area (Figure
4). Hydrologic monitoring is being conducted via fourteen (14) automated shallow groundwater monitoring
wells for Phase Two and eight (8) for Phase Three recording on daily intervals (refer to Figure 4 for location
of the monitoring wells). Data from the wells are downloaded on approximate three-month intervals and
imported into graphing software for analysis. Phase Three monitoring consists of collection of groundwater
level data (once daily) over the course of the five-year monitoring period through the use of eight (8)
automated wells.
Monitoring reports are being submitted annually to the USACE and the IRT. These reports include results
of vegetative and hydrologic monitoring and photographic documentation of site conditions. Monitoring
reports also identify any contingency measures that may need to be employed to remedy any site
deficiencies (e.g. major stream design failures).
4.0 MONITORING RESULTS (YEAR 3)
A. PHASE TWO
1. Vegetation Monitoring
Year 3 monitoring data were collected in September 2014 over a three-day period (September 23rd-25th). A
total of 6,389 stems were counted throughout the twenty-nine (29) plots (Table 4). Inclusive within this total
were 1,306 stems of planted species (correlating to a mean density of 450 stems per acre) (refer to Table
4). Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and swamp black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) were the most abundant
woody species, with a total of 683 and 206 individuals, respectively. Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) were also prevalent within certain plots.
The mean height of the planted species remains relatively low (≤ 3-ft) through the third year of monitoring.
However, the majority of the floodplain is vegetated by soft rush (Juncus effusus) and bulrush (Scirpus
cyperinus), and there appears to be low risk of trees being out-competed at this time. The height of the
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 7
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
planted trees will continue to be monitored, but survivorship remains high. In review of Year 3 monitoring
data it appears that the site is progressing well towards the required planted vegetative densities.
In addition to the planted species, numerous volunteers were observed within swamp forest plots (Table
4A). A majority of these individuals, such as fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), redbay (Persea palustris), wax
myrtle (Morella cerifera), and gallberry (Ilex glabra) are considered desirable volunteers since these plants
are representative of the target wetland community type. It should be noted that a majority of pines were
undistinguishable between loblolly pine and pond pine due to the relatively young age of the seedlings and
lack of identifiable pine characteristics (resinous buds, needle bundles, rounded cone, stem foliage
sprouts). Unidentified Pinus spp. have not been counted toward the success criterion (Table 4B).
The mean stem density observed for both planted and characteristic (desirable) wetland species for the
project area is 1,155 stems/acre. Note that this observed density excludes individuals of the following
species: (1) red maple (Acer rubrum); (2) sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua); (3) horse sugar (Symplocos
tinctoria); (4) baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia); (5) winged sumac (Rhus copallinum); and (6) unidentified
Pinus spp.. Please refer to Table 4C for Planted Stem Counts by Year. Individual plot data sheets are
provided in Appendix B.
The most abundant volunteer species identified within the restored small stream swamp and swamp forest
communities are (in order of abundance): (1) fetterbush (791 total stems); (2) sweet gum (772 total stems);
(3) red maple (604 total stems); (4) red bay (444 total stems); and (5) gallberry (381 total stems). Refer to
Table 4A for volunteer species identified by plot. In general, the observed volunteer species are
considered characteristic of the target wetland community type (small stream swamp and swamp forest).
The most prevalent non-target species observed during Year 3 monitoring was unidentified Pinus spp. and
sweet gum. While considered non-desirable (due to their potential to out-compete planted species), both
loblolly pine and sweet gum are commonly occurring as early successional species in the Outer Coastal
Plain. Based upon the data, Plot 2 and Plot 8 both contain volunteer species that comprise more than 50%
of total plot composition. Plot 2 contains an abundance of unidentified pine stems, while Plot 8 contains and
abundance of red maple stems. The height of the majority of these stems is under three (3) feet and pose
little risk to planted tree survival. Most of the predominant volunteers (e.g. fetterbush, red bay, gallberry,
etc.) are desirable and consistent with the restoration goals of the project (i.e. characteristic of the target
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 8
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
TABLE 4. YEAR 3 STEM COUNTS (PHASE TWO - STREAM) - PLANTED
SPECIES PLOT 1 PLOT 2 PLOT 3 PLOT 4 PLOT 5 PLOT 6 PLOT 7 PLOT 8 PLOT 9 PLOT 10 PLOT 11 PLOT 12 PLOT 13 PLOT 14 PLOT 15 PLOT 16 PLOT 17 PLOT 18 PLOT
NT1
PLOT
NT2
PLOT
NT3
PLOT
NT4
PLOT
NT5
PLOT
NT6
PLOT
ST1
PLOT
ST2
PLOT
ST3
PLOT
ST4
PLOT
ST5 TOTAL
Bald Cypress 24 20 12 21 25 5 19 38 33 15 17 28 4 14 33 46 27 11 25 38 13 32 27 46 28 15 20 22 25 683
Black Gum 8 20 5 10 20 6 14 1 13 1 3 11 1 3 3 4 5 2 6 4 2 4 18 0 0 10 5 11 16 206
Atlantic White
Cedar 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 10 0 9 9 0 1 0 7 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 55
Pond Pine 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 12 0 5 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 63
Tulip Poplar 30 19 6 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 2 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 87
Swamp
Chestnut Oak 6 2 2 6 7 0 3 0 6 3 9 6 3 1 7 0 4 2 11 4 0 3 3 8 0 0 0 0 1 97
River Birch 0 16 0 0 0 0 11 0 4 0 0 1 3 0 7 0 2 1 0 4 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77
Green Ash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 24 2 33
Ironwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 5
TOTAL 68 77 36 38 53 25 47 49 56 24 50 47 21 39 50 56 38 29 43 51 25 67 55 59 33 36 29 57 48 1306
TABLE 4A. YEAR 3 STEM COUNTS (PHASE TWO - STREAM) - VOLUNTEERS
SPECIES PLOT 1 PLOT 2 PLOT 3 PLOT 4 PLOT 5 PLOT 6 PLOT 7 PLOT 8 PLOT 9 PLOT 10 PLOT 11 PLOT 12 PLOT 13 PLOT 14 PLOT 15 PLOT 16 PLOT 17 PLOT 18 PLOT
NT1
PLOT
NT2
PLOT
NT3
PLOT
NT4
PLOT
NT5
PLOT
NT6
PLOT
ST1
PLOT
ST2
PLOT
ST3
PLOT
ST4
PLOT
ST5 TOTAL
Water Oak 3 1 0 0 0 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 30
Tulip Poplar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7
Gallberry 6 0 375 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 381
Sweetbay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 9
Red Bay 17 7 175 0 0 60 0 2 1 6 0 2 20 0 0 0 0 45 5 1 45 0 2 3 10 31 12 0 0 444
Wax Myrtle 45 13 0 24 27 1 1 2 12 2 1 14 18 22 10 8 0 10 4 4 13 5 2 3 5 3 3 16 4 272
American Holly 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 13
Fetterbush 1 0 350 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 791
Highbush Blue
Berry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 38
Horse Sugar 2 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
Blue
Huckleberry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
Red Chokeberry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
Titi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Baccharis 11 1 0 12 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 115 0 0 55 1 80 0 19 5 0 5 23 8 0 0 0 16 7 366
Winged Sumac 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Sweet Gum 40 18 65 10 16 50 1 61 44 30 50 32 45 28 34 0 1 38 0 25 23 0 10 19 7 48 11 39 27 772
Red Maple 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 400 50 50 20 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 12 0 0 604
TOTAL 129 46 980 46 44 419 8 469 109 88 71 163 86 85 99 9 81 318 29 35 96 10 38 34 71 87 49 80 38 3817
TABLE 4B. YEAR 3 STEM COUNTS (PHASE TWO - STREAM) - UNIDENTIFIED VOLUNTEERS
SPECIES PLOT 1 PLOT 2 PLOT 3 PLOT 4 PLOT 5 PLOT 6 PLOT 7 PLOT 8 PLOT 9 PLOT 10 PLOT 11 PLOT 12 PLOT 13 PLOT 14 PLOT 15 PLOT 16 PLOT 17 PLOT 18 PLOT
NT1
PLOT
NT2
PLOT
NT3
PLOT
NT4
PLOT
NT5
PLOT
NT6
PLOT
ST1
PLOT
ST2
PLOT
ST3
PLOT
ST4
PLOT
ST5 TOTAL
UnIdentified
Pine 44 148 40 40 30 300 22 70 5 10 30 26 50 16 53 27 0 90 0 20 80 44 7 17 23 60 0 6 8 1266
TOTAL 44 148 40 40 30 300 22 70 5 10 30 26 50 16 53 27 0 90 0 20 80 44 7 17 23 60 0 6 8 1266
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 9
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
TABLE 4C. STEM COUNTS BY YEAR (Stone Farm Phase II ) - PLANTED
SPECIES YEAR PLOT 1 PLOT 2 PLOT 3 PLOT 4 PLOT 5 PLOT 6 PLOT 7 PLOT 8 PLOT 9 PLOT 10 PLOT 11 PLOT 12 PLOT 13 PLOT 14 PLOT 15 PLOT 16 PLOT 17 PLOT 18 PLOT NT1 PLOT NT2 PLOT NT3 PLOT NT4 PLOT NT5 PLOT NT6 PLOT ST1 PLOT ST2 PLOT ST3 PLOT ST4 PLOT ST5 TOTAL Survivorship Rate
(by year)
0 24 19 12 25 25 6 18 43 31 18 16 27 4 14 31 58 35 15 24 40 18 29 31 49 33 18 25 34 32 754 N/A
1 23 20 12 27 26 5 20 40 32 17 16 26 4 14 33 56 33 15 25 37 16 33 28 54 28 19 24 34 32 749 99
2 24 21 11 23 25 5 19 40 32 12 14 26 4 14 31 48 27 13 25 36 15 30 26 47 28 19 21 33 26 695 92
3 24 20 12 21 25 5 19 38 33 15 17 28 4 14 33 46 27 11 25 38 13 32 27 46 28 15 20 22 25 683 91
0 13 22 12 8 20 11 11 0 17 2 3 13 4 3 5 5 10 5 15 6 5 12 21 3 0 42 26 7 29 330 N/A
1 12 20 8 7 20 8 11 0 12 2 3 13 3 3 4 4 8 4 11 6 4 9 22 3 0 9 7 8 20 241 73
2 12 17 7 9 19 6 9 0 14 1 3 12 2 3 4 4 6 2 7 4 2 9 18 0 0 12 3 11 16 212 64
3 8 20 5 10 20 6 14 1 13 1 3 11 1 3 3 4 5 2 6 4 2 4 18 0 0 10 5 11 16 206 62
0 0 0 2 1 0 5 0 0 0 9 12 0 20 14 0 4 0 7 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 N/A
1 0 0 2 1 0 5 0 0 0 8 11 0 18 13 0 4 0 7 0 0 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 80 96
2 0 0 2 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 10 0 11 10 0 1 0 7 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 60 72
3 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 10 0 9 9 0 1 0 7 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 55 66
0 0 0 14 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 17 0 8 0 10 0 0 12 0 1 0 0 11 1 0 6 117 N/A
1 0 0 11 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 15 0 6 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 73 62
2 0 0 9 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 12 0 5 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 64 55
3 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 12 0 5 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 63 54
0 8 1 23 0 5 8 0 33 0 5 2 5 8 8 7 0 7 14 12 18 5 0 10 2 0 4 0 3 4 192 N/A
1 20 6 17 0 4 3 0 25 0 1 1 4 4 2 5 0 2 10 5 8 3 0 8 4 0 0 2 0 0 134 70
2 21 9 10 0 1 1 0 16 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 6 4 5 3 0 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 96 50
3 30 19 6 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 2 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 87 45
0 9 7 4 8 11 0 3 0 8 10 12 8 5 4 12 0 9 4 11 7 0 4 5 12 0 0 0 0 0 153 N/A
1 8 6 5 7 10 0 3 0 8 7 10 7 4 2 9 0 8 3 11 7 0 5 5 11 0 0 0 0 2 138 90
2 8 2 3 6 7 0 4 0 6 5 11 8 3 2 8 0 4 2 11 6 0 3 5 7 0 0 0 0 1 112 73
3 6 2 2 6 7 0 3 0 6 3 9 6 3 1 7 0 4 2 11 4 0 3 3 8 0 0 0 0 1 97 63
0 0 16 0 0 0 0 15 0 3 0 0 1 3 0 7 0 3 0 0 4 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 N/A
1 0 23 0 0 0 0 14 0 3 0 0 1 4 0 7 0 2 1 0 4 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 105
2 0 16 0 0 0 0 12 0 4 0 0 1 4 0 7 0 2 1 0 4 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 100
3 0 16 0 0 0 0 11 0 4 0 0 1 3 0 7 0 2 1 0 4 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 99
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 4 15 38 21 100 N/A
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 7 22 1 40 40
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 22 2 33 33
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 24 2 33 33
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 N/A
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 6 150
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 6 150
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 5 125
Ironwood
Black Gum
Bald Cypress
Green Ash
River Birch
Swamp Chestnut
Oak
Tulip Poplar
Pond Pine
Atlantic White
Cedar
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 10
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
vegetative community). While certain volunteer species can potentially out-compete planted species, the
overall composition of the species observed is characteristic of small stream swamp and swamp forest
wetlands of the outer Coastal Plain and appear to be well-adapted to the restored wetland hydrology. The
unidentified pine growth recorded in Plot 2 and red maple growth recorded in Plot 8 will continue to be
monitored, but remedial action is not recommended at this time.
2. Hydrologic Monitoring (Wetlands)
Per the approved mitigation plan, a total of fourteen (14) shallow groundwater monitoring wells were
installed throughout Phase Two. Following the completion of stream construction, discharge rates
decreased throughout the site, and static water table depths have remained within 12” of the surface for
extended periods. Of the fourteen (14) wells within Phase Two, all fourteen (14) wells exhibited
hydroperiods greater than 12% (corresponding to 32 consecutive days) of the growing season between
March 7th and November 28th, 2014 (Table 5). The observed mean hydroperiod duration for these wells
was 105 days. During Year 3 (2014), normal to above normal hydrologic conditions persisted throughout
the entire growing season. January and February exhibited normal moisture, March through October were
above normal, November was normal, and December exhibited above normal moisture (based upon NC
DWR Drought Maps). During Year 1 (2012), one (Well#12) of the fourteen wells did not meet the 12%
success criterion. It was believed that in combination with moderate to extreme drought conditions,
readings were being influenced by the material of the former road bed which may have been influencing
lateral groundwater movement. An additional well (Well#12B) was installed outside of the former roadbed
as a comparison for Well#12 (now labeled Well#12A). Both Well#12A and Well#12B exhibited
hydroperiods greater than 12% of the Year 3 growing season. Well#12B exhibited longer hydroperiods than
Well#12A for a second year in a row. These results suggest that underlying road bed material is affecting
groundwater movement in the vicinity of Well#12A.
A summary of these results are provided in Table 5. Complete hydrologic monitoring data are provided in
Appendix C. NC Division of Water Resources Drought maps are provided in Appendix D.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 11
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
Table 5. Summary of 2014 Hydrologic Monitoring (Phase 2)
2014 Growing Season March 7 - November 28
Well Number Community
Type
Total Number of days within
12" (Jan 1 thru Dec 16)
Longest Number Of Consecutive Days
Meeting Wetland
Hydrology Criteria (in growing season)
Dates of Longest Number
of Consecutive Days
Meeting Wetland Hydrology Criteria
Percentage of
Growing
Season
12%
Success
Criteria (32 Days)
>6 -
12.5%
12.5
-
25%
25 -
75% >75%
MS-1 SS 320 120 Aug 1 - Nov 28 44.9% Yes -- -- X --
MS-5 SS 299 84 Sept 6 - Nov 28 31.5% Yes -- -- X --
MS-7 SF 312 148 July 4 - Nov 28 55.4% Yes -- -- X --
MS-8A SF 275 65 Mar 7 - May 10 24.3% Yes -- X -- --
MS-8B SF 350 267 Mar 7 - Nov 28 100.0% Yes -- -- -- X
MS-10 SF 320 141 Jul 11 - Nov 28 52.8% Yes -- -- X --
MS-12A SS 1921 372 Mar 7 - Apr 12 13.9% Yes -- X -- --
MS-12B SS 303 84 Sept 6 - Nov 28 31.5% Yes -- -- X --
MS-17 SS 329 148 Jul 4 - Nov 28 55.4% Yes -- -- X --
NT-2 SS 310 65 Mar 7 - May 10 24.3% Yes -- X -- --
NT-3 SF 308 84 Sept 6 - Nov 28 31.5% Yes -- -- X --
NT-6 SS 260 60 Mar 7 - May 5 22.5% Yes -- X -- --
ST-1 SS 334 148 Jul 4 - Nov 28 55.4% Yes -- -- X --
ST-3 SS 223 60 Mar 7 - May 5 22.5% Yes -- X -- --
ST-4 SF 257 61 Mar 7 - May 6 22.8% Yes -- X -- --
MS = Mainstem 1 - Well MS-12A data thru 12/31
NT = Northern Tributary 2 - Well MS-12A experienced malfunction from 7/31 – 10/22
ST = Southern Tributary
SS = Small Stream
SF = Swamp Forest
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 12
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
3. Stream Monitoring
The primary success criterion for the stream portion of the mitigation bank is identified below:
No less than two bankfull flow events must be documented through the monitoring period. These
events will be documented through the use of well monitoring data and on-site photo
documentation. If less than two bankfull events occur during the first 5 years, monitoring will
continue until the second bankfull event is documented. The bankfull events must occur during
separate monitoring years. In the event that the required bankfull events do not occur during the
five-year monitoring period, the MBRT may determine that further monitoring is not required.
Level 1 Monitoring was implemented for the stream portion of the Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank as
detailed in the Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003. Monitoring will occur every year for the five year
monitoring period.
Level 1 Monitoring includes Sections (a), (b), and (c) listed below.
(a) Photo-Documentation
Photo documentation was implemented during Year 3 for the stream monitoring phase of this project. Site
visits were conducted and photographs were taken within 24 hours of a 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 inch rain event at
each gauge location during Year 3 monitoring. Photographic and video evidence of Ordinary High Water
Mark indicators (OHWM) and flow evidence were also collected. Photos were taken at all permanent
cross-sections and are provided in Appendix E. OHWM indicators are provided in Appendix F. Please refer
to the enclosed CD for video evidence of flow.
(b) Ecological Function
The health of the riparian vegetation was documented as part of the wetland restoration monitoring efforts.
Multiple 0.10 ac. permanent monitoring plots were established throughout the riverine wetland restoration
including areas directly adjacent to the restored channel. Reference the vegetation monitoring section for
monitoring results.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 13
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
Subsequent to communication with the Corps of Engineers Wilmington Regulatory Branch in February
2012, macroinvertebrate sampling will no longer be required as part of the Phase Two monitoring
requirements.
(c) Channel Stability/Survey Procedures
1. Cross-Sections
The Stone Farm Phase Two area has restored 15,338 lf of Coastal Plain stream. The restored channels
mimick low gradient, low velocity stream reaches characteristic of the outer Coastal Plain. No hardened
materials (i.e. rock structures) were used. Rather, natural materials (such as root wads and log vanes)
have assisted with channel stabilization and grade control. Given the size, uniform design, and gentle
slope (0.005) of the project, cross-sections were established every 1,000 feet of stream length (totaling 14
permanent stations). Placement of these stations was designed to assess the performance of potential
problem areas (i.e. severe erosion, structural failure). These stations were also evenly distributed between
riffles and pools throughout the project. Refer to Table 6 for the number of cross-sections and Figure 5 for
the locations of the cross-section monitoring stations. Year 3 cross-section surveys are provided in
Appendix E.
Table 6. Stream Lengths and Number of Cross-Section Stations
Reach Name
Proposed (lf)
Mitigation
Plan
Final Design
Length As-Built Length Cross-sections
Mainstem 8,073 8,609 8,613 8
Northern Tributary 2,668 3,473 3,474 3
Southern Tributary 2,641 3,288 3,251 3
Total Length 13,382 15,370 15,338 14
2. Longitudinal Profiles
Guidelines regarding longitudinal profiles for projects totaling over 3,000 lf suggest that 30% of the area be
surveyed on an annual basis. Based on this guideline, a total of 4,200 lf of profile is required for Phase
Two of the Stone Farm project. The 4,200 lf of survey was divided throughout the individual reaches and
includes the permanent cross-sections (Table 7). Reference the longitudinal surveys in Appendix E in
comparison to as-built conditions.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 14
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
Table 7. Longitudinal Profiles by Stream Reach
1 – “% of Project” refers to stream restoration in Phases 2 & 4. Phase 4 (Hunters Creek) has not yet been implemented and will account for 33.6% of stream
length (see Mitigation Plan).
3. Pebble Counts
Streams in the Stone Farm Phase Two project area are composed of sandy substrates typical in the outer
Coastal plain. Since all sediment falls into the sand category, gravelometer readings were not conducted.
All sediment in the constructed stream beds is less than 2mm and would be placed in the <2mm category
for Wolman pebble count analysis.
4. Stream Flow Monitoring
As indicated above, the 1st-order streams of Phase Two occur within three distinct valleys that connect the
145-acre Carolina bay on the southern portion of the tract to the Little Caw Caw Canal on the north side (a
third order tributary of the Waccamaw River). The three valleys are identified as the mainstem, the
northern tributary, and the southern tributary. A total of 5 gauges were installed in the stream beds to
document the elevations of surface water in the channels on a daily basis. These gauges capture the
upper end of each stream reach (3 gauges in the mainstem, 2 gauges in the northern tributary, and 2
gauges in the southern tributary). Refer to Figure 3 for a map depicting the location of 1st-order gauges.
Indicators of OHWM and video/photo documentation were also used to identify the presence of surface
water flow.
Mainstem (MS):
Surface water and flow was documented in each of the three (3) gauges over several periods during the
monitoring event. The valley exhibits a very gradual slope (0.005%) from the upper end (Carolina bay) to
the lowest end (Little Caw Caw Canal). Gauge MS-1 was placed the furthest up-gradient (second stream
meander from source) in order to capture bankfull events at the head of the restored stream reach.
Guages MS-2 and MS-3 were spaced approximately 1000-ft apart further down the stream. All three
Reach Name Proposed (lf) Final Design Length As-Built Length % of Project1 Profile (lf)
Mainstem 8,073 8,609 8,613 35.6 2,400
Northern Tributary 2,668 3,473 3,474 14.4 900
Southern Tributary 2,641 3,288 3,251 13.4 900
Total Length 13,382 15,370 15,338 63.4 4,200
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 15
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
gauges were placed within the stream segment solely charged by the Carolina bay (Phase One). Refer to
Figure 3 for the gauge locations.
The amplitude of the surface water varied at each gauge. Gauge MS-1 exhibited eight (8) bankfull events
during the monitoring period, while gauges MS-2 and MS-3 recorded fifteen (15) and twenty-one (21)
bankfull events, respectively (Table 8). The gauges exhibited an increase in the duration and amplitude of
flow events during 2014 (Year 3). It should be noted that the duration of the bankfull events at all three
gauges sometimes extended for several days, with the maximum duration being four (4) days for MS-1 and
MS-2 and five (5) days for MS-3 (Table 8). Video and/or photographic evidence of flow was recorded
following rainfall events during the spring and summer over multiple site visits. Flow can be readily seen at
each gauge located within the stream valley. With increasing watershed size (downslope), the duration of
surface flow increased within the valley.
Observed physical indicators of an OHWM within the mainstem consisted of the following: (1) natural line
impressed on the bank; (2) presence of litter and debris; (3) wracking; (4) vegetation matted down, bent, or
absent; (5) sediment sorting; (6) scour; (7) deposition; (8) water staining; (9) and multiple observed flow
events. Photographs of the mainstem are provided in Appendix A. OHWM photographs and physical
indicators are provided in Appendix F. Video evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site
hydrographs.
Northern Tributary (NT):
Surface water and flow was documented in each of the two (2) gauges over several periods during the
monitoring event. Gauge NT-1 was placed the furthest up-gradient in order to capture bankfull events at
the head of the restored stream reach. Gauge NT-2 was placed approximately 1000-ft further down the
stream. Refer to Figure 3 for the gauge locations.
The amplitude of the surface water varied at each gauge. Gauge NT-1 and NT-2 both exhibited sixteen
(16) bankfull events during the monitoring period (Table 8). The gauges exhibited a significant increase in
the duration and amplitude of flow events during 2014 (Year 3). It should be noted that the duration of the
bankfull events at both gauges sometimes extended for several days, with the maximum duration being
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 16
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
seven (7) days for gauge NT-1 and six (6) days for gauge NT-2 (Table 8). Video and/or photographic
evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall events during the spring and summer over multiple site
visits. Flow can be readily seen at each gauge located within the stream valley.
Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within the northern tributary
consisted of the following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) presence of litter and debris; (3)
wracking; (4) vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (5) sediment sorting; (6) scour; (7) deposition; (8)
water staining; (9) and multiple observed flow events. Photographs of the northern tributary are provided in
Appendix A. Ordinary High Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix F.
Video evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.
Southern Tributary (ST):
Surface water and flow was documented in each of the two (2) gauges over several periods during the
monitoring event. Gauge ST-1 was placed the furthest up-gradient in order to capture bankfull events at
the head of the restored stream reach. Gauge ST-2 was placed approximately 1000-ft further down the
stream. Refer to Figure 3 for the gauge locations.
The amplitude of the surface water varied at each gauge. Gauge ST-1 exhibited fourteen (14) bankfull
events during the monitoring period, while gauge ST-2 exhibited twelve (12) bankfull events (Table 8). The
gauges exhibited an increase in the duration and amplitude of flow events during 2014 (Year 3). It should
be noted that the duration of the bankfull events at both gauges sometimes extended for several days, with
the maximum duration being eleven (11) days for ST-1 and six (6) days for ST-2 (Table 8). Video and/or
photographic evidence of flow was recorded following rainfall events during the spring and summer over
multiple site visits. Flow can be readily seen at each gauge located within the stream valley.
OHWM within the southern tributary consisted of the following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2)
presence of litter and debris; (3) wracking; (4) vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (5) sediment
sorting; (6) scour; (7) deposition; (8) water staining; (9) and multiple observed flow events.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 17
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
Table 8. Summary of 2014 Bankfull Event Monitoring (Phase Two)
Gauge Number1 Total Number of Bankfull Events Longest Number of Consecutive Days
During Bankfull Event Dates of Bankfull Event(s)
3-Day Antecedent
Rainfall (Inches)
(On-site Rain gauge)
MS-1 8 4
Mar 7-8 1.98
Mar 22-24 1.85
Mar 29-31 2.17
Aug 1 2.64
Aug 2-6 4.81
Aug 21-23 2.99
Oct 15-16 1.48
Nov 24-27 1.53
MS-2 15 4
Feb 13-14 Aug 10-11 1.05 2.31
Mar 7-9 Aug 20 1.98 1.87
Mar 22-24 Aug 21-24 1.85 2.99
Mar 25-26 Sept 8-9 2.22 1.35
Mar 29-Apr 1 Sept 17 2.17 0.23
Apr 19-21 Oct 15-17 1.23 1.48
Aug 1 Nov 24-28 2.64 1.53
Aug 2-6 - 4.81 -
MS-3 21 5
Feb 12-14 Aug 10-12 0.90 2.31
Feb 15 Aug 20-24 0.71 1.87
Mar 6-10 Sept 8-10 1.59 1.35
Mar 17-20 Sept 14 0.98 0.14
Mar 22-27 Sept 15 1.85 0.27
Mar 28-Apr 2 Sept 17-20 1.23 0.58
Apr 19-22 Sept 24-25 1.23 1.04
Jul 3 Oct 15-17 2.83 1.48
Jul 25 Nov 1 3.11 1.69
Aug 1 Nov 24-29 2.64 1.53
Aug 2-7 - 4.81 -
NT-1 16 7
Mar 7-8 Aug 10 1.98 2.31
Mar 22-26 Aug 10-12 1.85 2.31
Mar 27 Aug 20 0.37 1.87
Mar 28-Apr 2 Aug 21-22 1.23 2.99
Apr 2 Sept 8-9 N/A 1.35
Apr 20 Oct 15-16 1.62 1.48
Jul 25 Nov 1 3.11 1.69
Aug 1-8 Nov 24-29 2.64 1.53
NT-2 16 6
Mar 7 Jul 25 1.98 3.11
Mar 22-24 Aug 1-7 1.85 2.64
Mar 25 Aug 10-12 2.22 2.31
Mar 29-Apr 1 Aug 21 2.17 2.99
Apr 2 Sept 8 N/A 1.35
Apr 19 Oct 15 1.23 1.48
Apr 20 Nov 1 1.62 1.69
Apr 21 Nov 24-28 1.62 1.53
ST-1 14 11
Mar 7 Sept 12-13 1.98 0.04
Mar 23-24 Sept 14-16 1.85 0.14
Mar 29 – Apr 1 Sept 16 2.17 0.27
Aug 1–13 Sept 17-20 2.64 0.23
Aug 20-21 Sept 23-26 1.87 0.67
Aug 21-25 Oct 15-17 2.99 1.48
Sept 8-11 Nov 24-28 1.34 1.53
ST-2 12 6
Mar 23 Sept 8-9 1.85 1.35
Mar 29-30 Sept 17 2.17 0.23
Aug 1-7 Sept 24 2.64 1.04
Aug 8 Oct 15 1.21 1.48
Aug 10-11 Nov 24 2.31 1.53
Aug 21-23 Nov 26 2.99 2.37
1- MS=Mainstem; NT=Northern Tributary; ST=Southern Tributary
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 18
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
Photographs of the southern tributary are provided in Appendix A. OHWM photographs and physical
indicators are provided in Appendix F. Video evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site
hydrographs.
4. Contingency Measures
Stream banks and in-stream structures (i.e. root wads, log vanes, etc.) were monitored for evidence of
surface bank erosion (i.e. down-cutting) subsequent to above normal rainfall and high flow events. Some
down-cutting of the floodplain was noted in areas where surface water in the floodplain flows back into the
stream channel. However, these features have not resulted in any significant deposition within the channel
and do not appear to adversely affect stream function. In fact, these features are common within natural,
unimpaired streams and are evidence of the connectivity between the stream and its floodplain. Most of
the areas in which this has been observed appear to have met a point of equilibrium and have become
increasingly stable with the growth of stream bank vegetation. No re-grading or reinforcement of the
stream banks are recommended at this time.
Grading work conducted during initial project implementation resulted in a discernible increase in
groundwater levels throughout the streams and adjacent small stream swamp and swamp forest
communities. Restoration of the stream channels helped reduce surface water outflows. Upon further site
assessments (including a November 2011 site meeting with the Corps of Engineers Wilmington Regulatory
Branch), it was determined that certain meander bends of the stream needed to be reinforced with
additional root wads in order to provide enhanced bank stability during high flow events. In January 2012,
these additional root wads were installed and coir fiber matting was reinforced in the selected areas per the
recommendation of the USACE.
B. PHASE THREE
Per review and approval by the USACE, a total of eight (8) shallow groundwater monitoring wells were
installed throughout Phase Three. Subsequent to the earthwork, static water table depths gradually rose to
within 12 inches of the soil surface, particularly in response to discrete rain events. Plugging of the main
outlet ditch for this phase reduced the rate of groundwater discharge from the adjacent wetlands. The
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 19
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
observed mean hydroperiod duration for the eight (8) wells was 106 days. Of the eight (8) wells within
Phase Three, all eight (8) wells exhibited hydroperiods greater than 12% (corresponding to 32 consecutive
days) of the growing season between March 7th and November 28th, 2013 (Table 8). It should be noted
that six (6) out of the eight (8) wells observed hydroperiods of greater than 44% of the growing season.
During Year 3 (2014), normal to above normal hydrologic conditions persisted throughout the entire
growing season (refer to Appendix D). The headwater wetlands of the restoration area consist of very
poorly drained soils and lie in a depressional landscape position. These wetlands typically receive
hydrologic input primarily via precipitation. The normal to above normal conditions during the Year 3
monitoring period attributed to increased groundwater levels and duration throughout the growing season.
The patterns of hydrologic response to normal and above-normal precipitation periods during the Year 3
monitoring period indicate that groundwater has been sufficiently recharged throughout the system. The
majority of the wells observed hydroperiods of greater than 44% of the growing season, well above the
12% required for success. A summary of the groundwater monitoring results for Year 3 is provided in
Table 9. Complete hydrologic monitoring data are provided in Appendix C. NC Division of Water
Resources Drought maps are provided in Appendix D.
Outlet channel banks and plugs of Phase 3 were monitored for evidence of surface bank erosion (i.e.
down-cutting) subsequent to above normal rainfall and high flow events. During a November 2013 site
inspection, minor down-cutting was noted around the downstream end of plug 1 in an area where surface
water in the floodplain flows back into the main outlet ditch. However, the plug continues to function in
blocking drainage from up-gradient portions of the site and appears stable (no evidence of recent erosion
even after high flow events). This, in combination with the raised bed elevation of the stream (down-
gradient), reduces discharge to downstream waters. As a result, there has been no discernable adverse
effect to hydrologic function of the restored wetlands. The area will continue to be monitored in 2015 (and
throughout the duration of the hydrologic monitoring) to determine if any contingency measures are needed
at this location.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 20
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
Table 9. Summary of 2014 Hydrologic Monitoring (Swamp Forest - Phase Three)
2014 Growing Season March 7 - November 28
Well Number
Total Number of
days within 12"
(Jan 1 thru Dec 31)
Longest Number Of Consecutive Days Meeting
Wetland Hydrology Criteria
(in growing season)
Dates of Longest Number of
Consecutive Days Meeting
Wetland Hydrology Criteria
Percentage of
Growing
Season
12% Success
Criterion
(32 Days)
>6 -
12.5%
12.5
-
25%
25 -
75% >75%
1 334 127 Jul 25 - Nov 28 47.6% Yes -- -- X --
2 223 127 Jul 25 - Nov 28 47.6% Yes -- -- X --
3 365 120 Aug 1 - Nov 28 44.9% Yes -- -- X --
4 348 120 Aug 1 - Nov 28 44.9% Yes -- -- X --
5 308 61 Mar 7 - May 6 22.8% Yes -- X -- --
6 365 119 Aug 2 - Nov 28 44.6% Yes -- -- X --
7 320 119 Aug 2 - Nov 28 44.6% Yes -- -- X --
8 312 53 Mar 7 - Apr 28 19.9% Yes -- X -- --
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 21
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
5.0 CONCLUSION
The implementation of Phase Two and Three completed an integral component of the watershed
restoration effort of the Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank. Removal of large outlet canals and the re-
contouring of the stream valleys has resulted in the connection of vast headwater wetland areas to the
upper first-order reaches of the Little Caw Caw Canal. There has been a discernible hydrologic response
within the stream valleys and the adjacent riparian wetlands. Vegetation and hydrologic monitoring of the
Phase Two and Three project areas indicate that the site is progressing well during the third year following
a droughty first year post-construction. Overall, the site exhibited a diverse assemblage of characteristic
trees and shrubs. Vegetation data document high rates of survivorship among the planted species ( stem
density = 450 stems per acre). The restoration areas in the swamp forest and small stream swamp
community of Phase Two and Phase Three met and exceeded the target hydrologic criteria. All of the
restoration and enhancement wells met the success criteria, and overall the site has demonstrated
hydroperiods characteristic of the target wetland communities.
No contingency measures are recommended at this time. The restoration site is already providing key
wetland functions by reducing sediment/nutrient runoff; increasing floodwater storage; and re-establishing
wildlife habitat. The site will be continued to be monitored over the next two years (through Year 5), and
the findings of such will be provided in subsequent annual monitoring reports for agency review and
concurrence.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 22
Phase Two and Three – Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report