20180866 Ver 1_ShawsRun_100055_MY3_2023_20240119

FINAL
MY3 (2023) 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 2023
Submission: January 2024
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
N. 1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
Mitigation Services RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
ENV IRON MENTAL QUALITY

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
Response to Monitoring Year 3 (2023) DIMS 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. Pg. 8, Section 2.1: Invertebrate sampling was attempted on June 18, 2023, but was not completed due to
dry stream conditions. Were other attempts made during the sampling window (spring/summer) when
conditions could have been more favorable? Though sampling was not completed, please add the benthic
sampling locations to the CCPV and provide the shapefile.
Since benthic sampling is not tied to success criteria and the monitoring scope does not allow for additional
site visits, additional sampling attempts were not made. Habitat forms were completed on the June 18 site
visit and are included in Appendix F. Benthic sampling locations were added to the CCPV and shapefiles
were added to the digital submittal.
2. Appendix B: Please provide a table with the species and number of supplementally planted stems.
Appendix B has been updated to include a table with the information for the supplementally planted stems.
3. Appendix D, Surface Water Gauge Graphs: For clarity, please include a line on the graphs where bankfull is
located for each gauge.
The surface water gauge graphs have been updated with the bankfull elevation.
4. Appendix D, Figure D1 Rainfall: Please update rainfall data through December.
Figure D1 Rainfall has been updated to reflect rainfall through December. An additional site visit was not
made in December, so data came from the closest Weather Underground station to the Site. December
rainfall will be updated with onsite gauge data in MY4 when the rainfall gauge is downloaded.
5. Appendix D, Evidence of Headwater Channel Formation: It's great that UT1 and UT2 appear to have most
of the channel forming indicators, but only photos were provided for flow and wrack lines. Please update
with additional photos and/or provide photographs for each indicator in future reports.
The channel forming indicators were observed and noted in accordance with IRT guidance, however, we do
not have individual photos for each channel forming indicator this year. In very small stream channels like
these, it is difficult to photo -document channel forming factors individually. We will make our best effort
to better document channel forming indicators in future reports.
Digital Deliverables:
1. The submission is missing the hydrology data and summary tables (groundwater and surface water gauge
tables, graphs, and data); please submit the missing components.
These items have been added to the digital submittal.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

Shaw's Run -- Year 3 (2023) Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• Three small areas of encroachment totaling 0.06 acres were observed from farm scalloping. These
areas have been replanted with 3-gallong containerized species from the approved Site Mitigation
Plan. RS also installed additional wooden posts and PVC pipe with signage and horse tape along
the easement boundary to improve visibility. On -site conversations with the farmer also took place
to ensure encroachment ceases.
• Additional signs were added to ensure signs are in place every 200-feet along the easement.
• For tree mounted signs, steel screws were replaced with aluminum nails.
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., heavy deer browsing, beaver, etc.) observed.
Streams
• All stream restoration reaches were stable and exhibited no signs of erosion, all structures were
stable (Appendix C).
• Three bankfull events were documented with stream loggers across all site streams (Table 12,
Appendix D).
• Streams continue to maintain distinct flow paths and maintain flow for well more than 30
consecutive days (Tables 14A-C, Appendix D).
• In accordance with the monitoring schedule, year 3 (2023) benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
was attempted on June 18, 2023. All stream channels were dry at the time of the site visit, and no
benthics were collected. See the table in Section 2.1 for a summary of benthic macroinvertebrate
results to date. Year 3 (2023) habitat forms are in Appendix F.
• A permanent monumented cross section (XS 11) was added on the upper reach of UT2.
Vegetation
• Measurements of all 7 permanent plots resulted in an average of 497 planted stems/acre with an
average of 5 species per plot. Additionally, all individual plots met success criteria (Appendix B).
• A random transect (25m x 4m) was conducted in year 3 (2023). The transect was short four stems
from meeting the success criteria of 320 stems per acre (Appendix B).
• Invasive vegetation treatments have been effective in reducing populations and currently areas
of invasive vegetation are below the mapping threshold. These areas will continue to be
monitored and treated as needed.
Wetlands
• All groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 3 (2023) monitoring period except
Gauges 1 and 9 (Appendix D). Gauge 1 was installed outside of the credit generating area to
confirm the drainage influence from the Greene Swamp. It had a similar hydroperiod during
Years 1 and 2 (2021 and 2022). Gauge 9 read within 12 inches of the surface for 24 consecutive
days (9.4%) during the growing season before it dropped below forjust 3 days. The gauge read
within the top 12 inches for 11 of the 15 days immediately following the drop. Additionally,
Gauge 9 was damaged late in the year and was replaced at the end of the monitoring period.
Groundwater gauge data is in Appendix D.
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Executive Summary
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
12% Hydroperiod Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2021)
(2022)
(2023)
(2024)
(2025)
(2026)
(2027)
1*
No - 5 days
No — 4 days
No — 5 days
(1.9%)
(1.6%)
(1.9%)
2
No - 15 days
Yes — 53 days
Yes— 63 Days
(5.8%)^
(20.6%)
(24.5%)
3
Yes - 44 days
Yes — 57 days
Yes— 51 Days
(17.1%)
(22.2%)
(19.8%)
4
Yes - 38 days
Yes — 58 days
Yes— 70 Days
(14.8%)
(22.6%)
(27.2%)
5
Yes - 34 days
Yes — 58 days
Yes— 68 Days
(13.2%)
(22.6%)
(26.5%
6
Yes - 52 days
Yes — 59 days
Yes— 71 Days
(20.2%)
(23.0%)
(27.6%)
7
Yes - 36 days
No —11 days
Yes— 50 Days
(14.0%)
(4.3%)
(19.5%)
8
Yes - 38 days
Yes — 54 days
Yes— 50 Days
(14.8%)
(21.0%)
(19.5%)
9
Yes - 37 days
Yes — 53 days
No — 24 Days
(14.4%)
(20.6%)
(9.4%)
* Gauge 1 is not located in a credit generating area.
" Gauge 2 likely would have met success criteria, however, logger failure occurred at the start of the growing
season.
Site Maintenance Report (2023)
Invasive Species Work
Maintenance work
9/30/2023: Easement Encroachment Area
(added horse tape)
5/18/2023: Chinese Privet, Autumn Olive,
12/11/2023: Easement Encroachment Area (3-
Nodding Thistle, Multiflora Rose
gallon container planting)
10/12/23: Chinese Privet, Mimosa, Chinese
12/14/2023: Easement Encroachment Area
Tallow, Chinaberry
(added additional signage, added wooden
posts, added PVC pipe, added horse tape);
Replaced steel screws with aluminum nails
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Executive Summary
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

FINAL
MY3 (2023)
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 2023
Submission: January 2024
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
1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure............................................................................1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Success Criteria................................................................................................................................. 5
2.0 METHODS...................................................................................................................................6
2.1 Monitoring........................................................................................................................................6
3.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................11
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 6A. Planted Bare -Root Woody Vegetation
Table 6B. Planted 3-gallon Woody Vegetation — December 2023 Supplemental Planting
Table 7A. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Table 7B. Temporary Vegetation Plot
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
Table 9. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Appendix C. Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Table 10A-B. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 11. Cross -Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Appendix D. Hydrologic Data
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 13. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Tables 14 A-C. Channel Evidence
Surface Water Gauge Graphs
Figure D1. 30/70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Soil Temperature Graph
Appendix E. Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 15. Project Timeline
Table 16. Project Contacts
Appendix F. Benthic Data
Benthic Habitat Forms
Appendix G. Site Photo Log
Appendix H. Project Notes
IRT Site Visit Notes Nov. 7, 2023
DMS Boundary Inspection Report Nov. 8, 2023
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Table of Contents page i
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site.
1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure
The Shaw's Run Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses 9.44 acres of disturbed
forest and agricultural fields along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Greene Branch. The Site is located
approximately 2 miles west of Chadbourn, NC, south of NC Highway 76 in Columbus County.
Before construction, Site land use consisted of agricultural row crops and disturbed forest. Row crop
production extended to, and abutted, ditched stream margins. Herbaceous vegetation and a few shrubby
species grew within the ditches, which were regularly maintained by bush hogging and herbicide
application. As the ditch descended the valley towards Greene Branch, soils changed from the Goldsboro
and Lynchburg soil series (moderately well and somewhat poorly drained) to the Muckalee soil series
(poorly drained), and disturbed forest vegetation became more prevalent along stream margins and
floodplains. Stream channels were cleared, dredged and straightened, plowed annually for row crops,
eroded vertically and laterally, and received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from agriculture
chemicals and sediment. The entire stream channel was ditched and cleared of vegetation which
contributed to sediment export from the Site. In addition, stream -side wetlands were cleared and drained
by channel downcutting, drain tile installation, and adjacent land uses. Preconstruction Site conditions
resulted in degraded water quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention,
and unstable channel characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an increase
in erosive forces to channel bed and banks). Site restoration activities restored riffle -pool morphology,
aided in energy dissipation, increased aquatic habitat, stabilized channel banks, and greatly reduced
sediment loss from channel banks.
Proposed Site restoration activities generated 2285.000 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 5.862
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs) as described in Table 1.
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Planting 7.7 acres of the Site with 8300 stems (planted species are included in Table 6, Appendix
B).
Deviations from the construction plans included the following.
• The easement was updated from the construction plans. Construction plans had an older
easement that was not the proper (recorded) easement boundary.
• Woody material was placed in the channel riffles.
• Several log cross vanes were not installed due to Site conditions, including low slope causing the
vanes to not be necessary. Log vanes removed from the project include stations 0+30, 7+20, 7+85,
and 9+10 along UT1, and stations 0+30, 0+80, 1+10, 1+75, 2+05, 2+40, and 4+05 along UT2.
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) page 1
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

r
c
N
E
E
O
V
Qi O O W O W
V m N V1 O Ln
M N
O_ ~ O O O
c a+ X O O mO O N
.40 40
Y m Q
UI
i+ c
-a — O
m y
c
CJ 40 N ) C C O d
� � N
m
Im
C C Y O E E
3 1 W y ro ro rC �
cr O
C
O
m
y
u N N M
++ m \ •--� Co Ln W O
i
C M Li O
U Q
R
O
a c
o
1!1 c m C u Co N M
'
N m ti Co 00 O
G O. ii ti "' �n o
0 O
a -I
C
3
D:
YI
3 �
CWC
t C
N y CG W
m 0 cy N
� N N
H a in >
0
a
r�o
i
ro
O
O
O
O
O
U O�
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
z
0
0
0
0
O
O
_C
ro
ro
O
O
N
W
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
CG
O
O
O
O
O
U
O
O
O
O
N
O
0
O
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
Q
U
O
O
O
O
E
0
o
o
0
0
�
00
�
o
0
0
N
N
�
>
a)
a)—
E
c
—
C
C
O
C
O
Q
N
C
N
E
C
N
E
E'E'
Q
-
N
O
O
N
o
—
4
V
O
V
O
V
O
Q
> N
N
N
�
f0
L
f0
L
f0
L
f0
L
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
CG
CG
CG
CG
w
w
w
U
d
O
O
O
O
O
O
W
Ln
O
O
O
O
O
O

Site design was completed in March 2019. Construction started on March 13, 2020, and ended within a
final walkthrough on June 25, 2020. The Site was planted on December 20, 2020. Completed project
activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts are summarized in Tables 15-16 (Appendix
Q.
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).
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) page 3
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

r 3
v
0 t
3
v
t
r 3
v
0t30
r 3
v
n
E
.v. on
n
E
.v. on
n
E
.v. on
n
v E
.v
. on
v
-
o W 0�2
m CD
v W W OD
.. ,.
w
v
w
.. 3
w
v 0
E v -O o
v +l
v 0
v E -O o
a v .'
v 0
E
v
L 0
v
m v m m
W p_ Ul
w m
W v
'^
r r T
v r r T
r r T
r T
L
Wa+ a+ I�
Y Y n
L
Y Y n
W L
♦+ I�
vmmi
'3 v w
-O w w v
'3 v
-O w- '3 v w
w fl-u ° �o�
v o m °
tea- nwo
w°
fl-� ° �o
° 8 u
�a w o V o-o
u u °
c 3 v Y v
E o 3 v°
3 v Y o
E o v v
N O L L
- p - OD Ul
W N m O L
j K - OD
o
O L L
- p - OD
W L L
O
4
v--o -L E
-o > 3-
v o o ,� ,�
w o m w
v ,�
E o n °' o m
v o m
E v w o o w
w o= 3° n n
on w o
0 w °D m= n n
`-' 3° n n
'� m y
o m y o
R
N
p m v
- O a+
O E> O v
0 0 v
u O- N L O
T -o O ry j v
v
- O
j O 4 v
v
u 0 ._ O w Y
N -o O m y
O W °
'^ `� E v
W O 0 v
O �n O
N
VI
I U�1 c 0
O] 0 K > m V
• • • • • •
= w c
V> m V CC > m
• • • • • • •
c
w > m
• • •
U�1 c 0
V> > m V
• • • • •
3
0
-
c
w
v
'o
3
0
-
c
`v4T
0
w
o 'o W
E
n
M.
,�
`v
0
v w
O Ul
w v v
o
m`o
v v
a
o v w
o � `o
_
I
m w
E
v
v
o w
m E
v
p
> >
m
°
E
> >
wUl vmi
E o
lw m '^
E E o
am+ v
U,
`-' W vmi am+
c
- v" $
=p v 4Z
o
m $ o
'O W m
E '
- v O
c T
a
° 'o c
v '
OO r 0 -wv
:: r
w
OD
0 w
-O O Ul
-O
Q
t o
m o
E
y0 = L
3
O
�-
p 0 m
r
3 o ••
m m° 3
n
° v
v v
a ;° w v Y
w ••
v w m 3 v
v a?
°
v - F. >
w -
m 0
r _o
o L
W o_ `
- E o m -o
o O
vT
c n w m
O
p- Q Q
o -o
Q v Q
o 'c
v
v Q tYi > p
- 'E � o E
v Q 'O tYi
a � 3 o m
C� >, O U
Y >,
L >, E
Y T C O
o
3 E fl- _"
o o
Lp
o
E o v
o w
N
v W p_ v
4bm=
V
o o o
M- 4t
4b 4bO_ Ul o
o T W 0
o m a o 0
o w o
0 0 o a
w Y v
rc _ a rc
o O Ul
o a o m rc
a
O
• • • • •
• • • •
• • • •
• • • • •
v
N o
m
in c
`v
w
o v 3
c
a
n E
a
E
o°o w '.°- E
3 r
c v v
v
oo 3
E v
« w°
w
_wE-
o v v
p X
v a c
v" '^
o
E E v
m v
o
o
10
Q E c°
_m
O
W
Q
o4TW
=
w
m
N
L
O
o
o
v
o
_
C
Y
m
V
O
W
w
-
m
m
`
O_
m
o O
Y
`p
r
>
mw
O
W
_-
o
Y
O
N 4b
C
Y
O
LL
W
c
CC
O
v
N am+
N
E
W
r
Q
Q
OD
~
=�
L
L
_
_
v
OD
- L E
U`
O
o
v
o
o
42
w
w a
N
O
E
7
cr
a
v'
O
a
w a
=
E
v
,-vo_
T
T
v
o
> o
a o
LL
v
°
°
O
E
E
W
E
m o
>
w
N°
3�
N
~
a
v
Q
v
'O
m
W
'O
=
o
v o
N
a
-�
_
N
-� v
2

1.3 Success Criteria
Project success criteria have been established per the October 24, 2016, NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Monitoring and success
criteria relate to project goals and objectives. From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and
objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct measurement.
Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving success criteria. The following
table summarizes Site success criteria.
Success Criteria
Streams
•
All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
•
Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
•
Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
•
Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be no less than 2.2 at any measured riffle cross-section.
•
BHR and ER at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline condition
during any given monitoring period.
•
The stream project shall remain stable, and all other performance standards shall be met through four
separate bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring years 1-7.
Wetland Hydrology
•
Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 12 percent of the
growing season, during average climatic conditions
Vegetation
•
Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum
of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at
year 7.
•
Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
•
Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the
site; natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case basis.
Visual Assessment
•
Photographs at vegetation plots and cross -sections should illustrate the Site's vegetative and morphological
stability on an annual basis, including no excessive erosion or degradation on the channel banks, no mid -
channel bars, or vertical incision. In addition, grade control structures should remain stable.
Note: BHR will be calculated using procedures outlined in the latest approved guidance from NCDMS.
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 1000585) page 5
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

2.0 METHODS
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 1 of each
monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.
Monitoring Schedule
Resource
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Streams
X
X
X
X
X
Wetlands
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vegetation
X
X
X
X
X
Macroinvertebrates
X
X
X
Visual Assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Report Submittal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Visual Assessment will be complemented by permanent photographic points located at each permanent cross-
section and vegetation plot.
2.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table.
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 1000585) page 6
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

R
E
Ln
ao
C
�L
O
r_
O
3
N
C
a-+
°-
O
O
--
C
N N
(a (a aI
(a O
u -1 O
4!
4!
i>
a
C
O i E
v
O i (a E
C
(a
ca
��
N U
G
La
'°
°CC
�
+
u
L
L
OO°
>
O
O
p
O
_vu
O
viy
a
N
E
CL
>
OG
0
Q ro
0
u n3
N>
O
N
a
-0N
u
u
> m m
—
d
fl
d
c
n3
n3
o
a� 3
s
c
a .�
a o
c
aE
N
c�
u
3 a
m
m
Q
v
Q-0 w m
c�
� O
c�
a0
m
Q
Q
�
Q
a
X
m
a Q N C
it
m
m
m
4J O
3
m
v
v
U
C
�% U p ate+
-,
i•+
m
(a (a
v W v
a+
m
L
G
(7
(7
C t
(7
v
= a
G
Q C N a`
G
N
° C
3
3
3 -_ ° i
a0
O
a
u
W W
a,
a,
a>i
3 0
3
u
a,
a o
� E o
° ° o C
vI
L
3
3
N
N 7 'L
E to
iI
to
to
cr
CD
C
C
a1
C
aI -6 ° C (a
l)
C
C
°
C
E °�°
~
~
C
— N
a a + u
u
�°
UO N
a1
t
u
v
u C
t
u
�
O
O
t
u
3 a, t
o
y
N
O
aI
a)
C
N
a
N
N
ui
L
(a
0)N
U
m
0)
N
o
F
F
0)++
m -0a)
v x 'o C u
°
3
m
W
UO
0
(DU
a -°
C
O
°
E U
£
Z
a)
O
aI
O
O
�1) t
Z
ZO
w°
a0
N
N
76
aI
0)aI
>
O - aI �
0
u
i
Q
F
Q
C
L
L
Q
c-I L O-
ice+
Oi
L
O
7
N z F
N
E
N
ar
N
i
E
E
m
m
L
bn
bn
ZZ 0)
a
U`(nE
X00
T
m
�
L-0Ln a
r
vN
�
t
Yu�
m
ny
o
n
c
2
yi
s
to —
y
M
1%
L
Q
Q
}
-0
E
L
W
a0
W
U
>C 0)yw
>
>M
LL
G1
N
m
(a
UC
UC
C
O W z
+-
N
O
M
LL
c-I
C is
}
}
p
p
=03 p
U v
M-
(3) c-I
7
N
i
7
O O
O O
C O
i Q
N
ci' L u
G1
a1
}
U
3
ami
E-
E
0 E
^
O p v o
u
W
H
}
—
—
u C '— a
v n3
'n
=3 o
o
of
Q
O
O
v o>
d °
Q
} a0
N
V
u
Q
a a
j .o
n3
n3
c = °
N v a
>
u 4!
u w
to u L
O ti a, O
N N O
>
N
O
L E
L E
C
a
C N O
N
N
° C
3
N
N
C
C
U
U
0)
7 U
7 U
N
-°
-° U .� K
O
=
im —
Q to
s
N
—
ago
w
L
40 �
°q
L p
o a a a
o
U
N
o
n3
N a
N
N
U
O D
.0
O D�
aI i Z
N
N
n3 E Q J
ca
-O -0O
C
_0
C
- N
o
6
�
�
O
O C
E m
O C
E m
a
i-
O o, L
t o
a, o
> 3 "�
p
W
W
ao, c
E
3
+
7
w
U
O 7
O 7
N
E a7 O i
U'
C O o M
O
Q
� m�
—
— m
%
z p H j
o�
(a a,
E`ya�
0
0
a
a,
V
U
� a, a
Cf
a u W
a
0 Q
W
O
O
v
OL
>
U v
'6 E
O C
a
E
vI
>
LU
C L
m N
aI
s E o
m
E
�
a
=
5
aI >
m
v
m
v
>
L
C
fY]
L
m0.
(a
L
CIO N
a
L1
to
C
to
C
a
E
N
a
>
In
L
(j
U
m
aI
K
++
N
Cn
c
2
aI
3
ca
n u N
a
L C3
tn C3
_
0
2
cc

Stream Summary
All streams are functioning as designed, and no stream areas of concern were observed during Year 3
(2023) 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. At the request of the IRT, an
additional cross-section, cross-section 11, was added in the upper reach of UT2 to monitor aggradation in
this reach. None was observed during Year 3 (2023). Stream morphology data is available in Appendix C.
Visual assessment data is available in Appendix A, Tables 4A-13.
In accordance with the monitoring schedule, year 3 (2023) benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was
attempted on June 18, 2023. All stream channels were dry at the time of the site visit, and no benthics
were collected. See the table below for a summary of benthic macroinvertebrate results to date. Year 3
(2023) habitat forms are in Appendix F.
Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data by Year
Preconstruction
I Year 3 (2023)*
Year 5 (2025)
Year 7 (2027)
Sampling
# EPT
Biotic
Habitat
# EPT
Biotic
Habitat
# EPT
Biotic
Habitat
# EPT
Biotic
Habitat
Station
Taxa
Index
Score
Taxa
Index
Score
Taxa
Index
Score
Taxa
Index
Score
UT-1
0
9.24
33
NA
NA
81
UT-2
0
8.78
48
NA
NA
78
*All reaches were dry at time of benthic collection. No samples were collected.
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)
(257 days)
2023
March 1, 2023A
March 1-November 12
31 days
(Year 3)
(257 days)
*Based on observed/documented bud burst on the Site on March 1, 2022, and soil temperature of 53.9°F.
^ Based on observed/documented bud burst on the Site on March 1, 2023, and soil temperature of 60.03°F.
All groundwater gauges met success criteria for the Year 3 (2023) monitoring period except Gauges 1 and
9 (Appendix D). Gauge 1 was installed outside of the credit generating area to confirm the drainage
influence from the Greene Swamp. It had a similar hydroperiod during Years 1 and 2 (2021 and 2022).
Gauge 9 read within 12 inches of the surface for 24 consecutive days (9.4%) during the growing season
before it dropped below for just 3 days. The gauge read within the top 12 inches for 11 of the 15 days
immediately following the drop. Additionally, Gauge 9 was damaged late in the year and was replaced at
the end of the monitoring period. Groundwater gauge data is in Appendix D.
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) page 8
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

Vegetation Summary
Year 3 (2023) vegetation measurements occurred on August 23, 2023, with another visit to collect
additional visual and transect data in November. 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 497 planted stems/acre, 5.1 species per plot, and an average height of 4.7 feet. All individual plots met
success criteria (Tables 7-8, Appendix B). In Plot 3, the dominant species composition exceeded 50% for
bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). In reference forests, it is very common to have dense stands of cypress
and its density in this plot is an outlier. Sitewide vegetation is excellent and representative of the targeted
forest type.
At the request of the IRT, a transect was completed in the vicinity of the onsite rain gauge. This area is
dominated by very dense southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis), and just downslope towards the floodplain
vegetation is comprised of dense herbaceous obligate wetland species. The transect that was completed
indicated an average stem density of 162 stem/acre with an average height of 5.1 feet. The trees were
vigorous and are unlikely to be affected by the dense population of dewberry. This area will continue to
be monitored and the next evaluation will occur in the spring while the dewberry is dormant to determine
if additional trees are present. Containerized trees may be added if deemed necessary. Species
composition throughout the site will continue to be monitored during 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.
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) page 9
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 3. Project Attribute Table
Project Name
Shaw's Run
County
Columbus County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
9.44
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude decimal degrees)
34.31932N, 78.8666 °W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Lumber
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03040203
DWR Sub -basin
03-07-51
Project Drainage Area (acres)
106
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<2%
Land Use Classification
Cultivated & Other Broadleaf Deciduous Forest
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT 1
UT 2
Reach 3
Pre -project length (feet)
1474
283
Post -project (feet)
1912
366
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Alluvial, moderately confined to unconfined
Drainage area (acres)
106.5
24.6
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial/Intermitternt
Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C, Sw
Dominant Stream Classification (existing)
G5/6
F5/6
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed)
E/C5
E/C5
Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) if applicable
III/IV
III/IV
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland R
Wetland E
Wetland 3
Pre-project(acres)
0
0.103
Post -project (acres)
5.852
0.103
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian)
Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Muckalee
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
JD Package (App D)
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
JD Package (App D)
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
CE Document (App E)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
CE Document (App E)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
NA
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
NA

3.0 REFERENCES
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%20Quality/Environmental%2OSciences/BAU/NCDWRMacroin
vertebrate-SOP-Februarv%202016 final.adf
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
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) page 11
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

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
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 4A. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 1
Assessed Stream Length 1912 Survey Date: August 23, 2023
Assessed Bank Length 3824
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%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
Structure Grade Control
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 ofgrade 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

Y
c m
a (D
o
o
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
u
O Q
O
O O
o
O
a
N ba
c
:av
`u
o
o
0 CD 0
0
0
0
0
E
00 Q
0
o
m
c o
v
v
v
Q L
V
V
V
F
ti
�
p
ti
O
O
F
O
W
Y
CN
E
V
U1
`u
C
7
O
u
�
m
c
t0
N
E
cu
V
c
}
C
E
E
O
N
v
u
u
d
}
0
w
c
O
0
L
m
E
N
v
o
-0
V
to
�
O
�
c
N
u
u
o
—
E
N
-Cc
m
O
T
O
Lhp
O
Oo
3
L
0
—>
N
L
to
U
u
N
>
O
N
>
O
u
c
cu
L
3
c
°
v
v
v
c
—
c
o
00
C
>
N
f0
Q
T
a
O
7D
OJ
�
3
0
V
c
N
0
O
O
O
o
E
a
W
v
Q
N
N
O
w
>
m
3
v
v
£
(u
o
v
m (U
4
0
w u
o
c
Q
�
O
�
a
E
u
N0
(UO
c U
o
u
s w
o
c
w
CD
O
00 Q
m
c o
v
u
cu
c
O ^
O
H
O
0 a
C U 0_
O
U
N
m >
m v
O
u U ,N
•O
u v ucu
u v
v vtb
'^
a
N E v
w ,c m
0 CO
O
wOcu
u ,v
v 0 •�
= E -o
cuO 7
U
L T E
0 a
— U E
V
O
3 v O
v 0 -o
CL cu f0
0 0 on
a E cu
O •�
f0 L L
E
c 'X
u o
O C N N
N N p E
0 E
L O N
�O N C
CL
o
a0 cu
v •3
7 O
r E m
c L Q
v
m u N
LEO c
3
3 cu 'E a
C C >
'O
o 'u N
c U
w v
O
° E
o
m y v
v u �
M y
m v
-0 u O cuO
O
c E -0O
lu
c
'O
O �
f0 CO 0
Q N t L
v
U1 U1 L
c n
— c C
w o
o C>
o
o
O -
c E
CO L
u
v m
a
00E c c
.� O
N '� O
,
0
U u
7 E m
u cu
E
O m in E
N
o
c a u
c
E v 0 c
v
E uo
c
v 3 o
u .2 `m
c
b0
u c c
O •� u
C
v
c rho > .�
w v > r`o
f0
L
c
Q
cu
u
N
i
O
u
u
w
N
O
O
V
u
�
v
W
O
Q
>
N
E
>
c
w

Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
MY-03 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
2023 Year 3 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 6A. Planted Bare -Root Woody Vegetation
Table 6B. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation — December 2023 Supplemental Planting
Table 7A. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Table 7B. Temporary Vegetation Plot
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
Table 9. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Show's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 6A. 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
Table 6B. Planted Woody Vegetation — December 2023 Supplemental Planting
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Species
Total (Count/%)
Acres
0.06
Size
Liriodendron tulipifera
5 (20%)
1 gallon
1 (4%)
3 gallon
Platanus occidentalis
7 (28%)
3 gallon
Quercus nigra
6 (24%)
3 gallon
Quercus phellos
6 (24%)
3 gallon
TOTALS
25 (100%)
Average Stems/Acre
417
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055)
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Columbus County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
January 2024

Table 7A. Planted Vegetation Totals
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Plot #
Planted Stems/Acre
Success Criteria Met?
1
486
Yes
2
445
Yes
3
607
Yes
4
405
Yes
5
445
Yes
6
607
Yes
7
486
Yes
Average Planted Stems/Acre
497
Yes
Table 7B. Temporary Vegetation Plots
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Species
25m x 4m Temporary
Plots
T-1
Froxinus pennsylvonico
1
Quercus phellos
2
Quercus sp.
1
Total Stems
4
Total Stems/Acre
162
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Show's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

§
NINE��������
111111
IIIIIIIII
INS
IIIIII
IN
���
III
.NINE
IIIII
I go
�
IIIIII
ON
11
I
III
o
o

a
d
o
a
a
a
m
m
m
o.
in
N
in
n
N
N
LL
M
tt
LL
b
#
O
O
a
a
x
Q
Q
Q
�
Q
\
n
n
n
n
\
n
w
o
a
N
a
VI
a
a
c
c
H
a
a
C
CC
Q
�
N
N
a
OJ
Ol
Ol
Ol
LL
N
LL
N
�
O
O
-a
n
>
y
Q
a
C
16
O
N
E
a
o
o
ro
E
�
in
v1pi
�
a
a
a
N
VI
O
w
>
>
>
H
a
a
a
N
N
N
LL
LL
LL
0
0
0
a
a
a
x
>
>
>
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
a
a
a
v
}
m
v
.
m
v
.
m
v
m
v
m
v
m
v
m
v
m
v
m
v
m
v
m
v
m
v
m
v
m
v
m
v
m
v
m
v
m
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

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
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Show's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

®
»
' _1.
\
/
}
\
2\
�
�(\
�)� §
)§\\\)
==�rz
2 §
\
\
/
/
RggR
/00000000000
)§§)
!/!)/
�
|
|
|
|
�
k
�
|
ƒ
�
�
\
�
\
|
�
|
�
|
k
k
�
.
|
|
|
|
|
.
_
md���

r
°:
9
G�
G
F
CD
0
0
1a o
= o
a
N
C
00 14,
p
a
y
L
OW A
R y
L
�
A
C
o
A
�
�
o
CC
01
F
a
a
a
I I I
1 1 I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_
0
�
a
1
N
i
�
�
w
V]
o0
l-
l-
l-
00
00
00
N
l�
�
�
00
00
00
00
00
00
�

U
W
i
kCOO
F
r i
CA
cq
0
0
�o
a
x�� o
p
� a �
OW OW
L A
W r O
r
R y
NN�N�N
0
�
s
��oo�Haaa
0
�
N
m
I I I
j
i
I
'
^^0
ICI
M
�
�
�
w
H
O
a
0
(�aa%) uoi�nnaj�
�
00
0o
N
�
N
7
r
0
00
N
N
N
y
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
L�
C.
O
o?
o0
0
7

U
W
F
_
0
0
0
0
OW
ow z
In
N
m a I
OW
r
'ria � yC W A W
MM�M��
0
�
s
A
�
�
CC
CC
oa
x
O
CIO
O
00
�
N
N
y
G\
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
W
M
00
7
N
o0
M
O
�D
vi
r
o0
i0
O
V
\J�
0
N
1
c
a
1 c
c
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�
1
1
�
1
1
G
v�
'
rl
C
a
1
�
V]
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
(�aa%) uoi�nnaj�

t
�
&
/
(�
\
.(
2)
�)� §
==krz
2 /
�5ke�
k)q)k)
/
9
d
a
a
a
J■
;
|
i
S
|
/
|
�
|
«
q
|
ƒ
�
|
�
k
.
\
�
J
|
|
|
|
|
,
|
md�,�a
�
)
\
\
\
\
\
\
§
§
§
§
gf»@�
§
§
§
§
7
Q
E
rfrgormKemKeK6
r�
a
s
s=
m
m=
a
4

�._
.
.
• ».§d`�.-.
�
/
|
Cl
\�
\
§
)§\\\)
==�rz
2
/
/Rke�
})q)k)
m
2
a
/
©m
\
2
=
4
<
4
/
)
\
\
_
%)
/
9
a
a
a
Q
Q\
|
|
|
|
_
§
|
|
|
»
�
�
\
�
|
\
|
�
�
|
.
\
�
|
J
of±
}
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
/
7
7
Q
2m�=moo=��mA�em
}
4¥
w
a
r
r
r0
a
s
s
m=
e

\
_
�
\
�
.
a
rZ,
a
�
�
\
Q
5�
�
k
k
2
\
.(
2)
o
«
§ j /
z
z
C-0 C-0
==krz
2 /
�5ke�
k)q)k)
/
�
\)
9
d
a
a
a
J■
'
f
R
e
m»
m
m»@
f
R
M
7
7
7
7
7&&&
t&&&&
Q
2
of�=�g��66A
|
|
�
i
|
�
�
�
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
�
|
�

� �\\
\
)
< %
CD
CD
\�
(\
�)� §
§\\\)
=�rz
2 OW/Rke�
})q)k)
9»
%
/
K
9
g
g
/
�
I
9
a
a
a
Q
Q\
\
\
\
/
/
/
Q
�
efe=f/AmQ22
III
|
|
|
§
�
|
3
6
e
�
�
\
�
|
§
|
�
|�
\
I
m6�,� e

IL
w
--
F
r
O
O
O
O
1� O
= o
�J.
iTa
�
y
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
W
•11
00
00
a1
a1
�
7
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
O
1
1
�
1
1
w
m
N
'
1
o
ti
F
�
1
1
0
h
O
�
a
'
CC
�
I
II
O
(�aa%) uoi�l7naj�

w
F
A
0
0
0
M
O
�y" O
9 ^"
N
� y
� � L
A
v�3�CwAw
�a
sue.
�
A
c
o
A
�
h
W
�bA
W
y
O
�Ar
�
CC
CC
oa
O
N
O
O
N
M
7
l-
00
V
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
y
G\
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
1
1
1
1
1
c
1
i
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
C.
1
i
1
0
�
1
1
�
�
1
0
�
1
1
�
N
F
1
1
1
�
1
C
1
�
1
�
1
1
es
�
�
1
1
1
1
it
1
1
1
1
O
(�aa%) uopnnajg

�
2
.
`3yJ
\
»t
\
)
.@
)
/
)
\
]
\
CA
§
/
}
a
r
j
24
�4
r
g
==�rz
2 /
Rke�
})q)k)
9=
f
9
z
g
/
9
a
a
a
Q
Q\
! 2
) (
|
�.
|
|
©
|
|
|
|
|
�
|
k
�
�
J
|
6
�
|
#
/
.
\
�
�
�
5
i�
k
k
2
�
|
�
|
|
|
|
|
�
md���
�»freeR9�@@00@f»9@@@@g
/
�
6#eAAm
)j22}/\\/§d\\\\=aee3

Table 10A. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Shaw's Run - UT 1
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition (applicaple)
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Riffle Only
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 (applicaple)
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Riffle Only
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

!! §\o / )
o
}
\
\\\\\
\
\\
o
\�\ j\
A
to
}\
}
zo
\}.\\m
0-
}
\\
}}\\\}
—
«{;;E2 ! go
);! !;f §\
o
i !$
k
;
-
Elo
-
;
m
§
\
-
]
_ -
\a\\|§\E\\
�
\ \}
\}\\}}I
\}_\\\\
/)
—_ - \ba
)!}
}
\\k
\
)o
\]!]®
)[!!/!)�\[r2\
))!§)!!)
;
§5)§!§
o

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
Soil Temperature Graph
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

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.
A bankfull event was documented on UT1 upstream by
March 26-27, 2023
March 27, 2023
stream gauge evidence and by trail camera on March 27,
4
2023 after 1.88 inches of rain fell on March 26, 2023.
A bankfull event was documented on UT1 and UT2 by
June 18-22, 2023
June 22, 2023
stream gauge evidence after the onsite rain gauge
-
captured 2.69 inches of rain in the 5 total prior days.
Stream gauge data shows a bankfull event occurred on
August 25-31, 2023
August 31, 2023
August 31, 2023 after the onsite rain gauge captured 8.48
5
inches of rain in the 2 days prior to the event.
Photo 1: Bankfull event documented on UT 1
downstream after 3.02" of rain fell on February 18, 2021
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

My3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055)
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Columbus County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
January 2024

Table 13. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
12% Hydroperiod Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4 (2024)
Year 5 (2025)
Year 6 (2026)
Year 7 (2027)
(2021)
(2022)
(2023)
1*
No - 5 days
No — 4 days
No — 5 days
(1.9%)
(1.6%)
(1.9%)
2
No - 15 days
Yes — 53 days
Yes— 63 Days
(5.8%)^
(20.6%)
(24.5%)
3
Yes - 44 days
Yes — 57 days
Yes— 51 Days
(17.1%)
(22.2%)
(19.8%)
4
Yes - 38 days
Yes — 58 days
Yes— 70 Days
(14.8%)
(22.6%)
(27.2%)
5
Yes - 34 days
Yes — 58 days
Yes— 68 Days
(13.2%)
(22.6%)
(26.5%
6
Yes - 52 days
Yes — 59 days
Yes— 71 Days
(20.2%)
(23.0%)
(27.6%)
7
Yes - 36 days
No —11 days
Yes— 50 Days
(14.0%)
(4.3%)
(19.5%)
8
Yes - 38 days
Yes — 45 days
Yes— 50 Days
(14.8%)
(17.5%)
(19.5%)
9
Yes - 37 days
Yes — 45 days
No — 24 Days
(14.4%)
(17.5%)
(9.4%)
* Gauge 1 is not located in a credit generating area.
" Gauge 2 likely would have met success criteria, however, logger failure occurred at the start of the growing
season.
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

(ui) s;unowy Ile}uiea
Cson
moor
11!
N O w 0 �* N O N -tt 0 w O N zt 0 w O N -tt 0 w O
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N M
(ui) lanai ja;empunojg
11/17/23
11/7/23
10/28/23
10/18/23
10/8/23
9/28/23
9/18/23
9/8/23
8/29/23
8/19/23
8/9/23
7/30/23
7/20/23
7/10/23
6/30/23
6/20/23
6/10/23
5/31/23
5/21/23
5/11/23
5/1/23
4/21/23
4/11/23
4/1/23
3/22/23
3/12/23
3/2/23
2/20/23
2/10/23
1/31/23
1/21/23
1/11/23
1/1/23

(ui) s;unowy lle}uiea
i
IliNAM
MOW�1
1�
moor
111plIMMOMME
OMEN
ME
HE
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N M
(ui) lanai jazempunojg
11/17/23
11/7/23
10/28/23
10/18/23
10/8/23
9/28/23
9/18/23
9/8/23
8/29/23
8/19/23
8/9/23
7/30/23
7/20/23
7/10/23
6/30/23
6/20/23
6/10/23
5/31/23
5/21/23
5/11/23
5/1/23
4/21/23
4/11/23
4/1/23
3/22/23
3/12/23
3/2/23
2/20/23
2/10/23
1/31/23
1/21/23
1/11/23
1/1/23

V,
(ui) slunowd pe}uieb
. 'limp—
I
==•�
■
_-
9
ONE
-�
ft.._o
imm
a�
Zan
moor
.
J
IRE
N O o0 l0 � N O N � l0 00 O N � l0 00 O N � l0 00 O
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N M
(ui) lanai jazempunojg
11/17/23
'11/7/23
10/28/23
10/18/23
10/8/23
9/28/23
9/18/23
9/8/23
8/29/23
8/19/23
8/9/23
7/30/23
7/20/23
7/10/23
6/30/23
6/20/23
6/10/23
5/31/23
5/21/23
5/11/23
5/1/23
4/21/23
4/11/23
4/1/23
3/22/23
3/12/23
3/2/23
2/20/23
2/10/23
1/31/23
1/21/23
1/11/23
1/1/23

(ul) s}unowy Ilejulem
■
—gig
WOMEN
_
____...�■i
■■■I!
_
..
r
N O 00 l0 � N O N � l0 00 O N � l0 00 O N � l0 00 O
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N M
(ul) lanai aa;empunoig
11/17/23
11/7/23
10/28/23
10/18/23
10/8/23
9/28/23
9/18/23
9/8/23
8/29/23
8/19/23
8/9/23
7/30/23
7/20/23
7/10/23
6/30/23
6/20/23
6/10/23
5/31/23
5/21/23
5/11/23
5/1/23
4/21/23
4/11/23
4/1/23
3/22/23
3/12/23
3/2/23
2/20/23
2/10/23
1/31/23
1/21/23
1/11/23
1/1/23

(ul) s;unowv Ile;u!ea
■■■.-=M'■■■■■
■
moor
1
11/17/23
11/7/23
10/28/23
10/18/23
10/8/23
9/28/23
9/18/23
9/8/23
8/29/23
8/19/23
8/9/23
7/30/23
7/20/23
7/10/23
6/30/23
6/20/23
6/10/23
5/31/23
5/21/23
5/11/23
5/1/23
4/21/23
4/11/23
4/1/23
3/22/23
3/12/23
3/2/23
2/20/23
2/10/23
1/31/23
1/21/23
1/11/23
1/1/23
N O W 0 �* N O N � 0 w O N � 0 w O N � 0 w O
ci IH 1i 1i 1i 1i 1i N N N N N M
(ul) lanaj Ja;eMpunoJg

(ul) s;unowy Ile;u!ea
looms
11
■■■■MUNNOMM-M"
■�■
w
___
ion
l
I
C
■■■i!
Fm
11/17/23
11/7/23
10/28/23
10/18/23
10/8/23
9/28/23
9/18/23
9/8/23
8/29/23
8/19/23
8/9/23
7/30/23
7/20/23
7/10/23
6/30/23
6/20/23
6/10/23
5/31/23
5/21/23
5/11/23
5/1/23
4/21/23
4/11/23
4/1/23
3/22/23
3/12/23
3/2/23
2/20/23
2/10/23
1/31/23
1/21/23
1/11/23
1/1/23
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N M
(ul) lanai aa;empunojg

(ul) sjunowy pe}uleb
O O O o O O o
0 Ln � m N cI O
IW
1/17/23
11/7/23
10/28/23
10/18/23
10/8/23
9/28/23
9/18/23
9/8/23
8/29/23
8/19/23
8/9/23
7/30/23
7/20/23
7/10/23
6/30/23
6/20/23
6/10/23
5/31/23
5/21/23
5/11/23
5/1/23
4/21/23
4/11/23
4/1/23
3/22/23
3/12/23
3/2/23
2/20/23
2/10/23
1/31/23
1/21/23
1/11/23
1/1/23
0 l0 � N O N � l0 00 O N � l0 00 O N � l0 00 O
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N M

(ul) s;unowV Ilalulab
Now
IIIC:�
11/17/23
11/7/23
10/28/23
10/18/23
10/8/23
9/28/23
9/18/23
9/8/23
8/29/23
8/19/23
8/9/23
7/30/23
7/20/23
7/10/23
6/30/23
6/20/23
6/10/23
5/31/23
5/21/23
5/11/23
5/1/23
4/21/23
4/11/23
4/1/23
3/22/23
3/12/23
3/2/23
2/20/23
2/10/23
1/31/23
1/21/23
1/11/23
1/1/23
N O W 0 �* N O N zt 0 w O N � 0 w O N � 0 w O
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N M
(ul) lanai jalLmpunojg

(ui) sjunowy pe;uiea
0
0
11/17/23
11/7/23
10/28/23
10/18/23
10/8/23
9/28/23
9/18/23
9/8/23
8/29/23
8/19/23
8/9/23
7/30/23
7/20/23
7/10/23
6/30/23
6/20/23
6/10/23
5/31/23
5/21/23
5/11/23
5/1/23
4/21/23
4/11/23
4/1/23
3/22/23
3/12/23
3/2/23
2/20/23
2/10/23
1/31/23
1/21/23
1/11/23
1/1/23
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N M
(ui) Janaj Ja;eMpunoJg

Table 14A. UT-1 Upstream Channel Evidence
UT-1 Upstream Channel Evidence
Year 1(2021)
Year 2 (2022)
Year 3 (2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow
107
107
67
Total cumulative days channel flow*
-
-
186
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
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
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes
Yes
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
No
No
Other:
*New parameter as of MY-3 (2023), at the request of the IRT
Table 14B. UT-1 Downstream Channel Evidence
UT-1 Downstream Channel Evidence
Year 1(2021)
Year 2 (2022)
Year 3 (2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow
109
113
133
Total cumulative days channel flow*
-
-
271
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
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
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes
Yes
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
No
No
Other:
*New parameter as of MY-3 (2023), at the request of the IRT
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055)
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site
Columbus County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
January 2024

Table 14C. UT-2 Channel Evidence
UT-2 Channel Evidence
Year 1(2021)
Year 2 (2022)
Year 3 (2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow
70
124
167
Total cumulative days channel flow*
-
-
290
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
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
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes
Yes
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
No
No
Other:
*New parameter as of MY-3 (2023), at the request of the IRT
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

3
0
LL
v N
� T
2 o
E 00
v
75
0
(ul) s;unowy pelulell
O O O o o O O O
r, 0 vi � m N rl O
w c
Y N
c u
m "'
rro
0
m
O
Y
Y aj
C N
M w
a0
w
Y aj
c
ro w
m
12/27/23
12/17/23
12/7/23
11/27/23
11/17/23
11/7/23
10/28/23
10/18/23
10/8/23
9/28/23
9/18/23
9/8/23
8/29/23
8/19/23
8/9/23
7/30/23
7/20/23
7/10/23
6/30/23
6/20/23
6/10/23
5/31/23
5/21/23
5/11/23
5/1/23
4/21/23
4/11/23
4/1/23
3/22/23
3/12/23
3/2/23
2/20/23
2/10/23
1/31/23
1/21/23
1/11/23
1/1/23
O 00 l0 � N O 00 lD V N O o0 l0 � N O N � lD
M N N N N N c-I ci ci ci ci
(ul) lanai JaIL-M

(ul) s;unowd Ile}ulem
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�o vi � m ni rl o

(ui) s;unowtl
Ileluleb
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
I�
0
Ln
m
N
12/27/23
0
I
12/17/23
12/7/23
11/27/23
= 0
~
11/17/23
v N
11/7/23
41
75
10/28/23
0
10/18/23
10/8/23
9/28/23
9/18/23
9/8/23
8/29/23
8/19/23
N
8/9/23
0
w c
c >
w
7/30/23
M
00
7/20/23
3 N
7/10/23
N-
6/30/23
3v
`>
6/20/23
M
L
co
6/10/23
s
N �
5/31/23
�
5/21/23
5/11/23
5/1/23
4/21/23
4/11/23
a)
4/1/23
c >
>
m w
3/22/23
3/12/23
3/2/23
2/20/23
2/10/23
1/31/23
1/21/23
1/11/23
1/1/23
O 00 0 N O 00 0 N O N V LD
N cl cl cl cl cl
(ui)lanajJa;eM

a
a
m r # kf)
m m M G G r
»
a
2
/
� P
.
�
0 u \
«
.m to /
�
§
ojoj
t
ci u
o
�
oj
�
m
■
�
�
�
« o
m
o
SOLIOUl m pn my!®I 77

11/27/23
11/17/23
11/7/23
10/28/23
10/18/23
10/8/23
9/28/23
9/18/23
9/8/2 3
8/29/23
8/19/23
8/9/2 3
7/30/23
7/20/23
7/10/23
6/30/23
6/20/23
6/10/23
5/31/23
5/21/23
5/11/23
5/1/23
4/21/23
4/11/23
4/1/23
3/22/23
3/12/23
3/2/23
2/20/23
2/10/23
1/31/23
1/21/23
1/11/23
1/1/23
ono oMo ono °n' n n n n � � � � n Ln Ln Ln � n � � �
(;iayuaaye j saaaap) aan;eaadwal

Appendix E
Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 15. Project Timeline
Table 16. Project Contacts
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Show's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

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
MY-3 Monitoring Report
Nov-23
Jan-24
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
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

Appendix F
Benthic Data
Benthic Habitat Forms
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

3/06 Revision 7
Habitat Assessment Field -Data Sheet
Coastal Plain Streams
OTAL SCORE
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream UT__�_ Locationhoad: CU(� 11IkrW (Road Name 'County CC) ( (44f bt15
Date _;C� Cd 3 N o Basin L k rh ems'" Subbasin O 1—(97 SU
Observer(s) Type of Study: !❑[ Fish EfBenthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude - ���bo Longitude-7b. p (pU� d Ecoregion: ❑ CA ❑ SWP ❑ Sandhills ❑ CB
Water Quality: Temperature '_ °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) .� µS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location. Check off what
you observe driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: V %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture 10—% Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use ❑ Forest agriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream 5` Channel (at top of bank) l Stream Depth: (m) Avg_, L_Max
❑ Width variable ❑Braided channel ❑Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel to top of bank): (m) - k
Flow conditions: ❑High ❑Normal PLOW
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ...................................... ❑
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ❑
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑
D. Root mats out of water..................................................................................................................
11
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools .....................................................
Turbidity: ❑Clear ❑ Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes) ❑Green tinge
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? 01VES 13 NO
Details
t(N^ee
❑Channelized ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Sewage smell
❑Excessive periphyton growth // ❑Heavy filamentous algae growth
Manmade Stabilization: ON ❑Y: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Weather Conditions:_ -Photos: -0< ❑Y ❑Digital 1335mm
Remarks: Yd %A, 4 . I.J
TYPICAL STREAM CROSS SECTION DIAGRAM ON BACK
35

I. Channel Modification
Score
A. Natural channel -minimal dredging................................................................................
B. Some channelization near bridge, or historic (>20 year old), and/or bends beginning to reappear.. 10
C. Extensive chanmelization, straight as far as can see, channelized ditch .......................... 5
D. Banks shored with hard structure, >80% of reach disrupted, instream habitat gone........ 0 (
Remarks Subtotal l
H. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >50% of the
reach is snags, and 1 type is present, circle the score of 16. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and
have begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Common, or Abundant.
/ Sticks Snags/logs Undercut banks or root mats Macrophytes /Leafpacks
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>50%
30-50%
10-30%
<10%
Score
Score
Score
Score
4 or 5 types present .................
20
15
10
5
3 types present .........................
18
13
8
4
2 types present .........................
17
12
7
3
1 type present ...........................
16
11
6
2
No substrate for benthos colonization and no fish cover............................................0
!
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
Subtotal l
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, clay, sand, detritus, gravel) look at entire reach for substrate scoring.
A. Substrate types mixed
Score
1. gravel dominant...................................................................................................................
15
2. sand dominant.....................................................................................................................
13
3. detritus dominant................................................................................................................
7
4. silt/clay/muck dominant.....................................................................................................
B. Substrate homogeneous
1. nearly all gravel..................................................................................................................
12
2. nearly all sand....................................................................................................................
7
3. nearly all detritus................................................................................................................
�4q
4. nearly all silt/clay/muck.....................................................................................................
(
Remarks
Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m length surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes...............................................................................................................
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (40% of the 100m length surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size....................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent
1. Deep water/run habitat present............................................................................................................ 4
2. Deep water/run habitat absent............................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal 16
Remarks
36
Page Total

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

� Q" IL LA, .,-
3/06 Revision 7
Habitat Assessment Field -Data Sheet
Coastal Plain Streams
!TOTAL SCORE
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediatg score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream �� Location/road: 4 d W ORC {Road Name W t (I County Cd 1 u wl b 5
Date CC#03 1 Basin L k On h e"'_ Subbasin a -3^0 7 — 5V
Observer(s)U Type of Study: ❑ Fish �nthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude l e�I 7 7 3��ngitude7. �b 7 d Ecoregion: ❑ CA ❑ SWP ❑ Sandhills ❑ CB
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) µS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location. Check off what
you observe driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: J U %Forest %Residential 1 %Active Pasture S-a % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use ❑ Forest Agriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream_. T__- Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg ' � Max
5—
❑ Width variable ❑Braided channel ❑Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel to top of bank): (m)
Flow conditions: ❑High ❑Normal ❑Low
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ......................................
❑
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................
❑
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed .............................................
❑
D. Root mats out of water..................................................................................................................
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools .....................................................
,El
Turbidity: ❑Clear ❑ Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑T�a ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes) ❑Green tinge
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? 7YES 13 NO
Details
❑Chwmelized ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Sewage smell
❑Excessive periphyton growth ❑Heavy filamentous algae growth
Manmade Stabilization: ON ❑Y: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Weather Conditions: Photos: ❑rN ❑Y ❑Digital 1335mm
Remarks: yd i eu. un --e -, ld -,, i cc, --
TYPICAL STREAM CROSS SECTION DIAGRAM ON BACK
35

I. Channel Modification
A. Natural channel -minimal dredging............................................................................... 15
B. Some channelization near bridge, or historic (>20 year old), and/or bends beginning to reappear..
C. Extensive channelization, straight as far as can see, channelized ditch .......................... 5
D. Banks shored with hard structure, >80% of reach disrupted, instream habitat gone........ 0 e
Remarks Subtotal
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >501/o of the
reach is snags, and 1 type is present, circle the score of 16. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and
have begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Common. or Abundant.
ticks Snags/logs Undercut banks or root mats ( Macrophytes ZLealpacks
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>50%
30-50%
10-30%
<10%
Score
Score
Score
Score
4 or 5 types present .................
20
15
10
5
3 types present .........................
18
13
8
4
2 types present .........................
17
7
3
1 type present ...........................
16
11
6
2
No substrate for benthos colonization and no fish cover............................................0
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
_
Subtotal 1-3
M. Bottom Substrate (silt, clay, sand, detritus, gravel) look at entire reach for substrate scoring.
A. Substrate types mixed
Score
1. gravel dominant...................................................................................................................
15
2. sand dominant.....................................................................................................................
13
3. detritus dominant................................................................................................................
4. silt/clay/muck dominant.....................................................................................................
4
B. Substrate homogeneous
1. nearly all gravel..................................................................................................................
12
2. nearly all sand....................................................................................................................
7
3. nearly all detritus................................................................................................................
4. nearly all silt/clay/muck.....................................................................................................
�4/
V
Subtotal T
Remarks
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow.
A. Pools present
Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m length surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes...............................................................................................................
10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................
8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m length surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes...............................................................................................................
6
b. pools about the same size.......................................................................................................
4
B. Pools absent
1. Deep water/run habitat present............................................................................................................
4
2. Deep water/run habitat absent............................................................................................................
0 Subtotall 0
<< 3
Remarks
Page Total
36

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

Appendix G
Site Photo Log
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

Shaw's Run
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Shaw's Run
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Shaw's Run
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Shaw's Run
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Shaw's Run
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Shaw's Run
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Shaw's Run
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
Slit,Photo 13: UT-2 Piped Crossing— Upstream End
�'ysr ire .- ■ .. , F r ,: _ � .�� �Li
TAW@,nr.\
�rs' ��� �3� �1•.4•.r�r r".�s��..��-. �lq
` 4J
ry K�
�►f+ �'r_�
r
Env 0""�i
3 f •ram ,r�, • � � �`■ � ��y■Iz. 1 '" �••� `�• -��. �� �'�.
P K 11K4
r
,��{ i
t4 `yam
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Shaw's Run
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Shaw's Run
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

s
s
Shaw's Run
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 19: Bud burst on Taxodium distichum
Photo taken 3/1/23
- ''I.
- _ A ilr
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Shaw's Run
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Shaw's Run
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 24: Container planting and additional signage in easement
encroachment area.
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Shaw's Run
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 25: Additional signage in easement
encroachment area. 7
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Appendix H
Project Notes
IRT Site Visit Notes Nov. 7, 2023
DMS Boundary Inspection Report Nov. 8, 2023
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100055) Appendices
Shaw's Run Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Columbus County, North Carolina January 2024

Shaw's Run Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
MY3 IRT Site Visit: 11-7-2023
NC DMS Contract # 7515 RFP # 16-007337 DMS/Project # 100055
Task 1 a.) Inter -Agency Monitoring Year Three Site Visit: Site Visit Notes
Attendees:
USACE:
- Todd Tugwell
- Erin Davis
NC DWR:
- Maria Polizzi
NC DIMS:
- Emily Dunnigan
Notes:
Restoration Systems:
- JD Hamby
Axiom Environmental
- Grant Lewis
NC WRC:
- Travis Wilson
- Jeff Horton of DIMS was inspecting the project boundary during the IRT visit and issues dealing
with encroachment and easement markings will be communicated to IRS after the visit.
- Gauge #9 was determined to be faulty and removed. Axiom will replace the gauge and note on
the report that it malfunctioned. Soil conditions were determined to show evidence of
successful hydrology inundation.
- A small area below the crossing, between UT-1 and UT-2 was lacking in vigorous growth of
planted stems upon visual inspection. Erin requested a random transect and additional planting
in the area with larger material if deemed necessary.
- Erin also noted that IRS should add larger trees (one to three -gallon pots based on availability) in
the areas of scalping along the easement edge.
- Todd requested adding a permanent monumented cross section on the upper reaches of UT2 to
ensure the stream is not aggrading and will remain a single thread channel.
- IRT requested some additional data be included in the monitoring report.
Cumulative flow days.
Consecutive flow days.
A summary table that shows this information with each monitoring year shown.
Add call outs noting bankfull events to the flow graphs.

Roy COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
MARC RECKTENWALD
Director
Emily Dunnigan
Project Manger
Division of Mitigation Services
Green Square Office
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
Subject: Boundary Inspection Report— MY3 Site
Shaw's Run, Columbus County, NC; DMS ID No. 100055
Emily,
The MY3 boundary inspection was conducted by DMS on November 8, 2023.
accordance with the DMS Property Checklist which included an office review
conditions. I offer my observations on what requires follow up to uphold th
summarizes those inspection results along with a KML file for reference.
Office Review: No items noted.
November 8, 2023
e
The inspection was conducted in
and a site visit to document site
easement integrity. This report
Field Inspection:
• The easement corners we checked met the RFP and recorded survey plat standards.
• Witness posts were consistent, with signs, and located near the CE corner.
• Scalloping was noted for specific areas ref. KML.
Online signs were missing and needed to be located every 200 feet. See KML for areas that require signs.
When trees were used to mark the line, steel screws were used. These pose a hazard to the landowner and to
any worker who may one day use a chain saw to cut these trees.
Action Items:
• Work with the landowner to cease farming and scalloping immediately within the conservation easement.
o Speak with the landowners to re -enforce the terms of the easement.
o Where there is active farming or scalloping, consult with the landowner, and then add 10 ft tall
PVC or conduit with flagging or reflective coating to the t-posts. If the landowner has a better
idea that seems acceptable, try that.
o Document the conversations and resolution to the DMS project manager.
• Remove steel screws and replace them with 16d aluminum nails. Call for specification or DMS can
provide a minimum amount to complete this task.
• Add signs where needed to ensure at least one sign every 200 feet. Ref. KMI for example locations.
Where signs are missing add them.
• There were two locations where previous scalloping entered the CE area. Add t-post or wooden bollard
and 10 foot conduit to help the equipment operator know where the CE line exists.
Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
,-��-D- E 2�
oevenmeMo��,mronm.nwowi� r
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Dlvlsion of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707,8976
1

Sincerely,
Jef�rey Ho--l-
Project Specialist
NCDEQ-DMS
cc: R:\EEP PROJECT LIBRARY FILES\PROJECT DELIVERABLES(REPORTS)\FD PROJECTS\Shaw's Run
007515(#100055)\4_T2_Cons_Ease\100055_Boundary Inspection_2023
a EQ�
North Carolina Department of Environmental Qualify I Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street 11652 Mail Serviee Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
91WOT8976
7