Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20201292 Ver 1_Crane_100165_MY1_2023_20240208MY1 MONITORING REPORT CRANE STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Lee County, North Carolina Cape Fear River Basin Cataloging Unit 03030002 DMS Project No. 100165 Full Delivery Contract No. 0302-01 DMS RFP No. 16-20190302 (issued 12/20/2019) USACE Action ID No. SAW-2020-01401 DWR Project No. 20201292 Data Collection: January 2023-November 2023 Submission: February 2024 Prepared for: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES 1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652 MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Monitoring Summary Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Crane Year 1, 2023 Monitoring Summary General Notes • No encroachment was identified in Year 1 (2023). • No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., heavy deer browsing, beaver activated, etc.) was observed. Site Maintenance Report (2023) Invasive Species Work Maintenance work None None Streams • Streams remained stable with little to no deviations from MY0 (Appendix C). • All engineered structures were stable and functioning within design parameters; no stream areas of concern were documented. • One bankfull event was documented during MY1 (2023) (Table 11, Appendix D). Vegetation • Measurements of the 23 vegetation plots resulted in an average of 503 approved stems/acre. Additionally, sixteen of the seventeen permanent vegetation plots and five out of six temporary transects met the interim success criteria. Plot 9 and Transect 4, were each 1 stem shy of the required stem density. • In addition to Site vegetation monitoring as laid out in the detailed mitigation plan, the IRT requested 2 additional random vegetation transects (transects 7 and 8) to be measured during MY1. Transect 7 was requested in a wooded wetland enhancement area that was not proposed for planting and transect 8 was requested in an area characterized by dense herbaceous vegetation. Both transects were found to contain no approved/planted stems. Visual observations indicate that the low stem density near transect 8 is extremely localized (<0.1 acre) and is not considered an area of concern at this time. Wetlands • Seven of the fifteen groundwater gauges met success criteria during MY1 (2023). Gauges 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14 did not meet success criteria with hydroperiods of 1.8%, 1.8%, 4.4%, 9.8%, 1.3%, 2.7%, and 6.2%, respectively. (Appendix D). • When compared with 30-year 30-70th percentile rainfall, on-site rainfall amounts were low during February and March (Figure D1, Appendix D), with only 3.49 inches recorded during the nearly-2- month period between February 12 and April 6. Four of the seven gauges that did not meet success criteria dipped below 12 inches from the surface during this period before rising again with each precipitation event. Gauges 8, 9, and 14 dropped below 12 inches around April 18 for 4, 2, and 3 days respectively; otherwise, they would have exceeded the 12% hydroperiod required for wetland success. It is expected that with normal rainfall early in the growing season, the groundwater would be sufficiently recharged at the start of the growing season, and all gauges would have met hydrology success criteria. MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Monitoring Summary Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Yr. 1 (2023) Groundwater Hydrology Data Gauge 12% Hydroperiod Success Criteria Achieved - Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage) Year 1 (2023) Year 2 (2024) Year 3 (2025) Year 4 (2026) Year 5 (2027) Year 6 (2028) Year 7 (2029) 1 No – 4 Days (1.8%) 2 Yes – 42 Days (18.7%) 3 Yes – 45 Days (20.0%) 4 No – 4 Days (1.8%) 5 Yes – 27 Days (12.0%) 6 Yes – 29 Days (12.9%) 7 Yes – 57 Days (25.3%) 8 No – 10 Days (4.4%) 9 No – 22 Days (9.8%) 10 Yes – 81 Days (36.0%) 11 Yes – 73 Days (32.4%) 12 No – 3 Days (1.3%) 13 No – 6 Days (2.7%) 14 No – 14 Days (6.2%) 15 Yes – 32 Days (14.2%) Site Monitoring Activity and Reporting History Project Milestones Stream Monitoring Complete Vegetation Monitoring Complete Wetland Monitoring Data Analysis Complete Completion or Delivery Construction Earthwork -- -- -- -- July 2022 Planting -- -- -- -- February 3, 2023 As-Built Documentation January 26, 2023 February 8, 2023 -- February 2023 April 2023 Year 1 Monitoring August 8, 2023 August 25, 2023 Feb. – Nov. 2023 November 2023 December 2023 MY1 MONITORING REPORT CRANE STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Lee County, North Carolina Cape Fear River Basin Cataloging Unit 03030002 DMS Project No. 100165 Full Delivery Contract No. 0302-01 DMS RFP No. 16-20190302 (issued 12/20/2019) USACE Action ID No. SAW-2020-01401 DWR Project No. 20201292 Data Collection: January 2023-December 2023 Submission: February 2024 Prepared for: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES 1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652 Prepared by: And Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc. 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Contact: Raymond Holz Contact: Grant Lewis 919-755-9490 (phone) 919-215-1693 (phone) 919-755-9492 (fax) MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Table of Contents Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure .................................................................................... 1 1.2 Success Criteria ........................................................................................................................................ 5 2 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 MONITORING YEAR 1 – DATA ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Stream Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Hydrology Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 7 3.3 Vegetative Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 7 3.4 Monitoring Year 1 Summary .................................................................................................................... 7 4 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 LIST OF REPORT TABLES Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits ....................................................................................................... 2 Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results .................................................................................................... 3 Table 3. Project Attribute Table ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Table A. Success Criteria ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Table B. Monitoring Schedule........................................................................................................................................ 5 Table C. Monitoring Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 6 APPENDICES Appendix A. Visual Assessment Data - Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View - Table 4A-E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table - Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table - Vegetation Plot Photographs - Photo Log Appendix B. Vegetation Plot Data - Table 6A. Planted Bare-Root Woody Vegetation - Table 6B. Permanent Seed Mix - Table 7. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities - Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool Appendix C. Stream Geomorphology Data - Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays - Table 9A-E. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables - Table 10A-B. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary Appendix D. Hydrologic Data - Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events - Table 12. Groundwater Hydrology Data - Groundwater Gauge Graphs - Table 13A-D. Channel Evidence - Surface Water Gauge Graphs - Figure D1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall Appendix E: Project Timeline and Contact Info - Table 14. Project Timeline - Table 15. Project Contacts MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Page 1 Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 1 PROJECT SUMMARY Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site). The Site is on three land parcels along unnamed tributaries to Little Crane Creek in the Sandhills Ecoregion of North Carolina. Located in the Cape Fear River Basin, cataloging unit 03030002, the Site is in the Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030004070010 and North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin number 03-06-14. The Site is located within a Local Watershed Plan (LWP), Hydrology Targeted Resource Area (TRA), and Water Quality TRA due to modifications/stressors in the watershed. Site hydrology drains to unnamed tributaries and into Little Crane Creek (Stream Index Number 18-23-16-4), assigned a Best Usage Classification of WS-III (NCDWR 2021). Little Crane Creek is not listed on the NCDENR draft 2018 or final 2016 303(d) lists (NCDEQ 2018a, NCDEQ 2018b). Site watershed sizes range from approximately 0.02 square miles (12.2 acres) on UT3 to 0.15 square miles (97.5 acres) on UT 1 at the outfall. 1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure Located approximately 2 miles southwest of Lemon Springs, 8 miles southwest of Sanford, NC, and west of Rocky Fork Church Road (SR 1179) in Lee County, the Site encompasses 27.7 acres. Mitigation work within the Site included 1) stream restoration, 2) stream enhancement (Level II), 3) wetland reestablishment, 4) wetland rehabilitation, 5) wetland enhancement, and 6) vegetation planting. The Site is expected to provide 3,533 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 14.593 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs) by closeout (Table 1, Page 2). A conservation easement was granted to the State of North Carolina and recorded at the Lee County Register of Deeds on June 22, 2021. Before construction, land use at the Site was characterized by livestock pasture and disturbed forest. Site design was completed in February 2022. Construction started on June 6, 2022 and ended within a final walkthrough on July 15, 2022. The Site was planted on February 3, 2023. Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, and project contacts are summarized in Tables 11-12 (Appendix E). Space Purposefully Left Blank Original Mitigation Original Original Original Plan As‐Built Mitigation Restoration Mitigation Project Segment Ft/Ac Ft/Ac Category Level Ratio (X:1) Credits Comments Stream UT 1, Reach 1 694 694 Warm EII 2.5 237.600 Straight‐line valley length used for credit calculation at request of IRT UT 1, Reach 2 (above crossing)1335 1330 Warm R 1.0 1335.000 60 foot easement break for crossing UT 1, Reach 2 (below crossing)267 265 Warm R 1.0 267.000 UT 1, Reach 3 232 233 Warm EII 2.5 93.200 UT 2, Reach 1 437 425 Warm R 1.0 437.000 UT 2, Reach 2 88 88 Warm EII 2.5 35.200 UT 3 463 451 Warm R 1.0 463.000 UT 4 422 414 Warm R 1.0 422.000 UT 5 243 241 Warm R 1.0 243.000 Total: 3533.000 Wetland Wetland Reestablishment 8.815 8.815 R REE 1.00000 8.815 Wetland Rehabilitation 0.683 0.683 R RH 1.50000 0.455 Wetland Enhancement 10.646 10.646 R E 2.00000 5.323 Total: 14.593 Project Credits Riparian Non‐Rip Coastal Warm Cool Cold Wetland Wetland Marsh Restoration 3167.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Re‐establishment 8.815 0.000 0.000 Rehabilitation 0.455 0.000 0.000 Enhancement 5.323 0.000 0.000 Enhancement I 0.000 0.000 0.000 Enhancement II 366.000 0.000 0.000 Creation 0.000 0.000 0.000 Preservation 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 3,533.000 0.000 0.000 14.593 0.000 0.000 Total Stream Credit 3,533.000 Total Wetland Credit 14.593 Wetland Mitigation Category Restoration Level CM Coastal Marsh P Preservation R Riparian E Wetland Enhancement NR Non-Riparian EII Stream Enhancement II EI Stream Enhancement I C Wetland Creation RH Wetland Rehabilitation REE Wetland Re-establishment R Restoration Table 1. Crane Mitigation Site (ID‐100165) Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits Restoration Level Stream Objective/Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Performance Criteria Measurement Cumulative Monitoring  Results Reconstruct stream channels with appropriate  bankfull dimensions and depth relative to the  existing floodplain. Remove overburden to  reconnect with adjacent wetlands. Dispersion of high flows on the  floodplain, an increase in  biogeochemical cycling within  the system, and recharging of  riparian wetlands. •  The stream 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. 2 crest gauges (pressure  transducers) on UT1 and  UT2, and documentation of  visual/physical evidence of  bankfull events To be determined Construct stream channels that will maintain  stable cross‐sections, patterns, and profiles over  time. Reduction in sediment inputs  from bank erosion, reduction  of shear stress, and improved  overall hydraulic function. •  All streams must maintain an Ordinary High‐Water Mark  (OHWM), per RGL 05‐05. •  Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured  cross‐section. •  BHR at any measure riffle cross‐section should not change by  more than 10% from baseline condition during any given  monitoring period. •  Intermittent streams will demonstrate at least 30‐days  consecutive flow annually. Total of 16 cross‐sections on  restored channels and  surface flow gauges on UT2,  UT3, UT4, and UT5. Site streams are stable,  functioning as designed, and  stream measurements are within  design parameters. Plant native tree and understory species in  riparian zones and plant appropriate species on  streambanks. Reduction in floodplain  sediment inputs from runoff,  increased bank stability,  increased LWD and organic  material in streams, increased •  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. Natural recruits can only be counted  toward success after they have been in the ground for 2 years. •  Areas of herbaceous vegetation establishment will have a  minimum of four species present. 17 permenant vegetation  plots, 6 random vegetation  plots, and 3 random  herbaceous plots spread  across the Site All plots meeting performance  criteria during MY0. Herbaceous  plots will be surveyed beginning  MY1 to allow time for herbaceous  vegetation to establish. Reduce channel depth in incised stream  reaches, fill drainage ditches, and alleviate soil  compaction from agriculture activities. Particulate and pollution  conversion, groundwater  storage and reduced  downstream flooding, habitat  diversification, and vegetative  composition conversion.  •  Annual 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. 15 groundwater gauges  spread throughout restored  wetlands To be determined Goal Reconnect channels with floodplains and  riparian wetlands to allow a natural  flooding regime. Restore and enhance native floodplain  and streambank vegetation. Improve stability of stream channels. Restore and enhance groundwater  hydrology to drained or impacted hydric  soil areas. Table 2: Summary: Goals, Performance and Results  Note: Onsite rain data will be collected throughout each monitoring period.  UT 1UT 2UT 3 UT4 UT5 2170 489 345 373 319 2429 525 463 421 243 Rosgen Type VIII and III Rosgen Type VIII and III Rosgen Type VIII Rosgen Type VIII Rosgen Type VIII 97.5 22.6 12.2 13.2 47.4 Perennial Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent/Perennial Eg 5G 5Eg 5Eg 5Ge 5 Ce 5Ce 5Ce 5Ce 5Ce 5 III/IV IV IV II/III IV Applicable? Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Historic Preservation Act Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986) Pre‐project (acres) Wetland Summary Information Wetlands 11.330 20.146 Parameters Riparian riverine Parameters Hydric Soil Status Mapped Soil Series Endangered Species Act Regulatory Considerations Water of the United States ‐ Section 401 Water of the United States ‐ Section 404 Yes Yes Reach Summary Information Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area   Land Use Classification  NCDWR Water Quality Classification Post‐project length of reach (linear feet) Post‐project (acres) Valley Classification & Confinement Drainage Area (acres) Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996) WS III Parameters Managed Herbaceous Cover & Hardwood Swamps Resolved? 3030004070010 03‐06‐14 River Basin NCDWR Sub‐basin Pre‐project length of reach (linear feet) 120.1 <2% Project Drainage Area (acres) Table 3. Project Attribute Table Crane Mitigation Site  Lee County, North Carolina 27.66 35.367351ºN, 79.222369ºW Project Name County Project Area (acres)  Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude decimal degrees) Project Watershed Summary Information Sand Hills Cape Fear Yes Supporting Docs? Section 401 Certification Section 404 Permit CE Document CE Document Yes Physiographic Province USGS Hydrologic Unit 14‐digit Wetland Type (non‐riparian, riparian) Wehadkee Hydric Proposed Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996) NA FEMA Mapping Essential Fisheries Habitat  ‐‐ NA  ‐‐  YesFEMA Floodplain Compliance Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA) MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) page 5 Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 1.2 Success Criteria Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives identified from on-site North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) data collection (NC SFAT 2015). 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 summarizes Site success criteria. Table A. Success Criteria Streams • All streams must maintain an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05. • Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section. • BHR 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 individual years, during the monitoring years 1-7. • Intermittent streams will demonstrate at least 30-days consecutive flow. Wetland Hydrology • Annual 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. Natural recruits can only be counted toward success after they have been in the ground for 2 years. • Herbaceous vegetation plots must have a minimum of four species present. 2 METHODS Monitoring will be conducted in accordance with 2016 North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) Guidelines. Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc based on the schedule in the following table. A monitoring summary is outlined in the table on page 6. Annual monitoring reports will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of each monitoring year data is collected. Table B. 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 MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) page 6 Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Table C. Monitoring Summary Stream Parameters Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported Stream Profile Full longitudinal survey As-built (unless otherwise required) All restored stream channels Graphic and tabular data. Stream Dimension Cross-sections Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 Total of 16 cross-sections on restored channels Graphic and tabular data. Channel Stability Visual Assessments Yearly All restored stream channels Areas of concern will be depicted on a plan view figure with a written assessment and photographs Additional Cross-sections Yearly Only if instability is documented during monitoring Graphic and tabular data. Stream Hydrology Continuous monitoring of surface water gauges and/or trail camera Continuous recording through the monitoring period 6 surface water gauges; 1 on UT 1, 2 on UT 2, 1 on UT 3, 1 on UT 4, and 1 on UT 5 Surface water data for each monitoring period Bankfull Events Continuous monitoring of surface water gauges and/or trail camera Continuous recording through the monitoring period Surface water data for each monitoring period Visual/Physical Evidence Continuous through the monitoring period All restored stream channels Visual evidence, photo documentation, and/or rain data. Wetland Parameters Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported Wetland Restoration Groundwater gauges Years 1- 7 throughout the year with the growing season defined as March 29-November 8* downloaded quarterly 15 gauges spread throughout restored wetlands Groundwater and rain data for each monitoring period Vegetation Parameters Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported Vegetation Establishment and Vigor Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247 acre (100 square meters) in size; CVS- EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) As-built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 17 plots spread across the Site Species, height, planted vs. volunteer, stems/acre Annual random vegetation plots, 0.0247 acre (100 square meters) in size As-built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 6 Random transects spread across the Site Species and height Annual random herbaceous vegetation plots, 0.000247 acre (1 square meter) in size Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 3 plots located in herbaceous dominated vegetation areas Number of species in plot and percent cover * In accordance with IRT request after submittal of the MY0 report, the growing season for this site will be based on the latest 30-year WETS data (Station Sanford 8 NE, NC, 1991-2021) and is defined as March 29 to November 8 (225 days). Soil temperature and bud burst documentation will not be required to verify growing season start dates. MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Page 7 Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 3 MONITORING YEAR 1 – DATA ASSESSMENT Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted between February 2023 and November 2023 to assess the condition of the project. Stream, wetland, and vegetation criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the Mitigation Plan and summarized in Section 1.2; monitoring methods are detailed in Section 3.0. 3.1 Stream Assessment Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted on August 8, 2023. All streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. Site streams continue to maintain an ordinary high-water mark, and no cross- sections have bank height ratios greater than 1.2. Additionally, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5 each maintained flow for well over 30 consecutive days during MY1 with 213, 214, 274, and 181 days, respectively. Refer to Appendix A for the visual stream morphology stability assessment (Tables 4A-E) and stream photographs, Appendix C for stream geomorphology data, and Appendix D for stream flow data. No stream areas of concern were identified during MY1. 3.2 Hydrology Assessment Seven of the fifteen groundwater gauges met success criteria during MY1 (2023). Gauges 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14 did not meet success criteria with hydroperiods of 1.8%, 1.8%, 4.4%, 9.8%, 1.3%, 2.7%, and 6.2%, respectively. (Appendix D). When compared with 30-year 30-70th percentile rainfall, on-site rainfall amounts were low during February and March (Figure D1, Appendix D), with only 3.49 inches recorded during the nearly-2-month period between February 12 and April 6. Four of the seven gauges that did not meet success criteria dipped below 12 inches from the surface during this period before rising again with each precipitation event. Gauges 8, 9, and 14 dropped below 12 inches around April 18 for 4, 2, and 3 days respectively; otherwise, they would have exceeded the 12% hydroperiod required for wetland success. It is expected that with normal rainfall early in the growing season, the groundwater would be sufficiently recharged at the start of the growing season, and all gauges would have met hydrology success criteria. 3.3 Vegetative Assessment The MY1 vegetative survey was completed on August 25, 2023. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a sitewide stem density average of 503 planted stems per acre, above the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre required at MY3. Additionally, sixteen of the seventeen permanent vegetation plots and five out of six temporary transects met the interim success criteria. Plot 9 and Transect 4, were each 1 stem shy of the required stem density. In addition to Site vegetation monitoring as laid out in the detailed mitigation plan, the IRT requested 2 additional random vegetation transects (transects 7 and 8) to be measured during MY1. Transect 7 was requested in a wooded wetland enhancement area that was not proposed for planting, and transect 8 was requested in an area characterized by dense herbaceous vegetation. Both transects were found to contain no approved/planted stems. Visual observations indicate that the low stem density near transect 8 is extremely localized (<0.1 acre) and is not considered an area of concern at this time.. Please refer to Appendix A for Vegetation Plot Photographs and the Vegetation Condition Assessment Table, and Appendix B for Vegetation Plot Data. No vegetation areas of concern were identified during MY1. 3.4 Monitoring Year 1 Summary Overall, the Site looks good, is performing as intended, and is on track to meet success criteria. Site vegetation is track to exceed the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre, wetland development is evident, and all streams within the Site are stable and are meeting project goals. MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Page 8 Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 4 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 Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2018a. Final 2016 Category 5 Assessments -303(d) List (online). Available: https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2016/2016_NC_Category_5 _303d_list.pdf (February 4, 2019). North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2018b. Draft 2018 North Carolina 303(d) List (online). Available: https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2018/2018-DRAFT-NC-303- d–ListwCover.pdf (February 4, 2019). 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 Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. October 24, 2016. MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View Table 4A-E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Vegetation Plot Photographs Photo Log ^_ #*#* #* #* #* #* ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ GF GF !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( 987 5 4 6 3 2 1 15 14 13 12 11 10 1 6 5 3 2 7 8 4 XS-8 XS- 1 XS - 1 2 X S - 9 X S - 5 XS - 1 1 XS - 2 XS - 1 3 XS - 1 4 XS-16 XS-1 5 XS - 6 8 7 6 9 3 5 1 2 17 XS- 7 XS - 3 XS - 1 0 XS - 4 4 11 12 16 14 10 13 15 NCCGIA, NC 911 Board FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: KRJ DEC 2023 1:2700 20-032 Title: Project: Prepared for: Lee County, NC CRANEMITIGATIONSITE CURRENTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW 1 ³ Legend Crane Easement = 27.7 ac Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement (Level II) Stream Generating No Credit Wetland Re-establishment Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland Enhancement Permanent Vegetation Plots Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement Permanent Vegetation Plots Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement Vegetation Transects Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement Vegetation Transects Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement Cross-Sections !(Groundwater Gauges Meeting Success Criteria in MY1 !(Groundwater Gauges Not Meeting Success Criteria in MY1 ^_Rain/Soil Gauge #*Stream Flow Gauges #*Stream Crest Gauges ^_CVS Plot Origins GF Permanent Photo Points 0 500 1,000250Feet RockyForkChurchRoad Note: Basemap is aerial orthoimagery from 2021 NC OneMap. U T-1 UT-2 UT-3 U T-5 U T -4 Table 4A. Visual Stream Stability Assessment Reach UT 1, Reach 2 Assessed Stream Length 1602 Assessed Bank Length 3204 Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour 0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ­ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100% 0 100% Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 35 35 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance document) 35 35 100% % Stable, Performing as IntendedMajor Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As­built Amount of Unstable Footage Totals Table 4B. Visual Stream Stability Assessment Reach UT 2, Reach 1 Assessed Stream Length 437 Assessed Bank Length 874 Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour 0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ­ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100% 0 100% Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 19 19 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance document) 19 19 100% Totals Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As­built Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Table 4C. Visual Stream Stability Assessment Reach UT 3 Assessed Stream Length 480 Assessed Bank Length 960 Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour 0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ­ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100% 0 100% Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 22 22 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance document) 22 22 100% Totals % Stable, Performing as IntendedMajor Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As­built Amount of Unstable Footage Table 4D. Visual Stream Stability Assessment Reach UT 4 Assessed Stream Length 427 Assessed Bank Length 854 Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour 0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ­ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100% 0 100% Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 14 14 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance document) 14 14 100% Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As­built Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Totals Table 4E. Visual Stream Stability Assessment Reach UT 5 Assessed Stream Length 248 Assessed Bank Length 496 Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour 0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ­ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100% 0 100% Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 88 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance document) 88 100% Totals Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As­built Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Table 5. Visual Vegetation Assessment Planted acreage 26.2 Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10 acres 0.00 0.0% Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria. 0.10acres 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% Areas of Poor Growth Rates Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard.0.10 acres 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% Easement Acreage 27.66 Invasive Areas of Concern Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage. Include species with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short­term or community structure for existing communities. Species included in summation above should be identified in report summary. 0.10 acres 0.00 0.0% Easement Encroachment Areas Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists of any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area. none % of Planted Acreage Total Cumulative Total Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold Combined Acreage 0 Encroachments noted Combined Acreage % of Easement AcreageVegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold Crane Mitigation Site MY1 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken August 25, 2023) Crane Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data MY1 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Plot 7 Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4 Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 8 Crane Mitigation Site MY1 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken August 25, 2023) Plot 15 Plot 9 Plot 10 Plot 11 Plot 12 Plot 13 Plot 14 Plot 16 Crane Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data MY1 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Crane Mitigation Site MY1 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken August 25, 2023) Random Transect 6 Plot 17 Random Transect 1 Random Transect 2 Random Transect 3 Random Transect 4 Random Transect 5 Crane Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data MY1 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 1: CCPV Permanent Photo Point 1 UT-1 Crossing, facing upstream (May 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 2: CCPV Permanent Photo Point 2 UT-1 Crossing, facing downstream (May 2023) Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 3: CCPV Permanent Photo Point 1 UT-1 Crossing, facing upstream, aerial view (August 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 4: CCPV Permanent Photo Point 2 UT-1 Crossing, facing downstream, aerial view (August 2023) Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 5: UT-4 upstream (May 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 6: UT-4 downstream (May 2023) Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 7: UT-1 & UT-4 confluence (May 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 8: UT-1 crest gauge Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 9: UT-1 from bridge; downstream (May 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 10: UT-1 from bridge; upstream (May 2023) Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 11: UT-1 origin (May 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 12: UT-1 origin (May 2023) Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 13: UT-1 upper at Enhancement II tie-in (May 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 14: UT-2 downstream (May 2023) Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 15: UT-2 downstream (May 2023) Photo 16: UT-2 upstream at tie-in (May 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 17: UT-2 Enhancement II (May 2023) Photo 18: UT-2 crossing above tie-in (May 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 19: UT-3 upstream end (May 2023) Photo 20: UT-3 stream gauge (May 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 21: UT-5 downstream (May 2023) Photo 22: UT-5 origin (May 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 23: Easement signage (August 2023) Photo 24: UT-1 & UT-5 confluence (August 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 25: Easement facing southwest (August 2023) Photo 26: UT-1 featuring plots 8, 9, 10, & 14 (August 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 27: Aerial of bridge crossing over UT-1 (August 2023) Photo 28: Aerial of bridge crossing over UT-1 (August 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 29: North section of easement (August 2023) Photo 30: North section of easement (August 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site MY-01 (2023) Photo Log Photo 31: South section of easement (August 2023) Photo 32: South section of easement from UT4 origin (August 2023) MY1 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Appendix B: Vegetation Data Table 6A. Planted Bare-Root Woody Vegetation Table 6B. Permanent Seed Mix Table 7A. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities Table 7B. Herbaceous Vegetation Plots Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Table 6A. Planted Bare-Root Woody Vegetation Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Vegetation Association Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest* Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp* Stream-side Assemblage** TOTAL Area (acres) 8 15.4 2.8 26.2 Species Indicator Status # planted* % of total # planted* % of total # planted** % of total # planted Swamp black gum (Nyssa biflora) OBL 0 0.0% 1000 9.5% 0 0.0% 1000 Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) OBL 500 9.2% 1000 9.5% 0 0.0% 1500 Tupelo gum (Nyssa aquatica) OBL 0 0.0% 1000 9.5% 0 0.0% 1000 Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) FAC 500 9.2% 1000 9.5% 700 9.2% 2200 Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) FACW 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1500 19.7% 1500 Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) FACW 0 0.0% 1000 9.5% 0 0.0% 1000 Red bay (Persea borbonia) FAC 250 4.6% 500 4.8% 0 0.0% 750 River birch (Betula nigra) FACW 500 9.2% 500 4.8% 1500 19.7% 2500 Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) FACW 300 5.5% 500 4.8% 400 5.3% 1200 American elm (Ulmus americana) FACW 300 5.5% 500 4.8% 800 10.5% 1600 Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) FAC 300 5.5% 500 4.8% 800 10.5% 1600 Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) FACW 300 5.5% 500 4.8% 800 10.5% 1600 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) FACW 300 5.5% 500 4.8% 0 0.0% 800 Water oak (Quercus nigra) FAC 500 9.2% 300 2.9% 400 5.3% 1200 Laurel oak (Quercus larifolia) FACW 300 5.5% 500 4.8% 0 0.0% 800 Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda) FAC 200 3.7% 0 0.0% 400 5.3% 600 Willow oak (Quercus phellos) FACW 300 5.5% 500 4.8% 0 0.0% 800 Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii) FACW 300 5.5% 500 4.8% 0 0.0% 800 Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) FACU 300 5.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 300 Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) FAC 300 5.5% 200 1.9% 300 3.9% 800 TOTAL 5450 10500 7600 23550 * Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre. ** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre. MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Table 6B. Permanent Seed Mix Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Temporary Seed (Erosion and Sediment Control) Species Application Rate Application Date Notes Urochloa 1amose (Brown Top Millet) 40 lbs. per acre May – September All disturbed soil Permanent Seed- Sitewide @ 2lbs /acre Scientific Name Common Name Indicator % Agrostis hyemalis Winter bentgrass FAC 3 Bidens aristosa Bur-marigold FACW 0.6 Carex albolutescens Greenwhite Sedge FACW 2 Carex lupulina Hop Sedge OBL 2 Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea FACU 6 Chamaecrista nictitans Sensitive Pea FACU 3 Coreopsis lanceolata Lance-leaved Coreopsis NI 5 Coreopsis tinctoria Plains Coreopsis FAC 5 Desmodium canadense Showy ticktrefoil FAC 5 Echinacea purpurea Coneflower NI 5 Elymus virginicus Virginia Wildrye FACW 7 Eupatorium fistulosum Joe Pye Weed FACW 0.1 Helianthus angustifolius Narrowleaved Sunflower FACW 2 Heliopsis helianthoides Oxeye sunflower UPL 5 Hibiscus moscheutos Crimsoneyed rosemallow OBL 0.1 Liatris spicata Marsh Blazing Star FAC 0.1 Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot FACU 1 Panicum anceps Beaked panicgrass FAC 5 Panicum clandestinum Deertongue FAC 10 Panicum dichotomiflorum Smooth panicgrass FACW 8 Panicum rigidulum Redtop Panicgrass FACW 2 Pycnanthemum tenuifolium Narrowleaf mountainmint FACW 0.1 Rudbeckia hirta Black eyed Susan FACU 5 Senna hebecarpa Wild Senna FAC 2 Tridens flavus Purpletop FACU 10 Verbena hastata Blue vervain FACW 6 MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Table 7A. Planted Vegetation Totals Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Plot # Planted Stems/Acre Success Criteria Met? 1 526 Yes 2 607 Yes 3 688 Yes 4 526 Yes 5 486 Yes 6 567 Yes 7 364 Yes 8 526 Yes 9 243 No 10 486 Yes 11 607 Yes 12 688 Yes 13 445 Yes 14 526 Yes 15 526 Yes 16 567 Yes 17 486 Yes R-1 729 Yes R-2 486 Yes R-3 526 Yes R-4 283 No R-5 405 Yes R-6 283 Yes Average Planted Stems/Acre 503 Yes MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Table 7B. Herbaceous Vegetation Plots Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Plot # Species Count Success Criteria Met? Taxa Identified H1 6 Yes Juncus effusus Eupatorium capillifolium Cyperus sp. Carex sp. Bidens ferulifolia Veronia noveboracensis H2 5 Yes Carex sp. Juncus effusus Pycnanthemum sp. Eupatorium capillifolium Bidens ferulifolia H3 5 Yes Carex sp. Eupatorium capillifolium Juncus effusus Peltandra virginica Pycnanthemum sp. Average 5.3 Yes Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool 26.2 2023‐02‐03 NA  NA  2023‐08‐25 0.0247 Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1 1 1122 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree FACU Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 11 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1144 1133 Magnolia virginiana sweetbay Tree FACW 1111 22 Nyssa aquatica water tupelo Tree OBL 1144 11 111122 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 11112222 2222111144 Persea borbonia redbay Tree FACW 7 7 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 22222233223311 Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree FACW 2 2 2244 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW 2222 331122 1111 Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 2211 11 Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree FACW 3 3 111144111122 22 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 22 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak Tree FAC 2 2 1111 11 Quercus sp.11 Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree OBL 1133 11 4422 Sum Performance Standard 13 13 15 15 17 17 13 13 12 12 14 14 9 9 13 13 7 7 12 12 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW Sum Proposed Standard 13 13 15 15 17 17 13 13 12 12 14 14 9 9 13 13 7 7 12 12 13 15 17 13 12 14 9 13 7 12 526 607 688 526 486 567 364 526 243 486 7976587846 23 27 41 31 33 29 22 23 57 33 2111222122 0000000000 13 15 17 13 12 14 9 13 7 12 526 607 688 526 486 567 364 526 243 486 7976587846 23 27 41 31 33 29 22 23 57 33 2111222122 0000000000 Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date(s) Mowing Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S hrub Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 FIndicator  Status Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Species  Included in  Approved  Mitigation  Plan Veg Plot 10 FVeg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Post  Mitigation  Plan Species Mitigation  Plan  Performance  Standard Post  Mitigation  Plan  Performance  Standard Current Year Stem Count Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Stems/Acre Species Count Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives % Invasives 1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved. 2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan  addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized). 3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems. Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool (continued) 26.2 2023‐02‐03 NA  NA  2023‐08‐25 0.0247 Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R Veg Plot 3 R Veg Plot 4 R Veg Plot 5 R Veg Plot 6 R Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1 1 21 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 11 Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree FACU 1 1 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 21 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 Magnolia virginiana sweetbay Tree FACW 1122 22 1 Nyssa aquatica water tupelo Tree OBL 1 1 1 1 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 2222111122 31 Persea borbonia redbay Tree FACW Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1111331111 11311 Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree FACW 33 4455 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW 1122441133 224 411 Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 1 1 115522 3 Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree FACW 1112 331122 2 111 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 3 3 1 1 311 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak Tree FAC 2212 332222 1 Quercus sp.2 Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree OBL 1122 1111 1172218 Sum Performance Standard 15 15 12 17 9 11 13 13 13 13 14 14 12 12 18 12 13 7 12 7 Post  Mitigation  Plan Species Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW 1 Sum Proposed Standard 15 15 12 17 9 11 13 13 13 13 14 14 12 12 18 12 13 7 12 7 15 17 11 13 13 14 12 18 12 13 7 12 7 607 688 445 526 526 567 486 729 486 526 283 405 283 11958855576556 20 18 36 23 23 36 42 39 25 31 43 67 25 1222221222221 0000000000000 15 17 11 13 13 14 12 18 12 13 7 12 7 607 688 445 526 526 567 486 729 486 526 283 405 283 11958855576556 20 18 36 23 23 36 42 39 25 31 43 67 25 1222221222221 0000000000000 Veg Plot 15 F Veg Plot 16 F Veg Plot 17 FTree/S hrub Indicator  Status Species  Included in  Approved  Mitigation  Plan Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 F Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date(s) Mowing Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Mitigation  Plan  Performance  Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives 1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved. 2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan  addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized). 3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems. Post  Mitigation  Plan  Performance  Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays Table 9A-E. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables Table 10A-B. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary Station Elevation 0.0 388.7 388.41 2.9 388.3 NA 4.5 388.4 387.33 5.5 388.4 388.44 6.5 387.9 1.11 7.3 387.6 5.3 7.9 387.5 8.6 387.4 9.1 387.4 9.7 387.4 10.5 387.3 11.2 387.9 12.3 388.1 13.6 388.6 15.8 388.9 17.6 389.2 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT2, XS -1 Feature Pool Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis Stream Type LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: 387 388 389 390 01020 Station (feet) Crane, UT2, XS-1, Pool Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation -0.2 389.0 388.86 2.0 389.0 1.09 4.0 389.0 387.87 5.2 388.7 388.95 5.9 388.4 1.08 6.5 388.2 4.4 7.2 387.9 7.8 387.9 8.4 387.9 8.9 387.9 9.5 388.2 10.7 388.7 11.9 389.2 14.3 389.5 16.8 389.6 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT2, XS-2 LTOB Elevation: Feature Riffle Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 387 388 389 390 051015 Station (feet) Crane, UT2, XS-2, Riffle Bankfull Series2 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.0 388.9 388.89 2.7 388.9 0.98 3.9 388.8 388.22 4.6 388.7 388.88 4.9 388.3 0.66 5.8 388.2 2.6 6.3 388.3 6.9 388.3 6.9 388.3 7.4 388.3 7.9 388.3 8.7 388.7 10.2 388.7 12.2 389.0 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT4, XS-3 LTOB Elevation: Feature Riffle Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 388 389 051015 Station (feet) Crane, UT4, XS-3, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.0 389.1 388.96 1.0 389.0 NA 2.2 388.9 388.04 2.8 388.6 388.96 3.3 388.3 0.92 3.9 388.1 3.0 4.5 388.0 5.1 388.0 5.5 388.1 6.0 388.5 6.5 388.7 7.3 388.8 8.1 389.1 9.7 389.3 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT4, XS-4 LTOB Elevation: Feature Pool Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 388 389 390 0510 Station (feet) Crane, UT4, XS-4, Pool Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.5 392.5 391.96 2.8 392.2 1.03 5.2 392.1 391.42 5.7 392.1 391.97 6.3 391.9 0.55 6.9 391.7 1.5 7.1 391.5 7.5 391.5 8.0 391.5 8.3 391.5 8.6 391.5 9.0 391.4 9.6 391.7 10.4 392.0 11.3 392.1 13.1 392.1 15.1 392.0 16.2 392.1 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT4, XS-5 LTOB Elevation: Feature Riffle Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 391 392 393 051015 Station (feet) Crane, UT4, XS-5, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.0 392.5 392.06 2.3 392.3 NA 4.3 392.3 391.15 5.6 392.1 392.10 6.3 391.7 0.94 6.6 391.5 3.2 7.0 391.5 7.9 391.3 8.5 391.2 9.3 391.3 10.0 391.5 10.7 391.9 12.1 392.1 14.8 392.1 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT4, XS-6 LTOB Elevation: Feature Pool Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 391 392 393 0 5 10 15 Station (feet) Crane, UT4, XS-6, Pool Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.0 390.0 389.88 2.2 390.0 0.94 4.2 390.0 388.83 5.5 389.9 389.82 6.7 389.3 0.99 7.6 389.2 6.2 8.2 388.9 8.9 388.8 9.9 388.8 10.8 388.8 11.4 388.8 12.1 388.8 12.7 389.0 13.1 389.2 14.2 389.8 15.2 389.8 17.0 390.1 18.9 390.0 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT1, XS-7 LTOB Elevation: Feature Riffle Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 388 389 390 391 0 5 10 15 20 Station (feet) Crane, UT1, XS-7, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.0 390.0 389.75 2.2 390.0 1.08 3.9 389.8 388.02 5.3 389.6 389.90 6.2 389.3 1.88 7.3 389.0 11.3 7.6 388.3 8.3 388.0 9.0 388.2 9.8 388.2 10.5 388.2 11.5 388.2 12.3 388.4 13.2 388.8 14.3 389.5 15.5 389.8 17.1 389.9 18.8 390.1 20.3 390.1 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT1, XS-8 LTOB Elevation: Feature Riffle Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 387 388 389 390 391 0 5 10 15 20 25 Station (feet) Crane, UT1, XS-8, Pool Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.5 394.5 394.76 2.6 394.6 0.89 3.3 394.7 393.88 4.3 394.4 394.66 5.1 394.2 0.78 5.9 394.0 3.2 6.4 393.9 6.8 393.9 7.2 393.9 7.7 394.0 8.4 394.0 9.1 394.1 9.4 394.3 9.9 394.7 10.8 394.9 12.7 394.8 14.8 394.9 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT3, XS-9 LTOB Elevation: Feature Riffle Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 393 394 395 396 0 5 10 15 Station (feet) Crane, UT3, XS-9, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.0 394.8 394.17 2.0 394.8 1.07 3.8 394.5 392.13 5.0 394.3 394.32 5.5 394.3 2.19 6.0 392.1 5.9 6.8 392.2 7.6 392.5 8.3 392.8 8.7 392.7 9.2 394.5 10.0 394.6 11.4 395.1 13.9 395.2 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT3, XS-10 LTOB Elevation: Feature Pool Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 391 392 393 394 395 396 051015 Station (feet) Crane, UT3, XS-10, Pool Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.4 395.2 395.01 2.2 395.3 1.05 3.8 395.3 394.16 5.0 395.1 395.06 6.3 394.5 0.90 7.2 394.2 5.5 8.2 394.2 8.9 394.2 9.9 394.2 10.9 394.2 11.5 394.2 12.1 394.6 12.9 394.8 14.0 395.1 15.6 395.3 17.6 395.1 18.9 395.1 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT1, XS-11 LTOB Elevation: Feature Riffle Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 394 395 396 0 5 10 15 20 Station (feet) Crane, UT1, XS-11, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.3 395.2 395.03 2.3 395.1 NA 3.7 395.0 393.51 4.8 394.7 395.04 5.7 394.4 1.53 6.5 393.9 8.0 7.4 393.9 7.7 393.5 8.1 393.7 8.7 393.7 9.2 393.8 9.6 393.9 10.1 393.9 10.7 394.1 11.3 394.2 12.2 394.5 13.1 394.7 14.0 395.0 14.8 395.2 16.8 395.3 19.4 395.0 20.9 395.0 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT1, XS-12 LTOB Elevation: Feature Pool Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 393 394 395 396 0 5 10 15 20 25 Station (feet) Crane, UT1, XS-12, Pool Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.3 399.2 399.17 2.9 399.3 1.08 4.4 399.4 398.29 5.4 399.2 399.25 6.0 399.1 0.95 6.4 398.6 5.0 7.0 398.5 7.7 398.4 9.3 398.3 10.1 398.4 11.2 398.5 11.6 398.7 12.0 398.9 12.8 399.1 14.3 399.3 17.5 399.3 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT5, XS-13 LTOB Elevation: Feature Riffle Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 398 399 400 0 5 10 15 20 Station (feet) Crane, UT5, XS-13, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.1 398.9 398.94 2.6 399.1 NA 3.9 399.0 398.12 4.8 398.8 398.96 5.3 398.5 0.84 6.5 398.3 4.2 6.6 398.4 7.3 398.2 8.1 398.1 8.9 398.3 9.9 398.3 10.9 398.4 11.4 398.6 11.9 398.9 12.5 399.1 13.0 399.3 14.7 399.4 18.2 399.1 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT5, XS-14 LTOB Elevation: Feature Pool Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 398 399 400 0 5 10 15 20 Station (feet) Crane, UT5, XS-14, Pool Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.0 408.4 408.40 3.4 408.5 1.05 4.4 408.3 407.37 5.3 408.0 408.46 5.9 407.7 1.09 6.5 407.5 6.3 7.0 407.5 7.5 407.4 8.0 407.4 8.8 407.4 9.4 407.5 10.3 407.5 11.0 407.7 11.8 408.1 12.8 408.6 14.5 408.7 17.7 408.8 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT1, XS-15 LTOB Elevation: Feature Riffle Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 407 408 409 0 5 10 15 20 Station (feet) Crane, UT1, XS-15, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Station Elevation 0.0 409.2 409.00 2.1 409.2 NA 3.9 409.1 406.88 4.5 408.9 409.10 5.2 408.5 2.22 6.1 408.4 13.9 6.6 407.6 7.1 407.0 8.3 407.2 9.2 407.1 10.4 406.9 11.8 406.9 12.6 408.4 13.7 408.9 15.0 409.3 18.2 409.3 Site Crane Site Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030004 XS ID UT1, XS-16 LTOB Elevation: Feature Pool Date:8/8/2023 Field Crew:A. Smith and D. Lewis SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type 406 407 408 409 410 0 5 10 15 20 Station (feet) Crane, UT1, XS-16, Pool Bankfull MY-00 2/7/23 MY-01 8/8/23 Parameter Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)4.3 6.7 12.5 7.7 8.9 8.5 11.0 3 Floodprone Width (ft)9 75 100 50 150 100 100 3 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 3 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.9 1.8 2.9 0.7 1 0.9 1.0 3 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)55 5 555.16.73 Width/Depth Ratio 3.6 10.6 31.3 12 16 13.9 17.9 3 Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 13 23.3 6.5 16.8 9.1 11.8 3 Bank Height Ratio 1 1.7 2.8 1 1.3 1.0 1.0 3 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)2.2 3.3 4.8 4.8 5.5 7.2 7.2 1 Floodprone Width (ft)5 7 12 25 75 50.0 50.0 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.6 1 1.4 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.0 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.8 3.8 1 Width/Depth Ratio 2.8 6 12 12 16 13.8 13.8 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1.8 2.1 2.5 5.2 13.6 6.9 6.9 1 Bank Height Ratio 2.2 2.5 3.1 1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) Other 0.0145 0.0144 0.0144 6.6 6.6 6.6 1.09 1.1 1.1 G 5 Ce 5 Ce 5 Table 9B. Baseline Stream Data Summary Crane ­ UT 2 Pre­Existing Condition (applicable) Design Monitoring Baseline (MY0) Pre­Existing Condition (applicable) Monitoring Baseline (MY0)Design Table 9A. Baseline Stream Data Summary Crane ­ UT 1 1.1 0.0179 0.0167 0.0167 1.03 1.1 1919 19 Ce 5Eg 5 Ce 5 Parameter Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)2.1 3.4 4.2 3.8 4.4 7.8 7.8 1 Floodprone Width (ft)4 23 50 25 75 50.0 50.0 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.6 0.8 1.1 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 3.9 3.9 1 Width/Depth Ratio 3.5 10.1 14 12 16 15.6 15.6 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 8.1 23.8 6.6 17.1 6.4 6.4 1 Bank Height Ratio 2 4 7.2 1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)1.8 3.3 4.8 3.9 4.6 4.7 7.5 2 Floodprone Width (ft)8 50 26 50 100 75.0 75.0 2 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 2 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.4 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 2.7 2 Width/Depth Ratio 2.6 8.9 16 12 16 15.6 20.8 2 Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 9.8 15.6 6.1 15.8 9.9 16.0 2 Bank Height Ratio 1.3 1.9 2.8 1 1.3 1.0 1.0 2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) Other 0.0145 0.0133 0.0133 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.01 1.1 1.1 Eg 5 Ce 5 Ce 5 Table 9D. Baseline Stream Data Summary Crane ­ UT 4 Pre­Existing Condition (applicable) Design Monitoring Baseline 0.0287 0.0264 0.0264 4.2 4.2 4.2 1.01 1.1 1.1 Eg 5 Ce 5 Ce 5 Table 9C. Baseline Stream Data Summary Crane ­ UT 3 Pre­Existing Condition (applicable) Design Monitoring Baseline Parameter Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)3.7 4.1 4.7 6.1 7 10.3 10.3 1 Floodprone Width (ft)6 8 11 50 150 100.0 100.0 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.8 1 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 4.4 4.4 1 Width/Depth Ratio 4.6 5.8 7.8 12 16 24.2 24.2 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1.9 2.6 8.2 21.3 9.7 9.7 1 Bank Height Ratio 1.8 2.9 4.8 1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) Other 0.0149 0.0136 0.0136 11.3 11.3 11.3 1.01 1.1 1.1 Ge 5 Ce 5 Ce 5 Table 9E. Baseline Stream Data Summary Crane ­ UT 5 Pre­Existing Condition (applicable) Design Monitoring Baseline MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) ­ Based on AB­Bankfull1 Area 388.48 388.41 388.92 388.86 388.85 388.89 388.94 388.96 391.96 391.96 Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area NA NA 1.00 1.09 1.00 0.98 NA NA 1.00 1.03 Thalweg Elevation 387.36 387.33 387.92 387.87 388.24 388.22 388.06 388.04 391.43 391.42 LTOB2 Elevation 388.48 388.44 388.92 388.95 ` 388.85 388.88 388.94 388.96 391.96 391.97 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.12 1.11 1.00 1.08 0.61 0.66 0.88 0.92 0.53 0.55 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.09 5.32 3.78 4.39 2.73 2.60 3.04 3.04 1.40 1.47 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) ­ Based on AB­Bankfull1 Area 392.04 392.06 389.84 389.88 389.72 389.69 Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area NA NA 1.00 0.94 NA NA Thalweg Elevation 391.06 391.15 388.83 388.83 388.24 387.96 LTOB2 Elevation 392.04 392.10 389.84 389.82 389.72 389.65 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.99 0.94 1.01 0.99 1.48 1.69 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.03 3.25 6.73 6.24 9.71 9.28 0.00 1.80 Bankfull Elevation (ft) ­ Based on AB­Bankfull1 Area Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area Thalweg Elevation LTOB2 Elevation LTOB2 Max Depth (ft) LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) ­ Based on AB­Bankfull1 Area 394.72 394.76 394.40 394.17 395.05 395.01 395.00 395.03 399.13 399.17 Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.89 NA 1.07 1.00 1.05 NA 1.00 1.00 1.08 Thalweg Elevation 393.90 393.88 391.94 392.13 394.18 394.16 393.69 393.51 398.21 398.29 LTOB2 Elevation 394.72 394.66 394.40 394.32 ` 395.05 395.06 395.00 395.03 399.13 399.25 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.82 0.78 2.46 2.19 0.87 0.90 1.31 1.52 0.92 0.95 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.90 3.25 5.34 5.90 5.08 5.49 7.96 7.93 4.39 5.00 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) ­ Based on AB­Bankfull1 Area 398.95 398.94 408.40 408.40 408.81 409.00 Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area NA 1.02 1.00 1.05 NA NA Thalweg Elevation 398.20 398.12 407.44 407.37 406.67 406.88 LTOB2 Elevation 398.95 398.96 408.40 408.46 408.81 409.10 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.75 0.84 0.96 1.09 2.14 2.22 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.02 4.16 5.83 6.30 12.88 13.90 0.00 1.80 Bankfull Elevation (ft) ­ Based on AB­Bankfull1 Area Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area Thalweg Elevation LTOB2 Elevation LTOB2 Max Depth (ft) LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Table 10A. Monitoring Data ­ Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary (Crane/ DMS:100165) UT 1, UT 2, and UT 4 UT 2 ­ Cross Section 1 (Pool) UT 2 ­ Cross Section 2 (Riffle) UT 4 ­ Cross Section 3 (Riffle) UT 4 ­ Cross Section 4 (Pool) UT 4 ­ Cross Section 5 (Riffle) Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter­annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed. UT 4 ­ Cross Section 6 (Pool) UT 1 ­ Cross Section 7 (Riffle) UT 1 ­ Cross Section 8 (Pool) Table 10B. Monitoring Data ­ Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary (Crane/ DMS:100165) UT 1, UT 3, and UT 5 UT 3 ­ Cross Section 9 (Riffle) UT 3 ­ Cross Section 10 (Pool) UT 1 ­ Cross Section 11 (Riffle) UT 1 ­ Cross Section 12 (Pool) UT 5 ­ Cross Section 13 (Riffle) Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter­annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed. UT 5 ­ Cross Section 14 (Pool) UT 1 ­ Cross Section 15 (Riffle) UT 1 ­ Cross Section 16 (Pool) The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS,the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As­built bankfull area and the cross sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank. These are calculated as follows: 1 ­Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As­built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As­built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2. The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator. This same process is then carried out in each successive year. 2 ­LTOB Area and Max depth ­These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth. The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS,the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As­built bankfull area and the cross sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank. These are calculated as follows: 1 ­Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As­built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As­built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2. The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator. This same process is then carried out in each successive year. 2 ­LTOB Area and Max depth ­These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth. MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Appendix D: Hydrologic Data Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events Table 12. Groundwater Hydrology Data Groundwater Gauge Graphs Table 13A-D. Channel Evidence Surface Water Gauge Graphs Figure D1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events Table 12. Groundwater Hydrology Data Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year Gauge 12% Hydroperiod Success Criteria Achieved – Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage) Year 1 (2023) Year 2 (2024) Year 3 (2025) Year 4 (2026) Year 5 (2027) Year 6 (2028) Year 7 (2029) 1 No – 4 Days (1.8%) 2 Yes – 42 Days (18.7%) 3 Yes – 45 Days (20.0%) 4 No – 4 Days (1.8%) 5 Yes – 27 Days (12.0%) 6 Yes – 29 Days (12.9%) 7 Yes – 57 Days (25.3%) 8 No – 10 Days (4.4%) 9 No – 22 Days (9.8%) 10 Yes – 81 Days (36.0%) 11 Yes – 73 Days (32.4%) 12 No – 3 Days (1.3%) 13 No – 6 Days (2.7%) 14 No – 14 Days (6.2%) 15 Yes – 32 Days (14.2%) Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence Method Photo (if available) July 1, 2023 July 1, 2023 Crest gauges on UT1 and UT2, as well as flow gauges on UT4 and UT5, documented a bankfull event after 2.80” of rain was recorded between June 30 and July 1, 2023 at an on-site rain gauge. UT1 crested at 1.5 ft, and UT2 crested at 1.22 ft. -- 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 1 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 4 days (1.8%) Installed on 1/20/23 Gauge malfunction 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 2 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 42 days (18.7%) Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 3 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 45 days (20.0%) Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 4 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March29 4 days (1.8%) Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 5 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 27 days (12.0%) Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 6 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 29 days (12.9%) Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 7 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 57 days (25.3%) Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 8 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 10 days (4.4%) Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 9 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 22 days (9.8%) Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 10 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 81 days (36.0%) Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 11 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 73 days (32.4%) Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 12 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 3 days (1.3%) Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 13 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 6 days (2.7%) Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 14 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 14 days (6.2%) Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­40 ­38 ­36 ­34 ­32 ­30 ­28 ­26 ­24 ­22 ­20 ­18 ­16 ­14 ­12 ­10 ­8 ­6 ­4 ­2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crane Groundwater Gauge 15 Year 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season November 8 Start Growing Season March 29 32 days (14.2%) Installed on 1/20/23 MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Table 13A. UT-2 Channel Evidence UT-2 Channel Evidence Year 1 (2023) Max consecutive days channel flow 213 Total cumulative days channel flow* 241 Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes) Yes Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems Yes Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No Other: *New parameter as of MY-1 (2023), at the request of the IRT Table 13B. UT-3 Channel Evidence UT-3 Channel Evidence Year 1 (2023) Max consecutive days channel flow 214 Total cumulative days channel flow* 236 Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes) Yes Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems Yes Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No Other: *New parameter as of MY-1 (2023), at the request of the IRT MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Table 13C. UT-4 Channel Evidence UT-4 Channel Evidence Year 1 (2023) Max consecutive days channel flow 274 Total cumulative days channel flow* 297 Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes) Yes Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems Yes Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No Other: *New parameter as of MY-1 (2023), at the request of the IRT Table 13D. UT-5 Channel Evidence UT-5 Channel Evidence Year 1 (2023) Max consecutive days channel flow 181 Total cumulative days channel flow* 239 Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes) Yes Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems Yes Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No Other: *New parameter as of MY-1 (2023), at the request of the IRT 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­12 ­8 ­4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Crane UT2 Flow Gauge Year 1 (2023 Data) Bankfull event: 7/1/2023 213 days Total Flow ­241 Days Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­12 ­8 ­4 0 4 8 12 16 20 Crane UT3 Flow Gauge Year 1 (2023 Data) 214 days Total Flow ­236 Days Installed on 1/20/23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­12 ­8 ­4 0 4 8 12 16 20 Crane UT4 Flow Gauge Year 1 (2023 Data) Bankfull event: 7/1/2023 274 days Installed on 1/20/23 Total Flow ­297 Days 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ­12 ­8 ­4 0 4 8 12 16 20 Crane UT5 Flow Gauge Year 1 (2023 Data) Bankfull event: 7/1/2023 181 days Total Flow ­239 Days Installed on 1/20/23 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ra i n f a l l   Am o u n t  in  In c h e s Figure D1: Crane 30‐70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall  Current year data from onsite rain gauge* 30‐70th percentile data from WETS Station: Sanford 8 NE, NC (1993‐2023) 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 30th Percentile 70th Percentile *Onsite rain gauge installed 7/13/22  and was last downloaded 11/5/23. MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100165) Appendices Crane Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Lee County, North Carolina February 2024 Appendix E: Project Timeline and Contact Info Table 14. Project Timeline Table 15. Project Contacts Table 14. Project Timeline Data Collection Task Completion or Activity or Deliverable Complete Deliverable Submission Project Instituted NA 30‐Jul‐20 Mitigation Plan Approved NA 14‐Feb‐22 Construction (Grading) Completed NA 15‐Jul‐22 Planting Completed NA 3‐Feb‐23 As‐built Survey Completed NA 1‐Mar‐23 MY0 Baseline Report Jan‐23 Mar‐23 MY1 Monitoring Report Nov‐23 Feb‐24 MY2+ Monitoring Reports Remediation Items (e.g. beaver removal, supplements, repairs etc.) Encroachment  Table 15. Project Contacts Provider Restoration Systems, LLC 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 Raleigh, NC 27604 Mitigation Provider POC Ray Holz 919‐755‐9490 Designer Axiom Environmental, Inc. 218 Snow Ave Raleigh, NC 27603 Primary project design POC Grant Lewis 919‐215‐1693 Construction Contractor Land Mechanics Designs, Inc. 126 Circle G Lane Willow Spring, NC 27592 Primary construction POC Charles Hill 919‐639‐6132 Crane Site/100165