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