20071843 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report Ph 2_3 2_20170531

Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank
Annual Monitoring Report — Year 5
(Phase Two and Three)
Brunswick County, NC
Lumber River Basin
(Cataloging Unit #03040207)
Prepared on behalf of -
Stone Farm Mitigation Bank, LLC
(Sponsor)
Prepared by.•
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUPwc.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
May 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.0.
3.0
4.0
5.0
PROJECTOVERVIEW...............................................................................................................2
A. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................2
B. MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES..................................................................................2
C. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................................................2
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................6
A. WETLAND RESTORATION SUCCESS CRITERIA.....................................................................6
MONITORING RESULTS (YEAR 5) .....
A. PHASE II .....................................................
1. VEGETATION MONITORING ..................
2. HYDROLOGIC MONITORING .................
3. STREAM MONITORING ..........................
(a) Photo Documentation .........................
(b) Ecological Function ............................
(c) Channel Stability/Survey Procedures
(1.) Cross -Sections ...........................
(2.) Longitudinal Profiles ..................
(3.) Pebble Counts .............................
(4.) Stream Flow Monitoring .............
4. CONTINGENCY MEASURES .................
B. PHASE III ....................................................
11
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
19
19
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................22
Figure 1...
Figure 2 ..
Figure 3. .
Figure 4...
Figure 5...
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
... Phase II Restoration Plan/As-Built
..Phase III Restoration Plan/As-Built
.......Phase Boundary Overview Map
Phase II Plot and Well Location Map
............ Cross Section Location Map
Table 1............................................................................ Phase II Planting List (March 2011/February 2012)
Table 2................................................................................ Summary of Tasks Completed — Phase II and III
Table 3................................................................................ Vegetation Plots and Wells by Community Type
Table 4................................................................ Annual Monitoring Data Sheets, Year 5 — Planted Species

Table 4A............................................................Annual Monitoring Data Sheets, Year 5 — Volunteer Species
Table 413 ......................................................Annual Monitoring Data Sheets, Year 5 — Unidentified Volunteer
Table 4C....................................................................................... Stem Counts By Year (Phase 11— Planted)
Table 5........................................................Summary of Year 5 Hydrologic Monitoring (Phase II — Streams)
Table 6.......................................................................................Stream Lengths and Cross Section Stations
Table 7............................................................................................... Longitudinal Profiles by Stream Reach
Table 8 .................................................. Summary of Year 5 Bankfull Event Monitoring (Phase II — Streams)
Table 9....................................................................... Summary of Year 5 Hydrologic Monitoring — Phase III
AppendixA......................................................................................................................... Site Photographs
Appendix B................................................................ Individual Plot Data Sheets (Year 5 Monitoring — 2016)
Appendix C......................................................................... Hydrographs (January 2016 — December 2016)
Appendix D......................................................................... NC Division of Water Resources Drought Maps
Appendix E ............................................... Longitudinal/Cross-Section Surveys, Cross -Section Photographs
AppendixF................................................................................................................... Bankfull Photographs
Appendix G.................................................................................... Palmer Hydological Drought Index Maps

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On behalf of the Bank Sponsor (Stone Farm Bank, LLC), Land Management Group (LMG) has completed
Year 5 annual monitoring of Phase Two and Phase Three of the Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank.
Phase Two consists of 418 acres of the total 968 -acre mitigation bank site and includes 15,338 linear feet
of stream restoration, 103 acres of Riparian (Non-Riverine) Wetland Restoration (i.e. small stream swamp);
28 acres of Riparian (Non-Riverine) Wetland Preservation; 40 acres of Riparian (Non-Riverine) Wetland
Restoration (i.e. headwater swamp forest); 66 acres of Non -Riparian Wetland Enhancement; 160 acres of
Non -Riparian Wetland Preservation; and 21 acres of upland buffer (Figure 1). Phase Three consists of 192
acres and includes 7.40 acres of Riparian (Non-Riverine) Wetland Restoration; 31.5 acres of Non -Riparian
Wetland Restoration; 68 acres of Non -Riparian Wetland Enhancement; and 85 acres of Non -Riparian
Wetland Preservation (Figure 2).
The Phase Two project area connects the 145 -acre Carolina bay on the southern portion of the tract to the
Little Caw Caw Canal (a third -order tributary of the Waccamaw River) on the north boundary of the Bank
site. The Phase Three project area comprises the entire headwater wetlands of the South Tributary. As
was documented in the Mitigation Plan, the streams and wetlands of these watersheds were historically
impaired by agricultural and silvicultural practices for over a hundred years. The wetlands of the Main Stem
and its tributaries (North Tributary and South Tributary) had been cleared and drained for rice production.
A network of dirt roads and canals dissected the site and resulted in the disconnection of first -order
tributaries from adjacent, former floodplain wetlands. Restoration work in Phase Two and Phase Three
involved the removal of over two miles of dirt roads, backfilling of four miles of canals, plugging of an
approximate 5,000 -If section of canal, 15,388 -If of Priority I stream restoration, restoration of valley grades,
and planting of approximately 96 acres of restored wetlands. Construction of the South Tributary of Phase
2 was completed in October 2011. The remaining areas of Phase Two and Phase Three were completed
in February 2012.
The following Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) presents the findings of the fifth and final year of monitoring
for both Phase Two and Phase Three.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
A Intrnrliirtinn
As approved by the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT), the bank Sponsor began implementation of
Phase Two of the restoration project in September 2010. Figure 3 depicts the location and extent of the
three phases of the project. One remaining phase (Phase 4) consists of stream restoration within an
independent watershed (Hunters Creek) on the western portion of the site. Implementation of Phase Three
of the restoration project began in January of 2012. Placement of fill material within existing ditches (Figure
2) was authorized under Nationwide Permit 27 issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on
January 25, 2008 (Action ID# 2003-00682) and the corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification issued on
January 2, 2008 (DWQ Project #20071843).
B. Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The larger Bank restoration project is intended to provide suitable, high-quality wetland and stream
restoration to mitigate for authorized impacts within the Lumber River Basin (USGS 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit
03040207 and 03040206). The objective of the project is to restore natural vegetative and hydrologic
conditions throughout the nonriparian, riparian, and Coastal Plain stream habitat that have been
compromised by previous land use activities. The primary functions to be restored or enhanced as a result
of the restoration project include: surface water storage (i.e. flood attenuation); sediment/nutrient retention;
organic carbon transport to downstream food -webs; and wildlife habitat. The project provides an invaluable
opportunity to restore an entire watershed within a region currently experiencing acute development
pressures.
C. Project Implementation
Earthwork initially included the construction of a dry Priority I stream channel. The first stream channel
restored was the South Tributary. As construction progressed downstream, existing ditches and canals
were filled. Clay plugs were used at prescribed intervals to reduce potential subsurface drainage within
backfilled ditches. Soil removed for the construction of the Priority 1 channel was used to fill in the existing
channels. Existing roadbeds and adjacent spoil piles were removed, and the material was used to backfill
the road -side canals. Construction of the Main Stem and North Tributary was implemented in a similar
manner. Stream valleys were restored through converted agricultural fields to re-establish the natural
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 2
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

hydrologic connection of small stream swamp and headwater bay forest (Carolina bay) and swamp forest
wetlands to the first -order reach of Little Caw Caw Canal. Restored wetlands were planted with
characteristic wetland trees corresponding to the targeted community type (headwater swamp forest and
small stream swamp).
Approximately 63,250 hardwood tree seedlings were planted throughout the restored small stream swamp
and swamp forest communities between March 2011 and February 2012. Seedlings were planted on
approximate 9 -ft centers, corresponding to an average density of 659 seedlings per acre. Planting was
supervised by LMG personnel to ensure proper spacing and planting depths. Swamp black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica) and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) comprised a majority of the seedlings planted, totaling
approximately 30,400. Species such as swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), pond pine (Pinus serotina), and
river birch (Betula nigra) were also planted (See Table 1 for seedling quantities by species). Tulip poplar,
Atlantic white cedar, and pond pine were planted in slightly higher landscape positions in the swamp forest
communities, while the remaining species were planted in the small stream swamp communities that will
likely experience longer flooding durations. The transition between the small stream swamp community
and the swamp forest community in the outer Coastal Plain represents subtle shifts in composition rather
than distinct breaks between wetland types. An overlap of planted species occurs along the boundaries
between the two wetland communities. In addition, live stakes were planted on approximate 4 -ft centers
and interspersed among the top of bank and side bank of the stream channels to provide for enhanced
bank stabilization and vegetative cover.
Restoration work for Phase Three consisted of the installation of four (4) armored earthen clay plugs at
prescribed locations and backfilling 200 -ft upstream of each plug along a channelized ditch upstream of the
Southern Tributary. Given the limited amount of earthwork required for the hydrologic restoration and the
existing forested condition, there were no additional planting requirements for Phase Three.
Refer to Table 2 for a list of tasks and associated completion dates for the implementation of Phase 2 and
Phase 3.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 3
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 1. Phase Two Planting List (March 2011/February 2012)
Non-Riverine Restoration
2011) Southern Tributary
Swamp Forest
6 -ac
Common Name
Scientific Name
# Planted
Yellow Poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
1,000
Pond Pine
Pinus serotina
1,350
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1,200
Bald Cypress
Taxodium distichum
2,000
Swamp Black Gum
Nyssa sylvatica
2,000
Total
7,550
Riverine Restoration (2011)
Southern Tributary
Small Stream Swamp
14 -ac
Common Name
Scientific Name
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
1,000
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
800
Bald Cypress
Taxodium distichum
1,000
Swamp Black Gum
Nyssa sylvatica
1,000
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
2,000
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
2,000
Total
7,800
Non-Riverine Restoration
2012 Mainstem/North Trib.
Swamp Forest
20 -ac
Common Name
Scientific Name
Yellow Poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
4,300
Bald Cypress
Taxodium distichum
6,000
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus michauxii
3,000
Swamp Black Gum
Nyssa sylvatica
3,500
Pond Pine
Pinus serotina
2,400
Atlantic White Cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
2,000
Total
21,200
Riverine Restoration (2012)
Mainstem/North Trib.
Small Stream Swamp
56 -ac
Common Name
Scientific Name
Bald Cypress
Taxodium distichum
10,000
River Birch
Betula nigra
2,000
Swamp Black Gum
Nyssa sylvatica
4,900
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus michauxii
2,000
Yellow Poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
2,000
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
500
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
2,300
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
500
Black Willow
Salix nigra
1,500
Silky Willow
Salix sericea
1,000
Total
26,700
Grand Total
63,250
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 2. Summary of Tasks Completed on Phases Two and Three
Description of Task
Date
Logging within Limits of Clearing
September 2009
Completion of Earthwork (Southern Tributary)
October 2010
Site Planting (Southern Tributary)
March 2011
Completion of Earthwork (Mainstem & Northern Tributary)
October 2011
On-site Meeting with COE Staff - Construction Review
November 2011
Site Planting (Mainstem & Northern Tributary)
February 2012
Completion of Earthwork Phase III
February 2012
On -Site Meeting with COE Staff
March 2012
Year 1 Monitoring
November 2012
Year 1 Monitoring Report Submitted
March 2013
Year 2 Monitoring
September 2013
On -Site Meeting with COE Staff - Phase II & III Review
November 2013
Year 2 Monitoring Report Submitted
May 2014
On -Site Meeting with COE Staff - Phase II & III Review
May 2014
Year 3 Monitoring Report Submitted
May 2015
On -Site Meeting with COE Staff - Phase II & III Review
July 2015
Year 4 Monitoring Report Submitted
July 2016
On -Site Meeting with COE Staff - Phase II & III Review
August 2016
Year 5 Monitoring Report Submitted
May 2017
Per the approved restoration plan, monitoring of Phase Two includes the assessment of both hydrologic
and vegetative conditions over the course of a five year monitoring period. Following the completion of the
earthwork, a total of twenty-nine (29) permanent 0.10 acre plots were established throughout the planted
and restored (i.e. former) small stream swamp and swamp forest communities (Table 3). A total of fourteen
(14) automated shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed within the Phase Two project area
(Table 3). In addition, a total of seven (7) automated water level gauges have been installed within the
stream banks to document bankfull and normal flow events (Table 3). Wells and gauges have collected
data from January 2012 through the present.
Table 3. Vegetation Plots and Wells by Community Type
Community Type
Acreage
Vegetation Plots
Monitoring Wells
Stream Gauges
Phase II - Swamp Forest
315
15
6
0
Phase II - Small Stream
103
14
8
7
Phase III - Swamp Forest
190
0
8
0
TOTAL
608
29
22
7
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 5
Phase Two and Three - Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

Monitoring of Phase Three includes the assessment of hydrologic conditions over a five year monitoring
period. Following the completion of earthwork, a total of eight (8) automated shallow groundwater
monitoring wells were installed within the project area (Table 3). Wells have collected data from mid-March
2012 through the present.
3.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring is being conducted near the end of each growing season for a period of five years. The
monitoring includes both a vegetative and hydrologic component per the approved mitigation banking
instrument. The specific success criteria for the bank are listed below.
A. Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
(1) Demonstrated density of planted species to meet or exceed 320 trees per acre at the end of 3
years (post -planting) and 260 trees per acres at the end of 5 years (post -planting). 1
(2) No single volunteer species (most notably, red maple, loblolly pine, and sweet gum) will comprise
more than 50% of the total composition at year 2 or 3. If this occurs, remedial procedures will be
implemented. During years 4 and 5, no single volunteer species, comprising over 50% of the total
composition, may be more than two times the height of the planted trees. If this occurs, remedial
procedures will be implemented.
(3) Hydrology during the growing season must be sufficient to at least meet the guidelines set forth
within the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1).
Therefore, the hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a static water table at, or within, 12"
of the soil surface for 12% of the growing season2 (equivalent to 32 days based upon SCS -
established growing season March 7t" through November 28th) during periods of normal rainfall.
1 Volunteer species may be counted toward meeting the success criteria upon evaluation of site-specific conditions and
concurrence by IRT members.
2 As defined by the Soil Conservation Service, the growing season for Brunswick County is 266 days.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 6
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

The vegetative component for Phase Two includes an assessment of the conditions within each of the
twenty-nine (29) permanent monitoring plots that have been established throughout the project area (Figure
4). Hydrologic monitoring is being conducted via fourteen (14) automated shallow groundwater monitoring
wells for Phase Two and eight (8) for Phase Three which record on daily intervals (refer to Figure 4 for
location of the monitoring wells). Data from the wells are downloaded on approximate three-month
intervals and imported into graphing software for analysis. Phase Three monitoring consists of collection of
groundwater level data (once daily) over the course of the five-year monitoring period through the use of
eight (8) automated wells.
Monitoring reports are being submitted annually to the USACE and the IRT. These reports include results
of vegetative and hydrologic monitoring and photographic documentation of site conditions. Monitoring
reports also identify any contingency measures that may need to be employed to remedy any site
deficiencies (e.g. major stream design failures).
4.0 MONITORING RESULTS (YEAR 5)
A. PHASE TWO
1. Vegetation Monitoring
Year 5 monitoring data was collected in October 2016 over a three-day period (October 12th - 14th). A total
of 6,575 stems were counted throughout the twenty-nine (29) plots (Table 4). Inclusive within this total
were 1,227 stems of planted species (correlating to a mean density of 423 stems per acre) (refer to Table
4). Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and swamp black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) were the most abundant
woody species, with a total of 716 and 209 individuals, respectively. Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), river birch (Betula nigra), pond pine (Pinus serotina), Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis
thyiodes), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) were also prevalent within certain plots.
While the mean height of the planted species remains relatively low (<_ 4 -ft) through the fifth year of
monitoring, overall survivorship remains high and well above the required density per acre. The majority of
the floodplain is vegetated by soft rush (Juncus effusus) and bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus), and there
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 7
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

appears to be low risk of trees being out -competed at this time. Several plots exhibit survival rates of less
than 60%. However, this is mainly due to the die back of tulip poplar and pond pine from being flooded out
by increased groundwater levels and duration throughout the growing season. In review of Year 5
monitoring data, it appears that the site has progressed well towards the required planted vegetative
densities.
In addition to the planted species, numerous volunteers were observed within swamp forest plots (Table
4A). A majority of these individuals, such as fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), redbay (Persea palustris), wax
myrtle (Morella cerifera), and gallberry (Ilex glabra) are considered desirable volunteers since these plants
are representative of the target wetland community type. It should be noted that a majority of pines were
undistinguishable between loblolly pine and pond pine due to the relatively young age of the seedlings and
lack of identifiable pine characteristics (resinous buds, needle bundles, rounded cone, stem foliage
sprouts). Unidentified Pinus spp. have not been counted toward the success criterion (Table 413).
The mean stem density observed for both planted and characteristic (desirable) wetland species for the
project area is 1,140 stems/acre. Note that this observed density excludes individuals of the following
species: (1) red maple (Acer rubrum); (2) sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua); (3) horse sugar (Symplocos
tinctoria); (4) baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia); (5) winged sumac (Rhus copallinum); (6) red oak (Quercus
rubra); (7) black willow (Salix nigra); and (8) unidentified Pinus spp.. Please refer to Table 4C for Planted
Stem Counts by Year. Individual plot data sheets are provided in Appendix B.
The most abundant volunteer species identified within the restored small stream swamp and swamp forest
communities are (in order of abundance): (1) unidentified Pinus spp. (1428 total stems); (2) sweet gum
(978 total stems); (3) fetterbush (646 total stems); baccharis (528 total stems); (4) red bay (507 total
stems); (6) gallberry (384 total stems); and (7) wax myrtle (356 total stems). Refer to Table 4A for
volunteer species identified by plot. In general, the observed volunteer species are considered
characteristic of the target wetland community type (small stream swamp and swamp forest).
The most prevalent non -target species observed during Year 5 monitoring was unidentified Pinus spp. and
sweet gum. While considered non -desirable (due to their potential to out -compete planted species), both
loblolly pine and sweet gum are commonly occurring as early successional species in the Outer Coastal
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 8
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

TABLE 4. YEAR 5 STEM COUNTS (PHASE TWO - STREAM) - PLANTED
SPECIES
PLOT 1
PLOT 2
PLOT 3
PLOT 4
PLOT 5
PLOT 6
PLOT 7
PLOT 8
PLOT 9
PLOT 10
PLOT 11
PLOT 12
PLOT 13
PLOT 14
PLOT 15
PLOT 16
PLOT 17
PLOT 18
PLOT
NT1
PLOT
NT2
PLOT
NT3
PLOT
NT4
PLOT
NT5
PLOT
NT6
PLOT
ST1
PLOT
ST2
PLOT
ST3
PLOT
ST4
PLOT
ST5
TOTAL
Bald Cypress
23
20
12
25
24
7
19
37
32
16
16
27
4
15
34
45
27
12
28
39
16
31
29
50
29
18
20
33
28
716
Black Gum
7
19
5
9
22
6
15
1
13
1
2
10
2
6
4
4
6
2
7
4
3
3
18
0
1
10
4
13
12
209
Atlantic White
Cedar
0
0
1
1
0
4
0
0
0
4
9
0
9
7
0
1
0
7
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
Pond Pine
0
0
5
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
9
0
5
0
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
8
0
0
0
54
Tulip Poplar
11
12
2
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
40
Swamp Chestnut
Oak
4
2
3
4
5
0
3
0
1
3
8
5
1
0
5
0
3
2
8
3
0
1
3
6
0
0
1 0
0
1
71
River Birch
0
7
0
0
0
0
10
0
3
0
0
1
2
0
5
0
2
0
0
3
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
Green Ash
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
21
1
28
Ironwood
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
3
6
TOTAL
45
60
28
39
51
28
47
44
49
24
46
43
19
37
48
55
38
25
43
49
26
56
56
60
34
38
27
67
45
1227
TABLE 4A. YEAR 5 STEM COUNTS (PHASE TWO - STREAM) - VOLUNTEERS
SPECIES
PLOT 1
PLOT 2
PLOT 3
PLOT 4
PLOT 5
PLOT 6
PLOT 7
PLOT 8
PLOT 9
PLOT 10
PLOT 11
PLOT 12
PLOT 13
PLOT 14
PLOT 15
PLOT 16
PLOT 17
PLOT 18
PLOT
NT1
PLOT
NT2
PLOT
NT3
PLOT
NT4
PLOT
NT5
PLOT
NT6
PLOT
ST1
PLOT
ST2
PLOT
ST3
PLOT
ST4
PLOT
ST5
TOTAL
Water Oak
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
3
0
0
3
1
1
2
0
0
23
Red Oak
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Tulip Poplar
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
Gallberry
5
4
375
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
384
Sweetbay
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
13
Red Bay
20
11
175
0
0
60
0
3
0
7
1
3
22
0
0
0
0
50
8
1
45
0
8
7
10
41
29
5
1
507
Wax Myrtle
52
13
0
31
26
0
9
6
10
6
6
18
9
19
19
12
2
13
10
5
12
10
10
11
5
4
5
18
15
356
American Holly
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
8
2
0
0
0
1
0
5
3
0
1
3
28
Fetterbush
2
0
350
0
4
150
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
137
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
646
Highbush Blue
Berry
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
20
0
0
8
0
1
0
0
1
10
0
0
50
Blue Huckleberry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
Red Chokeberry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
Tfi
0
0
1 0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
Persimmon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Baccharis
23
3
0
31
8
0
14
0
4
1
0
78
0
0
50
6
80
0
35
25
0
38
22
8
2
0
9
51
40
528
Red Oak
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Horse Sugar
0
2
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
Winged Sumac
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
6
Sweet Gum
52
17
65
28
23
50
10
88
19
41
60
21
45
28
41
19
4
38
40
40
23
0
24
26
20
48
32
39
37
978
Black Willow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Red Maple
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
50
75
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
40
0
20
0
0
306
TOTAL
160
52
980
91
72
261
33
106
84
108
142
121
85
79
110
37
87
331
95
71
97
48
68
97
85
99
107
117
97
3920
TABLE 4B. YEAR 5 STEM COUNTS (PHASE TWO - STREAM) - UNIDENTIFIED VOLUNTEERS
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report
PLOT
PLOT
PLOT
PLOT
PLOT
PLOT
PLOT
PLOT
PLOT
PLOT
PLOT
SPECIES
PLOT 1
PLOT 2
PLOT 3
PLOT 4
PLOT 5
PLOT 6
PLOT 7
PLOT 8
PLOT 9
PLOT 10
PLOT 11
PLOT 12
PLOT 13
PLOT 14
PLOT 15
PLOT 16
PLOT 17
PLOT 18
TOTAL
NT1
NT2
NT3
NT4
NT5
NT6
ST1
ST2
ST3
ST4
ST5
Unldenfified Pine
65
106
40
40
40
100
45
95
4
10
30
43
50
30
65
35
1
90
68
30
120
50
32
36
25
70
43
27
38
1428
TOTAL
65
106
40
40
40
100
45
95
4
10
30
43
50
30
65
35
1
90
68
30
120
50
32
36
25
70
43
27
38
1428
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

TABLE 4C. STEM COUNTS BY YEAR (Stone Farm Phase II) - PLANTED
SPECIES
YEAR
PLOT 1
PLOT 2
PLOT 3
PLOT 4
PLOT 5
PLOT 6
PLOT 7
PLOT 8
PLOT 9
PLOT 10
PLOT 11
PLOT 12
PLOT 13
PLOT 14
PLOT 15
PLOT 16
PLOT 17
PLOT 18
PLOT
NT1
PLOT
NT2
PLOT
NT3
PLOT
NT4
PLOT
NT5
PLOT
NT6
PLOT STI PLOT ST2 PLOT ST3 PLOT ST4 PLOT ST5
TOTAL
Survivorship Rate (by
year)
96
0
24
19
12
25
25
6
18
43
31
18
16
27
4
14
31
58
35
15
24
40
18
29
31
49
33
18
25
34
32
754
WA
YA vs Vr5
1
23
20
12
27
26
5
20
40
32
17
16
26
4
14
33
56
33
15
25
37
16
33
28
54
28
19
24
34
32
749
99
Bald Cypress
2
24
21
11
23
25
5
19
40
32
12
14
26
4
14
31
48
27
13
25
36
15
30
26
47
28
19
21
33
26
695
92
3
24
20
12
21
25
5
19
38
33
15
17
28
4
14
33
46
27
11
25
38
13
32
27
46
28
15
20
22
25
683
91
4
22
19
12
24
26
6
19
38
32
15
17
28
4
15
33
45
28
12
28
40
16
31
29
50
29
18
20
33
28
711
95
5
23
20
12
25
24
7
19
37
32
16
16
27
4
15
34
45
27
12
28
39
16
31
29
50
29
18
20
33
28
716
95
O
13
22
12
8
20
11
77
0
17
2
3
13
4
3
5
5
10
5
15
6
5
12
21
3
0
42
26
7
29
330
WA
1
12
20
8
7
20
8
11
0
12
2
3
13
3
1
3
4
4
8
4
11
6
4
9
22
3
0
9
7
8
20
241
73
2
12
17
7
9
19
6
9
0
14
1
3
12
2
3
4
4
6
2
7
4
2
9
18
0
O
12
3
11
16
212
64
Black Gum
3
8
20
5
10
20
6
74
1
13
1
3
11
1
3
3
4
5
2
6
4
2
4
18
0
0
10
5
71
16
206
62
4
7
20
5
9
21
5
14
0
10
1
3
11
2
4
3
4
6
3
6
4
2
3
17
0
1
10
3
12
15
201
61
5
7
19
5
9
22
6
15
1
13
1
2
10
2
6
4
4
6
2
7
4
3
4
18
0
1
10
4
13
12
210
64
O
O
0
2
1
0
5
0
0
0
9
12
0
20
14
0
4
0
7
0
0
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
N/A
1
0
0
2
1
0
5
0
0
0
8
11
0
18
13
0
4
0
7
0
0
8
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
80
96
Atlantic White
2
0
0
2
1
0
4
0
0
0
5
10
0
11
10
0
1
0
7
0
0
6
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
60
72
Cedar
3
0
0
1
1
0
4
0
0
0
5
10
0
9
9
0
1
0
7
0
0
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
55
66
4
0
0
1
1
0
4
0
0
0
4
9
0
8
8
0
1
0
7
0
0
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
51
61
5
0
0
1
1
0
4
0
0
0
4
9
0
9
7
0
1
0
7
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
59
0
O
0
14
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
17
O
8
0
10
0
0
12
0
1
0
O
11
1
0
6
777
N/A
1
O
0
11
O
0
12
O
0
0
0
12
0
0
15
0
6
0
4
0
0
4
0
1
0
O
8
0
O
0
73
62
2
O
0
9
O
0
10
0
0
0
0
77
0
0
12
0
5
0
1
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
11
0
0
0
64
55
Pond Pine
3
0
0
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
12
0
5
0
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
O
11
0
O
0
63
54
4
0
0
8
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
9
0
5
0
2
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
8
0
0
0
58
50
5
0
0
5
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
77
0
0
9
0
5
0
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
8
0
0
0
54
46
0
8
1
23
0
5
8
0
33
0
5
2
5
8
8
7
0
7
14
12
18
5
0
10
2
0
4
0
3
4
192
N/A
1
20
6
17
0
4
3
0
25
0
1
1
4
4
2
5
0
2
10
5
8
3
0
8
4
0
0
2
0
0
134
70
2
21
9
10
0
1
1
0
16
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
6
4
5
3
0
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
96
50
Tulip Poplar
3
30
19
6
0
1
0
0
10
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
2
0
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
B7
45
4
13
13
3
0
0
0
0
B
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
54
28
5
11
12
2
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
O
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
40
21
0
9
7
4
8
11
0
3
0
8
10
12
8
5
4
12
0
9
4
11
7
0
4
5
12
0
0
0
0
0
153
N/A
1
8
6
5
7
10
0
3
0
8
7
10
7
4
2
9
0
8
3
11
7
0
5
5
11
0
0
0
0
2
138
90
Swamp Chestnut
2
8
2
3
6
7
0
4
0
6
5
11
8
3
2
8
0
4
2
11
6
0
3
5
7
0
0
0
O
1
772
73
Oak
3
6
2
2
6
7
0
3
0
6
3
9
6
3
1
7
0
4
2
11
4
0
3
3
8
0
0
0
O
1
97
63
4
5
1
2
5
5
0
4
0
5
4
8
4
1
1
6
0
3
2
10
4
O
2
3
6
0
0
0
0
1
82
54
5
4
2
3
4
5
0
3
0
1
3
8
5
1
0
5
0
3
2
8
3
0
1
3
6
0
0
0
0
1
71
46
O
0
16
0
O
0
0
15
0
3
0
O
1
3
0
7
0
3
0
0
4
O
26
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
78
N/A
1
O
23
0
O
0
0
14
0
3
0
O
1
4
0
7
0
2
1
0
4
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
82
105
2
0
16
0
0
0
0
12
0
4
0
0
1
4
0
7
0
2
1
0
4
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78
100
River Birch
3
O
16
0
0
0
0
11
0
4
0
0
1
3
0
7
0
2
1
0
4
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
77
99
4
0
8
0
0
0
0
10
0
4
0
0
1
3
0
7
0
2
0
0
4
O
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
64
82
5
O
7
0
O
0
0
10
O
3
0
O
1
2
0
5
0
2
0
0
3
O
21
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
54
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
4
15
38
21
100
N/A
1
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
3
7
22
1
40
40
2
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
5
0
4
22
2
33
33
Green Ash
3
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
5
0
2
24
2
33
33
4
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
3
22
1
32
32
5
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
21
1
28
28
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
N/A
1
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
6
750
2
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
2
O
4
6
150
Ironwood
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
O
3
5
125
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
7
2
0
3
6
150
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
3
6
150
Total Yr0 Stems
54
65
67
42
61
48
47
76
59
44
64
54
44
60
62
75
64
55
62
75
48
71
69
66
55
79
67
82
96
1811
Total YrOS Stems
45
60
28 1
39
51
28
47
4d
49
24
46
43
19
37
48
55
38
25
43
49
26
57
56
60
34
38
27
67
45
1228
YA vs Vr5
Survivorship
83%
92%
42% 1
93 %
84 %
58 %
100 %
58 %
83 %
55 %
72 %
80 %
43 %
62 %
77 %
73 %
59 %
45 %
69 %
65 %
54 %
80 %
81 %
91 %
62 %
48%
40%
82%
47%
68%
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 10
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

Plain. Based upon Year 5 monitoring data, Plot 17 contains a single volunteer species (baccharis) which
comprises more than 50% of the total plot composition. The mean height of baccharis stems within Plot 17
is six and point two five (6.25) feet. The mean height of all planted stems within Plot 17 is four (4) feet.
Therefore, the mean height of baccharis stems in Plot 17 is less than two times the height of the planted
species and satisfactorily meets the success criterion (Figure 6). Most of the predominant volunteers (e.g.
fetterbush, red bay, gallberry, etc.) are desirable and consistent with the restoration goals of the project (i.e.
characteristic of the target vegetative community). While certain volunteer species can potentially out -
compete planted species, the overall composition of the species observed is characteristic of small stream
swamp and swamp forest wetlands of the outer Coastal Plain and appear to be well -adapted to the
restored wetland hydrology. The planted species within Plot 17, especially bald cypress with a mean height
of seven point six three (7.63) feet, appear to be appear to be unaffected by the volunteer baccharis growth
and density. Therefore, remedial action is not recommended.
2. Hydrologic Monitoring (Wetlands)
Per the approved mitigation plan, a total of fourteen (14) shallow groundwater monitoring wells were
installed throughout Phase Two. Following the completion of stream construction, discharge rates
decreased throughout the site, and static water table depths have remained within 12" of the surface for
extended periods. Of the fourteen (14) wells within Phase Two, all fourteen (14) wells exhibited
hydroperiods of 12% (corresponding to 32 consecutive days) or greater during the growing season
between March 7th and November 28th, 2016 (Table 5). The observed mean hydroperiod duration for these
wells during the growing season was 77 days. During Year 5 (2016), normal to above normal hydrologic
conditions persisted in the project area throughout the majority of the growing season. January through
March exhibited above normal moisture, April was normal, May through June was above normal, July
through August was normal, and September through December exhibited above normal moisture (based
upon NC DWR Drought Maps). During Year 1 (2012), one (Well #12) of the fourteen wells did not meet the
12% success criterion. It was believed that in combination with moderate to extreme drought conditions,
readings were being influenced by the material of the former road bed which may have been influencing
lateral groundwater movement. An additional well (Well #12B) was installed outside of the former roadbed
as a comparison for Well #12 (now labeled Well #12A). Both Well #12A and Well #12B exhibited
hydroperiods greater than 12% of the Year 5 growing season. Well #12B exhibited longer
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 5. Summary of 2016 Hydrologic Monitoring (Phase 2)
2016 Growing Season March 7 - November 28
Well Number
Community
Type
Total Number of
days within 12"
(Jan 1 thru Dec
20 or 21)
Longest Number Of
Consecutive Days
Meeting Wetland
Hydrology Criteria (in
growing season)
Dates of Longest Number
of Consecutive Days
Meeting Wetland
Hydrology Criteria
Percentage
of Growing
Season
12%
Success
Criteria (32
Days)
>6.
°
12.5 /°
12.5
-
25%
25-
°
75 /°
°
>75%
MS -1
SS
287
82
Mar 7 - May 27
30.7%
Yes
--
--
X
--
MS-5
SS
268
71
Mar 7 - May 16
26.6%
Yes
--
--
X
--
MS-7
SF
299
88
Sept 2 - Nov 28
33.0%
Yes
--
--
X
--
MS-8A
SF
228
64
Sept 2 - Nov 4
24.0%
Yes
--
X
--
--
MS-813
SF
340
129
July 23 - Nov 28
48.3%
Yes
--
--
X
--
MS-10
SF
287
88
Sept 2 - Nov 28
33.0%
Yes
--
--
X
--
MS-12A
SS
253
64
Sept 2 - Nov 4
24.0%
Yes
--
X
--
--
MS-12B
SS
335
129
July 23 - Nov 28
48.3%
Yes
--
--
X
--
MS-17
SS
229
103
Mar 7 - Jun 17
38.6%
Yes
--
--
X
--
NT-2
SS
229
59
Sept 2 - Oct 30
22.1%
Yes
--
X
--
--
NT-3
SF
206
54
Sept 3 - Oct 26
20.2%
Yes
--
X
--
--
NT-6
SS
199
44
Mar 7 - Apr 19
16.5%
Yes
--
X
--
--
ST-1
SS
263
78
Mar 7 - May 23
29.2%
Yes
--
--
X
--
ST-3
SS
176
54
Sept 3 - Oct 26
20.2%
Yes
--
X
--
--
ST-4
SF
196
53
Sept 2 - Oct 24
19.9%
Yes
--
X
--
--
MS = Mainstem
NT = Northern Tributary
ST = Southern Tributary
SS = Small Stream
SF = Swamp Forest
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 12
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

hydroperiods than Well #12A for the fourth year in a row. These results suggest that underlying road bed
material is affecting groundwater movement in the vicinity of Well #12A. A summary of these results are
provided in Table 5. Complete hydrologic monitoring data are provided in Appendix C. NC Division of
Water Resources Drought maps are provided in Appendix D. Palmer Hydrological Drought Index Maps are
provided in Appendix G.
3. Stream Monitoring
The primary success criterion for the stream portion of the mitigation bank is identified below:
No less than two bankfull flow events must be documented through the monitoring period. These
events will be documented through the use of well monitoring data and on-site photo
documentation. If less than two bankfull events occur during the first 5 years, monitoring will
continue until the second bankfull event is documented. The bankfull events must occur during
separate monitoring years. In the event that the required bankfull events do not occur during the
five-year monitoring period, the MBRT may determine that further monitoring is required.
Level 1 Monitoring was implemented for the stream portion of the Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank as
detailed in the Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003. Monitoring will occur every year for the five year
monitoring period.
Level 1 Monitoring includes Sections (a), (b), and (c) listed below.
(a) Photo -Documentation
Photo documentation was implemented during Year 5 for the stream monitoring phase of this project.
Photographs were taken at each gauge location, cross section, and along each stream reach during Year 5
monitoring. Photographic and video evidence of bankfull events and/or Ordinary High Water Mark
indicators (OHWM) and flow evidence were also collected. Photographs are provided in Appendix E.
Bankfull events and/or OHWM indicators are provided in Appendix F. Please refer to the enclosed CD for
video evidence of flow.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 13
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

(b) Ecological Function
The health of the riparian vegetation was documented as part of the wetland restoration monitoring efforts.
Multiple 0.10 ac. permanent monitoring plots were established throughout the riverine wetland restoration
including areas directly adjacent to the restored channel. Reference the vegetation monitoring section for
monitoring results.
Subsequent to communication with the Corps of Engineers Wilmington Regulatory Branch in February
2012, macroinvertebrate sampling will no longer be required as part of the Phase Two monitoring
requirements.
(c) Channel Stability/Survey Procedures
1. Cross -Sections
The Stone Farm Phase Two area has restored 15,338 If of Coastal Plain stream. The restored channels
mimick low gradient, low velocity stream reaches characteristic of the outer Coastal Plain. No hardened
materials (i.e. rock structures) were used. Rather, natural materials (such as root wads and log vanes)
have assisted with channel stabilization and grade control. Given the size, uniform design, and gentle
slope (0.005) of the project, cross-sections were established every 1,000 feet of stream length (totaling 14
permanent stations). Placement of these stations was designed to assess the performance of potential
problem areas (i.e. severe erosion, structural failure). These stations were also evenly distributed between
riffles and pools throughout the project. Refer to Table 6 for the number of cross-sections and Figure 5 for
the locations of the cross-section monitoring stations. Year 5 cross-section surveys are provided in
Appendix E.
Table 6. Stream Lengths and Number of Cross -Section Stations
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 14
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report
Proposed (If)
Final Design
Reach Name
Mitigation
Length
As -Built Length
Cross-sections
Plan
Mainstem
8,073
8,609
8,613
8
Northern Tributary
2,668
3,473
3,474
3
Southern Tributary
2,641
3,288
3,251
3
Total Length
13,382
15,370
15,338
14
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 14
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

2. Longitudinal Profiles
Guidelines regarding longitudinal profiles for projects totaling over 3,000 If suggest that 30% of the area be
surveyed on an annual basis. Based on this guideline, a total of 4,200 If of profile is required for Phase
Two of the Stone Farm project. The 4,200 If of survey was divided throughout the individual reaches and
includes the permanent cross-sections (Table 7). Reference the longitudinal surveys in Appendix E in
comparison to as -built conditions.
Table 7. Longitudinal Profiles by Stream Reach
Reach Name
Proposed (If)
Final Design Length
As -Built Length
% of Project'
Profile (If)
Mainstem
8,073
8,609
8,613
35.6
2,400
Northern Tributary
2,668
3,473
3,474
14.4
900
Southern Tributary
2,641
3,288
3,251
13.4
900
Total Length
13,382
15,370
15,338
63.4
4,200
1 — "% of Project' refers to stream restoration in Phases 2 & 4. Phase 4 (Hunters Creek) has not yet been implemented and will account for 33.6% of stream
length (see Mitigation Plan).
3. Pebble Counts
Streams in the Stone Farm Phase Two project area are composed of sandy substrates typical in the outer
Coastal plain. Since all sediment falls into the sand category, gravelometer readings were not conducted.
All sediment in the constructed stream beds is less than 2mm and would be placed in the <2mm category
for Wolman pebble count analysis.
4. Stream Flow Monitoring
As indicated above, the 1 st-order streams of Phase Two occur within three distinct valleys that connect the
145 -acre Carolina bay on the southern portion of the tract to the Little Caw Caw Canal on the north side (a
third order tributary of the Waccamaw River). The three valleys are identified as the mainstem, the
northern tributary, and the southern tributary. A total of 7 gauges were installed in the stream beds to
document the elevations of surface water in the channels on a daily basis. These gauges capture the
upper end of each stream reach (3 gauges in the mainstem, 2 gauges in the northern tributary, and 2
gauges in the southern tributary). Refer to Figure 3 for a map depicting the location of 1st -order gauges.
Indicators of OHWM and video/photo documentation were also used to identify the presence of surface
water flow.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 15
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

Mainstem (MS):
Surface water and flow was documented in each of the three (3) gauges over several periods during the
monitoring event. The valley exhibits a very gradual slope (0.005%) from the upper end (Carolina bay) to
the lowest end (Little Caw Caw Canal). Gauge MS -1 was placed the furthest up -gradient (second stream
meander from source) in order to capture bankfull events at the head of the restored stream reach.
Gauges MS -2 and MS -3 were spaced approximately 1000 -ft apart further down the stream. All three
gauges were placed within the stream segment solely charged by the Carolina bay (Phase One). Refer to
Figure 3 for the gauge locations.
The amplitude of the surface water varied at each gauge. Gauge MS -1 exhibited ten (10) bankfull events
during the monitoring period, while gauges MS -2 and MS -3 recorded thirteen (13) and ninteen (19) bankfull
events, respectively (Table 8). It should be noted that the duration of the bankfull events at all three
gauges sometimes extended for several days, with the maximum duration being seven (7) days for MS -1,
eight (8) days for MS -2, and twenty-one (21) days for MS -3 (Table 8). Video and/or photographic evidence
of flow was recorded along the mainstem over multiple site visits. Flow can be readily seen at each gauge
located within the stream valley. With increasing watershed size (downslope), the duration of surface flow
increased within the valley.
Observed physical indicators of an OHWM within the mainstem consisted of the following: (1) natural line
impressed on the bank; (2) presence of litter and debris; (3) wracking; (4) vegetation matted down, bent, or
absent; (5) sediment sorting; (6) scour; (7) deposition; (8) water staining; (9) and multiple observed flow
events. Photographs of the mainstem are provided in Appendix A. Bankfull events and/or OHWM
photographs and physical indicators are provided in Appendix F. Video evidence of flow is provided on the
attached CD with site hydrographs.
Northern Tributary (NT):
Surface water and flow was documented in each of the two (2) gauges over several periods during the
monitoring event. Gauge NT -1 was placed the furthest up -gradient in order to capture bankfull events at
the head of the restored stream reach. Gauge NT -2 was placed approximately 1000 -ft further down the
stream. Refer to Figure 3 for the gauge locations.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 16
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

The amplitude of the surface water varied at each gauge. Gauges NT -1 and NT -2 exhibited twenty (23)
bankfull events during the monitoring period (Table 8). It should be noted that the duration of the bankfull
events at both gauges sometimes extended for several days, with the maximum duration being twenty-six
(26) days for gauge NT -1 and ten (10) days for gauge NT -2 (Table 8). Video and/or photographic evidence
of flow was recorded over multiple site visits. Flow can be readily seen at each gauge located within the
stream valley.
Observed physical indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within the northern tributary
consisted of the following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) presence of litter and debris; (3)
wracking; (4) vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (5) sediment sorting; (6) scour; (7) deposition; (8)
water staining; (9) and multiple observed flow events. Photographs of the northern tributary are provided in
Appendix A. Bankfull events and/or Ordinary High Water Mark photographs and physical indicators are
provided in Appendix F. Video evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with site hydrographs.
Southern Tributary (ST):
Surface water and flow was documented in each of the two (2) gauges over several periods during the
monitoring event. Gauge ST -1 was placed the furthest up -gradient in order to capture bankfull events at
the head of the restored stream reach. Gauge ST -2 was placed approximately 1000 -ft further down the
stream. Refer to Figure 3 for the gauge locations.
The amplitude of the surface water varied at each gauge. Gauge ST -1 exhibited thirteen (13) bankfull
events during the monitoring period, while gauge ST -2 exhibited twelve (12) bankfull events (Table 8). It
should be noted that the duration of the bankfull events at both gauges sometimes extended for several
days, with the maximum duration being twenty-two (22) days for ST -1 and eleven (11) days for ST -2 (Table
8). Video and/or photographic evidence of flow was recorded over multiple site visits. Flow can be readily
seen at each gauge located within the stream valley.
OHWM within the southern tributary consisted of the following: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2)
presence of litter and debris; (3) wracking; (4) vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (5) sediment
sorting; (6) scour; (7) deposition; (8) water staining; (9) and multiple observed flow events. Photographs of
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 17
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 8. Summary of 2016 Bankfull Event Monitoring (Phase Two)
Gauge Number'
Total Number of Bankfull Events
Longest Number of Consecutive Days
During Bankfull Event
Dates of Bankfull Event(s)
3 -Day Antecedent
Rainfall (Inches)
(On-site Rain gauge)
MS -1
10
7
Jan 1 - 2 Aug 3
.54
2.9
Jan 22 - 23 Sept 2 - 5
1.15
6.15
Feb 4 -10 Sept 12 -17
3.47
2.4
Feb 16 -17 Sept 23 - 26
.09
2.22
July 23 Oct 8 -12
3.83
5.67
MS -2
13
8
Jan 1 - 3 July 23
.54
3.83
Jan 15 -16 Aug 3
.87
2.9
Jan 17 -18 Sept 2 - 6
1.22
6.15
Jan 22 - 25 Sept 12 -18
1.15
2.4
Feb 4 -11 Sept 23 - 28
3.47
2.22
Feb 16-18 Oct 8-12
.9
5.67
Mar 4
1.05
MS -3
19
21
Jan 1 - 8 May 5
.54
1.23
Jan 15 -19 June 6 - 7
.87
1.21
Jan 22 - 27 July 23
1.15
3.83
Feb 4 -13 Aug 2 - 3
3.47
2.9
Feb 16 -19 Sept 2 - 7
.9
6.15
Feb 23 - 25 Sept 12 - Oct 2
.36
2.4
Mar 4 - 6 Oct 7 - Oct 15
1.05
5.67
Mar 27 - 29 Dec 6 - 7
1.32
1.94
Apr 1 - 3 Dec 14 -15
.56
.52
Apr 7-9
.7
NT -1
20
26
Jan 1 - 8 July 23
.54
3.83
Jan 15 - 21 Aug 3
.87
2.9
Jan 22 - 31 Sept 2 - 6
1.15
6.15
Feb 4 - 29 Sept 12 -13
3.47
2.4
Mar 2 Sept 14 -18
.16
3.8
Mar 3 -10 Sept 19 - 20
.43
.32
Mar 11 Sept 22 - 28
0
1.79
Mar 27 - 29 Oct 8 -14
1.32
5.67
Apr 1 - 4 Oct 15
.56
0
Apr 7 - 9 Dec 6
.7
1.94
NT -2
20
10
Jan 1 -4 Apr 7
.54
.7
Jan 7 July 23
0
3.83
Jan 15 -16 Aug 8
.87
.08
Jan 17 -18 Sept 2 - 5
1.22
6.15
Jan 22 - 26 Sept 12 - 13
1.15
2.4
Feb 4 -13 Sept 14 -17
3.47
3.8
Feb 16 - 21 Sept 23 - 28
.9
2.22
Feb 23 - 25 Oct 8 -13
.36
5.67
Mar 4 - 5 Oct 14
1.05
0
Mar 27-28 Dec6
1.32
1.94
ST -1
13
22
Jan 1-3 Aug 3-4
.54
2.9
Jan 15 Sept 2 -11
.87
6.15
Jan 22 - 24 Sept 12 - Oct 3
1.15
2.4
Feb 4 -13 Oct 4 - 5
3.47
0
Feb 16-17 Oct 7-19
.9
5.67
June 7 Dec 6
1.43
1.94
July 23 - 24
3.83
ST -22
12
11
Jan 1 - 2 Sept 2 -10
.54
6.15
Jan 22 - 23 Sept 12 - 22
1.15
2.4
Feb 4 -12 Sept 23 - Oct 2
3.47
2.22
Feb 16 -17 Oct 3
.9
.08
July 23 Oct 4 - 5
3.83
0
Aug 3 Oct 7 - 14
2.9
5.67
1- MS=Mainstem; NT=Northern Tributary; ST=Southern Tributary
z- ST -2 gauge malfunction, data gap Oct 14 - Dec 21, 2016
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 18
Phase Two and Three - Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

the southern tributary are provided in Appendix A. Bankfull events and/or OHWM photographs and
physical indicators are provided in Appendix F. Video evidence of flow is provided on the attached CD with
site hydrographs
4. Contingency Measures
Stream banks and in -stream structures (i.e. root wads, log vanes, etc.) were monitored for evidence of
surface bank erosion (i.e. down -cutting) subsequent to above normal rainfall and high flow events. In
previous years, some down -cutting of the floodplain was noted in areas where surface water in the
floodplain flows back into the stream channel. However, these features have not resulted in any significant
deposition within the channel and do not appear to adversely affect stream function. In fact, these features
are common within natural, unimpaired streams and are evidence of the connectivity between the stream
and its floodplain. Most of the areas in which this has been observed appear to have met a point of
equilibrium and have become increasingly stable with the growth of stream bank vegetation. No re -grading
or reinforcement of the stream banks is recommended at this time.
Grading work conducted during initial project implementation resulted in a discernible increase in
groundwater levels throughout the streams and adjacent small stream swamp and swamp forest
communities. Restoration of the stream channels helped reduce surface water outflows. Upon further site
assessments (including a November 2011 site meeting with the Corps of Engineers Wilmington Regulatory
Branch), it was determined that certain meander bends of the stream needed to be reinforced with
additional root wads in order to provide enhanced bank stability during high flow events. In January 2012,
these additional root wads were installed and coir fiber matting was reinforced in the selected areas per the
recommendation of the USACE.
B. PHASE THREE
Per review and approval by the USACE, a total of eight (8) shallow groundwater monitoring wells were
installed throughout Phase Three. Subsequent to the earthwork, static water table depths gradually rose to
within 12 inches of the soil surface, particularly in response to discrete rain events. Plugging of the main
outlet ditch for this phase reduced the rate of groundwater discharge from the adjacent wetlands. The
observed mean hydroperiod duration during the growing season for the eight (8) wells was 67 days. Of the
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 19
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

eight (8) wells within Phase Three, all eight (8) wells exhibited hydroperiods of 12% (corresponding to 32
consecutive days) or greater during the growing season between March 7th and November 28th, 2016
(Table 8). It should be noted that six (6) out of the eight (8) wells observed hydroperiods of greater than
25% of the growing season. Well 8 exhibited a wetland hydroperiod for 52 consecutive days from
September 2nd to October 23rd based upon the March 7 growing season start date. According to on-site
rain gauge data, this same period consisted of normal rainfall (until late September) and above normal
rainfall throughout October. Note that NC Division of Water Resource Drought Maps show regional rainfall
conditions above normal for this time period (refer to Appendix D). Palmer Hydrological Drought Index
Maps show regional rainfall conditions normal from July through August, then above normal through
December (refer to Appendix G). The headwater wetlands of the restoration area consist of very poorly
drained soils and lie in a depressional landscape position. These wetlands typically receive hydrologic input
primarily via precipitation. The normal to above normal conditions during the Year 5 monitoring period
attributed to increased groundwater levels and duration throughout the growing season.
The patterns of hydrologic response to normal and above -normal precipitation periods during the Year 5
monitoring period indicate that groundwater has been sufficiently recharged throughout the system. The
majority of the wells observed hydroperiods of greater than 25% of the growing season, well above the
12% required for success. A summary of the groundwater monitoring results for Year 5 is provided in
Table 9. Complete hydrologic monitoring data are provided in Appendix C. NC Division of Water
Resources Drought maps are provided in Appendix D. Palmer Hydrological Drought Index Maps are
provided in Appendix G.
Outlet channel banks and plugs of Phase 3 were monitored for evidence of surface bank erosion (i.e.
down -cutting) subsequent to above normal rainfall and high flow events. During a November 2013 site
inspection, minor down -cutting was noted around the downstream end of plug 1 in an area where surface
water in the floodplain flows back into the main outlet ditch. A follow-up inspection conducted in July 2015
with the Corps of Engineers Wilmington Regulatory Branch indicated that further down -cutting was
occurring in this area and that remedial action was required. Remedial action in this area was conducted in
the early 2016 growing season and included the installation of clay material, filter fabric, and rip rap along
the compromised bank. This additional plug material was constructed to direct the flow of water exiting the
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 20
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 9. Summary of 2016 Hydrologic Monitoring (Swamp Forest - Phase Three)
2016 Growing Season March 7 - November 28
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 21
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report
Total Number of
Longest Number Of
Dates of Longest Number of
Percentage of
12%
12.5
Well Number
days within 12"
Consecutive Days Meeting
Consecutive Days Meeting
Growing
Success
>6-
-
25-
a
>75/0
(Jan 1 thru Dec 21)
Wetland Hydrology Criteria
Wetland Hydrology Criteria
Season
Criterion
o
12.5/0
25%
o
75/0
(in growing season)
(32 Days)
1
223
69
Sept 2 - Nov 9
25.8%
Yes
--
--
X
--
2
295
90
Mar 7 - Jun 4
33.7%
Yes
--
--
X
--
3
228
67
Mar 7 - May 12
25.1%
Yes
--
--
X
--
4
249
71
Sept 2 - Nov 11
26.6%
Yes
--
--
X
--
5
200
53
Sept 2 - Oct 24
19.9%
Yes
--
X
--
--
6
263
70
Mar 7 - May 15
26.2%
Yes
--
--
X
--
7
222
66
Sept 2 - Nov 6
24.7%
Yes
--
--
X
--
8
165
52
Sept 2 - Oct 23
19.5%
Yes
__
X
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 21
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

floodplain into the center of the outlet channel. Post construction site visits have indicated that this work has
been successful and that at this time there appears to be no further risk to the hydrology of adjacent
wetlands.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The implementation of Phase Two and Three completed an integral component of the watershed
restoration effort of the Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank. Removal of large outlet canals and the re -
contouring of the stream valleys has resulted in the connection of vast headwater wetland areas to the
upper first -order reaches of the Little Caw Caw Canal. There has been a discernible hydrologic response
within the stream valleys and the adjacent riparian wetlands. Based upon the results of the Year 5
monitoring, the targeted wetland and stream community types have been restored within the Phase Two
and Three project areas. Vegetation and hydrologic monitoring of the project areas indicate that the site
has progressed well during the five years following the implementation of the restoration activities. Overall,
the site exhibited a diverse assemblage of characteristic trees and shrubs. Vegetation data document high
rates of survivorship among the planted species (R stem density = 423 stems per acre).
The Phase Two and Three project areas exhibited groundwater hydrology within 12 inches of the soil
surface for extended periods during the growing season. Evaluation of the hydrologic data utilizing the
March 7th through the November 28 growing season indicates that all 22 wells across Phase Two and
Three exhibited mean hydroperiods of 72 consecutive days (equivalent to 26% of the growing season). All
wells exceeded the hydrologic success criteria for the corresponding wetland types.
Overall, Phase Two and Three appear to be performing very well. Vast areas of headwater and riparian
wetlands (610 -acres) that had been historically drained and converted to crop production have been
restored. As part of the watershed restoration effort, the hydrologic regime of first -order tributaries that had
been previously disconnected from their headwaters (via diversion canals) has been re-established. All of
the stream gauges have documented overbank flow multiple times per year over the five year monitoring
period.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 22
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report

Given the intensive historic land -use practices of the area prior to restoration work, the canals and
downstream receiving waters were susceptible to water quality impairments via nutrient (e.g. N and P)
loading, sediment run-off, and herbicide/pesticide contamination. Restoration work has removed the land -
use practice and associated stressors to water quality. In addition, planting of all the former fields provides
water quality benefits via: (1) reducing overland flow velocities; (2) stabilizing soil; and (3) promoting the
uptake and transformation of nutrients/contaminants. Removal or plugging of canals provides for increased
flood water storage, increased hydrologic residency, and associated nutrient/sediment retention. Lastly,
the restoration sites (in conjunction with the prior phase) provides significant habitat benefits as well as
habitat connectivity between the 145 -acre Carolina bay on the southern portion of the tract to the Little Caw
Caw Canal (a third -order tributary of the Waccamaw River) on the north boundary of the Bank site.
Upon review and concurrence by the Interagency Review Team, this report will conclude the fifth and final
year of monitoring for Phase Two and Three for the Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank.
Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank 23
Phase Two and Three — Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report