20190495 Ver 1_Cowford_100095_MY1_2022_20230127

ID#* 20190495
Select Reviewer:
Ryan Hamilton
Initial Review Completed Date 02/01/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/27/2023
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Lindsay Crocker
Project Information
ID#:* 20190495
Existing ID#
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Cowford Mitigation Site
County: Onslow
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Cowford_100095_MY1_2022.pdf 19.99MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature: *

Year 1Monitoring Report
FINAL
COWFORDPROJECT
NCDMS Project #100095 (Contract #0007746)
USACE Action ID: SAW-2019-00487
DWR Project #2019-0495
Onslow County, North Carolina
White OakRiver Basin
HUC 03030001
Provided by:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
for Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Provided for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
January 2023

3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 W Loop S #300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
January 25, 2023
Lindsay Crocker
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE:Cowford, Project ID #100095, DMS Contract #0007746
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on January, 2023as well as IRT Baseline Review
comments regarding the CowfordSite: Year 1Monitoring Report and RES’ responses.
Comments:
1. Please include IRT Baseline review comments and provide responses.
The IRT Baseline review comments were included (comments 5-9) with responses.
2. Please include IRT correspondence regarding Cowford conservation easement.
IRT correspondence is included in Appendix F.
3. Explain how the planted stems increased in many of the species from MY0 to MY1 in the
vegetation plots.
In Table 9, MY0 total planted stems were not updated to include random vegetation plot stems.
This has been updated to the correct number of total planted stems in MY0, which was 259.
4. Include table of performance for headwater portion of stream (KJ1-A, see attached example).
A headwater valley performance table has been added to Appendix D.
5.Please QAQC the 2021 references throughout page 6.
Done
6.The IRT had initially raised some questions/concerns regarding the single swale proposed
from the CE boundary to the stream through the wetland credit area. Looking at the as-built, it
appears that six swales were constructed at least partially overlapping the wetland credit area.
Were the five additional swales constructed to similar dimensions as the Swale A typical
detail/section? If not, please provide more information on the dimensions of the added swales.
DWR is concerned with the potential drainage effect of these new swales and may request
additional groundwater gauges to demonstrate that wetland credit areas bisected by the swales
meet the performance standard. Was the option of diffuse flow through the buffer evaluated as
at any of the drain tile outlets, please explain? Also, please confirm that the drain tile outlets and
swales will be monitored for stability annually throughout the monitoring period.
The design plans submitted with the mitigation plan show proposed Swale A and 3 proposed
Drain Tile Outlets (DTO) (See sheets W1 and D3). During construction excavation 3 additional
existing drain tiles were found requiring 3 additional DTOs to be installed. These additional
res.us

exiting drain tiles were not visible in the stream bank and were therefore not observed until
construction. All swales associated with DTOs were constructed per the detail on sheet D3:
Bottom Width = 4’ / Bank Slopes = 3:1 / Max Channel Slope = 0.3%
RES understands the expressed concerns but determined that additional swales were
necessary to ensure that the adjacent farming practices could continue unabated. During
design, RES determined maintaining the groundwater level below surrounding agricultural fields
required drain tile outlets below the existing ground elevation, therefore swales would need to
be used to convey this flow to the stream. Because the swales were required diffuse flow could
not be achieved, however, the swales were designed to fall within the NCDEQ Treatment Swale
requirements, are live staked, and convey groundwater not runoff so they are not anticipated to
supply significant nutrient or sediment loading to the system. RES can confirm drain tile outlets
and swales will be monitored for stability annually. These swales were designed with low flow
velocities, have been matted, seeded, and live staked to help ensure long-term stability.
7. Lastly, in looking at the cross-sections for the headwater valley restoration on KJ1-A, do you
anticipate that the pilot channel that was constructed will function more as a single-thread
channel rather than a headwater system?
RES did not design a low flow (pilot) channel through the HWV reach and expects the reach to
develop into a headwater system.

8. Since a foot of inundation (vs. designed 6-inch depressions) can affect tree establishment
and growth, DWR requests that a random veg plot capture representative depression(s) within
the wetland credit area throughout monitoring.
In MY1, random vegetation plot #3 captures a wetland depressional area. RES will continue to
monitor vegetation success in wetland depression areas.

9. DWR appreciates the inclusion of the soil and groundwater data. To confirm, GW1 had a zero
hydroperiod in 2021 and this wasn't due to a gauge malfunction or relocation? Moving forward
in monitoring, it can be helpful to include data on both the consecutive days/% and the
cumulative days/% hydroperiod, as well as note the growing season start/end dates and the
minimum hydroperiod performance standard value within the wetland hydrology summary table.
GW1 had a zero hydroperiod in 2021, this was not due to gauge malfunction or relocation. The
wetland hydrology table has been updated to include consecutive days/%, cumulative days/%,
growing season start/end dates, and minimum hydroperiod performance values.
2

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Project Location and Description .............................................................................................. 2
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Project Success Criteria ............................................................................................................. 3
Stream Restoration Success Criteria ................................................................................................ 4
Headwater Stream Restoration Success Criteria .............................................................................. 4
Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria ............................................................................................... 4
Vegetation Success Criteria ............................................................................................................. 5
1.4 Project Components .................................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Stream and Wetland Design/Approach ..................................................................................... 5
Streams ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Wetlands .......................................................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions ...................................................................................... 7
1.7 Year 1 Monitoring Performance (MY1) .................................................................................... 7
Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Stream Geomorphology ................................................................................................................... 7
Stream Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 8
Wetland Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 8
Headwater Valley............................................................................................................................. 8
Visual Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 8
2.0 Methods................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.0 References ............................................................................................................................................... 9

Appendix A: Background Tables
Table 1. Project Mitigation Components
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Background Information Table
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photos
Monitoring Device Photos
General Site Photos
Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Planted Species Summary
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 9. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Cross Section Overlay Plots
Headwater Valley Performance Table
Appendix E: Hydrology Data
Table 12. 2022 Rainfall Summary
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Table 14. 2022 Max Hydroperiod
Table 15. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Stream Overbank and Flow Hydrographs
Groundwater Hydrographs

Appendix F: Conservation Easement Clarification
Cowford Site 1 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2023

1.0 Project Summary
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Cowford Project (Project) is located within a rural watershed in Onslow County, North Carolina
approximately three and half miles northwest of Richlands, North Carolina. The Project lies within the
White Oak River Basin, North Carolina United States Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit Cataloguing Unit
03030001 and 14-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03030001010010, a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)
and the Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub-basin 03-05-02 (Figure 1). The Project provides 3,337
linear feet (LF) of stream as well as re-establish 2.991 acres of wetland that will provide water quality
benefit for 238 acres of drainage area.

The Project area is comprised of a 17.20-acre easement involving one unnamed tributary within an
entrenched channel between agricultural fields, totaling 2,988 existing LF, that drains into Cowford Branch,
which eventually drains to the New River. The Project is accessible from U.S. route NC-258. Coordinates
for the Project areas are approximately 34.9233, -77.5917, at the crossing in the middle of the project.

1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project’s maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions
Pyramid Framework and conclusions based on a Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study, the Project will realize
specific, attainable goals and objectives. These goals clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient
input from agricultural practices that were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2010 White Oak
RBRP. The Project will address outlined RBRP Goal one and two of the TLW specific goals (listed in
Section 2).
The Project goals are:
• Re-establish hydrology to a historical stream/wetland complex that has been impacted by historic
channel realignment, channel entrenchment, field ditching, and field drain tiling;
• To transport water in a stable, non-erosive manner and maintain a stable water table in riparian
floodplain wetlands that will also contribute to stream baseflow;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbank flows and
connection to the floodplain;
•Create diverse bedforms and stable channels that achieve healthy dynamic equilibrium and provide
suitable in-stream habitat for aquatic organisms;
• Limit sediment and nutrient inputs into stream system;
• Re-establish wetland;
• Restore native wetland and riparian vegetation;
• Indirectly support the goals of the 2010 White Oak RBRP to improve water quality and to reduce
sediment and nutrient loads; and
• To support the life histories of aquatic and riparian plants and animals through stream restoration
activities.

Functional uplift, benefits, and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function Based
Framework are outlined in the table below.
Cowford Site 2 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2023

Functional Benefits and ImprovementsTable.
Level Function GoalObjective Measurement Method
Convert the land-use of
streams and their Percent Project drainage
to transport water from the
Hydrology° watersheds from cropland area converted to
watershed to the channel in a
Transport of water into riparian forest riparian forest (indirect
1 non-erosive manner and
from the watershed to measurement)
maintain a stable water table in
Maintain appropriate
the channel
the riparian wetland
hydroperiod for Muckalee Groundwater wells
soil series
Improve flood bank Cross sections
connectivity by reducing
Hydraulic bank height ratios and Stage Recorders
Transport of water in increasing entrenchment
to transport water in a stable
2 the channel, on the ratios Bank Height Ratio
non-erosive manner
floodplain, and
through the sediments Maintain regular, seasonal Entrenchment Ratio

flow in restored,
intermittent streams Flow gauge
Limit erosion rates and
increase channel stability
to reference reach As-built stream profile
Geomorphology
conditions
to create a diverse bedform and a
Transport of wood and
Cross sections
stable channel that achieves
3 Improve bedform diversity
sediment to create
healthy dynamic equilibrium and
diverse bedforms and (pool spacing, percent Visual monitoring
provides suitable habitat for life
dynamic equilibrium riffles, etc.)
Vegetation plots
Increase buffer width to at
least 50 feet
Establish native hardwood
riparian buffer to provide
Indirectly support the goals of
canopy shade and absorb
the 2010 White Oak RBRP to nutrients
achieve appropriate levels for
Physicochemical °
water temperature, dissolved Install in-stream structures
Temperature and
oxygen concentration, and other to created aeration zones
4
oxygen regulation;
important nutrients including but
processing of organic
not limited to Nitrogen and Promote sediment
matter and nutrients
Phosphorus through filtration, nutrient cycling,
buffer/wetland planting and and organic accumulation
wetland hydrologic restoration through natural wetland
biogeochemical processes

Improve aquatic habitat by
Biology °
to achieve functionality in levels installing habitat features,
Biodiversity and life
1-4 to support the life histories of constructing pools of
5 histories of aquatic life
aquatic and riparian plants and varying depths, and
histories and riparian
animals through instream planting the riparian
life
buffer and wetlands
° These are benefits that are presumed and will not be measured by the monitoring
1.3 Project Success Criteria
The success criteria for the Project will follow the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update, the Cowford Site Final Mitigation Plan, and subsequent agency
guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below. Cross section and vegetation plot
monitoring takes place in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Hydrology and visual monitoring takes place annually.
Specific success criteria components are presented below.
Cowford Site 3 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2023

Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
There should be minor change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example downcutting or
erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified
using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be above 2.2 within restored riffle cross sections (for C and E streams).

Digital images are used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success
of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should not
indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral
images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of
images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.

Stream restoration reaches will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This will
be accomplished through direct observation and the use of hydraulic pressure transducers with data loggers.
Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow. One flow gauge was installed on
KJ1-A and one stage recorder was installed on KJ1-C.

Headwater Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Continuous surface water flow must be documented every year for at least 30 days. Channel formation must
be documented through consistent indicators. Monitoring years 1-4 require evidence of scour, sediment
deposition, sediment sorting, multiple observed flow events, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, presence
of litter and debris, wracking, vegetation matted down or bet, and leaf litter disturbed. Monitoring years 5-
7, the headwater valley reach must meet the previous requirements as well as demonstrate bed and banks,
natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, water staining, change in plant community and changes in
character of soil.
Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has a current WETs table (1990-2019) for Onslow
County upon which to base a normal rainfall amount and average growing season. The closest comparable
data station was determined to be the WETS station for New River MCAF, NC. The growing season for
Onslow County is 269 days long, extending from March 10 to December 4, and is based on a daily minimum
temperature greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years.
Based upon field observation across the site the NRCS mapping units show a good correlation to actual site
conditions in areas of the site. Mitigation guidance for soils in the Coastal Plain suggests a hydroperiod for
the Muckalee soil of 12-16 percent of the growing season. The hydrology success criterion for the Site is
to restore the water table so that it will remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for 12-16
percent of the growing season (approximately 33 days) at each groundwater gauge location. Due to the
extensive drainage efforts, it may take at least a year for the site to become completely saturated and reach
the target hydroperiods.
Cowford Site 4 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2023

Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project will
follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the survival of at
least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 five-year old trees at seven feet in
height at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an
average height of ten feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees that are listed on the approved planting list
will be counted, identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, and if established for
two or more years, may be counted towards the success criteria of total planted stems. Moreover, any single
species can only account for up to 50 percent of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot.
Any stems more than 50 percent will be shown in the monitoring table but will not be used to demonstrate
success.

1.4 Project Components
The streams and wetlands provided for restoration have been significantly impacted by ditching, drain
tiling, and other agricultural practices for over 50 years. Provided improvements to the Project will help
address impacts specifically discussed as priorities in in the 2010 White Oak River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP).

Through stream restoration, headwater valley (HWV) restoration, and wetland restoration, the Project
presents 3,347 LF of provided stream, generating 3,538.67 Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) and
2.991 acres of provided wetland, generating 2.991 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU).

Cowford Project Components Summary (Mitigation Plan)
Stream Mitigation
Mitigation Approach Linear Feet Ratio Warm SMU
913.000*
Restoration (HWV) 923 1:1
2,424.000
Restoration 2,424 1:1

Total 3,347 3,337
Non-standard Buffer Width Adjustment201.670
Total Adjusted SMU’s 3,538.67
Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation ApproachArea (acres)RatioWMU
Re-establishment 2.991 1:1 2.991
Total 2.991 2.991
*Headwater valley credits are calculated from valley length, not included in NSBW calculations.
** Credit adjustment for Non-standard Buffer Width calculation using the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit
Calculator issued by the USACE in January 2021. See Section 6.6 for further information

1.5 Stream and Wetland Design/Approach
Streams
The Project includes stream and headwater valley restoration. Stream restoration will incorporate the design
of a single-thread, meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from reference site, published
empirical relationships, regional curves developed from existing project streams, and NC Regional Curves.
Analytical design techniques will also be a crucial element of the project and will be used to determine the
design discharge and to verify the design. Based on soil type, valley slope, and drainage area headwater
Cowford Site 5 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2023

valley restoration was incorporated in the design. Headwater valley restoration includes the design of a
vegetated diffuse flow system that will allow for the passive development of a headwater stream.

The Project has been broken into the following design reaches:

Reach KJ1-A (HWV)
A headwater valley restoration approach is provided for this reach to address historic ditching and buffer
impacts. Restoration activities includes:
Grading a headwater valley,
Installing wood structures to provide grade control and habitat,
Installing live stakes to stabilize the bed and banks,
Riparian planting.

Reach KJ1-B
An offline restoration approach is provided for this reach to address historic ditching and buffer impacts.
Restoration activities includes:
Grading a new, single-thread channel in the existing floodplain (Priority I Restoration),
Installing log structures to provide grade control and habitat,
Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the new channel,
Installing toe protection on meander bends,
Installing live stakes to stabilize the banks and provide channel shading,
Filling and grading the existing channel to create wetland habitat,
Riparian planting.

Reach KJ1-C
An inline, P2 restoration approach is provided for this reach to address historic ditching, channelization,
and buffer impacts. Restoration activities includes:
Grading a new, single-thread channel in an excavated floodplain,
Installing rock and log structures to provide grade control and habitat,
Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the new channel,
Installing toe protection on meander bends,
Installing live stakes to stabilize the banks and provide channel shading,
Filling the existing channel,
Riparian planting, and
Invasive vegetation treatment.

Wetlands
The Cowford Project offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity. As such, the wetland restoration is
closely tied to the stream restoration and drain tile interruption. The Project provides 2.991 WMUs through
wetland re-establishment. Wetland re-establishment is only provided in areas that have been determined
appropriate for wetland restoration by a licensed soil scientist due to the presence of hydric soils and
potential hydrology. Re-establishment activities includes a successful restoration that raises the local
groundwater elevation, allows frequent flooding, the plugging of ditches, removing all drain tiles within
the easement, and creating shallow depression features in the wetland.

A 2D model of the provided stream restoration was run in HEC-RAS to evaluate the effectiveness of the
design at increasing wetland flooding. Inundation maps from this model of the 1- and 10-year design storms
demonstrate that the provided design will function in this capacity. These activities help to raise the local
Cowford Site 6 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2023

groundwater and have a more natural hydrologic cycle in the riparian zone. Surface roughening through
shallow soil ripping improves infiltration and slow runoff through the floodplain. Surface roughening also
create microtopography and shallow depressional areas, re-establishing more natural conditions and
establishing habitat diversity. Historic land-use impacts will be addressed through the planting of a native
hardwood wetland community.

1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions
Site construction was completed on July 30th, 2021, and planting was completed on March 8th, 2022. The
Cowford Site was overall built to design plans and guidelines, as-built stream and wetland areas were only
slightly different than proposed. Wetland Depressions were designed to be 0.3-0.5 feet deep but As-Built
Wetland Depressions were found to be slightly deeper than proposed ranging from 0.5-1.0 feet deep. During
construction additional drain tiles were found, which were then interrupted at the easement boundary.
Additionally, extra t-posts were installed around the boundary of the easement in 100-foot intervals to
reduce concerns of encroachment by farming practices. Minor monitoring device location changes were
made during as-built installation, however, the quantities remained as proposed in the Mitigation Plan.

1.7 Year 1 Monitoring Performance (MY1)
The Cowford Year 1 monitoring activities were performed in November 2022. All Year 1 Monitoring data
is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meeting vegetation, wetland, and stream
interim success criteria.

Vegetation
Monitoring of the nine permanent vegetation plots and five random vegetation plots were completed on
rd
November 3, 2022. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot
locations are in Appendix B. MY1 monitoring data indicates that all plots are exceeding the interim success
criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 324 to 931 planted stems per acre
with a mean of 659 planted stems per acre across all plots. A total of 10 species were documented within
the plots. Volunteer species were noted in one out of nine plots during Year 1 monitoring and are expected
to increase in upcoming years. The average stem height in the vegetation plots was 2.0 feet. In April 2022,
an additional 45 three-gallon trees (Tag alder, Tulip poplar, Sycamore, and Elm) were planted along the
northern easement edge above KJ1-C. Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots
indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is becoming well established throughout the project. Chinese privet
was treated in an area near VP 9 before As-built in November, 2021. No additional invasives were present
during MY1 site visits.

Stream Geomorphology
st
Cross section geomorphology data collection for MY1 was collected on November 1, 2022. Summary
tables and cross section plots are in Appendix D. Overall the baseline cross sections and profile relatively
match the proposed design. The MY1 conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced
for all restoration/enhancement reaches.

Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding
banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting sediment as designed
and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation.

Cowford Site 7 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2023

Stream Hydrology
th
One stage recorder on KJ1-C, was installed on January 19, 2022. One flow gauge, on KJ1-A, was installed
th
on January 19
, 2022. The stage recorder is in place to document bankfull events, while the flow gauge is
in place to track frequency and duration of stream flow events. The stage recorder on KJ1-C measured two
bankfull events with the highest being 0.38 feet above the top of bank. The flow gauge on KJ1-A measured
11 flow events with the longest flow event lasting 55 days. Gauge locations can be found on Figure 2 and
photos are in Appendix B.

Wetland Hydrology
A total of five groundwater wells with automatic recording pressure transducers were installed throughout
ndth
the wetland areas on November 2
, 2021, and April 28, 2022. All five groundwater wells failed to meet
success of 12-16 percent of the growing season (GW1 0%, GW2 1%, GW3 7%, GW4 4%, and GW5 5%)
Appendix E. It is important to note that GW5 is located outside of the wetland crediting area. Although all
five groundwater wells did not meet success, it was noted that due to extensive draining efforts that it may
take at least a year for the site to become completely saturated and reach the target hydroperiods. Onslow
county has experienced drought conditions for more than 70% of 2022 and rainfall amounts in February
and June were below normal limits which could have attributed to lower hydroperiods. Therefore, RES
expects the hydroperiods to increase in subsequent years as the wetlands continue to establish.

Headwater Valley
th
Setup of cross sections 1, 2, and 3 in the headwater valley took place on January 19, 2022. Overall, the
baseline cross sections and profile relatively match the proposed design. The flow gauge located in the
headwater valley measured 55 consecutive flow days. The livestakes are becoming established within the
channel and will provide opportunities for flow paths to develop in subsequent years. Additional headwater
valley channel performance criteria are listed in Appendix D. Digital images can be found in Appendix B.
Visual assessments and updated images will be documented in years to follow as indicators are established.

Visual Assessment
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Digital images will also
capture the headwater valley, boundaries, and culverts of the site, located in Appendix B.
2.0 Methods
Stream monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates
associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200).
Morphological data were collected at 15 cross-sections. Survey data were imported into CAD, ArcGIS®,
and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. The stage recorders include an automatic pressure
transducer placed in PVC casing in a pool. The elevation of the bed and top of bank at each stage recorder
are used to detect bankfull events.

Vegetation success is being monitored at nine permanent vegetation plots and five random vegetation plots.
Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2
(Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data are
processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked
with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the
Cowford Site 8 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2023

origin each monitoring year. The random plots are to be collected in locations where there are no permanent
vegetation plots. Random plots are collected in the form of 100 square meter belt transects with variable
dimensions. Tree species and height will be recorded for each planted stem and the transects will be mapped
and new locations will be monitored in subsequent years.

Wetland hydrology is monitored to document success in wetland restoration areas where hydrology was
affected. This is accomplished with three automatic pressure transducer gauges (located in groundwater
wells) that record daily groundwater levels. Three have been installed within the wetland restoration
crediting area and one within the adjacent upland area to document the wetland boundary. One automatic
pressure transducer is installed above ground for use as a barometric reference. Gauges are downloaded
quarterly and wetland hydroperiods are calculated during the growing season. Gauge installation followed
current regulatory guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators
are also recorded during quarterly site visits.

3.0 References
Griffith, G.E., J.M.Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H.McNab, D.R.Lenat, T.F.MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. (2002). Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color
Poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S.
Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274

Resource Environmental Solutions (2021). Cowford Site Final Mitigation Plan.

Schafale, M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks, and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh,
NC.

USACE. (2016). Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. NC:
Interagency Review Team (IRT).
Cowford Site 9 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2023

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Cowford Mitigation Site
Elapsed Time Since grading complete:16 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete:8 months
1
Number of reporting Years:
1
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or DeliverableCompleteDelivery
Restoration PlanNA26-Mar-21
Final Design – Construction PlansNA03-May-21
Stream ConstructionNA30-Jul-21
Site PlantingNA08-Mar-22
Invasive TreatmentNA21-Nov-22
As-built (Year 0 Monitoring – baseline)Jan/March 2022Apr-22
Supplemental Planting NAApr-22
Year 1 MonitoringNov-22Dec-22
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
1 = The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Cowford Mitigation Site
RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Designer
Primary project design POCBenton Carroll, PE
RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Construction Contractor
Construction POCAndrew Dimmette
RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Survey Contractor
Survey POCBrian Hockett
Shenandoah Habitats
Planting Contractor
Planting contractor POCDavid Coleman
RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Monitoring Performers
Monitoring POCHannah Gadai

Table 4. Project Background Information
Project NameCowford Project
CountyOnslow
Project Area (acres) 17.20
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)34.92293, -77.5917
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)16.35
Project Watershed Summary Information
Level IV Ecoregion63h - Carolina Flatwoods
River Basin
White Oak
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
30203020102
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit3020302
DWR Sub-basin03-05-02
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)238 ac (.37 sqmi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
Reach Summary Information
Reach KJ1-AReach KJ1-B
Parameters
Reach KJ1-C
Length of reach (linear feet)
935852
1574
Moderately
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
UnconfinedUnconfined
confined
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
115181
238
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
IntermittentIntermittent
Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
NoneNone
None
Stream Classification (existing)
G5G5
G5 to E5
Stream Classification (proposed)
N/AE5 / C5
E4 / C4
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
IIIIII
III-IV
Zone X (Minimal
Zone X
FEMA classificationZone X (Minimal Risk)
Risk)
(Minimal Risk)
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
WA
Size of Wetland (acres)
2.969
Wetland Type
RR
Mapped Soil Series
Muckalee loam
Drainage Class
Poorly
Soil Hydric Status
Yes (LESS)
Source of Hydrology
GW, OL, SF
Restoration or enhancement method
H, V

Cowford
Legend
Easement
TLW - 03030001010010
White Oak River Basin - 03030001
Date: 2/17/2022
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Drawn by: HRG
©
Cowford Mitigation Site
Checked by: JRM

05001,000
Onslow County, North Carolina
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Feet

seicepS evisavnI
dxm.drofwoC - 2202 1YM VPCC - 2 erugiF\\2202 1YM\\gnirotinoM_6\\DXM\\drofwoC_009001\\stcejorP\\sigtne\\sigseR\\:R :htaP tnemucoD

100%100%100%100%100%100%
Intended
% Stable,
Performing as
0000
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
83
in As-built
Total Number
83
Stable,
Number
Intended
Performing as
not

Totals
include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
9251850providing habitat.
Metric Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOTFluvial and geotechnical
- rotational, slumping, calving, or collapseGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance document)
JK1-A Surface Scour/Bare BankToe ErosionBank FailureGrade ControlBank Protection
Major Channel Category
Visual Stream Stability Assessment Assessed Bank Length
ReachAssessed Stream Length Bank Structure

100%100%100%100%100%100%
Intended
% Stable,
Performing as
0000
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
7
16
in As-built
Total Number
7
16
Stable,
Number
Intended
Performing as
not

Totals
include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
8501700providing habitat.
Metric Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOTFluvial and geotechnical
- rotational, slumping, calving, or collapseGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance document)
JK1-B Surface Scour/Bare BankToe ErosionBank FailureGrade ControlBank Protection
Major Channel Category
Visual Stream Stability Assessment Assessed Bank Length
ReachAssessed Stream Length Bank Structure

100%100%100%100%100%100%
Intended
% Stable,
Performing as
0000
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
1728
in As-built
Total Number
1728
Stable,
Number
Intended
Performing as
not

Totals
include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
15723144providing habitat.
Metric Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOTFluvial and geotechnical
- rotational, slumping, calving, or collapseGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance document)
JK1-C Surface Scour/Bare BankToe ErosionBank FailureGrade ControlBank Protection
Major Channel Category
Visual Stream Stability Assessment Assessed Bank Length
ReachAssessed Stream Length Bank Structure

))
/2022/2022
33
//
1111
(
6 (
Vegetation Plot Vegetation Plot 8

))
/2022/2022
33
/
/
1111
5 (
Vegetation Plot Vegetation Plot 7 (

)
/2022
3
/
11
9 (

Vegetation Plot

)
)
/2022/2022
33
//
11
11
2 (4 (
Vegetation Plot Vegetation Plot
Random Random

))
/2022/2022
33
//
11
11
(

3 (

Vegetation Plot 1Vegetation Plot
Random Random
MY0 Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photo

Cowford

)
/2022
3
/
11
(
5
Vegetation Plot
Random

)

/2022
/2022)
3
/
3
/
11
(
11

A
-
Wetland Gauge 2 (
Flow Gauge KJ1

)

)
2022

/2022
1
3
/
/2022
3
11/
(
MY

11
s
C
-

KJ1

Photo

Wetland Gauge 1 (
Stage Recorder
Monitoring Device

Cowford

)
/2022
3
/
11

Wetland Gauge 4 (

))
/2022/2022
33
/
/
1111
(

Wetland Gauge 3 (Wetland Gauge 5

)
)
/2022
/2022
3
3
/
/
11
11
(
(
C
-
of KJ1

top
Kinston Highway
Culvert at the
Culvert at
Photo Point 2:
Photo Point 4:

)

)
/2022
3
/2022
/
3
/
11
(

11
(

B
-
Wetland

of KJ1

2022
1
bottom
at edge of

MY

tment pool
Culvert at the
Trea
General Site Photos

Photo Point 1:
Photo Point 3:
Cowford

)
3/16/2022
/2022)
(

3
/
B
-
11
(

Easement marker
Haybale brush toe in BJ1

)
/2022
3
/
/2022)
3
/
11
11
Headwater Valley (
ESP & Treatment Pool (

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Planted Species Summary
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Common NameScientific NameMit Plan %As-Built %Total Stems Planted
River Birch Betula nigra 15152,000
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 15152,000
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 10101,300
Water Oak Quercus nigra 10101,300
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 10101,300
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 10101,300
Swamp Tupelo Nyssa biflora 10101,300
American sycamore Platanus occidentalis 10101,300
Southern red oak Quercus falcata 55700
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 55700
Total 13,200
Planted Area 16.35
807
As-built Planted Stems/Acre
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Average
Success
Planted Volunteer Total Planted
Plot #Criteria
Stems/AcreStems/AcreStems/AcreStem
Met?
Height (ft)
1 9310931Yes2.6
2 9310931Yes2.2
3 6880688Yes2.4
4 5670567Yes2.2
5 8500850Yes1.3
6 6470647Yes1.7
7 5260526Yes1.7
8 8090809Yes1.7
9 60740647Yes2.3
R1 72800Yes2.3
R2 68800Yes2
R3 48600Yes2.2
R4 44500Yes2
R5 32400Yes2.3
Project Avg6594662Yes 2.0

Headwater Valley Performance Table
KJ1-A Channel EvidenceYear 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5 Year 6Year 7
Max consecutive days of channel flow55
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)No
Leaf litter disturbed or washed awayNo
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)No
Sediment depostion and/or scour indicating sediment transportNo
Water staining due to continual presence of water*No
Formation of channel bed and banks*No
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flowNo
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks*No
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)*No
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root
systems*No
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow*No
Other:NA
*represents indicators that are required in monitoring years 5-7

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Table 12. Rainfall Summary MY1 2022
Normal Limits
MonthAverageRichland Station Precipitation*
30 Percent70 Percent
January3.702.784.574.55
February3.502.324.200.93
March3.762.684.432.85
April3.001.693.774.91
May 4.112.514.853.70
June5.313.516.383.50
July 6.054.407.464.75
August7.233.668.954.40
September7.023.918.395.02
October4.112.244.974.27
November3.681.964.41-
December3.662.634.27-
Total Annual**34.2966.6538.88
Above Normal Below Normal
LimitsLimits
*Rainfall data was acquired from Richland Station which is approximately 4 miles from the Site.
**Normal Limits were determined from WETS Station New River MCAF, NC. Approximately 20 miles from the Site

Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Number of Bankfull Height Above
YearDate of Maximum Bankfull Event
EventsBankfull (ft)
Stage Recorder KJ1-C
MY120.384/5/2022
Maximum Consecutive Maximum Cummlative Maximum Consecutive Date
YearNumber of Flow Events
Flow DaysFlow DaysRange
Flow Gauge KJ1-A
MY111551603/9/2022-5/3/2022

Table 14. 2022 Max Hydroperiod
2022 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 10-Mar through 2-Dec, 267 days)
ConsecutiveCumulative
Well IDOccurrences
DaysHydroperiod (%)DaysHydroperiod (%)
GW1 102.014
GW2 21624
GW3 19734.51310
GW4 1242396
GW5 13520.584
<5%5-12%>12%

Table 15. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Cowford
Hydroperiod (%)
Wetland
Well ID
Pre Con Pre Con Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
ID
(2020)(2021)(2022)(2023) (2024)(2025)(2026)(2027)(2028)
GW1WA1.00.0 0.0
GW2WA 1.0
GW3WA 7.0
GW4WA 4.0
GW5WA 5.0

Rainfall (in)
Stage (ft)

Rainfall (in)
Water Depth (in)

Precipitation (inches)
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

From:Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
To:Allen, Melonie
Cc:[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA);
[e-mail]; Merritt, Katie
Subject:RE: Clarification request on IRT protection mechanism clarification vs. amendment
Date:Thursday, June 23, 2022 3:42:56 PM
Melonie
Erin and I discussed these projects yesterday. The CE protection mechanism is one of the most critical elements of
a mitigation project, and any modifications to the easement should be proposed to the Corps for IRT review. Below
are comments on the two projects. If you would prefer to decouple this from the As-built review and address these
changes separately, that's fine too.
Cowford:
We both had concerns about existing ditches and buffers around the wetlands due to the adjacent landowner's need
to decrease hydrology in his fields. For this specific project, we are ok with the CCPV callout as long as the
narrative discussion provides context/clarity. I agree that this can be treated as an easement clarification that you can
handle with a Transfer Illustration and CCPV note; however, situations like this should be discussed during the post-
contract stage moving forward.
We agree that there is a big difference between leaving a ditch open as part of project construction and allowing
landowner ditch maintenance within an easement. I don't recall that this was a discussion topic during the post-
contract visit or the draft mitigation plan review. If the existing ditch is centerlined in the CE and labeled "to remain
open," we would assume that the ditch has potential future maintenance; however, if the ditch is located fully in the
CE, we would assume there would be no maintenance by the landowner. CE signage will be important in this area.
Additionally, DWR requests that "no mow" signs be added to clearly indicate the extent of the allowable ditch
maintenance area.
For future reference, if a new ditch is proposed outside of the CE and during construction ends up partially within
the CE and is expected to be maintained, then this should be a formal IRT discussion before DMS/SPO action is
taken. Similarly, if an existing road/path to be maintained is located within the CE but was not identified in the mit
plan, or a new road/path is constructed partially within the CE contrary to the approved mit plan, I would not assume
IRT concurrence with a CE clarification and would recommend formal IRT discussion before DMS/SPO action is
taken.
UT to Rush Fork:
Any new or shifted structures or roads installed within the easement, particularly if they require future maintenance,
should be identified for IRT review prior to actions taken by DMS/SPO. In this case, I would suggest that DMS
submit the proposal to modify the easement (or remove the structures from the easement) prior to making any
changes. Paul can submit this request with the As-Built review request so that the review timeline is only 30-days,
and not 15-days for the As-Built plus an additional 30-days for the easement mod.
I've copied Katie Merritt because I believe Cowford is one of her projects, and other IRT members for their
awareness during the As-Built reviews. Please let me know if you still have questions.
Thanks
Kim
Kim (Browning) Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers l 919.946.5107
From: Allen, Melonie
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 10:49 AM
To: Kim Browning <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)

<[e-mail]>
Subject: Clarification request on IRT protection mechanism clarification vs. amendment
IRT,
Yesterday I responded to two very different easement scenarios that I'd like to get clarification on if possible.
I. Cowford Project: 100095 Onslow County White Oak MY1
i. The recorded plat indicated the existing ditch located partially or fully
in the easement on the far east side of the CE (see screen shot below with ditch annotation in red box). It was the
intention to leave the ditch and enable the landowner(s) to maintain the ditch when the easement was acquired.
Filling the ditch was never proposed in the RFP technical proposal or Mitigation Plan. Ideally when the easement
was acquired a line following the 'centerline of ditch' should have been added to indicate; ditch to remain and may
be maintained. It is the property boundary.
* I interpret this as an easement clarification: I propose that DMS be able to handle interpretations such as this
with a Transfer illustration and note it in the CCPV. The transfer illustration would protect the landowner from SP
interpretation of violation upon maintenance. The call out in the CCPV would alert the IRT that the ditch is to
remain.
II. Ut to Rush Fork: 100068 Haywood Co. French Broad, MY0 review
i. The recorded plat indicates a road upstream of UT 4 and the installed
crossing culvert and headwall extend the easement. There is also an installed BMP that extends beyond the
easement. These are clearly mistakes and I interpret this to require moving the infrastructure or amending the
easement to ensure the infrastructure is excluded and BMP is included (much more likely scenario). In this case, I
propose that DMS notify the IRT of intent to modify easement and get concurrence prior to making any changes.
Let me know if you need any additional information or have any questions,
Thanks,
Melonie
Melonie Allen
Closeout & Credit Release
Division of Mitigation Services
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-8540 office

919-368-9352 cell
>
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
217 West Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27603