20160980 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_20180924

Action History (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Submit by Anonymous User 9/24/2018 10:45:43 AM (Message Start Event)
Approve by Montalvo, Sheri A 9/24/2018 10:54:10 AM (Initial Review- Sheri Montalvo)
The task was assigned to Montalvo, Sheri A 9/24/2018 10:45 AM

D# * 20160980
Version* 1
Select Reviewer:* Mac Haupt
Mitigation Project Submittal - 9/24/2018
Type of Mitigation Project:*
fJ Stream fJ Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a f Yes r No
New Site? *
Project Contact Information
................................................................................................................................
Contact Name:* Daniel Ingram
Email Address:* [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing (DWR) ID#:*
20160980
(nun-bers only... no dash)
Existing Version:*
2
(nurrbers only)
Project Name:*
Meadow Spring
County:*
Johnston
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plan
File Upload: FINAL _Meadow Spring_Mitigation_Plan.pdf 78.42MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jamey McEachran
Signature:

9-)res
September 21, 2018
Ms. Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Meadow Spring Final Mitigation Plan
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
Dear Ms. Dailey,
Resource Environmental Solutions is pleased to submit the NeuCon UMBI Meadow Spring Final
Mitigation Plan and Nationwide Permit 27 Pre-Construction Notification (PCN). The Mitigation Plan
submittal includes a response memo to IR T comments on the draft plan. All IR T comments were addressed
and verified with direct communication with Mac Haupt and yourself. The attached PCN package includes
PCN Form, PCN supplemental information, supporting figures, and an updated JD with an updated aquatic
resource inventory table and Waters of the US Map. The PCN has also been submitted to NCDWR and
USACE via the joint online submission tool.
The conservation easement for the project has been recorded and is included in the plan appendices.
Following approval of the mitigation plan, 404/401 NWP acceptance, and performance bonding RES is
requesting the initial credit release of 899 SMUs and 2.16 WMUs. These credits represent 15 percent of
the restoration/enhancement credits and 100 percent of the stream preservation credits.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important project. Please contact me at 919-209-1056 or
din [e-mail] if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely yours,
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
�
Daniel Ingram
Project Manager
CC: NC IRT Members
res.us
FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
USACE Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2016-01989
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
Prepared by:
Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse I, LLC,
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1056
September 2018
MEMORANDUM

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: North Carolina Interagency Review Team
FROM: DANIEL INGRAM- RES
DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2018
RE: IRT Comments on the Neu-Con UMB: Meadow Spring (SAW-2016-01989) Draft
Mitigation Plan in preparation for the Final Mitigation Plan

Listed below are comments provided by the NCIRT regarding the Meadow Springs Draft Mitigation Plan
and RES’ responses:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comments:
USACE Comments
1. Please provide a complete long term management plan and financial assurances. These should be
provided in the draft mitigation plan.
Updated information on the Longterm Management plan, specifically the engagement letter with the
longterm steward is provided in Appendix A. The Financial Assurances details are found in Section 15.

2. In order to change the treatment for S9 from preservation to EIII, the sponsor should provide a
percentage of the area that will be treated for privet and replanted. The current plans do not indicate
planting.
The areas in which supplemental planting will occur after the invasive species are treated and manually
removed has been added to the Planting Plan found in Appendix E. Additional language to clarify the
invasive species treatment and supplemental planting has been added to section 9.2.1 Stream Mitigation
Approach.

3. The response states that the main uplift for wetland WG is vegetative but the aerials depict the majority
of this area as forested. In addition, the design plans indicate that only a small portion of this area is
proposed for planting. The ratio of 3:1 is appropriate for those areas proposed for planting. The
remainder of WG should be preservation at 5:1.
The ratio for WG has been modified to reflect this comment and can be found in Section 7 and in Figure
10. The areas of WG that will be planted remain enhancement (enhancement-high) at a 3:1 ratio. Areas
that are not being planted will be enhancement-low at a 5:1 ratio as they will still be positively affected
by the plugging of the main ditch and the removal of existing berms within the wetlands.

4. Stream performance standards: For C and E channels, the ER should be > 2.2. This applies to all stream
reaches receiving restoration credit.
The entrenchment ratio performance standard has been updated in response to this comment.

NC Division of Water Resources Comments:
1. Section 1.2 states the intention of obtaining extra stream credit for Non-Standard Buffer Width
Adjustments. Later in the document, Figure 13 shows the Conceptual Design for NCDWR Riparian
Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credit. Please realize that as per the October 2016 Guidance, you may either
choose extra stream credit or the Buffer and Nutrient Offset credit, not both.
This is understood and was not clearly articulated, we have added further explanation in section 7.1.
We have updated Figure 11 a and b to be one figure (Figure 11) and have included descriptions to
clarify which reaches this was performed on. We have also made sure to include the excel document
and GIS with our final submission.

We included Figure 13 to demonstrate that we do not intend to overlay both NCDWR Riparian Buffer
and Nutrient Offset Credit and the Non-Standard Buffer Width Adjustments but have divided sections
of our easement to be used differently. Areas along S7 and S9 are being used to generate additional
stream credit using the Non-standard buffer widths calculation and therefore will not generate any
NCDWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credit. Whereas along Reaches S1, S2, S6A, S6B, and
S5 NCDWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credit is being generated and therefore is not
generating any credit using the Non-Standard Buffer Widths Adjustment.

2. When macrobenthic and water quality monitoring are to be performed on site, the October 2016
Guidance requires monitoring before construction. Is the automatic recording station currently in place?
When macrobenthic and water quality monitoring are planned, the IRT would prefer notice as soon as
possible so approval of the monitoring plan can be completed and the pre-construction monitoring can
initiate. DWR recommends installation of the auto recording stations as soon as possible in order to
monitor as many storm events as possible (a minimum of 4-6 months, preferably longer).
Due to the schedule of construction there is not adequate time to collect pre-construction data. RES has
therefore determined that it will not be possible to conduct the macroinvertebrate and water quality
monitoring adequately for this site and will not be generating the additional two percent SMU credit at
this Site. The Mitigation Plan has been revised to reflect the removal of the water quality and
macroinvertebrate monitoring in the Determination of Credits section (Section 7.1), as well as in the
Monitoring Plan section (Section 11).

3. Section 12.1.3- As per the October 2016 Guidance, the wetland performance criteria may be adjusted
up to 2% for the couple of years. Given the soil series in this case (Bibb), with the wetland hydrologic
criteria set at 12%, the IRT may consider 10% in the first couple of years.
The performance criteria for the wetland hydrologic criteria has been revised based on this comment
from 9% to 10% for the first two years of monitoring (Section 12.1.3 Wetland Hydrology Criteria).

4. Reach S9- comments were made in the field that this reach should be preservation. While DWR realizes
some privet may be removed, DWR believes the appropriate ratio (whether it is called enhancement or
preservation) for this reach is 10:1.
Further description of the supplemental planting and invasive species treatment that will occur has been
added to section 9.2.1 Stream Mitigation Approach of the Mitigation Plan and the Planting Plan found
in Appendix E in response to comment number two from the USACE and therefore the 7.5:1 ratio was
deemed appropriate for this reach. The 7.5:1 ratio was confirmed by Mac Haupt on a September 19th,
2018 phone call.

5. Wetland WG- DWR believes the functional uplift of this wetland will be minimal, therefore, the
minimum appropriate ratio for this wetland enhancement should be 5:1.
As reflected in the response to the USACE comment number three, the ratio for WG has been modified
to reflect this comment and can be found in Section 7 and in Figure 10. The areas of WG that will be
planted remain enhancement (enhancement-high) at a 3:1 ratio. Areas that are not being planted will be
enhancement-low at a 5:1 ratio as they will still be affected by the plugging of the main ditch and the
removal of existing berms within the wetlands. This has changed the overall ratio of the Wetland
Mitigation from 16.82 to 14.41 WMUs. This has been changed in the document to reflect this. This
crediting approach was confirmed by Mac Haupt on a September 19th, 2018 phone call.

6. DWR recommends introducing some wood into riffle-like areas (realizing it is a sand bed stream) in
the restoration reaches (S6 and S11).
In response to this comment, RES has added some wood into riffle-like areas in restoration reaches S6
and S11. A wood/brush riffle detail was added to the plans and will be installed on at least 30 percent
of all riffles per the construction costs. The updated plans are found in Appendix E.

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan ii April 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site (the “Site”) is located within a watershed dominated by agricultural
land use in Johnston County, North Carolina, approximately three miles north of Smithfield. The
project streams and wetlands have been significantly impacted by channelization, impoundment, and
cattle access. The project will involve the restoration and protection of streams in the Neuse River
watershed and the enhancement of adjacent riparian wetlands. The purpose of this mitigation site is to
restore, enhance and preserve a stream/wetland complex located within the Neuse River Basin.

The Site lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201100050. The 2010 Neuse River
Basin Plan (NRBP) identified the Neuse River watershed (HUC 03020201100050) as a Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream, and
riparian buffer restoration. The Site supports many of the Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities Pan
(RBRP) and Neuse Regional Watershed Pan (RWP) goals. Many of the project design goals and
objectives, including restoration of riparian buffers to filter runoff from agricultural operations and
improve terrestrial habitat, and construction of in-stream structures to improve habitat diversity, will
address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major
watershed stressors in the 2010 Neuse RBRP. The project presents 7,658 linear feet of stream
restoration, enhancement, and preservation generating 5,523 Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) and 36.51
acres of wetland re-establishment, re and enhancement generating 14.41 riparian Wetland Mitigation
Units (WMU).

The site consists of agricultural fields, cattle pastures and wooded areas. The total easement area is
60.93 acres. The wooded areas along the easement corridor designated for restoration activities are
classified as mixed hardwoods. Invasive species are present throughout the wooded areas. Channels
proposed for restoration are both laterally and vertically unstable, impacted by cattle, have disturbed
riparian buffers, and do not fully support aquatic life. Current stream conditions along the proposed
restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation because of impacts from livestock and impoundment to
promote agricultural activities.

The objective for this mitigation site is to restore and design natural waterways through stream/wetland
complexes with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet
success criteria. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of natural stream characteristics,
such as stable cross sections, planform, and in-stream habitat. The floodplain areas will be
hydrologically reconnected to the channels where feasible to provide natural exchange and storage
during flooding events. The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE,
2003), and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success. Additional site objectives,
such as restoring the riparian buffer with native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and treating
invasive species, are listed in Section 6.

The stream design approach for the Site is to combine the analog method of natural channel design with
analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain.
The analog method involves the use of a “template” stream adjacent to, nearby, or previousl y in the
same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are replicated to create
the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions
are similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). Hydraulic geometry was
developed using analytical methods to identify the design discharge.

The Meadow Spring Site will include Priority I/II restoration, Enhancement Levels I II and III,
Preservation and wetland re-habilitation, re-establishment, enhancement and preservation. Priority I
restoration reaches will incorporate the design of a single-thread meandering channel, with parameters
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan iii April 2018

based on data taken from the reference site described above, published empirical relationships, NC
Coastal Plain Regional Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.

Enhancement Level III and Preservation is proposed along Reach S9, S12, and S13 due to the channels’
current stability and presence of mature trees located along the top of banks. Reach S12 and S13 are
designated as Preservation because there is not a need for the riparian buffer planting that is needed on
Enhancement III reaches.

The Site will include wetland re-habilitation, re-establishment, enhancement, and preservation.
Wetland re-establishment will occur adjacent to Priority I stream restoration reaches. The restoration
approach is to reconnect the floodplain wetlands to the stream, fill existing ditches, rough the floodplain
surface, and plant native tree and shrub species commonly found in small stream swamp ecosystems.
The wetland enhancement treatment will primarily be livestock exclusion, improving hydrology via
pond removal and ditch plugging, and planting native tree and shrub species.

After completion of all construction and planting activities, the Site will be monitored on a regular basis
and a physical inspection of the Site will be conducted at a minimum of twice per year throughout the
seven-year post-construction monitoring period, or until performance standards are met. These site
inspections will identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. The measure
of stream restoration success will be documented by bankfull flows and no change in stream channel
classification. Sand bed channels are dynamic and minor adjustments to dimension and profile are
expected. The measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 210 seven-year
old planted trees per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end of year seven of the monitoring
period.

Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to the
North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation (NCWHF). The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic
inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed
restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed
restrictions will be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan iv September 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 7
1.1 Site Selection .......................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Project Components ................................................................................................................ 7
2 WATERSHED APPROACH ......................................................................................................... 8
2.1.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ............................................................... 8
2.2 Soil Survey ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.3 Site Photographs .................................................................................................................. 12
3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ......................................................................................... 15
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information ........................................................... 15
4 BASELINE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Watershed Summary Information ........................................................................................ 16
4.1.1 Drainage Area ............................................................................................................... 16
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification ........................................................................................ 16
4.2 Reach Summary Information ............................................................................................... 16
4.2.1 Channel Classification .................................................................................................. 17
4.2.2 Discharge ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.2.3 Bankfull Verification .................................................................................................... 17
4.2.4 Channel Morphology .................................................................................................... 17
4.2.5 Channel Stability Assessment ...................................................................................... 19
4.2.6 Vegetation..................................................................................................................... 20
4.3 Wetland Summary Information ............................................................................................ 21
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 21
4.3.2 Existing Hydric Soil ..................................................................................................... 21
4.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints .......................................................... 22
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities .............................................................. 22
4.4.2 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass ........................................................................................ 22
4.4.3 Environmental Screening and Documentation ............................................................. 23
5 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL ....................................................................................... 24
5.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements ............................................................ 25
5.1.1 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................... 25
5.1.2 Hydraulic ...................................................................................................................... 25
5.1.3 Geomorphology ............................................................................................................ 25
5.1.4 Physiochemical ............................................................................................................. 25
5.1.5 Biology ......................................................................................................................... 26
6 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................ 28
7 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ............................................................................................. 29
7.1 Credit Calculations for Non-Standard Buffer Widths .......................................................... 30
8 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ............................................................................................... 31
8.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits .................................................................................. 32
8.2 Subsequent Credit Releases .................................................................................................. 32
9 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ..................................................................................................... 32
9.1 Reference Stream Studies ..................................................................................................... 32
9.1.1 Target Reference Conditions ........................................................................................ 32
9.2 Design Parameters ................................................................................................................ 34
9.2.1 Stream Mitigation Approach ........................................................................................ 34
9.2.2 Wetland Restoration and Enhancement ........................................................................ 40
9.2.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration ......................................................................... 41
9.2.4 Best Management Practices (BMPs) ............................................................................ 42
9.2.5 Soil Restoration ............................................................................................................ 43
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan v September 2018
9.3 Data Analysis........................................................................................................................ 43
9.3.1 Stream Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 43
9.3.2 Mitigation Summary ..................................................................................................... 46
10 MAINTENANCE PLAN ............................................................................................................. 47
11 MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................. 48
11.1 As-Built Survey .................................................................................................................... 50
11.2 Visual Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 50
11.3 Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology ................................................................. 50
11.3.1 Digital Image Stations .................................................................................................. 50
11.3.2 Cross Sections .............................................................................................................. 50
11.3.3 Gauges .......................................................................................................................... 50
11.4 Wetland Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 51
11.5 Vegetative Monitoring Plots ................................................................................................. 51
11.6 Scheduling/Reporting ........................................................................................................... 51
12 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................................ 51
12.1 Stream And Wetland Restoration Success Criteria .............................................................. 51
12.1.1 Bankfull Events ............................................................................................................ 51
12.1.1 Surface Flow ................................................................................................................. 52
12.1.2 Bank Height Ratio and Entrenchment Ratio ................................................................ 52
12.1.3 Wetland Hydrology Criteria ......................................................................................... 52
12.2 Vegetation Success Criteria .................................................................................................. 52
13 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................................................... 53
14 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................... 54
15 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ...................................................................................................... 55
16 OTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................................................ 56
16.1 References ............................................................................................................................ 56

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Meadow Spring Site Project Components ........................................................... 7
Table 2a. Meadow Spring Site Project Components – Stream Mitigation ............................................. 7
Table 2b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components – Wetland Mitigation .......................................... 8
Table 3. Mapped Soil Series ................................................................................................................. 11
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information ............................................................................ 15
Table 5. Project Watershed Summary Information .............................................................................. 16
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics ....................................................................... 17
Table 7. Channel Stability Assessment Results.................................................................................... 20
Table 8. Wetland Summary Information .............................................................................................. 21
Table 9. Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................... 22
Table 10. Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements ............................................................ 27
Table 11. Mitigation Credits ................................................................................................................. 29
Table 12a. Meadow Spring Site Project Components – Stream Mitigation ......................................... 29
Table 12b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components – Wetland Mitigation ...................................... 29
Table 13a. Stream Credit Release Schedule ......................................................................................... 31
Table 13b. Wetland Credit Release Schedule ...................................................................................... 31
Table 14. Scaling Factors ..................................................................................................................... 39
Table 15. Proposed Plant List ............................................................................................................... 42
Table 16. Peak Flow Comparison ........................................................................................................ 44
Table 17. Stable Channel Design Output ............................................................................................. 45
Table 18. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses ...................................................... 45
Table 19. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities ............................................................. 46
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan vi September 2018
Table 20. Maintenance Plan ................................................................................................................. 47
Table 21. Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................... 49

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 - Historical Aerials Map
Figure 4 - Soils Map
Figure 5 - Landowner Map
Figure 6 - Land-use Map
Figure 7 - Existing Conditions Map
Figure 8 - FEMA Map
Figure 9 - National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 10 - Conceptual Plan Map
Figure 11 - Conceptual Design for NCDWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credits
Figure 12 – Buffer Width Zones
Figure 13 - Monitoring Plan

Appendices

Appendix A – Site Protection Instrument and Longterm Stewardship Program Overview
Appendix B – Baseline Information Data
Appendix C – Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Appendix D – Soil Scientist Report (Original and Addition)
Appendix E – Design Plan Sheets (11”x17”)
Appendix F – Stream Buffer Credit Calculation
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 7 September 2018
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site (the “Site”) is located within a primarily rural watershed with limited
residential development in Johnston County, North Carolina. The project streams proposed for restoration
have been significantly impacted by channelization and agricultural practices. Due to its location and
proposed improvements, the Site will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the
Neuse River Basin. This mitigation plan is in accordance with the Neu-Con Stream and Wetland Umbrella
Mitigation Bank (SAW# 2016-01989). The Site has been designed in concurrence with the Meadow Spring
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank.
1.1 Site Selection
The Site is located in Johnston County approximately three miles north of Smithfield, North Carolina
(Figure 1). To access the Site head east on NC 70 from the Town of Wilson Mills, turn right onto Wilson
Mills Road and head south for approximately 1.5 miles. The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin within
Cataloging Unit 03020201, 14-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201100050 (a Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW)). The Site is located in the Rolling Coastal Plains ecoregion and on the Neuse
River floodplain and has a gently rolling topography. Elevations range from 120 to 150 feet above mean
sea level (NAD 27) based upon USGS topographic mapping (Figure 2).
1.2 Project Components
The project area totals 60.9 acres and is comprised of one primary perennial stream that flows west to east
to a confluence with the Neuse River. The stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized in
Tables 1, 2a and 2b, as well as Figure 10. An additional 50 SMUs were generated based on the Non-
Standard Buffer Width Adjustment and described in more detail in Section 7.1.

Table 1. Summary of Meadow Spring Site Project Components
The Meadow Spring Site Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland
Totals 5,523 14.41

Table 2a. Meadow Spring Site Project Components – Stream Mitigation
Stream Mitigation
Proposed Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Length (LF) Mitigation Ratio Base SMUs
S1 Enhancement II 250 2.5:1 100
S2 Enhancement I 500 1.5:1 333
S5 P1 / P2 Restoration 231 1:1 231
S6A P1 Restoration 1,350 1:1 1,350
S6B P1 Restoration 1,176 1:1 1,176
S6B Enhancement I 167 1.5:1 111
S7 Enhancement I 990 1.5:1 660
S7 Enhancement I 440 1.5:1 293
S9 Enhancement III 675 7.5:1 90
S11 P1 Restoration 1,045 1:1 1,045
S12 Preservation 380 10:1 38
S13 Preservation 454 10:1 45
Total 7,658 5,473
Non-Standard Buffer Width Adjustment 50
Total Adjusted SMUs 5,523
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 8 September 2018

Table 2b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components – Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Mitigation
Proposed Wetland Mitigation Type Total Acres Mitigation Ratio WMUs
WB Rehabilitation 0.95 1.5:1 0.63
WD Preservation 0.03 No Credit No Credit
WE Preservation 0.09 No Credit No Credit
WF-A Preservation 2.00 No Credit No Credit
WF-B Enhancement 2.02 3:1 0.67
WG Enhancement 3.68 3:1 1.23
WG Enhancement 18.03 5:1 3.61
WH Re-establishment 6.84 1:1 6.84
WI Re-establishment 2.87 2:1 1.44
Total 36.51 14.41

2 WATERSHED APPROACH
The 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) identified several restoration needs for the
entire Neuse River Basin, as well as for HUC 03020201, specifically. The Site is located in HUC
03020201100050 (Neuse River) (Figure 1), a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) that exhibits both the need
and opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration. The watershed includes 52 square miles
of area, with 31 percent of the 106 stream miles lacking wooded buffers. Thirty-seven percent of the
watershed is used for agricultural purposes with 13 animal operations occurring in the watershed (NCEEP
2010). Impervious surface near the town of Smithfield is increasing and set to surpass the critical seven
percent benchmark (NCEEP 2010).

The Site was identified as a stream, wetland, and buffer restoration opportunity to improve water quality,
habitat, and hydrology within the Neuse River Basin. The Site is located within the downstream end of
HUC 03020201 and includes an unnamed tributary that directly discharges into the Neuse River. Many of
the project design goals and objectives, including restoration of riparian buffers to filter runoff from
agricultural operations and improve terrestrial habitat, and construction of in-stream structures to improve
habitat diversity, will address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were
identified as major watershed stressors in the 2010 Neuse RBRP.
2.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Aerial imagery indicates that the subject Site has been used extensively for agricultural purposes, and that
the agricultural pond has been in place for well over 40 years (Figure 3). But that this use is different than
the historic landscape and hydrologic regime. Past landscape/land use changes at this site includes enhanced
drainage, a deeply incised channel through the floodplain, active livestock resulting in soil compaction and
surface churning, a loss of surface organic matter, and the change of the normal reduction cycle
characteristic of wetlands to an oxidation cycle. The construction of a farm pond within the narrow drainage
way has severely altered the surrounding landscape and drainage, creating a discontinuity of the natural
drainage.
Since the early 1990s little has changed in the project area. Current land use is livestock grazing with access
to all of the stream reaches and wetlands. Vegetation is heavily disturbed due to the livestock. The
surrounding land use is farm land, undeveloped land, and single-family homes. Livestock grazing has
resulted in unstable stream banks and significant down cutting. Several watershed characteristics, such as
groundwater, vegetation, surface drainage, and potentially soil parameters have been modified. The surface
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 9 September 2018
soil layer and underlying subsoil are exposed by the channel eroding. Soil structure and surface texture
have been altered from intensive agricultural operations.
2.2 Soil Survey
The Site is located in the Rolling Coastal Plains Physiographic Province. Existing soil information from
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) shows the property is located within the Wehadkee-
Bibb-Chewacla soil association. This association is on nearly level, well drained to poorly drained soils that
are subject to flooding typically in flood plains and stream terraces. This soil association is located along
major streams and creeks throughout Johnston County. The largest mapped area of this soils association is
along the Neuse River south of Smithfield.
The Johnston County Soil Survey shows several mapping units across the site. Map units include 11 soil
series (Figure 4). The soil series found on the Site are described below and summarized in Table 3.
Site soils are mapped by the NRCS as Altavista, Augusta, Bibb, Goldsboro, Norfolk, Rains, Roanoke, and
Wagram on the low lying depressions and floodplains at the project Site (Figure 4). Augusta, Bibb,
Goldsboro Rains and Roanoke soils are generally poorly drained sandy loam to loamy soils and range from
zero to two percent slopes. Altavista and Wagram are fine sandy loam and loamy sand well-drained soils
typically located on slopes ranging from zero to six percent. Altavista, Augusta, Bibb, Goldsboro, Rains,
and Roanoke soils are listed on the NRCS hydric soil list as hydric or having hydric inclusions.
The surrounding upland soils are the Norfolk-Goldsboro-Rains map unit and occur on nearly level to gently
sloping upland interstream areas dissected by small drainageways. Mapped units include Marlboro-Cecil
complex, Norfolk and Wagram. Norfolk and Wagram soils are well drained and have moderate
permeability. Norfolk and Wagram are found on slopes ranging from zero to six percent. Marlboro-Cecil
complex is sandy loam soil made up of Marlboro and Cecil soils. This soil type is well-drained and typically
located on slopes ranging from two to eight percent.
Altavista fine sandy loam. This is a very deep, moderately to well-drained soil that occurs on stream
terraces of the Coastal Plain. They formed in old loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic
rock, and generally occur on slopes between zero to three percent. Runoff is negligible and permeability is
moderate. Major uses are cropland. Altavista fine sandy loam occurs along the southeast boundary of the
proposed easement throughout most the wetland area.
Augusta sandy loam. This is a very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs on stream terraces of
the Southern Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain. They formed in loamy alluvial sediments, and generally
occur on slopes between zero to two percent. Runoff is negligible and permeability is moderate. Major use
is cropland. Augusta sandy loam occurs along the northwest end of the of the planned wetland and near the
southern reach of the stream.
Bibb sandy loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil found on flood plains of the Coastal Plain. Slopes
are generally less than two percent. Soils formed in stratified sandy alluvium and have very slow runoff
with moderate permeability. The water table is generally within eight inches of the surface for six to eleven
months of the year. Bibb sandy loams occurs along the northernmost reach of the easement; it can also be
found in small patches around the project Site.
Goldsboro sandy loam. This is a very deep, moderate well-drained soil that occurs on marine terraces and
uplands of the lower to upper Coastal Plain. They formed in marine and fluviomarine deposits, and
generally occur on slopes between zero to ten percent. Runoff is negligible to medium and permeability is
moderate. Major uses are cropland. Goldsboro sandy loam occurs along the middle of the easement and is
scattered along the project vicinity.
Marlboro- Cecil complex. Marlboro consists of very deep, well-drained soil that occurs on the smooth
uplands of the Coastal Plain. They formed in clayey Coastal Plain sediments, and generally occur in slopes
zero to fifteen percent. Runoff is medium and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland. Cecil
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 10 September 2018
consists of very deep, well-drained soil that occurs on ridges and side slopes of the Piedmont uplands. They
formed in residuum weathered from felsic, igneous and high -grade metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont
uplands, and generally occur on slopes between zero to 25 percent. Runoff is medium to rapid and
permeability is moderate. Major uses are cultivation, pasture, and forest. Marlboro-Cecil complex is found
outside of the easement area in the surrounding cultivated plots.
Norfolk loamy sand. This is a very deep, well-drained soil that occurs on interfluves and side slopes of the
Coastal Plain. They formed in marine or fluviomarine deposits, and generally occur on slopes between zero
to ten percent. Runoff is negligible to medium and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland.
Norfolk loamy sand is found along the floodplains of the northwestern stream reaches.
Rains sandy loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil that occurs on crests of the Coastal Plain. They
formed in loamy and sandy marine deposits, and generally occur on slopes between 0-2%. Runoff is low
and permeability is moderate. Major uses are forest and cropland. Rains sandy loam occurs along the area
just north of the easement and along the stream reaches extending out from the site easement.
Roanoke loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil that occurs on terraces and drainageways of the
piedmont and the upper and middle Coastal Plain. They formed in clayey fluvial sediments, and generally
occur on slopes between zero to two percent. Runoff and permeability are slow to very slow. Major uses
are woodland. Roanoke loam occurs along the left floodplain of the southernmost reach of the conservation
easement.
Wagram loamy sand. This is a very deep, somewhat excessively drained soil that occurs on the interfluves
and side slopes of the upper and middle Coastal Plain. The formed in marine and fluviomarine deposits,
and generally occur on slopes between zero 15 percent. Runoff is negligible to medium and permeability is
moderate. Major uses are cropland. Wagram loamy sand occurs along the right stream bank and floodplain
of the northernmost reach in the easement.

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 11 September 2018
Table 3. Mapped Soil Series
Map
Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name Percent
Hydric
Drainage
Class
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Landscape
Setting
AaA Altavista fine sandy
loam, 0-2% slopes 9% Moderately
well C Stream terraces
AsA Augusta sandy loam,
0-2% slopes 7% Somewhat
poorly B/D Stream terraces
Bb Bibb sandy loam, 0-
2% slopes 90% Poorly A/D Floodplains
GoA Goldsboro sandy
loam, 0-2% slopes 2% Moderately
well B
Flats on marine terraces,
broad interstream divides
on marine terraces
McB Marlboro-Cecil
complex, 2-8% slopes 0% Well B
Broad interstream divides
on marine terraces, ridges
on marine terraces
NoA Norfolk loamy sand,
0-2% slopes 5% Well A
Flats on marine terraces,
broad interstream divides
on marine terraces
NoB Norfolk loamy sand,
2-6% slopes 5% Well A
Flats on marine terraces,
broad interstream divides
on marine terraces
Ra Rains sandy loam, 0-
2% slopes 90% Poorly B
Carolina bays on marine
terraces, broad interstream
divides on marine terraces,
flats on marine terraces
Ro Roanoke loam, 0-2%
slopes 100% Poorly C/D
Depressions on stream
terraces, backswamps on
stream terraces
WaB Wagram loamy sand,
0-6% slopes 5% Well A
Broad interstream divides
on marine terraces, ridges
on marine terraces

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 12 September 2018
2.3 Site Photographs

Reach S1. 10/06/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

Reach S1. 10/06/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

Reach S2. 10/06/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

Reach S2. 10/06/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

Reach S3. 10/06/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

Reach S4. 10/06/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 13 September 2018

Reach S5. 10/06/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

Reach S6. 10/06/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

Reach S6. 10/06/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

General conditions along Reach S7. 10/06/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

General channel conditions along Reach S7.
10/06/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

Reach S8. 03/09/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 14 September 2018

Reach S9. 10/06/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

Reach S9. 10/06/2015

Site Photograph with caption
NOTE: caption should provide context for the
photo (e.g. channel condition); include date
and location of photograph

Reach S10. 10/06/2015

Reach S11. 10/06/2015

Reach S12. 05/10/2016

Reach S13. 10/06/2015

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 15 September 2018
3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Site includes portions of the
following parcel (Table 4 & Figure 5). A copy of the land protection instrument is included in Appendix
A.

Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Landowner Pin County Deed Book and Page
Number
Parcel
Acreage
Protected
Acreage
Stephenson 1997 Family
Limited Partnership
169500-74-
6294

Johnston

01732-0151

246.34

60.93

The Wilmington District Conservation Easement model template was utilized to draft the site protection
instrument. A copy of the final recorded easement is provided in Appendix A.

EBX-Neuse I, LLC, acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a Conservation Easement, and will monitor
the Site for a minimum of seven years. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring and,
if necessary, maintenance of the Site during the initial monitoring phase. This Mitigation Plan provides
detailed information regarding bank operation, including long term management and annua l monitoring
activities, for review and approval by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). These activities will be
conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the approved Mitigation Plan for the Meadow
Spring Mitigation Site. The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site will be authorized under the Neu-Con Wetland
and Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank made and entered into by EBX-Neuse I, LLC, US Army Corps of
Engineers, and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR).

Upon approval of the Site by the IRT, the Site will be transferred to the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat
Foundation (NCWHF). The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that
restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are uphe ld.
Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions will be negotiated prior to site transfer
to the responsible party (an overview of NCWHF program and the engagement letter is found in Appendix
A).

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 16 September 2018
4 BASELINE INFORMATION
4.1 Watershed Summary Information
4.1.1 Drainage Area
The easement totals 60.9 acres and the project includes one main unnamed tributary that flows directly to
the Neuse River and two smaller tributaries that flow into the main channel. The total drainage area at the
downstream limits of the main project area is approximately 379 acres (0.59 mi2). The land use in the Site
drainage area is approximately 37 percent agricultural and 45 percent forested (Table 5 and Figure 6).
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification
The current State classification for the Site restoration reaches is undefined. Tributaries of the Site run
directly into a large floodplain wetland adjacent to the Neuse River. Neuse River is defined as WS-IV and
NSW (NCDENR 2012a). WS-IV waters are sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes. The NSW is a designation for nutrient sensitive waters – intended for waters needing
additional nutrient management due to being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation.
Table 5. Project Watershed Summary Information
Level IV Ecoregion 65m - Rolling Coastal Plain
River Basin Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03020201100050
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-02
Project Drainage Area (acres) 379
Percent Impervious Area <1%
4.2 Reach Summary Information
The project area is comprised of a contiguous easement area along an unnamed tributary to the Neuse River.
The easement is separated by an existing power easement and three agricultural crossing. The project is
divided into northern and southern portions by the existing power easement. The northern portion of the
project includes Reaches S1, S2, S5, S6a and S6b. The southern portion of the project includes Reaches S7,
S9, S11, S12 and S13 (Figure 7). Stream Classification Forms were completed at representative locations
throughout the project area and stream determinations were confirmed by DWR staff (Appendix B).
Results of the preliminary data collection are presented in Table 6. The Stream Morphology Table is
included in Appendix C.

In general, all or portions of S1, S2, S5, S6, S7, S9, and S11 do not function to their full potential. Current
conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts from agriculture, historic land
uses, and water diversion. Having been channelized in the past, some of the streams do not access their
floodplains as frequently as they naturally would have prior to agricultural operations. In most cases, the
riparian buffer is in poor condition where much of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs and active
pasture is directly adjacent to both banks of the existing channel. Habitat along the majority of the
restoration reaches is poor with little woody debris or overhanging vegetation for fish cover or protection
for other aquatic species. Morphological parameters are located in Appendix C.

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 17 September 2018
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach Drainage
Area (ac)
ABKF 1
(ft2)
Width
(ft)
Mean
Depth (ft)
Width:Depth
Ratio
Bank Height
Ratio Sinuosity Slope
(ft/ft)
S1 36 1.5 10.1 0.1 70.9 4.8 1.01 0.0130
S2 46 1.6 4.9 0.3 15.1 1.8 0.93 0.0110
S5 36 1.8 4.6 0.4 11.6 3.4 1.18 0.0130
S6A 97 6.2 9.0 0.7 13.7 2.3 1.21 0.0039
S6B 171 6.6 8.2 0.8 10.2 2.5 1.15 0.0060
S7 278 10.2 9.0 1.1 8.0 1.8 1.32 0.0032
S9 337 8.7 10.6 0.8 13.0 2.0 0.87 0.0033
S11 379 6.6 6.9 1.0 7.4 1.2 1.06 0.0041
S12 410 8.8 13.5 0.7 20.7 3.5 1.25 0.0030
S13 70 9.0 7.6 1.8 18.6 7.0 1.68 0.0030
1ABKF= cross-sectional area (measured at approximate bankfull stage as estimated using existing conditions data
and NC Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present)
4.2.1 Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as intermittent and perennial streams using the DWR Stream Identification
Form version 4.11 and are E-, G-, and C-stream types as classified using the Rosgen stream classification
system (Rosgen, 1996). The design reaches are described in Section 8.2. Channel characteristics are
summarized in Table 6 and Appendix C. Stream determinations have been verified by DWR staff
(Appendix B).
4.2.2 Discharge
Estimating flows (discharge) for the Meadow Spring Site is difficult due to the channelization and
agricultural impacts of the existing streams. Several models, regression equations, and the Coastal Plain
Regional curves were used to estimate existing bankfull discharges. Land use and slope were considered
when the discharge calculations were developed. All hydraulic and hydrologic analyses are dis cussed in
Section 8.3. Data and analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic models are included as Appendix C.
4.2.3 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull is difficult and often times impossible to accurately identify on actively maintained channels and
agricultural ditches. The usual and preferred indicators rarely exist, and other factors may be taken into
consideration in order to approximate a bankfull stage. Other factors that may be used are wrack lines,
vegetation lines, scour lines, or top of a bankfull bench; however, complete confidence should not be placed
on these indicators. Along the proposed restoration reaches, the channel is generally entrenched and actively
maintained, which means bankfull indicators were very limited or non-existent. Therefore, bankfull stage
was estimated by using Coastal Plain Regional Curves and other hydrologic analyses, existing cross-
sections, and in-house spreadsheets to estimate bankfull area and bankfull discharge.
4.2.4 Channel Morphology
4.2.4.1 Reach S1
Reach S1 has a drainage area of 0.06 square miles (36 acres), and flows southeast from Wilson’s Mill Road
through cultivated fields to Reach S2. The planform of this F-type channel is straight (K = 1.0) and
entrenched throughout. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 1.5 square feet with approximate
dimensions of 10.1 feet width and 0.1 feet deep, while the cross-sectional area of the channel at top of bank
is 91.7 square feet. The existing length of S1 is 250 feet, and the dominant bed material is very coarse sand.
The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0130 ft/ft. The reach is severely oversized with no floodplain
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 18 September 2018
access. The riparian buffer is comprised of row crops and grassed fields with a mix of grassed and small
woody vegetation growing within the existing top of bank.
4.2.4.2 Reach S2
Reach S2 has a drainage area of 0.07 square miles (46 acres), and flows east from Reach S1 through active
pasture to Reach S6. The planform of this C-type channel is straight (K = 1.1) with evidence of past
entrenchment. The channel has developed a new limited floodplain and adjusted to a state of equilibrium.
The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 1.6 square feet with approximate dimensions of 4.9 feet
width and 0.3 feet deep, while the cross-sectional area of the channel at top of bank is 58.7 square feet. The
existing length of S2 is 500 feet, and the dominant bed material is very coarse sand. The gradient of the
reach is approximately 0.0110 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any functional riparian buffer or aquatic
habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle access were found throughout the reach.
4.2.4.3 Reach S5
Reach S5 has a drainage area of 0.06 square miles (36 acres), and flows south from through narrow forest
and active pasture to a confluence with Reach S6. The planform of this F-type channel has a sinuosity (K)
of 1.2 and is entrenched throughout. The approximate bankfull cross -sectional area is 1.8 square feet with
approximate dimensions of 4.6 feet width and 0.4 feet deep. The existing length of S5 is 215 feet, and the
dominant bed material is very medium gravel. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0130 ft/ft. Cattle
access has eliminated any functional riparian buffer or aquatic habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs
attributed to cattle access were found throughout the reach.
4.2.4.4 Reach S6A
Reach S6A flows east from Reach S2 through active pasture to a confluence with Reach S5 and is an F-
type channel. The drainage area for Reach S6A at the confluence with Reach S5 is 0.15 square miles (97
acres). The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 6.2 square feet with approximate dimensions of 9.0
feet width and 0.7 feet depth. The existing length of S6A is 1,220 feet and the dominant bed material is fine
gravel. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0039 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any functional
riparian buffer or aquatic habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle access were found
throughout the reach.
4.2.4.5 Reach S6B
Reach S6B continues east to Reach S7 and has a drainage area of 0.27 square miles (171 acres). Reach S6B
is an F-type channel but transitions to an E-type channel approximately 940 feet downstream. The
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 6.6 square feet with approximate dimensions of 8.2 feet width
and 0.8 feet depth. The existing length of S6B is 1315 feet and the dominant bed material is fine gravel.
The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0060 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any functional riparian
buffer or aquatic habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle access were found throughout
the reach.
4.2.4.6 Reach S7
Reach S7 has a drainage area of 0.43 square miles (278 acres), and flows south from Reach S6 through
mature forest to S9. This E-type channel has a sinuosity of 1.3 and an entrenchment ratio of 2.1. The
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 10.2 square feet with approximate dimensions of 9.0 feet width
and 1.1 feet deep. The existing length of S7 is 1487 feet, and the dominant bed material is very fine gravel.
The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0032 ft/ft. The reach is slightly oversized but maintains
floodplain access. The riparian buffer is comprised of mature hardwood forest; however, significant
invasive vegetation, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), is present throughout the reach.
4.2.4.7 Reach S9
Reach S9 has a drainage area of 0.53 square miles (337 acres), and flows south from Reach S7 through
mature forest to S11. This E-type channel has a sinuosity of 0.87 and an entrenchment ratio of 2.0. The
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 19 September 2018
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 8.7 square feet with approximate dimensions of 10.6 feet width
and 0.8 feet deep. The existing length of S9 is 665 feet, and the dominant bed material is coarse sand. The
gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0033 ft/ft. The bankfull depth noted above is lower than water
surface depths observed during field visits. Water surface depths observed were abnormally high due to
backwater caused by sediment deposits resulting from Hurricane Matthew (October 2016). The riparian
buffer is comprised of mature hardwood forest and wetlands; however, significant Chinese privet is present
throughout the reach.
4.2.4.8 Reach S11
Reach S11 has a drainage area of 0.59 square miles (379 acres), and flows south from Reach S9 through
mature forest and grassed fields to S12. This E-type channel has a sinuosity of 1.1 and an entrenchment
ratio greater than 2.2. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 6.6 square feet with approximate
dimensions of 6.9 feet width and 1.0 feet deep. The existing length of S11 is 898 feet, and the dominant
bed material is coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0041 ft/ft. The riparian buffer is
comprised of mature hardwood forest and grassed fields. During field visits a headcut was observed
migrating in the middle of the reach. The headcut appeared to have been stabilized by a substantial root
mass located in the channel bed. Though stabilized, the headcut has left a significant amount of the reach
with vertical and vegetated banks that are acting as a considerable sediment source to the downstream
channel.
4.2.4.9 Reach S12
Reach S12 has a drainage area of 0.64 square miles (410 acres), and flows south from Reach S11 through
mature forest to the Neuse River. This F-type channel has a sinuosity of 1.25 and an entrenchment ratio of
0.9. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 8.8 square feet with approximate dimensions of 13.5
feet width and 0.7 feet deep. The existing length of S12 is 388 feet, and the dominant bed material is coarse
sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0030 ft/ft. The dimensions of this reach are significantly
different from the rest of the project due to impacts from Neuse River backwater. The riparian buffer is
comprised of mature hardwood forest and wetlands.
4.2.4.10 Reach S13
Reach S13 has a drainage area of 0.05 square miles (31 acres), and flows south from Wetland WG through
mature forest to the Neuse River. This F-type channel has a sinuosity of 1.66 and an entrenchment ratio of
1.2. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 2.2 square feet with approximate dimensions of 8.6
feet width and .3 feet deep. The existing length of S13 is 454 feet, and the dominant bed material is coarse
sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0050 ft/ft. The dimensions of this reach are significantly
different from the rest of the project due to impacts from Neuse River backwater. The riparian buffer is
comprised of mature hardwood forest and wetlands.
4.2.5 Channel Stability Assessment
A modified version of the channel stability assessment method (CSA) provided in “Assessing Stream
Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions” by Johnson (2006) was used to assess channel
stability for the Poplin Ridge existing channels and reference reach. This method may be rapidly applied
on a variety of stream types in different physiographic regions having a range of bed and bank materials.
The original CSA method was designed to evaluate thirteen stability indicators in the field. These
parameters are: watershed characteristics (frequency of watershed disturbances such as agricultural
activities, urbanization, etc), flow habit, channel pattern, entrenchment/channel confinement, bed material,
bar development, presence of obstructions/debris jams, bank soil texture and coherence, average bank
angle, bank vegetation/protection, bank cutting, mass wasting/bank failure, and upstream distance to bridge.
See Appendix C for a detailed description of the stability indicators. As this method was initially developed
to assess stability at bridges, a few minor adjustments were made to remove indicators that contradict
stability characteristics of natural channels in favor of providing hydraulic efficiency at bridges. First, the
“channel pattern” indicator was altered such that naturally meandering channels scored low as opposed to
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 20 September 2018
straightened/engineered channels that are favorable for stability near bridges. Secondly, the last indicator,
“upstream distance to bridge,” was removed from the assessment as bridges are not a focus of channel
stability for this project. The twelve indicators were then scored in the field, and a rating of excellent, good,
fair, or poor was assigned to each project reach based on the total score.

The CSA results (scores and ratings) for the Meadow Spring site are provided in Table 7. Two of the six
project stream reaches received “Fair” ratings, while four reaches received “Poor” ratings. The reach score
trended upward as we move downstream through the project. This improvement correlated with an increase
in forested drainage area in the downstream portion of the project. S11 does not follow this trend due to its
lack of buffer and the increased sediment inputs from the upstream reaches. Overall, the upstream project
streams appear to be actively adjusting due to constant stress from surrounding livestock. The downstream
portions of the project are stable but have localized areas of erosion and deposition due to confined upstream
flows and sediment inputs. These characteristics are reflected in the poor CSA scores throughout the project.
(Table 7).

Table 7. Channel Stability Assessment Results
S2 S5 S6 S7 S9 S11 Ref. Reach
1 Watershed characteristics 11 8 11 7 8 9 8
2 Flow habit 9 8 8 7 7 8 4
3 Channel pattern 7 9 10 4 4 9 3
4 Entrenchment/channel confinement 9 9 9 7 4 6 3
5 Bed material 10 6 7 8 10 10 5
6 Bar development 9 10 10 9 2 8 5
7 Obstructions/debris jams 7 5 5 7 3 3 3
8 Bank soil texture and coherence 8 9 7 7 7 10 4
9 Average bankangle 8 10 10 7 10 10 4
10 Bank vegetation/protection 12 9 7 7 2 11 3
11 Bank cutting 7 8 9 8 5 8 4
12 Mass wasting/bank failure 8 10 8 8 7 8 2
13 Upstream distance to bridge NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Score 105 101 101 86 69 100 48
Rating Poor Poor Poor Fair Fair Poor Good
4.2.6 Vegetation
Current land use in the vicinity of the project is primarily pasture, row crop, and forest. There are low-
density residential lots, maintained vegetation, and two-lane roads also present in the area surrounding the
project.

Forested riparian areas have been intermittently cattle-grazed and lack a well-developed understory and
shrub strata. The area most closely resemble a disturbed Coastal Plain small stream swamp and are
dominated by hardwoods and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Canopy species include loblolly pine, swamp
tupelo (Nyssa biflora), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and various oaks
(Quercus spp.). Sub-canopy species include sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) and the main
herbaceous species are giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vivenium),
dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) and in the wetter areas, common rush (Juncus effusus), awlfruit sedge
(Carex stipata), and netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata). Along Reaches S7 and S9 there are dense
populations of the invasive species Chinese privet and scattered less dense populations within the Wetland
WG.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 21 September 2018
4.3 Wetland Summary Information
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands
A wetland delineation was performed in November 2016. Wetland boundaries were delineated using
current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and
Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf
Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010). Soils were characterized and classified using the Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0 (USDA-NRCS 2010). Wetland boundaries were
marked with sequentially numbered wetland survey tape (pink/black striped) (Figure 7; Table 8).

Jurisdictional wetlands are present in the enhancement and preservation areas throughout the site. The
wetlands are divided between heavily disturbed and functional. A jurisdictional determination request was
sent to the USACE on January 23, 2017 and is included in Appendix B.

The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts three wetland areas within the site (Figure
9). There is a pond mapped as PUBHh (Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Permanently Flooded
Diked/Impound) on the west end of the project. There are two large wetland areas mappe d on the east end
of the project as PSS1C (Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Broad-Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded) and PFO1C
(Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded).

Table 8. Wetland Summary Information
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland
WA
Wetland
WB
Wetland D
WD
Wetland E
WE
Wetland F
WF
Wetland G
WG
Size of
Wetland
(acres)
0.12 1.24 0.22 0.11 4.83 23.09
Wetland Type PEM PEM PFO PFO PFO PEM/PSS/PFO
Mapped Soil
Series
Norfolk sandy
loam
Norfolk sandy
loam
Marlboro-Cecil
complex
Marlboro-
Cecil
complex
Augusta
sandy loam
Augusta sandy
loam
Drainage
Class Well Well Well Well Somewhat
poorly
Somewhat
poorly
Soil Hydric
Status
Hydric
Inclusions
Hydric
Inclusions No No Hydric
Inclusions
Hydric
Inclusions
Source of
Hydrology
Freshwater
spring Groundwater
Groundwater
Surface
Hydrology
Groundwater
Surface
Hydrology
Groundwater
Surface
Hydrology
Groundwater
Surface
Hydrology
Hydrologic
Impairment N/A Ditch N/A N/A N/A Ditches
Native
vegetation
community
Pasture Pasture Pasture Forest Forest Forest
Percent
composition
of exotic
invasive
vegetation
<5% <5% 15% <5% 30% <5%
4.3.2 Existing Hydric Soil
In addition to the jurisdictional wetlands, areas of hydric soil were located and delineated within the project
area. The site is currently in agricultural use that is different from the historic landscape and hydrologic
regime. Past landscape/land use changes at this site includes enhanced drainage, a deeply incised channel
through the floodplain, active livestock resulting in soil compaction and surface churning, a loss of surface
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 22 September 2018
organic matter, and the change of the normal reduction cycle characteristic of wetlands to an oxidation
cycle. The construction of a farm pond within the narrow drainage way has severely altered the surrounding
landscape and drainage, creating a discontinuity of the natural drainage. Soil borings within the project
boundary exhibited hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface throughout the natural drain
way.

Outside of the NRCS map suitable hydric soil was identified that that extend into the concave nearly level
landform west of the pond dam. Around the pond is evidence of disturbance and spoil over the natural soil
surface extending beyond the limits of the pond and dam. Where excavated spoil is not spread too thick
hydric indicators within 13 inches are observed like those found throughout the drainage way. Th e dam
structure and inundated pond areas were not investigated but because of the landscape position and presence
of hydric soil above and below it is likely that the pond and dam are underlain by a hydric soil.

Soils examined within the project area typically have thin dark sandy or loamy surface textures with a gray
subsoil ranging from sandy loam to sandy clay. The improved drainage from the incised channel has
disturbed hydric characteristics in the surface and modification of subsurface indicators was observed.
Many mottle features in the upper 10 inches appear to be relict having sharp boundaries at the edge of the
mottle instead of a diffuse boundary usually observed in active wetland process. The reduced hydroperiod
allows increased mineral oxidation to occur within the matric and blur some of the typical indicators
expected. Hydric Soil Indicators are still present within most areas of the floodplain. The indicators present
are the F3-Depleted Matrix, F6-Redox Dark Surface, and F8-Redox Depressions. Hydric soils within the
proposed enhancement and restoration areas were verified through auger borings by a licensed soil scientist
(Appendix D)
4.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
There are various regulatory considerations that were taken into consideration. Documentation of
correspondence regarding any regulatory consideration can be found in Appendix B.

Table 9. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes No Appendix B
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes No Appendix B
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Section 4.4.3; Appendix B
National Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Section 4.4.3; Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act/Coastal
Area Management Act No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance N/A N/A N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Act - Essential Fisheries
Habitat No N/A N/A
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities
There are no major constraints to construction of the Site. There is one utility crossing between S6 and S7.
There is also a timber road that crosses Reach S7.
4.4.2 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass
Reaches S7, S9, S11 and S12 are located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain (Zone AE) but outside of
the floodway of the Neuse River (Figure 8). Grading activities are proposed within the Neuse River
floodway for the wetland enhancement portion of the project. These grading activities will be limited in
size and will result in no net increase of fill within the floodway. This information was conveyed to the
Floodplain Administrators of both Johnston County and the Town of Smithfield. It wa s agreed that the
impacts were insignificant and could not be accurately modeled. Therefore, a No-Rise or CLOMR will
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 23 September 2018
likely not be required for this project. Hydrologic trespass is a not a concern for this project. While designing
the Meadow Spring project, appropriate measures were taken to eliminate hydrologic trespass of the
adjacent agricultural fields. The adjacent land use will not be affected by the proposed design, and no
detrimental impacts are expected beyond the easement limits. RES will verify final FEMA coordination in
the permitting phase of the project.
4.4.3 Environmental Screening and Documentation
4.4.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under provisions
of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) database (accessed 11 May 2016) lists four endangered species for Johnston County, North
Carolina: Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana),
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii). The Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) and
prohibits take of bald and golden eagles. In order for restoration activities to occur, an estimated vegetation
clearing of nine acres will occur, which is an expected 150 trees to be removed. However, these trees will
be replanted to restore the plant community. However, no protected species or potential habitat for protected
species was observed during preliminary site evaluations.

In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database was consulted
to determine whether previously cataloged occurrences of protected species are mapped within one mile of
the project Site. Results from NHP indicated that there are six known occurrences within a one-mile radius
of the project area. The NHP database shows an occurrence of Kidney Sedge (Carex reniformis) historically
mapped in 1949. Also within the Neuse River the database has documented occurrences of the Triangle
floater (Alasmidonta undulata), Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiate), and Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio
roanokensis) which were mapped in 2005 and 2010. The fifth occurrence is the Two-spotted Skipper which
is a species of butterfly. The occurrence was mapped on the other side of the Neuse River in 2000. The last
occurrence is the Oak Toad which was last observed in 1969. Based on initial site investigations, no impacts
to federally protected species are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.

The proposed project offers some potential to greatly benefit the downstream water quality within the Upper
Neuse sub-basin. RES submitted a request to USFWS for review and comments on the proposed Meadow
Spring Project on May 5, 2017 regarding any potential impacts to threatened and endangered species. A
response letter from the USFWS dated November 3, 2016 indicated that minimal adverse impacts to fish
and wildlife resources are expected and the proposed project could greatly benefit the downstream water
quality. USFWS encouraged catching and removing non-native fish that currently reside in the pond onsite
(proposed for removal), prior to breaching the dam and connecting this feature with the tributary system to
reduce impacts to native aquatic species downstream. Documentation is included in Appendix B.
4.4.3.1 Cultural Resources
A review of North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service (accessed 29
March 2017) database did not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or archeological resources in
the proposed project area. RES submitted a request to the NC SHPO to search records to determine the
presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that may be affected by the
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site on May 5, 2017. In a response letter dated November 28, 2016, the SHPO
stated they were, “aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project”. Documentation
is included in Appendix B.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 24 September 2018
5 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
The Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Harman et. al. 2012) separates stream functions into five
categories, ordered into a hierarchy, which communicate the interrelations among functions and illustrate
the dependence of higher level functions (biology, p hysiochemical and geomorphology) on lower level
functions (hydrology and hydraulics). Anticipated functional benefits and improvements within the project
area, as based on the Function-Based Framework are outlined in Table 10.

Fischenich (2006) found that the most critical functions include those that address hydrodynamic processes,
sediment transport processes, stream stability and riparian buffer restoration. By addressing these
fundamental functions and processes, a restored stream and riparian system are capable of supporting more
dependent functions that typically require time to establish, such as diverse biological communities,
chemical and nutrient processes, diverse habitats and improved water and soil quality. The objectives of
this project will address the most critical functional objectives that will allow for a more restored stream
and riparian watershed over time.
While traditional mitigation approaches have generally relied on surrogate measures of success (i.e. linear
feet of restoration) for determining SMU credit yields, a function-based approach provides a more objective
and flexible approach to quantify the expected ecological benefits of a mitigation design. Additionally, a
functional based approach broadens the reach-scale goals of a restoration project by contextualizing the
functional uplift to the watershed scale. The proposed Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation project will
provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the Neuse River Basin by applying an
ecosystem restoration approach. The restoration approach at the reach scale of this project will have the
greatest effect on the hydraulic and geomorphology function of the system but will benefit the upper -level
functions (physiochemical and biology) over time and in combination with other projects within the
watershed. Anticipated functional benefits and improvements within the project area, as based on the
Function-Based Framework are outlined in Table 10.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 25 September 2018
5.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
5.1.1 Hydrology
According to the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework, hydrology is defined as the transport of water
from the watershed to the channel. All project streams already are characterized as perennial or intermittent
streams, meaning they already function under all hydrologic parameters. The project intends to improve
wetland groundwater hydrology by increasing flood events and connectivity to the stream through
floodplain grading and vegetation stabilization.
5.1.2 Hydraulic
The hydraulic function of the Pyramid Framework is defined as the transport of water in the channel, on
the floodplain, and through sediments. Perhaps the greatest potential uplift at the Site will be achieved
through establishing healthy floodplain connectivity. Several of the reaches at this site do not have
functioning floodplain connectivity or stable flow dynamics. Reaches in which floodplain connectivity is
not functioning or functioning at risk will be improved by reducing bank height ratios and increasing the
entrenchment ratios. Reaches in which the stable flow dynamics are not functioning or functioning at risk
will be improved through the placement of instream structures that address the energy and erosive power
of the water so that a stable flow is achieved post-project. Some reaches will include filling the stream
channel to a higher elevation so that it elevates shallow groundwater depths and increases floodplain access
or backfilling the existing stream and meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley. This will
help in the possibility of restoring the hyporheic zone once the water table is raised back to the floodplain.
Other actions include the removal of existing dam embankments and restoring hydrology to historically
drained wetlands.
5.1.3 Geomorphology
Geomorphology, as defined within the Pyramid Framework, is the transport of wood and sediment to create
bed forms and dynamic equilibrium. Sediment transport will be improved in reaches that currently function-
at-risk or not functioning by designing channels on restoration rea ches that are sinuous and sized so that
water velocities are maintained in a stable manor that allows for sediment to move efficiently through the
system. In-stream structures and bank stabilization measures will be added to improve stream
geomorphology in functioning at risk or nonfunctioning stream reaches. Large woody debris transport and
storage will be improved through the use of woody debris such as log vanes, root wads, log weirs, and log
toes for in-stream structures on reaches with functioning at risk or not functioning geomorphology. The
reaches that are restored or enhanced are also designed to accumulate woody debris by having defined
shallow riffles where cobble catches and holds woody debris and leaf packs. For riparian buffers that are
not functioning or functioning at risk, they will be planted out to a minimum of 50 feet to improve the
riparian vegetation to functioning levels. Reaches in the lower half of the project have generally more
functioning geomorphology and therefore will only inclu de some revegetation where necessary. The
wetland geomorphology will be improved by raising stream bed elevations, plugging surface ditches, and
planting native wetland plant species. Bed form diversity will be improved in restoration areas by using a
natural riffle pool sequence from the reference reach to inform design of functioning riffle pool sequences.
This bed form diversity will also further improve aquatic habitat. All of these functional parameters are
interconnected and ultimately depend on each other in order to function properly. Therefore, by focusing
improvements to these parameters, the restored channels will achieve dynamic equilibrium and provide
maximum geomorphic functional uplift.
5.1.4 Physiochemical
The Pyramid Framework defines the physicochemical category as temperature and oxygen regulation and
the processing of organic matter and nutrients. Although this project would support the overarching goal in
the Neuse RBRP to promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas, it is difficult to measure
nutrient and sediment reduction in this restoration because they can be affected by so many variables.
However, monitoring of these variables at this project level will be conducted to help improve the
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 26 September 2018
understanding of detection of benefit. Several restoration actions are known to help reduce nutrients and
sediment even though they may not be measurable at the project level. These activities include cattle
exclusion and direct removal of fecal inputs, filtering of runoff through buffer areas, the conversion of
active farm fields to forested buffers, and improved denitrification and nutrient uptake through buffer zones.
Additional benefits may also come from functional uplift of the lower level stream functions (hydraulics
and geomorphology), which will reduce sediment and nutrients in the system through bank stabilization
and reforesting. Temperature regulation will also be improved through the restoration of canopy tree species
to the stream buffer areas. Oxygen regulation will occur through two actions: first, the temperature of the
water directly impacts the amount of gas held by the water. Therefore, through planting the buffer to shade
the channel the temperature is decreased and dissolved oxygen is increased. Secondly, log structures placed
in the stream will create aeration zones where oxygen dissolves more readily than in a stagnant air -water
surface exchange. The processing of organic matter will improve once healthy riffles are shallow enough
to catch twigs and branches that then retain leaves. Many of these physiochemical benefits occur slowly
over time and are dependent on multiple variables within the stream ecosystem. Therefore, it is not practical
or feasible to directly measure these parameters within the monitoring time-frame of this project. With that
said, it is logical to use existing riparian buffer and visual performance standards to demonstrate the positive
correlation between geomorphic parameters and physicochemical parameters. For example, as riparian
buffer trees grow, as represented in annual monitoring reports, it is anticipated that canopy cover is actively
shading the stream channel and reducing water temperature. This is not a substitute for direct
physicochemical monitoring, but it is a useful tool to help project the long -term benefits of the Project in
terms of the functional uplift.
5.1.5 Biology
The highest category of the Pyramid Framework is biology and is defined as the biodiversity and life
histories of aquatic and terrestrial life, specifically referring to animals. As mentioned for the
physiochemical stream function, it will be difficult to measure the functional uplift of the biological
functions at this site within the monitoring period of the project. However, since the life histories of many
species likely to benefit from stream and wetland restoration are depending on all the lower-level functions
(Hydrology, Hydraulics, Geomorphology, and Physicochemical), benefit to biology over time and in
combination with other projects within the watershed is anticipated. Some specific restoration and
enhancement activities will also benefit biology indirectly, such as the creation of riffles and pools. Riffles
provide habitat for all micro and macroscopic creatures, pools provide habitat for most larger aquatic
creatures. Again, there is no substitute for direct biological monitoring, but it is important to understand the
hierarchy of the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework in order to help project long-term benefits of the
Project though only categories two and three (hydraulics and geomorphology) will be directly measured
during the seven-year monitoring period.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 27 September 2018
Table 10. Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
Level Function Goal Functional Parameter
Existing Rating /
Projected Rating
(Reach)
Objective Measurement Method
1
Hydrology
Transport of water
from the watershed
to the channel
to transport water from
the watershed to the
channel in a non-erosive
manner
Channel-Forming Discharge
Flow Duration
Precipitation/Runoff Relationship
Flow Duration
Flood Frequency
F/F
(All Reaches) NA NM
2
Hydraulic
Transport of water
in the channel, on
the floodplain, and
through the
sediments
to transport water in a
stable non-erosive
manner
Flood Bank Connectivity

Flow Dynamics

Groundwater/Surface water
exchange
NF/F (S5)

FAR/F
(S1, S2, S5, S6A,
S6B, S7, S9, S11)

F/F (S12, S13)
Improve flood bank connectivity
by reducing bank height ratios
and increase entrenchment ratios

Improve wetland saturation
/hydroperiods to within soil series
thresholds
Cross sections
Crest gauges
Wetland gauges
Bank Height Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
3
Geomorphology
Transport of wood
and sediment to
create diverse
bedforms and
dynamic equilibrium
to create stable channels
that achieve healthy
dynamic equilibrium and
provide suitable habitat
for life
Sediment Transport
Large Woody Debris (LWD)
Channel Evolution
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
Bedform Diversity
Bed Material Characterization
Sinuosity
NF/HF
(S2, S5, S6A, S6B)

FAR/HF (S1, S11)

F/F (S12, S13)

F/HF (S7, S9)
Reduce erosion rates and channel
stability to reference reach
conditions

Improve bedform diversity (pool
spacing, percent riffles, etc)

Increase buffer width to 50 feet
As-built stream profile

Cross sections

Visual monitoring

Stream walks

Vegetation plots
4
Physiochemical
Temperature and
oxygen regulation;
processing of
organic matter and
nutrients
to achieve appropriate
levels for water
temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and other
nutrients including but
not limited to Nitrogen
and Phosphorus
Water Temperature
Nutrient load
Dissolved Oxygen
Water Quality
NF/FAR
(All Reaches)
Unmeasured Objectives
Improve stream temperature
regulation through introduction of
canopy

Decrease nutrient loading through
filtration of planted riparian
buffer, and removing livestock
from the riparian areas
Vegetation plots
(indirect measurement)

Visual monitoring to ensure
established fencing and
perpetual conservation
easement
(indirect measurement)
5
Biology
Biodiversity and life
histories of aquatic
life histories and
riparian life
to achieve functionality
in levels 1-4 to support
the life histories of
aquatic and riparian
plants and animals
Microbial Communities
Macrophyte Communities
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Fish Communities
Landscape Connectivity
NF/FAR
(All Reaches)
Unmeasured Objectives
Improve aquatic habitat through
the installation of habitat features,
construction of pools at varying
depths, and planting the riparian
buffer
Vegetation plots

Visual monitoring of in-
stream habitat features
Not Measured (NM); Not Functioning (NF); Functioning-at-risk (FAR); Functioning (F); Highly Functioning (HF)
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 28 September 2018
6 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project’s maximum functional uplift using a Function Based
Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Site. The project design goals
and objectives, including restoration of riparian buffers to filter runoff from agricultural operations and
improve terrestrial habitat, and construction of in-stream structures to improve habitat diversity, will
address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming. These goals clearly address the
degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major watershed stressors in
the 2010 Neuse RBRP and is aligned with the Neuse River TLW priorities of buffer and wetland restoration
needs.

Project goals include:
• Improve water quality within the restored channel reaches and downstream watercourses by
reducing sediment and nutrient loads, and increasing dissolved oxygen levels,
• Improve flood flow attenuation on-site and downstream by allowing for overbanks flows and
connection to the active floodplain,
• Improve ecological processes by reducing water temperature, improving terrestrial and aquatic
habitat, and restoring a native plant community, and
• Preserve high quality stream and wetland resources;

Project goals will be addressed through the following objectives:
• Design and construct stable stream channels with appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile based
on reference reach conditions.
• Exclude livestock permanently from streams and their associated buffers as well as surrounding
wetlands.
• Reduce bank height ratios to less than 1.2 and increase entrenchment ratio to greater than 2.2 in
accordance to the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update
Guidance.
• Increase forested riparian buffers to at least fifty feet on both sides of the channel along the project
reaches with an appropriate riparian plant community.
• Re-establish, rehabilitate, and enhance riparian wetlands by raising stream bed elevations, plugging
surface ditches, and planting native wetland plant species in order to maintain appropriate soil series
saturation/hydroperiod thresholds during the growing season.
• Preserve and enhance of hydrology in existing riparian wetland seeps.
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Site.
• Remove invasive species from riparian buffer and wetland areas to support the colonization and
survival of native riparian buffer species.

The project goals are designed to support the watershed goals outlined in the 2010 Neuse RBRP but are
constrained to our project boundaries. While we are restoring habitat and streams to stable and effective
conditions that achieve our goals within the project parcels, we are unable to influence the effect of poor
riparian buffers and livestock impact in other areas within the watershed. However, through this Project’s
connectivity with other projects in the watershed and responsible stewardship of current restoration
projects, overall watershed functionality and health will improve to meet the 2010 Neuse RBRP goals.

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 29 September 2018
7 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based upon site design (Figure 10 and
Appendix E). Upon completion of site construction, the project components and credits data will only be
revised to be consistent with the as-built condition if there is a large discrepancy. This will be approved by
the USACE.

Table 11. Mitigation Credits
The Meadow Spring Site Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland
Totals 5,523 14.41

Table 12a. Meadow Spring Site Project Components – Stream Mitigation
Stream Mitigation
Proposed
Reach Mitigation Type Stationing
Existing
Length
(LF)
Proposed
Length
(LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Base
SMUs
S1 Enhancement II 3+50 to 6+00 250 250 2.5:1 100
S2 Enhancement I 6+00 to 11+00 500 500 1.5:1 333
S5 P1 / P2 Restoration 0+76 to 3+07 215 231 1:1 231
S6A P1 Restoration 11+00 to 24+50 1,220 1,350 1:1 1,350
S6B P1 Restoration 24+50 to 36+26 1,150 1,176 1:1 1,176
S6B Enhancement I 36+26 to 37+93 165 167 1.5:1 111
S7 Enhancement I 38+80 to 48+70 1,035 990 1.5:1 660
S7 Enhancement I 49+40 to 53+80 452 440 1.5:1 293
S9 Enhancement III 53+80 to 60+55 665 675 7.5:1 90
S11 P1 Restoration 60+55 to 71+00 906 1,045 1:1 1,045
S12 Preservation 71+00 to 74+80 380 380 10:1 38
S13 Preservation 9+69 to 14+23 454 454 10:1 45
Total 7,392 7,658 5,473
Non-Standard Buffer Width Adjustment* 50
Grand Total Adjusted SMUs 5,523
*The non-standard buffer width adjustment was only performed for reaches S7, S9, S12, S13
Table 12b. Meadow Spring Site Project Components – Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Mitigation
Proposed Wetland Mitigation Type Total Acres Mitigation Ratio WMUs
WB Rehabilitation 0.95 1.5:1 0.63
WD Preservation 0.03 No Credit No Credit
WE Preservation 0.09 No Credit No Credit
WF-A Preservation 2.00 No Credit No Credit
WF-B Enhancement 2.02 3:1 0.67
WG-A Enhancement 3.68 3:1 1.23
WG-B Enhancement 18.03 5:1 3.61
WH Re-establishment 6.84 1:1 6.84
WI Re-establishment 2.87 2:1 1.44
Total 36.51 14.41
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 30 September 2018
7.1 Credit Calculations for Non-Standard Buffer Widths
To calculate functional uplift credit adjustments, the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
from the USACE in January 2018 was utilized. To perform this calculation, GIS analysis was performed to
determine the area (in square feet) of ideal buffer zones and actual buffer zones around all streams within
the project. Minimum standard buffer widths are measured from the top of bank (50 feet in Piedmont and
Coastal Plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties). The ideal buffers are the maximum potential size
(in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calcula ted using GIS,
including areas outside of the easement. The actual buffer is the square feet in each buffer zone, as measured
by GIS, excluding non-forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement
exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. NCDWR Riparian
Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credit is being generated along Reaches S1, S2, S6A, S6B, and S5 and therefore
is not generating any credit using the Non-standard Buffer Widths adjustment (Figure 11). Areas along S7,
S9, S12, and S13 are being used to generate additional stream credit using the Non -standard buffer widths
calculation and therefore will not generate any NCDWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credit.
Furthermore, additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are
more than 150 feet from creditable streams were not included in this measurement. Non -creditable stream
reaches within the easement are removed prior to calculating this area with GIS (for both ideal and actual).
The stream lengths, mitigation type, ideal buffer, and actual buffer are all entered into the calculator. This
data is processed, and the resulting credit amounts are totaled for the whole project (Table 12a, Figure 12).
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 31 September 2018
8 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the mitigation plan for the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer
(DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is
required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the IRT, will determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules
below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released
depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to be restarted or be extended,
depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of
project credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows in Table 13a and Table 13b.

Table 13a. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Release
Milestone
Credit Release Activity Interim Release Total Released

1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
stated above) 15% 15%

2 Baseline Monitoring Report and As-built Survey 15% 30%

3 First year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 40%

4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 50%

5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 60%

6* Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 5% 65%
(75%**)

7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 75%
(85%**)
8* Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 5% 80%
(90%**)

9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met, and project
has received close-out approval.
10% 90%
(100%**)
*Vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these years unless otherwise
required by the Mitigation Plan or the IRT
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.

Table 13b. Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Release
Milestone
Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated
above) 15% 15%
2 Baseline Monitoring Report and As-built Survey 15% 30%
3 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met. 10% 40%
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 32 September 2018
Credit
Release
Milestone
Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met. 10% 50%
5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met. 10% 60%
6* Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met. 10% 70%
7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met. 10% 80%
8* Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met. 10% 90%
9
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met, and project has received close-out
approval.
10% 100%
*Please note that vegetation plot data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring
years unless otherwise stated by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the IRT.
8.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the IRT with
written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a) Execution of the MBI or the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE
b) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
c) The mitigation bank site must be secured
d) Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan
e) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE
f) Issuance of the 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
8.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
The second credit release will occur after the completion of implementation of the Mitigation Plan and
submittal of the Baseline Monitoring Report and As-built Survey. All subsequent credit releases must be
approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a determination that required performance
standards have been achieved. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the Bank
Sponsor will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating
achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual
monitoring report.

9 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
9.1 Reference Stream Studies
9.1.1 Target Reference Conditions
The restoration portions of the project site are characterized by agricultural and livestock practices. Several
ditches exist in the watershed and contribute to the project site. Physical parameters of the site were used,
as well as other reference materials, to determine the target stream type. An iterative process was used to
develop the final information for the site design.

To develop the target reference conditions, physical site parameters were reviewed. This included the
drainage area, land use, soils mapping units from the Johnston County Soil Survey for the watershed and
Site, typical woody debris and habitat available for the area, as well as general topography. The
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 33 September 2018
“Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina” was also used to narrow the potential
community types that would have existed at the site (Schafale, 2012, Schafale and Weakley, 1990).

Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the Physiographic Region – Inner Coastal Plain,
• Similar drainage area,
• Similar land use onsite and in the watershed,
• Similar watershed soil types,
• Similar site soil types,
• Ideal, undisturbed habitat – several types of woody debris present,
• Similar topography,
• Similar slope,
• Pattern common among coastal streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.
9.1.1.1 Reference Site Search Methodology
All the parameters used in Section 4.2 were used to find appropriate reference stream sites. Obtaining
property owner information and owner authorization for access was another factor in locating suitable
reference sites for the project. For this project, there was no predetermined amount of reference sites needed
as long as the site was suitable and met the parameters. Several potential reference sites were assessed, and
their characteristics were noted. It is difficult to find reference sites on the coastal plain because many have
been disturbed by farming or urban development. Most streams tend to be modified ditches and may have
some of the characteristics that are sought in a reference, but too few to make it an ideal reference for the
project site. One reference stream site that proves to be ideal in both geomorphology and habitat is located
near the intersection of Little Divine Road and Howard Road. Located approximately five miles northeast
of the project site the reference reach is in the wooded area east of Howard Road.
9.1.1.2 Reference Watershed Characterization
The reference stream flows west to east and is the most downstream portion of an unnamed tributary that
drains to Buffalo Creek. The reach that was surveyed and analyzed is approximately 375 feet long. The
drainage area for the unnamed tributary is 0.84 square miles (540 acres). The land use in the watershed is
characterized by mostly mixed pines and hardwoods (40 percent), cultivated row crops (29 percent),
residential (18 percent), and managed herbaceous cover/pasture land (eight percent), pine plantations (four
percent), and open water (one percent).

The current State classification for reference reach is undefined, but the tributary runs into Buffalo Creek.
Buffalo Creek is defined as Class C NSW (NCDENR 2012a). Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life,
secondary recreation, and agricultural usage. The NSW is a designation for nutrient sensitive waters –
intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Buffalo Creek is listed on the 2012 303d list for impaired waters
(NCDENR 2012b). It is impaired for aquatic use, receiving a Fair Bioclassification rating for benthic
ecological/biological integrity.
9.1.1.3 Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge for the refer ence site.
Existing drainage area, land use, slope, roughness, and cross-sectional area were all factors considered when
performing the calculations. Using a combination of Coastal Plain Regional Curves, in-house spreadsheet
tools, and a project specific regional flood frequency analysis, the existing discharge was found to be around
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 34 September 2018
17 cubic feet per second (ft3/s). See Section 9.3.1 for a more detailed description of the hydrologic analyses
performed for this project.
9.1.1.4 Reference Channel Morphology
In comparison to the restoration reaches, the reference reach is approximately the same size t o slightly
larger than Reaches S5, S6 and S11 when comparing pattern, dimension and profile, which is the reason
for using a scaling factor for the design. The scaling factor is based on the difference in bankfull width of
the reference channel. The new reach would then have the necessary dimensions of that of either a smaller
or larger stream corresponding to differences in drainage area. The stream was typically eight to ten feet
wide and one to two feet deep. The cross sectional area was typically around eleven square feet with a width
to depth ratio around eight.
9.1.1.5 Reference Channel Stability Assessment
The reference reach was stable and showed no evidence of incision or erosion in the portion that was
surveyed and analyzed. The stream appeared to maintain its slope and had sufficient amounts of vegetation
to secure its banks. Riparian buffer widths exceeded fifty feet on each side. The CSA results (scores a nd
ratings) for the reference reach are provided above in Table 7 (Section 4.2.5). The reference reach received
a “Good” rating as the channel demonstrates a stable meandering pattern and a well vegetated riparian
buffer.
9.1.1.6 Reference Bankfull Verification
Typical indicators of bankfull include vegetation at the bankfull elevation, scour lines, wrack lines,
vegetation lines, benches/inner berm, and point bars. Throughout the entire length of the reference reach,
bankfull is located at the top of bank elevation. The accuracy of this bankfull stage is verified by the Coastal
Plain Regional Curves and hydrologic analyses using existing cross sections to calculate area and discharge.
Evidence that can further support the location of bankfull is the lack of any be nch or berm features within
the channel, and wrack lines present within the floodplain.
9.1.1.7 Reference Riparian Vegetation
The reference reach riparian community is characteristic of a bottomland hardwood forest community. This
community was determined to have had past disturbance altering the species composition. Common species
include red maple, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum, and swamp tupelo. Some invasive
species are present, most notably Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).

It is anticipated that a local seed source for high dispersal species is present at the Meadow Spring site and
will disperse across much of the project. These species are often found in early successional communities
and quickly fill disturbance gaps. Because many of these high dispersal species often become aggressive in
these sites, they are not included in the Restoration Planting List (Section 9.2.3). Hardwood species typical
of the target community were observed in adjacent and nearby communities, and were judged to be more
appropriate for this site.
9.2 Design Parameters
9.2.1 Stream Mitigation Approach
Stream restoration and enhancement efforts along the tributaries at the Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation
site will be accomplished through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The
design approach applies a combination of analytical and reference reach based design methods that meet
objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed treatment
activities may range from minor bank grading and planting to re-establishing a stable planform and
hydraulic geometry. For reaches requiring full restoration, natural design concepts have been applied and
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 35 September 2018
verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach is to design a
geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape.

The Meadow Spring Site will include Priority I/Priority II Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement
Level II, Enhancement Level III and Buffer Enhancement. Priority I Restoration reaches will incorporate
the design of a single-thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from the reference
site described above, published empirical relationships, NC Coastal Plain Regional Curves, and hydrologic
and hydraulic analyses. As a result of the restoration of planform and dimension, frequent overbank flows
and a restored riparian buffer will provide the appropriate hydrology and sediment transport throughout this
coastal plain watershed. A conceptual plan view is provided in Figure 10.

Current stream conditions along the proposed restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation as a result of
impacts from impoundment and channelization performed to promote agricultural activities. Additionally,
the riparian buffer is in poor condition throughout most of the project area where much of the riparian buffer
is devoid of trees or shrubs and active pasture is present on both sides of the existing channel.

The Meadow Spring Site design approach began with a thorough study of existing conditions, including
the onsite streams, valleys, and watershed. Design parameters, including active channel, habitat and
floodplain features were developed from analyses performed on the reference site data. Analytical design
techniques were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.

Engineering analyses were performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the reference
reach based design. A combination of methods (including Hydraflow Hydrographs, regional curves and
flood frequency analysis) were used to calculate flows received by the channel for bankfull and other
significant storm events. Through this hydrologic analysis, the design discharge (typically referenced as
bankfull or dominant discharge) was determined, and the subsequent design was based on this calculated
discharge. Design parameters developed through the analyses of reference reach data and hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling were confirmed using the Stable Channel Design function components within HEC-
RAS and through spreadsheet tools.

Engineering analyses were performed concurrently to geomorphic and habitat studies. While the stream
design was verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable habitat features
were derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both riparian habitat features ,
excavated floodplains, and in-stream structures such as rock a-vanes, log sills, brush toes, log j-hooks, log
toes, and log drops were used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank stabilization by
dissipating and redirecting the stream’s energy. Bank stability will also be enhanced through the installation
of live stakes that include native species (e.g. black willow (Salix nigra), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum),
silky willow (Salix sericea), and Cottonwood (populus deltoides).

Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled to the elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent
to the new channel with material excavated onsite and by installing channel plugs where necessary. The
floodplain will be planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will provide numerous
water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks will be stabilized using a combination of grading,
erosion control matting, bare-root plantings, native material revetment techniques (i.e. bioengineering),
structure placement, and sod transplants where possible. The stream and adjacent riparian areas will be
protected by a permanent conservation easement.

The Meadow Spring Site has been broken into the following design reaches:
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 36 September 2018
• Reach S1 (STA 03+50 to STA 06+00) – Reach beginning at northwestern limits of the project
flowing southeast to Reach S2 totaling 250 linear feet of Enhancement Level II. Row crops and
active pasture are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S2 (STA 06+00 to STA 11+00) – Reach begins at the downstream end of Reach S1 and
flows southeast through active pasture to Reach S6A. Reach S2 totals 500 linear feet of
Enhancement Level I. Active pasture and row crops surround this reach.
• Reach S5 (STA 00+76 to STA 03+07) – Reach begins north of Reach S6A and flows south through
active pasture to a confluence with Reach S6A totaling 231 linear feet of Priority I and II
Restoration. Active pasture and maintained lawn surround this reach.
• Reach S6A (STA 11+00 to STA 24+50) – Reach begins at the downstream end of Reach S2 and
flows east through active pasture, flows adjacent to a farm pond and ends at a confluence with
Reach S5. Reach S6A totals 1,350 linear feet of Priority I Restoration.
• Reach S6B – Section 1 (STA 24+50 to STA 36+26) – Reach begins at the confluence of Reach
S5 and S6A flowing east to the second section of Reach S6B. Reach S6B-Section 1 totals 1,176
linear feet of Priority I Restoration.
• Reach S6B – Section 2 (STA 36+26 to STA 37+93) – Reach begins at the downstream end of
Reach 6B-Section 1 and flows east to the Duke Energy right-of-way. Reach S6B-Section 2 totals
165 linear feet of Enhancement Level I.
• Reach S7 (STA 38+80 to STA 53+80) – Reach beginning downstream of the Duke Energy right-
of-way and flows south to Reach S9 totaling 1,430 linear feet of Enhancement Level I. A 70-linear
foot easement break is located in this reach to accommodate a proposed farm crossing. Hardwood
forests and active pasture are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S9 (STA 53+80 to STA 60+55) – Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach S7 and
flowing south to Reach S11 totaling 675 linear feet of Enhancement Level III. Hardwood forests
and active hog lagoons are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S11 (STA 60+55 to STA 71+00) – Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach S9
and flows southeast to Reach S12 totaling 1,045 linear feet of Priority I Restoration. Hardwood
forests and grassed fields are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S12 (STA 71+00 to STA 74+80) – Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach S11
and flows southeast toward the Neuse River floodway totaling 38 linear feet of Preservation.
Hardwood forests are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S13 (STA 9+69 to STA 14+23) - Reach beginning downstream of the large wetland slough
along the Neuse River floodplain totaling 45 of Preservation.
Reaches S1, S2, S6A, S6B, S7, S9, S11, S12 and S13
A combination of Priority I and Priority II Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level II,
Enhancement Level III, and Preservation is proposed along the primary project channel to address existing
impairments, particularly floodplain dislocation, bank erosion, nutrient input and buffer degradation. The
watershed that drains to the upper end of the project is approximately 36 acres, and land use is primarily
agricultural.

Enhancement Level II is proposed for Reach S1, beginning at the northern limits of the proposed
conservation easement. The channel is stable throughout, except for a few minor areas of erosion, and
provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The riparian buffer is severely degraded with row crops and active
pasture directly adjacent to the channel. The project will involve revegetating the buffer with native
vegetation for a minimum 50-foot width.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 37 September 2018

Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reach S2 which will include stabilization of localized erosion by
installing log cross vanes and sills. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established along the reach and will
be planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody
vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in-
stream habitat and stability

Priority I and II Restoration is proposed for Reach S5 to address historic straightening, buffer degradation
and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the
natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and restoring
hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established and planted with
native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody
debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in-stream habitat and
stability. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 36 acres.

Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S6A to address historic straightening, buffer degradation,
impoundment, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel
within the natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain,
removing the existing dam embankment and restoring hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A
minimum 50-foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much of
the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures will be
installed along the bed to improve in-stream habitat and stability. The drainage area at the downstream end
of the reach is 97 acres.

Priority I Restoration is proposed for the upstream portion of Reach S6B to address historic straightening,
buffer degradation, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed
channel within the natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain,
and restoring hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established and
planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody
vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in-
stream habitat and stability. The drainage area at the downstream end of Reach 6B is 171 acres.

Enhancement Level I is proposed for the downstream portion of Reach 6B which will include stabilization
of localized erosion by installing log sills, increasing radius of curvature, regrading point bars, removal of
invasive vegetation and buffer restoration. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established along the reach
and will be planted with native riparian vegetation. A 70-foot easement break is proposed for an existing
utility easement at the end of S6B. The drainage area at the downstream end of Reach 6B is 171 acres.

Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reach S7 to address channel entrenchment, bank-cutting, and invasive
vegetation. The design approach will include stabilization of localized erosion by installing log vanes, log
sills, brush toes, and regrading grading point bars. A well-established buffer already exists, but in the areas
where dense Chinese Privet is found, the Chinese privet will be treated, the large stems manually removed,
and supplemental planting will occur. The invasive treatment will be conducted throughout monitoring. A
68-foot easement break is proposed for an existing ford crossing. The drainage area at the downstream end
of the reach is 278 acres.

Enhancement Level III is proposed for Reach S9 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer
improvements, and channel preservation. As in Reach S7, the Chinese privet will be treated, large stems
manually removed, and then supplemental planting will be done in these areas. The invasive treatment will
be conducted throughout monitoring. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established along the reach and
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 38 September 2018
will be planted with native riparian vegetation. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 337
acres.

Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S11 to address historic straightening, entrenchment and buffer
degradation. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley,
backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and improving hydrology to
historically impacted wetlands. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established and planted with native
riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris
and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability.
The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 379 acres.

Preservation is proposed for Reach S12 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer
preservation, and channel preservation. This channel will be protected from future impacts.

Preservation is proposed for Reach S13 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer
preservation, and channel preservation. This channel will be protected from future impacts.
9.2.1.1 Design Discharge
Based upon the hydrologic analyses described below, design discharges were selected that fall between
model results for the 1.0-year and 2.0-year Hydraflow Hydrographs analysis for each reach. The selected
flows for the restoration reaches are 4 ft3/s, 3 ft3/s, 7 ft3/s, 11 ft3/s, and 15 ft3/s for Reaches S2, S5, S6A,
S6B, and S11, respectively. These discharges will provide frequent inundation of the adjacent floodplain.

The design discharges were selected based on the following rationale:
• The calculated bankfull discharge for the analog/reference reach and existing reaches fall between
the results of the 1.0-year and 2.0-year Hydraflow Hydrographs analysis,
• The results of the 1.0-year Hydraflow Hydrographs analysis are slightly higher than the NC
regional curve (Doll et al., 2003), and
• Selecting design discharges around the 1.5-year storm events allows frequent inundation of the
adjacent floodplain.
9.2.1.2 Design Methods
There are three primary methods that have demonstrated success in stream restoration: analog, empirical,
and analytical. All three methods have advantages and limitations, and it is often best to utilize more than
one method to address site-specific conditions or to verify the applicability of design elements. This is
particularly true in developed watersheds where existing conditions do not always reflect current inputs and
events, and sediment and hydrologic inputs may remain unstable for some time. Combinations of analytical
and analog methods were used to develop the stream designs for the Meadow Spring site.
Analytical Approach
Analytical design is based on principles and processes considered universal to all streams, and can entail
many traditional engineering techniques. The analytical approach utilizes continuity, roughness equations,
hydrologic and hydraulic models, and sediment transport functions to derive equilibrium conditions. Since
the project is located within a rural watershed, restoration designs are based on hydrologic and hydraulic
analyses, including rainfall-runoff models to determine design discharges coupled with reference reach
techniques.

Analog Approach
The analog method of natural channel design involves the use of a “template” or reference stream located
near the design reach, and is particularly useful when watershed and boundary conditions are similar
between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). In an analog approach, the planform pattern,
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 39 September 2018
cross-sectional shape, longitudinal profile, and frequency and locations of woody debris along the analog
reaches are mimicked when developing the design parameters for the subject stream.

1. The appropriate bankfull cross-sectional area (CSA) of each design reach was calculated using an
in-house spreadsheet based on Manning’s Equation. The input parameters included the design
discharge as determined by the hydrologic analysis described above, and proposed slope based on
site conditions, and the sinuosity measured for the analog reach.

2. The cross-sectional shape was adjusted within the spreadsheet to replicate the width -depth ratios
and side slopes surveyed along the analog reach, while also maintaining the CSA necessary to
convey the design discharge.

3. The scaling factor is determined from the ratio of the design top width to the analog top width
(Table 14). For this project, several cross-sections and planform geometry were measured at the
analog site, resulting in an average width of 9.9 feet.

4. Pool cross-sectional areas were calculated using both typical reference reach techniques and the
analog approach. Design CSA areas were determined using the measured analog ratios of
shallow/riffle CSA to pool CSA as applied to the design CSAs. The pool cross-sectional shape was
adjusted within the in-house spreadsheet as described above in step 2.

Table 14. Scaling Factors
Reach Drainage Area
(ac)
Proposed Bankfull
CSA (ft2)
Design Top
Width (ft)
Analog Reach Top
Width (ft)
Scaling
Factor

S2 46 3.2 5.4 9.9 0.55
S5 36 2.6 4.8 9.9 0.48
S6A 97 5.3 7 9.9 0.71
S6B 171 7.8 8.4 9.9 0.85
S11 379 10.2 9.6 9.9 0.97
9.2.1.3 Typical Design Sections
Typical cross sections for shallows and pools are shown on the design plan sheets in Appendix E. The
cross-sections were altered slightly to facilitate constructability; however, the cross-sectional area, width to
depth ratio, and side slopes were preserved. Typical pool sections include pools located on straight reaches
and pools on meander bends.
9.2.1.4 Meander Pattern
The design plans showing the proposed channel alignment are provided in Appendix E. The meander
pattern was derived directly from the analog reach and was altered in some locations to provide variability
in pattern, to avoid onsite constraints, to follow the valley pattern, and to make the channel more
constructible. The morphologic parameters summarized in the Appendix C were applied wherever these
deviations occurred.
9.2.1.5 Longitudinal Profiles
The design profiles are presented in Appendix E. These profiles extend throughout the entire project for
the proposed channel alignment. The profiles were designed using the analog reach bed features that were
sized with the scaling factors. The bed slopes and bankfull energy gradients were determined for each
design reach based on the existing valley slope and the sinuosity of the design reach. A mix of rock and log
structures will be utilized in the design to control grade, divert flows, and provide additional habitat
diversity and stability.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 40 September 2018
9.2.1.6 In-Stream Structures
Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional stability and improve aquatic
habitat. Native materials and vegetation will be used for revetments and grade control structures where
applicable. Additionally, log structures will be utilized intermittently along Reaches S5, S6A, S6B, and S11
to provide increased stability and habitat. Other bank stability measures include the installation of live
stakes, log sills, brush toes, log vanes, and log toes. Typical details for proposed in-stream structures and
revetments are in Appendix E.
Woody debris will be placed throughout the channel at locations and at a frequency that is similar to those
observed in the analog reaches. Woody habitat features installed will include dead brush, root wads, brush
toes, and log vanes. To provide additional bank stability, sod mats harvested onsite will be installed along
stream banks during construction if and when feasible. Sod mats will only be harvested and used if
comprised of appropriate vegetation. The use of sod mats that include aggressive turf gras ses will be
avoided. Sod mats are natural sections of vegetation taken from the banks when they were cut during
construction, and are about nine inches thick. Before installation, proposed banks are graded lower than
specified to accommodate the thickness of the mat. The mats are placed on top of the bank to act as a natural
stabilizer of native species, and they grow much faster than the combination of coir fiber matting and
seeding.
9.2.2 Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
The Meadow Spring Site offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity. As such, the wetland restoration
and enhancement is closely tied to the stream restoration. The Site will provide 16.82 WMUs through a
combination of wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement.
Because of the sites observed soil characteristics and landscape position, a combination of wetland re-
establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement is proposed. In wetlands WH, the non-jurisdictional area,
hydrologic restoration, at a credit ratio of 1:1, will be accomplished by plugging the existing incised channel
to restrict drainage and allowing a natural hydroperiod to return. In addition, re-constructing a stream
channel at a higher bed elevation in the natural valley, backfilling to create shallow depressions within the
old channel, and the removal of spoil from pond excavation along the floodplains will aid in the restoration
of a natural floodplain surface relative to the surrounding landscape. Due to compaction and long term
agricultural use, a shallow ripping of the surface along the contour to a depth of eight to ten inches is called
for to create adequate porosity for infiltration and storage, provide microtopographic relief, and improve
vegetative survival and growth.
As part of the wetland re-establishment in wetland WI, at a credit ratio of 2:1, the pond will be removed.
The construction of a farm pond has altered surface drainage and placed spoil across the floodplain. The
stream will be reconnected to the floodplain and in addition to out of bank events the large perennial spring
will serve as a source for hydrology for the re-established wetlands. Retention and storage within the
floodplain will be returned to a natural state having an increased hydroperiod.
In wetland WF-B, a credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for wetland enhancement. This wetland has been
impacted by channel incision and active management for agriculture in the past. The wetland mitigation
treatment will primarily be reconnection of the stream to the floodplain and replanting disturbed areas.
These activities should result in a much healthier, better functioning wetland.
In wetland WG, the large disturbed Neuse River floodplain area, a credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for wetland
enhancement in the areas that will be planted (WG-A) and an enhancement credit ratio of 5:1 in the areas
not being planted (WG-B). This wetland has been actively managed for agriculture and waterfowl through
drainage manipulations and tree clearing. The wetland mitigation treatment will primarily be re-planting
the disturbed areas, plugging the main ditch, and removing existing berms within the wetland. These
activities will result in a large floodplain slough with a diversity of microhabitats.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 41 September 2018
Given the observed soil characteristics indicating past wetland hydrology, and because of favorable
landscape position, the presence of a restrictive horizon, and the potential source for restoring hydrologic
inputs, this site appears suitable for successful hydrologic wetland restoration.
9.2.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration project. The selection of
plant species is based on what was observed at the reference reach, species present in the forest surrounding
the restoration site, and what is typically native to the area. Several sources of information were used to
determine the most appropriate species for the restoration project. The reference stream is located within a
disturbed Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. Dominant species included sweetgum, red maple, tulip
poplar, swamp tupelo, and various oak species (Quercus sp.) in the canopy. Shrubs included sweetbay
(Magnolia virginiana) and American holly (Ilex opaca). The reference site was chosen due to the stability
of the channel, the physical structure of the forest community, and to evaluate stream habitat. The species
present are indicative of early successional species that have high dispersal rates. The mitigation site also
supports many species typical of this community type due to its past disturbance history. Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swamp will be the target community type and will be used for all areas within the project, as
well as for buffer around the site. The plant species list has can be found in Table 15. In order for restoration
activities to occur, an estimated vegetation clearing of nine acres will occur, which is an expected 150 trees
to be removed. However, these trees will be replanted to restore the plant community. Some areas in which
invasive species will be treated and removed manually will need supplemental planting to replace the
biomass that was removed. The plant species list for this supplemental planting can be found in Table 15.
The restoration of plant communities along the Site will provide stabilization and diversity. For rapid
stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), silky dogwood, cottonwood, silky willow,
and black willow were chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because of their rapid growth
patterns and high success rates. Willows grow at a faster rate than the species planted around them, and
they stabilize the stream banks. Willows will also be quicker to contribute organic matter to the channel.
When the other species are bigger, the black willows and silky willows will slowly stop growing or die out
because the other species would outgrow them and create shade that the willows do not tolerate. The live
stake species will be planted along the outside of the meander bends three feet from the top of bank, creating
a three-foot section along the top of bank. The live stakes will be spaced one per three linear foot with
alternate spacing vertically. See Appendix E for a detailed planting plan.
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled/ripped
before the topsoil is placed back over the site. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be
stockpiled and placed over the site during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil
conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the site.

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 42 September 2018
Table 15. Proposed Plant List
Planting Zone 1- Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Acres: 22.8
Species Common Name Spacing (ft) Unit Type % of Total Species
Composition
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo 9x6 Bare root 15
Taxodium distichum Bald cypress 9x6 Bare root 15
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 9x6 Bare root 15
Betula nigra River birch 9x6 Bare root 15
Quercus phellos Willow oak 9x6 Bare root 15
Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak 9x6 Bare root 10
Quercus lyrata Overcup oak 9x6 Bare root 10
Asimina triloba Paw Paw 9x6 Bare root 5
Supplemental Planting - Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Acres: 8.6
Species Common Name Spacing (ft) Unit Type % of Total Species
Composition
Betula nigra River birch 12x12 Bare root 40
Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak 12x12 Bare root 30
Asimina triloba Paw Paw 12x12 Bare root 30
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Species Common Name % of Total Species Composition
Salix nigra Black willow 40
Salix sericea Silky willow 20
Cornus ammomum Silky dogwood 20
Populus deltoides Cottonwood 20

On-Site Invasive Species Management
Treatment for invasive species will be required within all grading limits associated with stream restoration.
Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant phenology and
the location of the species being treated. All treatment will be conducted to maximize its effectiveness and
reduce chances of detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods will include mechanical
control (e.g. cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical control (e.g. foliar spray, cut stump,
and hack and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds will be removed from the site and
properly disposed. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a certified ground pesticide applicator
with a North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) license and adhere
to all legal and safety requirements according to herbicide labels and NC and Federal laws. Management
records will be kept on the plant species treated, type of treatment employed, type of herbicide used,
application technique, and herbicide concentration and quantities used. These records will be included in
all reporting documents.
9.2.4 Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Diffuse flow structures will be applied at locations where ditches or other forms of concentrated flow enter
the conservation easement. All diffuse flow structures will be installed within the conservation easement
so that landowners will not have access to the structures. Failure or maintenance of the structures is not
anticipated as these structures will be installed in low-gradient areas, and the areas proposed to diffuse flow
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 43 September 2018
will be well vegetated and matted.
Stormwater management issues resulting from future development of adjacent properties will be governed
by the applicable state and local ordinances and regulations. It is recommended that any future stormwater
entering the site maintain pre-development peak flow. Any future stormwater diverted into the project
should be done in a manner as to prevent erosion, adverse conditions, or degradation of the project in any
way.
9.2.5 Soil Restoration
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before the
topsoil is placed back over the site. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be stockpiled and
placed over the site during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil conditions for
plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the site.

9.3 Data Analysis
9.3.1 Stream Data Analysis
9.3.1.1 Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to determine and
validate the design bankfull discharge and channel geometry required to provide regular floodplain
inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a single
model. Peak flows (Table 16) and corresponding channel cross-sectional areas were determined for
comparison to design parameters using the following methods:
• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• AutoCAD’s Hydraflow Hydrographs,
• NC and VA/MD Regional Curves for the Coastal Plain, and
• USGS regional regression equations for rural conditions in the Coastal Plain.

Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby
USGS gauges with drainage areas less than 6,400 acres (10 mi2) which passed the Dalrymple homogeneity
test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations. Regional flood
frequency equations were developed for the 1.1-, 1.5-, and 2-year peak discharges based on the gauge data.
Discharges were then computed for the design reach. These discharges were compared to those predicted
by the discharge regional curve and USGS regional regression 2-year discharge equations.
AutoCAD’s Hydraflow Express
Hydraflow Express was used to simulate the rainfall-runoff process and establish peak flows for the
watersheds. This model was chosen over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers model HEC -HMS because it
allows the user to adjust the peak shape factor for the watershed conditions. Rainfall data reflecting 100,
284 and 484 peak shape factors were used along with a standard Type II distribution, and NRCS hydrology
(time of concentrations and runoff curve numbers), to simulate the rainfall-runoff process. A 284 peak
shape factor was determined to be the most representative for this watershed.
Regional Curve Regression Equations
The North Carolina Coastal regional curves by Doll et al. (2003) and Sweet and Geratz (2003), and the
Virginia/Maryland (Krstolic and Chaplin, 2007) Coastal Plain regional curves for discharge were used to
predict the bankfull discharge for the site. The NC regional curves predicted flows that are similar to those
predicted by the 1.1-year flood frequency, while the VA/MD curves are comparable to flows predicted by
the 1.5-year flood frequency equation. The regional curve equations for NC discharges by Doll et al. (2003)
(1), Sweet and Geratz (2003) (2), and VA/MD (3) discharges are:
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 44 September 2018

(1) Qbkf=16.56*(DA)0.72 (Doll et al., 2003)
(2) Qbkf=8.79*(DA)0.76 (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
(3) Qbkf= 28.3076*(DA)0.59834 (Krstolic and Chaplin, 2007)

Where Qbkf=bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mi2).
USGS Regional Regression Equations
USGS regression equations estimate the magnitude and frequency of flood -peak discharges (Weaver et al.,
2009). The regression equations were developed from gauge data in different physiographic regions of the
Southeastern United States. For this analysis, there was only concern for the 2-year return interval. The
equation for the rural Coastal Plain (Hydrologic Region 4) is:

(4) Q2=60.3*(DA)0.649
Table 16. Peak Flow Comparison
Reach
Drainage
Area
(Ac)
Hydraflow Q1 FFQ
Q1.1
FFQ
Q1.5
NC
Regional
Curve Q (1)
NC Regional
Curve Q (2)
VA/MD
Regional
Curve Q (3)
Regional
Regression
Eqns. Q2
Design/
Calculated
Q
S1, S2 46 3.6 2.4 8.8 2.5 1.2 5.9 11 4
S5 36 3.0 1.9 7.4 2.1 1.0 5.1 9 3
S6A 97 4.4 14.3 4.6 2.1 9.2 17.7 7
S6B 171 11.6 7.2 20.9 6.4 3.2 12.8 25.6 11
S7 278 11.6 10.8 28.8 9.1 4.7 17.2 35.1
S9 337 12.4 12.7 32.7 10.4 5.4 19.3 39.8
S11 379 16.2 14.0 35.3 11.4 5.9 20.7 43.0 15
9.3.1.2 Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a stable
sand bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically, sediment transport is assessed to
determine a stream’s ability to move a specific grain size at specified flows. Various sediment transport
equations may be easily applied when estimating entrainment for gravel bed streams; however, these
equations are not as effectively applied to sand bed channels where the entire bed becomes mobile during
geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, more sophisticated modeling techniques were used to analyze
the stream design for this project. The following methods and functions were utilized during the sediment
transport analysis:
• Permissible Shear Stress Approach
• Permissible Velocity Approach

Stable Channel Design
Design cross-section dimensions as determined from the analog approach were evaluated using the stable
channel design functions within HEC-RAS. These functions are based upon the methods presented in the
SAM Hydraulic Design Package for Channels developed by the USACE Waterways Experiment Station.
The Copeland Method was developed specifically for sand bed channels (median grain size restriction of
0.0625 mm to 2 mm) and was selected for application at the Meadow Spring Site. The method sizes stable
dimensions as a function of slope, discharge, roughness, side slope, bed material gradation, and the
inflowing sediment discharge. Results are presented as a range of widths and slopes, and their unique
solution for depth, making it easy to adjust channel dimensions to achieve stable channel configurations.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 45 September 2018
The stable design output parameters are listed in Table 17. The results are acceptable and match closely
with the design reach parameters.

Table 17. Stable Channel Design Output
Reach Q (ft/s3) Bottom
Width (ft) Depth (ft) Energy
Slope (ft/ft)
Composite
n value
Velocity
(ft/s)
Shear Stress
(lbs/ft2)
S2 4 1.8 0.9 0.0029 0.043 1.2 0.16
S5 3 1.6 0.8 0.0028 0.043 1.2 0.13
S6A 7 2.6 1.1 0.0027 0.043 1.4 0.17
S6B 11 2.8 1.4 0.0027 0.044 1.5 0.21
S11 15 3.2 1.6 0.0027 0.045 1.6 0.25

Shear Stress Approach
Shear stress is a commonly used tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear stresses are
a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size, and gradation), cohesiveness of
bank materials, and vegetative cover. The shear stress approach compares calculated shear stresses to those
found in the literature. Shear stress is the force exerted on a boundary during the resistance of motion as
calculated using the following formula:

(5)  = RS
 = shear stress (lb/ft2)
 = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft3)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)

Table 18. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Reach
Proposed Shear Stress
at Bankfull Stage
(lbs/ft2)
Critical Shear Stress
(lbs/ft2)
Allowable Shear Stress1
Sand/Silt/Clay
(lbs/ft2)
Gravel
(lbs/ft2)
Vegetation
(lbs/ft2)
S2 0.10 >0.06 0.03 to 0.26 0.33 to 0.67 0.2 to 1.7
S5 0.06 >0.06 0.03 to 0.26 0.33 to 0.67 0.2 to 1.7
S6A 0.13 >0.06 0.03 to 0.26 0.33 to 0.67 0.2 to 1.7
S6B 0.16 >0.06 0.03 to 0.26 0.33 to 0.67 0.2 to 1.7
S11 0.15 >0.06 0.03 to 0.26 0.33 to 0.67 0.2 to 1.7
1(Fischenich, 2001)

Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Meadow Spring design reaches
fall between the critical shear stress (shear stress required to initiate motion) and the allowable limits.
Therefore, the proposed channel should remain stable.

Velocity Approach
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank materials.
A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method to aid in the
verification of channel stability. Table 19 compares the proposed velocities calculated using Manning’s
equation with the permissible velocities presented in the Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NRCS,
2007).

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 46 September 2018
Table 19. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities
Reach Manning’s “n”
value Design Velocity (ft/s) Allowable Velocity1 (ft/s)
Fine Sand Coarse Sand Fine Gravel
S2 0.050 1.1 2.0 4.0 6.0
S5 0.045 0.9 2.0 4.0 6.0
S6A 0.050 1.3 2.0 4.0 6.0
S6B 0.050 1.5 2.0 4.0 6.0
S11 0.045 1.6 2.0 4.0 6.0
1(NRCS, 2007)
9.3.2 Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the restoration designs described in this
document. The combination of the analog and analytical design methods was determined to be appropriate
for this project because the watershed is rural, the causes of disturbance are known and have been abated,
and there are minimal infrastructure constraints. The original design parameters were developed from the
measured analog/reference reach data and applied to the subject stream. The parameters were then analyzed
and adjusted through an iterative process using analytical tools and numerical simulations of fluvial
processes. The designs presented in this report provide for the restoration of natural Coastal sand-bed
channel features and stream bed diversity to improve benthic habitat. The proposed design will allow flows
that exceed the design bankfull stage to spread out over the floodplain, restoring wetland hydrology to the
overbank areas.

A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the restoration channel.
However, many segments will be left partially filled to provide habitat diversity and flood storage. Native
woody material will be installed throughout the restored reach to reduce bank stress, provide grade control,
and increase habitat diversity.

Forested riparian buffers of at least fifty feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the
project reach. An appropriate riparian plant community will be established to include a diverse mix of
species. Replanting of native species will occur where the existing buffer is impacted during construction.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 47 September 2018
10 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection will be conducted a minimum of
once per year throughout the post construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.
These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine
maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and may
include the following:

Table 20. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in-stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental
installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where
stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent bank failures and head-cutting. Stream maintenance activities will be
documented and reported in annual monitoring reports.
Wetland Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir
matting, channel plug maintenance, and supplemental installations of live stakes and
other target vegetation within the wetland.
Vegetation Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species
shall be treated by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control
requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. Vegetation maintenance activities will be
documented and reported in annual monitoring reports. Vegetation maintenance will
continue through the monitoring period.
Site Boundary Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be marked with signs
identifying the property as a mitigation site, and will include the name of the long-term
steward and a contact number. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard,
post, tree-blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation
easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or
replaced on an as-needed basis. Easement monitoring and staking/signage maintenance
will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Road Crossing Road crossings within the Site may be maintained only as allowed by conservation
easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
Crossings in easement breaks are the responsibility of the landowner to maintain.
Livestock Fencing Livestock fencing is to be placed outside the easement limits. Maintenance of fencing is
the responsibility of the landowner.
Beaver Routine site visits and monitoring will be used to determine if beaver management is
needed. If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability or vegetative success, RES
will trap beavers and remove impoundments as needed. All beaver management
activities will be documented and included in annual monitoring reports. Beaver
monitoring and management will continue through the monitoring period.

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 48 September 2018
11 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the IRT monitoring template. A detailed monitoring plan is
provided in Figure 13. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an
understanding of project status and trends, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding
project close-out. The success criteria for Site will follow current accepted and approved success criteria
presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines, and subsequent agency guidance and are described
in more detail in Section 12. Table 21 below outlines the links between project goals, objectives, and
treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and performance standards within the context of
functional uplift based on the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework. Monitoring reports will be prepared
annually and submitted to the IRT.

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 49 September 2018
Table 21. Monitoring Plan
Level Goal Treatment Outcome Monitoring Method Performance Standard
1 Hydrology To transport water
from the watershed to
the channel in a non-
erosive manner
Convert land-use of Project
reaches from pasture to
riparian forest

Improve the transport of water
from the watershed to the
Project reaches in a non-erosive
way
NA NA

2 Hydraulic To transport water in a
stable non-erosive
manner
Reduce bank height ratios
and increase entrenchment
ratios by reconstructing
channels to mimic
reference reach conditions
Improve flood bank
connectivity by reducing bank
height ratios and increase
entrenchment ratios
Crest gauges and/or pressure
transducers:
Inspected semiannually
Four bankfull events documented in the seven-year
monitoring period
Surface water flow must be documented to occur every
year for at least 30 consecutive days.
Cross sections: Surveyed in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Entrenchment ratio no less than 2.2 on restored reaches
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2 on riffles
Wetland hydroperiod threshold Maintain wetland saturation between 12-16 percent
during growing season
3 Geomorphology To create a diverse
bedform

To achieve dynamic
equilibrium
Establish a riparian buffer
to reduce erosion and
sediment transport into
project streams. Establish
stable banks with
livestakes, erosion control
matting, and other in-
stream structures
Reduce erosion rates and
channel stability to reference
reach conditions

Improve bedform diversity
(pool spacing, percent riffles,
etc.

Increase buffer width to 50 feet
As-built stream profile Perform stream profile post-construction
Cross sections
Surveyed in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Entrenchment ratio no less than 2.2 on restored reaches
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2 on riffles
Visual monitoring/stream walks:
performed at least semiannually
Identify and document significant stream problem areas;
i.e. erosion, degradation, aggradation, etc.
Vegetation plots: Surveyed in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 1-3: 320 tress/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
4 Physiochemical To achieve appropriate
levels for water
temperature, dissolved
oxygen concentration,
and other important
nutrients including but
not limited to Nitrogen
and Phosphorus
Exclude livestock from
riparian areas with
exclusion fence, and plant
a riparian buffer
Improve stream temperature
regulation through introduction
of canopy

Decrease nutrient loading
through filtration of planted
riparian buffer, and removing
livestock from the riparian
areas
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
(indirect measurement))
MY 1-3: 320 tress/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
Visual assessment
(indirect measurement)
Inspect fencing and signage. Identify and document any
damaged or missing fencing and/or signs. Ensure parcel
is in perpetual conservation easement.
Continuous recording sampling
device: pre-construction through
all monitoring years
NA
5 Biology To achieve
functionality in levels
1-4 to support the life
histories of aquatic and
riparian plants and
animals
Plant a riparian buffer,
install habitat features, and
construct pools of varying
depths
Improve aquatic habitat
through the installation of
habitat features, construction of
pools at varying depths, and
planting the riparian buffer
Vegetation plots: Surveyed in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
(indirect measurement)
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
Visual monitoring of in-stream
habitat features: Performed at
least semiannually
(indirect measurement)
Identify and document significant stream problem areas;
i.e. degradation, aggradation, stressed or failed structures,
etc.
Quality 4 macroinvertebrate
sampling: Performed pre-
construction and years 3, 5 and 7
NA
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 50 September 2018
11.1 As-Built Survey
An as-built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank to
compare with future geomorphic data as well as a centerline to calculate stream length. Longitudinal
profiles will not be required in annual monitoring reports unless requested by USACE. Stream channel
stationing will be marked with stakes placed near the top of bank every 200 feet.
11.2 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year by
qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species, and
easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete stream walk and
structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to record each monitoring
event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Visual assessment will include the assessment
of the project boundary and note any locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments.
Results of visual monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem
areas and digital images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or
degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures.
Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive
increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation
of the banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
11.3 Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology
All stream channels will be monitored to ensure they receive sufficient flow. Continuous surface water flow
within the tributaries must be documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days.
11.3.1 Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be 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.
11.3.2 Cross Sections
Cross-sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross-
sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for chann els of the design stream type.
Permanent cross-sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in pools
and half in shallows. All cross-section measurements will include bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio.
Cross-sections will be monitored during years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. There should be little change in as-built
cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent movement
toward a less stable condition (for example down-cutting 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).
11.3.3 Gauges
Crest gauges will be installed to document the occurrence of bankfull events. A minimum of one gauge will
be installed. Crest gauges and/or pressure transducers will be installed on site to monitor surface water
hydrology For at least 30 days of flow each year. The devices will be inspected on a semiannual basis to
document the occurrence of bankfull events. Groundwater monitoring gauges with data recording devices
will be installed on site; the data will be downloaded on a quarterly basis during the growing season.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 51 September 2018
11.4 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydric conditions in the wetland restoration areas. This
will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges installed in representative
locations across the restoration areas and reference wetland. The gauges will be downloaded quarterly and
wetland hydroperiods will be calculated during the growing season. Gauge installation will follow current
NCIRT guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators will also be
recorded during quarterly site visits.
11.5 Vegetative Monitoring Plots
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum of two percent
of the planted area. There will be 23 plots within the planted area (22.8 acres). Three additional random
plots will be added to the 8.6 acres of supplemental planting area. Planted area indicates all area in the
easement that will be planted with trees. Existing wooded areas are not included in the planted area. A
combination of permanent fixed plots and random plots will be used to demonstrate vegetation cover.
Random plots will not make up more than 50% of the required plots. The following data will be recorded
for all trees in the plots: species, height, planting date (or volunteer), and grid location. Monitoring will
occur on years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and treated so that none
become dominant or alter the desired community structure of the site. If necessary , RES will develop a
species-specific control plan.
11.6 Scheduling/Reporting
A mitigation plan and as-built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be developed within
60 days of the planting completion on the Site. The report will include all information required by IRT
mitigation plan guidelines, including elevations, photographs and sampling plot locations, gauge locations,
and a description of initial species composition by community type. The report will also include a list of
the species planted and the associated densities. Baseline vegetation monitoring will include species, height,
date of planting, and grid location of each stem. The baseline report will follow USACE guidelines.

The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the success
of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final success
criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.

Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to the IRT. The
monitoring reports will include all information, and be in the format required by USACE.
12 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Site will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in the USACE
Stream Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent agency guidance. Specific success criteria components are
presented below and based upon the October 2016 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Guidance. Table 21
shows how these performance standards are related to the goals and objectives of the project and the
monitoring method used to determine success.
12.1 Stream And Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
12.1.1 Bankfull Events
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The four bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years. Channel stability should be demonstrated through a
minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring period.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 52 September 2018
12.1.1 Surface Flow
Stream restoration reaches will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This will
be accomplished through direct observation and the use of stream gauge transducers with data logg ers.
Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow.
12.1.2 Bank Height Ratio and Entrenchment Ratio
At any measured riffle cross-section for C/E channels, bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the
entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches. Both measurements should not change
by more than 10 percent from the baseline condition during any given monitoring intervals. These standards
will only apply to reaches of the channel where bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio is adjusted to
reference condition through design and construction.
12.1.3 Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The NRCS has a current WETs table for Johnston 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
Smithfield, NC. The growing season for Johnston County is 233 days long, extending from March 18 to
November 6, 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 Bibb 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 at least 12
percent of the growing season (approximately 27 days) at each groundwater gauge location. Based on the
extensive management history of the Site and soil compaction, RES proposes a target hydroperiod of ten
percent for monitoring years 1 and 2, with the understanding that 12 percent will be the target hydroperiod
for the remainder of the monitoring period.
12.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site will follow
IRT Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum
of two percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually between July 15 and leaf
drop. The interim measures of vegetative success for the site 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 that are at least 7 feet tall 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 will be counted, identified to species, and included in the
yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of total planted stems.

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 53 September 2018
13 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval of the Site by the IRT, the site will be transferred to the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat
Foundation (NCWHF):

North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation
[phone]
PO Box 29187
Greensboro, NC 27429
www.ncwhf.org

The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in
the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Easements held by the NCWHF
are stewarded in general accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land Trust Alliance.
These guidelines include annual monitoring visits to easements and related communication with the
landowner(s). During the visit a standard report is completed and pictures taken for the record. If the Site
is found to be in violation of the easement terms NCWHF works with the landowner to see the problem
rectified. When appropriate NCWHF pursues legal action to enforce the easement terms. NCWHF typically
requires the site developer to install standard NCWHF signage as part of the easement transfer package.
This includes well marked corners of the easement boundary, as well as plastic or metal signs identifying
the easement. The current sign standard is six inches by six inches aluminum sign with contact information.
Signs are refreshed on an as needed basis. Typically, a sign will last five to ten years before it is no longer
legible due to sun fading. An overview of the NCWHF Easement Stewardship program and the engagement
letter is included in Appendix A.

NCWHF requires an endowment for each easement it agrees to hold. All endowments are held together in
an investment fund. Endowments are sized so that the interest from the principal will pay the expected
monitoring costs for that easement. This assumes a seven-year monitoring period for the site during which
NCWHF will not incur any expenses. It also assumes a five percent annual return. Currently NCWHF
employs a contractor to handle annual monitoring visits and basic easement stewardship. This flat fee
includes a property walkthrough, report, pictures, sign installation, etc. The engagement letter with the
endowment fee offer has not yet been confirmed for the easement transfer of the Meadow Spring Site, and
it will be updated once finalized.

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 54 September 2018
14 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of project construction, RES will implement the post-construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in this
document. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is determined that the Site’s ability to achieve site
performance standards are jeopardized, RES will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of
Corrective Action. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized RES will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Approve the Corrective Action Plan with the USACE
5. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
6. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 55 September 2018
15 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL

The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $585,000 Construction Performance Bond
to the USACE to assure completion of mitigation construction and planting. Construction and planting costs
are estimated to be at or below $585,000 based on the Engineer's construction materials estimate and recent
bid tabulation unit costs for construction materials. Following completion of construction and planting the
Construction Performance Bond will be retired and a $198,000 Monitoring Performance Bond will be
provided to assure completion of seven years of monitoring and reporting, and any remedial work required
during the monitoring period. The $198,000 amount includes contingency and estimated monitoring costs
from the Engineer. The Monitoring Performance Bond will be reduced by $ 27,500 following approval of
each annual monitoring report. The Monitoring Performance Bond will be retired in total following official
notice of site close-out from the IRT. Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby trust or other
designee at the direction of the obligee. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in
the event of default by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable. A financial assurance must be in the form that
ensures that the USACE receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
The Performance Bonds will be provided by a surety listed with the U.S. Treasury and has an A.M. Best
Rating of B or above. All Performance Bonds will be submitted to the USACE in draft form for approval
prior to execution. In the event of Sponsor default, the NCWHF has agreed to act as the obligee and receive
the funds and ensure the work is successfully completed.

Construction Costs
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc) $ 70,000
Sitework $ 140,000
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs,logs, rocks, coir, etc) $ 190,000
Crossings $ 20,000
Vegetation $ 110,000
Miscellaneous $ 55,000
Total $ 585,000
Monitoring
Annual Monitoring and Reports $ 135,000
Equipment (e.g. gauges, markers, etc) $ 13,000
Contingency (8%) $ 50,000
Total $ 198,000
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 56 September 2018
16 OTHER INFORMATION
16.1 References

Amoroso, J.L., ed. (1999). Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Chow, V.T. (1959). Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Dalrymple, T. (1960). Flood Frequency Analyses. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1543-A.

Doll, B.A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton and D.A. Bidelspach. (2003). Hydraulic Geometry
Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams. NC Stream Restoration Institute, R eport to
N.C. Division of Water Quality for 319 Grant Project No. EW20011.

Environmental Laboratory. (1987). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Fischenich, C. (2001). ‘‘Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials.’’ ERDC Technical Note No.
EMRRP-SR-29, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Miss.

Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, and C. Miller. (2012). A
Function-Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.

Johnston County, North Carolina. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. [Accessed 25 October
2011.]

Johnson PA. (2006). Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number FHWA-HRT-05-072.

Krstolic, J.L., and Chaplin, J.J. (2007). Bankfull regional curves for streams in the non-urban, non-tidal
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2007–5162, 48 p. (available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2007–5162)

North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2012a. “Water Quality
Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina.” Water Quality
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (February 2012).

NCDENR. 2012b. “2012 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5.” Water Quality Section.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (August 2012).
NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). (2016). Standard Operating Procedures for the
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Division of Water Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina. February 2016.

NCDEQ. (2018). “Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina.” Classifications
and Standards. https://deq.nc.gov/. (April 2018).

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). (2009) Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 57 September 2018

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). (2010). “Neuse River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2010.”

NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (2010). “N.C. Wetland Assessment Method User Manual
Version 4.1.”

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

Rosgen, D. (1996). Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. (1990). Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.

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

Skidmore, P.B, Shields, F., Doyle, M., and Miller, D. (2001). A Categorization of Approaches to
Natural Channel Design. Wetlands Engineering & River Restoration 2001: pp. 1 -12.

Sweet, W. V. and Geratz, J. W. (2003). Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships And Recurrence
Intervals For North Carolina's Coastal Plain. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 39: 861–871.

Tweedy, K. (2008). A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater Systems.
Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and Practice, November 2008, Asheville,
NC. Unpublished Conference Paper.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/srp/2008conference/tweedy_paper.pdf

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2003). NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.

USACE. (2010). Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

USACE. (2016). Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
(1986). Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.

USDA-NRCS. (1994). Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina.

USDA-NRCS. (2007). Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH 654).

USDA-NRCS. (2010). Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas,
G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee
for Hydric Soils.

Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 58 September 2018
USDA-NRCS. (September 2014). Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). EPA Manual. Quantifying Physical Habitat in
Wadeable Streams.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (September 2014). “Threatened and Endangered Species in
North Carolina.” North Carolina Ecological Services. http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/.

Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J. (2009). Magnitude and frequency of rural floods in the
Southeastern United States, through 2006—Volume 2. North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2009–5158, 111 p.

Figures

Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 - Historical Aerials Map
Figure 4 - Soils Map
Figure 5 - Landowner Map
Figure 6 - Land-use Map
Figure 7 - Existing Conditions Map
Figure 8 - FEMA Map
Figure 9 - National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 10 - Conceptual Plan Map
Figure 11 - Conceptual Design for NCDWR Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credits
Figure 12 – Buffer Width Zones
Figure 13 - Monitoring Plan

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia,NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Document Path: C:\Users\jmceachran\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 1_Meadow Spring_Project Vicinity Map.mxdLegend
Proposed_Easem ent
TLW - 0302 0201100050
Meadow Spring SiteLatitude: 35.5437 NLongitude: -78.3303 W
0 21 Miles
©Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
Drainage Areas
Document Path: D:\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 2_Meadow Spring USGS Map.mxd0 2,0001,000
Feet
©Document Path: D:\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 2_Meadow Spring USGS Map.mxdFigure 2 - USGS Map
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
S565 ac
Entire Site584 a c
Source: Johnston Co. Historical Aerial Source: Johnston Co. Historical Aerial
Legend
Proposed Easement
1950 1962
1973 1999
Source: Johnston Co. Historical Aerial Source: USGS 1999 Aerial Photography
©Figure 3 - Historical Aerial Photography
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, NC01,000500Feet
NoA
Ch
NoB
NoB
NoA
AsA
Bb
AsA
NnD
NoB
McB
NoA
AaA
Ro
NoB
AuA
NoB
To
NnD
Ra
Ra
NoB
NoA
WaBNoA
NoA
WaB
GoA
Ra
NoA
Ra
Ra
GoA
GoA
NnD
CoB
Bb
Ra
Ra
NnE
W
W
CeB
GeB
Ch
GoA
Ch
W
NoA
BnA
W
VrA
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
Legend
Pro posed Ea sement - 60.93 Ac.
Non-hydric Soil
Soil with Hyd ric Inclusions
Hydric Soil
Water
Document Path: C:\Users\jmceachran\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 4_Meadow Spring Soils Map.mxdSoils: NRCS Johnston County Soils Survey
0 700350
Feet
©Document Path: C:\Users\jmceachran\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 4_Meadow Spring Soils Map.mxdFigure 4 - Soils Map
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Document Path: C:\Users\jmceachran\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 5_Meadow Spring Landowner Map.mxdLandowner: Stephenson 1997 FamilyLimited PartnershipPin: 169500-74-6294
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
Proje ct Parcel
Document Path: C:\Users\jmceachran\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 5_Meadow Spring Landowner Map.mxd0 700350
Feet
©Document Path: C:\Users\jmceachran\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 5_Meadow Spring Landowner Map.mxdFigure 5 - Landowner Map
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
0 900450
Feet
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.Drainage AreaDominant Land Use
Ag FieldForestPastureResidentialWater
©Date: 4/3/2018
Drawn by: ATP
Document Path: D:\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 6_Meadow Spring Landuse Map.mxdFigure 6 - Landuse M ap
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina