20180264 Ver 1_Year 0 As Built Report_2020_20200424

ID#* 20180264 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 04/27/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 4/24/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream rJ Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20180264
Existing IDI
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Deep Meadow
Union
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation As -Built Plans
File Upload: Deep Meadow 97131_MYO_2020.pdf 32.66MB
Rease upload only one PDF cf the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*

AS‐BUILT BASELINE
MONITORING REPORT

FINAL
DEEP MEADOW MITIGATION SITE
Union County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 6887
DMS Project No. 97131
USACE Action ID No. SAW‐2012‐01107
NCDEQ DWR Certification No. 18‐0264
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040105

Data Collection Period: October 2019 – January 2020
Submission Date: April 6, 2020

PREPARED FOR:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street; 3rd Floor
Raleigh, NC 27603

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203
April 6, 2020

Mr. Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801

RE: Final Milestone 6 - As-built Baseline Monitoring Report for the Deep Meadow Mitigation Site;
Yadkin River Basin – CU# 03040105 – Yadkin County
DMS Project ID No. 97131
Contract # 006887

Dear Mr. Tsomides:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft As-built Baseline Monitoring report for the Deep Meadow Mitigation Site. The report has
been updated to reflect those comments. The Final As-built Baseline Monitoring Document and Record
Drawings are included. Wildlands’ responses to DMS’ report comments are noted below in italics.
DMS comment: Please include the Post-Contract IRT Site Walk Meeting Minutes (July 20, 2016) as a
project appendix. There were discussions relevant to performance criteria and monitoring. This need
not be carried over to the annual monitoring reports moving forward.
Wildlands response: The Post-Contract IRT Site Walk Meeting Minutes (July 20, 2016) are included in
Appendix 1.

DMS comment: Please include the credit release schedule from the approved Mitigation Plan. This need
not be carried over to the annual monitoring reports moving forward.
Wildlands response: The Credit Release Schedule from the approved Mitigation Plan has been added and
is located in the document as Sections 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2. The References have been moved to Section 7.0.

DMS comment; The report looks complete and accurate. However, there are a few minor instances
where the as-built report does not reflect the approved Mitigation Plan; these need to be rectified or
explained more fully. These are as follows:
a) Table 1 (Project Assets): Stream as-built lengths and assets match the approved Mitigation Plan.
However, there are minor variances in wetland acreages, and the resulting credits (8.647)
exceed the credits approved in the Mitigation Plan (8.59). Any changes in crediting from the
approved Mitigation Plan moving forward would require submittal to the IRT and approval of a
Mitigation Plan Addendum. Please adjust the listed wetland credits to match the approved
Mitigation Plan, and add a footnote to the Table explaining that, while as-built wetland
acreage/potential crediting exceeds that of the Mitigation Plan, the project assets listed reflect
the approved Mitigation Plan.
b) Section 2.3 (Wetland Performance Standards): It is stated “If a gage does not meet the
performance standard for a given monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed, and the
hydrograph will be compared to that of the reference wetlands analyzed in the Deep Meadow

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203
Mitigation Plan (2018) to assess whether atypical weather conditions occurred during the
monitoring period. In addition, on-site soil temperatures corroborated with vegetative
indicators, including bud burst and leaf drop, may be used as documentation to extend the
growing season.”
Growing season adjustments were not discussed in the Mitigation Plan. Please note that any
growing season adjustments would require prior approval before being used to evaluate project
success.
c) Section 3.2 (Vegetation Monitoring): It is indicated here (as well as Table 5, Monitoring
Components) that 4 mobile plots will replace 4 of the permanent plots. Please clarify and justify
why WEI is proposing to install and monitor 4 random circular plots and 12 permanent plots,
versus the 16 permanent plots approved in the Mitigation Plan.
d) Section 4.1 (Adaptive Management Plan): Narrative has been added to explain the conditions
under which WEI would take adaptive management actions, if deemed necessary. Please add
to the section that if, during annual monitoring it is determined the Site’s ability to achieve Site
performance standards are jeopardized, Wildlands will notify the members of the IRT and work
with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
Wildlands response:
a). In Table 1 Project Assets: Because minor variances in the as-built wetland acreages would have
resulted in a credit discrepancy from what was approved in the Mitigation Plan, the listed wetland
credits were adjusted to match the approved Mitigation Plan. A footnote has been added to the
Table explaining that, while the “Actual as-built wetland acreage/potential crediting slightly
differs (excess or loss) from the Mitigation Plan, the project credit assets listed have been adjusted
to reflect those of the approved Mitigation Plan”.
b). Section 2.3 (Wetland Performance Standards): The discussion text for growing season
adjustments has been removed from this section.
c.) Section 3.2 (Vegetation Monitoring): The vegetation monitoring protocol outlined in the Deep
Meadow Mitigation Site As-built Baseline Monitoring Report follows the requirements presented
in Section V, Planted Vegetation Monitoring, of the 2016 Stream Mitigation Guidelines
development by the US Army Corp of Engineers. Whereas it states that “A combination of
permanent fixed plots and random plots should be used to demonstrate vegetation coverage.
Random plots should not make up more than 50% of the total required plots. Random plots may
be a different plot type (e.g., circular, transect, etc.), but should be the same size as the fixed
plots. The monitoring plots must make up a minimum of 2% of the planted portion of the site
with a minimum of 4 plots.” Therefore, based on these guidelines with respect to this site, since
the required number of vegetation monitoring plots is 16, the number of random plots should
not make up more than 50% of the required plots. Our number of random plots equals 4, which
is only 25% of the required plots.
d.) Section 4.1 (Adaptive Management Plan): The requested text has been added to this section.
DMS comment; Table 2 (Project Activity and Reporting): Cells should be blank where no data has been
collected or reported (MY1 through MY7).
Wildlands response: As directed, text has been removed from the cells where no data has been collected
or reported (MY1 through MY7).

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

DMS comment; As stipulated in Section 6.2 (Financial Assurance) of RFP #16-006785, you will need to
retire the performance bond for this project and substitute it for a monitoring phase performance bond
for 25% of the value of the Deep Meadow contract #006887.
Wildlands response: The performance bond has been retired and a monitoring phase performance bond
has been secured and reviewed by Jeff Jurek with DMS.

DMS comment; Digital Submittal
a) Please provide the as-built survey .pdf and .dwg files with the final electronic submittal. This
as-built survey should bear a Professional Land Surveyor (PLS) seal.
b) Please provide the final record drawings .dwg files with the final electronic submittal.
c) Please include all required project permits and the FEMA Floodplain Compliance permit (if
applicable) and any supporting documentation in the final electronic submittal. This should be
included in a separate “Project Permits” folder.
d) DMS have approved the draft GIS digitals submittal. All GIS features match with the as-built
condition.
e) Please resubmit the complete set of digital support files previously submitted, so that any
changes as the result of these edits are captured.
Wildlands response: As directed, the following has been included as part of the digital submittal.
a) A pdf of the sealed as-built survey and the associated .dwg files have been included the As-Built
Plans\PDFs and \DWGs folders, respectively, of the electronic submittal.
b) The final record drawings .dwg files have been included in As-Built Plans\DWGs folder of the
electronic submittal.
c) A copy of all required project permits and any supporting documentation in the “Project Permits”
folder of the electronic submittal.
d) As requested, a complete set of the revised digital support files have included.

As requested, Wildlands has included two hard copies of the Final Deep Meadow Mitigation Site As-built
Baseline Monitoring Report, as well as a CD with a PDF of the report and all digital support files in the
correct file structure. Additionally, a copy of our response letter has been included inside the front cover
of each hard copy report and included in the final PDF of the report.

Sincerely,

Kristi Suggs
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final ii

PREPARED BY:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full‐delivery stream and wetland mitigation
project at the Deep Meadow Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). The project restored, enhanced and preserved a
total of 4,365 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream in Union County, NC. In addition, the project
rehabilitated 0.58 acres and re‐established 8.26 acres of riparian wetlands. The Site is located within the
DMS targeted watershed for the Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040105070060 and the NC Division of Water
Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03‐07‐14. The project is providing 2,838.933 stream mitigation units (SMUs)
and 8.590 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) for the Yadkin River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03040105 (Yadkin 05).
The Site’s immediate drainage area as well as the surrounding watershed has a long history of
agricultural activity. Stream and wetland functional stressors for the Site were related to both historic
and current land use practices. Major stream stressors for the Site included channel incision and
widening, a lack of stabilizing riparian vegetation, a lack of bedform diversity and aquatic habitat, and
agricultural related impacts such as channel manipulation or straightening and concentrated run‐off
inputs from agricultural fields. The primary stressors to the wetlands on the Site were the lack of
wetland vegetation, agricultural impact including ditching to drawdown the water table, and the lack of
hydrologic connection to the floodplain tributaries and hillside seeps. The effects of these stressors
resulted in channel instability, loss of floodplain connection, degraded water quality, and the loss of
both aquatic and riparian habitat throughout the Site’s watershed when compared to reference
conditions. The project approach for the Site focused on evaluating the Site’s existing functional
condition and evaluating its potential for recovery and need for intervention.
The project goals defined in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2018) were established with careful
consideration of 2009 Lower Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) goals and
objectives to address stressors identified in the watershed through the implementation of stream
restoration and enhancement activities and wetland re‐establishment and rehabilitation activities, as
well as riparian buffer re‐vegetation. The established project goals include:
• Improve stream channel stability,
• Reconnect channels with historic floodplains and re‐establish wetland hydrology and function in
relic wetland areas,
• Improve in‐stream habitat,
• Reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from adjacent agricultural fields,
• Restore and enhance native floodplain and wetland vegetation, and
• Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses.
The Site construction and as‐built surveys were completed between September and November 2019.
Planting and baseline vegetation data collection occurred between November 2019 and January 2020.
Minimal adjustments were made during construction and specific changes are detailed in Section 5.1.
Baseline (MY0) profiles and cross‐section dimensions closely match the design parameters with little
variation. The Site has been built as designed and is expected to meet the upcoming monitoring year’s
success criteria.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final ii

DEEP MEADOW MITIGATION SITE
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES ........................................................1‐1
Project Location and Setting .............................................................................................1‐1
Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................1‐1
Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach ............................................................1‐2
Project Structure .............................................................................................................. 1‐2
Restoration Type and Approach ....................................................................................... 1‐3
Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data .....................................................................1‐3
Section 2: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .........................................................................................2‐1
Streams ...........................................................................................................................2‐1
Dimension ........................................................................................................................ 2‐1
Pattern and Profile ........................................................................................................... 2‐1
Substrate .......................................................................................................................... 2‐1
Photo Documentation ...................................................................................................... 2‐2
Hydrology Documentation ............................................................................................... 2‐2
Vegetation .......................................................................................................................2‐2
Wetlands .........................................................................................................................2‐2
Visual Assessments ..........................................................................................................2‐2
Schedule and Reporting ....................................................................................................2‐2
Section 3: MONITORING PLAN & METHODOLOGY .........................................................................3‐1
Streams ...........................................................................................................................3‐1
Dimension ........................................................................................................................ 3‐1
Pattern and Profile ........................................................................................................... 3‐1
Substrate .......................................................................................................................... 3‐1
Photo Reference Points .................................................................................................... 3‐2
Hydrology Documentation ............................................................................................... 3‐2
Visual Assessment ............................................................................................................ 3‐2
Vegetation .......................................................................................................................3‐2
Wetlands .........................................................................................................................3‐3
Section 4: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND CONTINGENCY PLAN .....................................................4‐1
Adaptive Management Plan..............................................................................................4‐1
Section 5: AS‐BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE) ..................................................................................5‐1
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final iii

Record Drawings ..............................................................................................................5‐1
Stream Plan and Profile .................................................................................................... 5‐1
Vegetation Planting Plan .................................................................................................. 5‐1
Baseline Data Assessment ................................................................................................5‐1
Morphological State of the Channel ................................................................................. 5‐2
Vegetation ........................................................................................................................ 5‐2
Wetlands .......................................................................................................................... 5‐2
Section 6: CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ...........................................................................................6‐1
Initial Allocation of Released Credits ................................................................................6‐1
Record Drawings .............................................................................................................6‐2
Section 7: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................7‐1
6.1
6.2

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final iv

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures, Tables, and Documentation
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Figure 3.0 – 3.2 As‐Built Monitoring Plan View
Table 1 Mitigation Assets and Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Table 5 Monitoring Component Summary
Post Contract IRT Site Walk Meeting Minutes (July 20, 2016)

Appendix 2 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 6 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 7 Reference Reach Data Summary
Table 8 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters‐Cross‐Section)
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross‐Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross‐Section Pebble Count Plots
Stream Photographs

Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 10 CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 11 Planted and Total Stem Counts
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 4 Record Drawings
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
Interagency Review Team (IRT)
Monitoring Year (MY)
Division of Water Resources (DWR)
Stream Mitigation Unit (SMU)
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Unnamed Tributary (UT)
Wetland Mitigation Unit (WMU)
Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Priorities (RBRP)
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 1‐1

Section 1: PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES

Project Location and Setting
The Deep Meadow Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Union County approximately two miles north of
Wingate, NC and approximately six miles northeast of Monroe, NC (Figure 1). The project is located
within the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) targeted watershed for the Yadkin River Basin
Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03040105070060 and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03‐07‐14.
Located in the Slate Belt within the Piedmont physiographic province (NCGS, 1985), the project
watershed is dominated by agricultural and forested land.
The site contains Meadow Branch, three unnamed tributaries of Meadow Branch, two existing riparian
wetlands and ten proposed riparian wetlands. The unnamed tributaries are referred to by Wildlands as
West Fork 1 (WF1), West Fork 2 (WF2), and East Fork 1 (EF1). The existing wetlands are referred to as W‐
H1 and W‐H2, while the proposed wetlands are named W‐E1 through W‐E10.
Meadow branch has a gentle (0.22%) unconfined alluvial valley. EF1 transitions from a gentle (1.00%)
moderately confined valley at the upstream project limits to an unconfined valley as it approaches
Meadow Branch. WF1 and WF2 are also located in unconfined valleys within the project. The two
existing riparian wetlands are located in the floodplain of Meadow Branch at the toe of slope. The Site
drains approximately 6.99 square miles of rural land.
Prior to construction activities, the Site had a history of use for crop production resulting in degraded in‐
stream habitat and sediment erosion. On‐site streams have had their adjacent floodplains altered for
agricultural uses. EF1 was re‐routed to the edge of the valley and shortened to join Meadow Branch at
the perpendicular angle. Existing wetlands were ditched to improve field drainage and cleared for row
crops. Riparian buffers also exhibited a lack of stabilizing streamside vegetation due to agricultural
practices.
Pre‐construction conditions are outlined in Table 4 of Appendix 1 and Table 6 of Appendix 2.
Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is providing numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin Valley Basin. The project goals were
established with careful consideration to address stressors that were identified in the DWR 2008 Yadkin
River Basinwide Plan (NCDWR, 2008). Improvements to water quality and ecological processes are
outlined below as project goals and objectives.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 1‐2

Goals Objectives

Improve stream channel stability.

Restore stream channels that will maintain a stable pattern and
profile considering the hydrologic and sediment inputs to the
system, the landscape setting, and the watershed conditions.
Create stable tie‐ins for tributaries joining restored channels. Add
bank revetments and in‐stream structures to protect restored
streams.

Reconnect channels with historic floodplains
and re‐establish wetland hydrology and
function in relic wetland areas.

Remove man‐made impoundments, remove culvert crossings,
and restore historic valley profile. Remove historic overburden
from farm fields. Reconstruct stream channels with bankfull
dimensions relative to the floodplain. Restore stream plan form
to promote development of mutually beneficial stream/wetland
complex.

Improve instream habitat.

Remove man‐made impoundments and culvert crossings within
easement. Install habitat features such as constructed riffles,
cover logs, and brush toes into restored/enhanced streams. Add
woody materials to channel beds. Construct pools of varying
depth.

Reduce sediment and nutrient input from
adjacent farm fields.
Construct two step pool stormwater conveyance and three dry
detention BMPs to slow and treat runoff from farm fields before
entering Site streams.

Restore and enhance native floodplain and
wetland vegetation.

Plant native tree and understory species in riparian zone where
currently insufficient.

Permanently protect the project site from
harmful uses.

Establish a conservation easement on the Site.

Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by DMS in January of 2018 and the IRT in May of
2018. Construction activities were completed in September 2019 by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. Kee
Mapping and Surveying completed the as‐built survey in December 2019. Planting was completed
following construction in January 2020 by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. Field adjustments made during
construction are described in further detail in section 5.1 and depicted in the Record Drawings in
Appendix 4. Please refer to Appendix 1 for detailed project activity, history, contact information, and
watershed/site background information.

Project Structure
Project mitigation components are outlined in the Mitigation Assets and Components Table (Table 1)
and depicted in the As‐built Monitoring Plan View Maps (Figures 3.0 ‐ 3.2) that are located in Appendix
1.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 1‐3

Restoration Type and Approach
The design approach for this Site was chosen based on the surrounding landscape, climate, natural
vegetation communities but also with thorough consideration of existing watershed conditions. The
project includes stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation as well as wetland re‐habilitation
and re‐establishment. The specific proposed stream and wetland mitigation types are illustrated in
Figure 2 and detailed below. The Site vegetative planting plan is depicted on sheets 3.0 through 3.4 of
the record drawings located in Appendix 4.
Meadow Branch is a Rosgen C4/5 stream that was enhanced using an EII approach. Bank erosion was
addressed through bank grading and bank stabilization structures. Riffles and pools were added to the
channel to enhance habitat. Concentrated run‐off ditches were plugged or stabilized to reduce
sedimentation inputs to the stream. A 70‐ft easement break was implemented to allow for landowner
access to the western agricultural fields.
EF1 begins at station 200+38 and flows west to enter Meadow Branch at station 214+01. EF1 was raised
through priority 1 restoration and relocated away from the hillside slope to the center of the valley. A
short downstream section of EF1 underwent priority 2 restoration to tie into the bed elevation of
Meadow Branch. Riffle‐pool sequences and woody cover structures were added to increase habitat
diversity. Landowner access was provided by a 41‐ft easement break near the downstream end of the
reach.
The preservation portion of WF1 begins at station 400+57 and flows east for 20‐feet. At station 400+77,
WF1 continues east to enter Meadow Branch at station 401+93. This portion of the reach was designed
as a Rosgen C4b and was improved through a E1 approach. Bed and bank stability were achieved by
installing in‐stream grade control structures and grading the banks. Invasive plants were removed from
the stream banks as part of the grading process. Adjustments to the bed elevation were made to tie into
an existing bedrock knickpoint at the upstream end of WF1 and to achieve a more uniform profile.
WF2 begins at station 301+29 and flows northeast to connect with Meadow Branch at station 305+87.
Most of the channel was restored as a Rosgen E‐type stream using priority 1 restoration; however, a
short section the downstream extent was designed to be incised as it drops to meet the invert elevation
of Meadow Branch. Riffle‐pool sequences were installed along with woody cover structures to provide
bedform diversity and habitat.
The Site includes the re‐establishment of a stream wetland complex and the rehabilitation of existing
jurisdictional wetlands through the floodplain bottom to Meadow Branch. To improve wetland
hydrology and restore the natural topography of the floodplain, grading was performed to eliminate
drainage swales and to remove overburden within wetland areas; thereby, bringing buried hydric soils
within the 12 inches of the soil surface. Additionally, the wetland areas were disked and planted with
native wetland plants.
Native vegetation was planted within the non‐forested riparian and wetland planting zones of the
conservation easement along Meadow Branch and its tributaries. Disturbed areas outside of the
easement were re‐established with permanent grass.
Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data
The Site was restored by Wildlands through a Full Delivery contract with DMS. Tables 2, 3, and 4 in
Appendix 1 provide detailed information regarding the project activity and reporting history, project
contacts, and project baseline information and attributes.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 2‐1

Section 2: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The stream and wetland performance criteria for the Site follow approved performance criteria
presented in the Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan (2018) and is based on performance
criteria presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (October 2015), the Annual Monitoring and
Closeout Reporting Template (April 2015), and the Stream and Wetland Mitigation Guidance issued in
October 2016 by the USACE. Annual monitoring and semi‐annual site visits will be conducted to assess
the condition of the finished project. Specific performance standard components are proposed for
stream morphology, hydrology, vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Performance criteria will be
evaluated throughout the seven‐year post‐construction monitoring period. The monitoring program
designed to verify that performance standards are met is described in Section 3.
Streams

Dimension
Riffle cross‐sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area, bank height ratio, and width‐to‐depth ratio. All riffle cross‐sections should fall within the
parameters defined for the designated stream type. Bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and
entrenchment ratios shall be at least 1.4 for B‐type channels and 2.2 for restored E and C‐type channels.
If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is
showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding
channel banks. Remedial action will not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward
stability.

Pattern and Profile
A longitudinal profile was conducted as part of the as‐built survey to provide a baseline for comparison
should it become necessary to perform longitudinal profile surveys later during monitoring and to insure
accordance with design plans. Annual longitudinal profile surveys are not required during the seven‐year
monitoring period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical
and lateral instability. If a longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as
described in the 2016 USACE Stream and Wetland Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches.
Restoration reaches must remain vertically stable throughout the monitoring period with little indication
of downcutting or significant aggradation. Deposition of sediments at certain locations (such as the
inside of meander bends) is expected and acceptable. Changes in pool depth are not an indication of
vertical instability. Restoration reaches must remain laterally stable and major changes planform pattern
dimensions and sinuosity should not occur. However, migration of meanders on alluvial channels is not
an indication of instability if cross sectional dimensions continue to meet the requirements.

Substrate
A pebble count was conducted at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement during the baseline
monitoring only. A reach‐wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration reach for monitoring
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. Reach‐wide counts will be conducted for classification purposes. Restoration
reaches should show maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and finer particles in the
pool features. Riffles may fine over the course of monitoring due to the stabilization of contributing
watershed sediment sources. Successful substrate measurements show that the restored stream meet
the objective of maintaining stable banks through reduced shear stress.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 2‐2

Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the Site’s vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross‐
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent of mid‐channel bars or vertical incision. Grade control
structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable.
Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.

Hydrology Documentation
The occurrence of bankfull events will be documented throughout the monitoring period. Four bankfull
flow events must be documented within the seven‐year monitoring period. The four bankfull events
must occur in separate years.
Vegetation
The final vegetative performance standard will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the
planted riparian areas at the end of the required seven‐year monitoring period. The interim measure of
vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of
MY3 and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of MY5. The extent of invasive species coverage will also
be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period.
Wetlands
The final performance standard for wetland hydrology will be a free groundwater surface within 12
inches of the ground surface for 23 consecutive days (10% percent) of the defined growing season for
Union County (March 23 through November 6) under typical precipitation conditions.
Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above.
Schedule and Reporting
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to DMS. Based
on the DMS Annual Monitoring Template (April 2015), the monitoring reports will include the following:
• Project background which includes project objectives, project structure, restoration type and
approach, location and setting, history and background,
• Project Asset Map of major project elements,
• Photographs showing views of the restored Site taken from fixed point stations,
• CCPV Map with monitoring features and current problem areas noted such as stability and
easement encroachment based on the cross‐section surveys and annual visual assessments,
• Assessment of the stability of the stream based on the cross‐sections,
• Vegetative data as described above including the identification of any invasion by undesirable
plant species,
• Groundwater gage plots,
• A description of damage by animals or vandalism,
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 2‐3

• Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented,
and
• Wildlife observations.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 3‐1

Section 3: MONITORING PLAN & METHODOLOGY

Annual monitoring will consist of collecting morphologic, vegetative, and hydrologic data to assess the
project success based on the restoration goals, as outlined in the Deep Meadow Site Mitigation Plan
(2018). Monitoring requirements will follow guidelines outlined in the DMS Annual Monitoring and
Closeout Reporting Template (April 2015) and the USACE Stream and Wetland Mitigation Guidance
(October 2016). Installed monitoring device and plot locations closely mimic the locations of those
proposed in the Site’s Mitigation Plan. Deviations from these locations were made when professional
judgement deemed them necessary to better represent as‐built field conditions or when installation of
the device in the proposed location was not physically feasible. Project success will be assessed by
measuring channel dimension, substrate composition, vegetation, surface water hydrology,
groundwater hydrology and by analyzing photographs and performing visual assessments. Any high
priority problem areas identified, such as unstable stream banks, bed instability,
aggradation/degradation, and/or poor vegetation establishment will be evaluated on a case‐by‐case
basis. The problem areas will be visually noted and reported to DMS staff in the annual report. Refer to
Table 5 in Appendix 1 for the monitoring component summary.
Streams
Geomorphic assessments follow guidelines outlined in the Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994), methodologies utilized in the Rosgen
stream assessment and classification documents (Rosgen, 1994 and 1996), and in the Stream
Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Please refer to Figures 3.0 through
3.2 in Appendix 1 for monitoring locations discussed below.

Dimension
To assess channel dimension performance, 6 permanent cross‐sections were installed along stream
restoration and enhancement I reaches to represent approximately 50% riffles and 50% pools as defined
in Table 16 of the Mitigation Plan. Cross‐section locations were chosen in the field to be representative
of the typical dimensions for each project reach. Each cross‐section is permanently marked with rebar
installed in concrete and ½ inch PVC pipes. Cross‐section surveys will include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. Cross‐section surveys will be
conducted in monitoring years one, two, three, five, and seven. Photographs will be taken of the cross‐
sections looking upstream and downstream during the survey assessment.

Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven‐year post‐construction monitoring
period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral
instability. If a longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in
the DMS Annual Monitoring and Closeout Reporting Template (April 2015) and the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines issued in October 2016 by the USACE for the necessary reaches. Stream pattern and profile
will be assessed visually as described below in Section 3.1.6.

Substrate
Reach‐wide pebble counts will be performed on each restoration and enhancement I reach for
classification purposes only and will be conducted in monitoring years one, two, three, five, and seven.
Riffle 100‐count substrate sampling will be collected during the baseline monitoring only to characterize
pavement at as‐built.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 3‐2

Photo Reference Points
A total of 18 permanent photograph reference points were established along the stream reaches and
the floodplain area after construction. Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document
stability for the seven‐year monitoring period. Permanent markers were established and located with
GPS equipment so that the same locations and view directions on the site are photographed each year.
Photos will be used to monitor all restoration and preservation stream reaches.
Longitudinal reference photos were established approximately every 300‐500 LF along the channel by
taking a photo looking upstream and downstream. Cross‐sectional photos will be taken of each
permanent cross‐section looking upstream and downstream.

Hydrology Documentation
The occurrence of bankfull events will be documented throughout the seven‐year monitoring period
using pressure transducers, photographs, and visual assessments such as debris lines. Streamflow stage
will be monitored using a continuous stage recorder (pressure transducer) and recorded every three
hours. A total of 3 gages were installed along restoration and enhancement I reaches. The gages will be
downloaded semi‐annually to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will be used to
document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition observed during field visits. The
transducer data will be plotted and included in the annual monitoring reports.

Visual Assessment
Visual assessments will be performed along stream reaches on a semi‐annual basis during the seven‐
year monitoring period. Areas of concern, such as channel instability (i.e. lateral and/or vertical
instability and in‐stream structure failure, instability, and/or piping), poor vegetation health and/or
establishment (i.e. low stem density, bare areas, high mortality rates, and/or invasive species),
easement encroachment, beaver activity, and/or livestock trespass will be mapped, photographed, and
described in the annual monitoring reports. Problem areas will be re‐evaluated during each subsequent
visual assessment. Should remedial actions be required, recommendations will be provided in the
annual monitoring report.
Vegetation
Vegetative plot monitoring will be conducted in post‐construction monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Permanent plots will be monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed by the
Carolina Vegetation Survey‐EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006) and the 2016 USACE Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Guidance to assess the vegetation success. For both permanent and random plots,
all woody stems, including exotic and invasive species, should be counted. Supplemental plantings and
volunteer plants must be present for at least two growing seasons before counting toward performance
standards for monitoring years five and seven. Exotic/invasive species will not count toward success of
performance standards.
A total of 12 permanent vegetation plots were established within the project easement area. Permanent
vegetation plots were randomly established within the planted stream riparian buffer areas to capture
the heterogeneity of the designed vegetative communities. The locations of permanent vegetation plots
were chosen in the field using the same distribution throughout the planting areas, as shown in the
Site’s Mitigation Plan, and to best represent the planted areas within the easement.
All of the permanent vegetative plots were established as a standard 10‐meter by 10‐meter square plot.
The vegetation plot corners have been marked and are recoverable either through field identification or
with the use of a GPS unit. Reference photographs at the origin looking diagonally across the plot to the
opposite corner were taken during the MY0 in January 2020. Subsequent assessments in monitoring
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 3‐3

years one, two, three, five, and seven following baseline survey will capture the same reference
photograph locations.
Individual permanent plot data will include diameter, height, density, vigor, damage (if any), and percent
survival. Planted woody stems were marked in MY0 and will be re‐marked, if needed, during subsequent
monitoring year assessments using a known origin so they can be found. Mortality will be determined
from the difference between the baseline year’s living planted stems and the current year’s living
planted stems.
To evaluate random vegetation performance for the Site, 4 mobile vegetation plots were established in
MY0, for use in MY1, using a circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot. Mobile plots will be re‐
established in different and random locations throughout the planted conservation easement in
monitoring years 2, 3, 5, and 7. These locations will be geographically recorded and depicted in the
CCPV maps for the corresponding monitoring assessment year. Mobile vegetation plot assessments will
document the number of stems, species type, and stem height within the plot.
Please refer to Figures 3.0 through 3.2 in Appendix 1 for the permanent and mobile MY0/1 vegetation
monitoring plot locations.
Wetlands
To monitor the wetland re‐establishment area, eleven groundwater monitoring gages were installed in
October and November of 2019 per USACE recommended procedures within the wetland areas using In‐
situ Level TROLL® 100 pressure transducers. The locations of the installed gages closely mimic those of
the Site’s Mitigation Plan. Minor adjustments in these locations were made to best represent wetland
topography or when installation of a gage met ground refusal. An additional gage was established in a
nearby reference wetland and will be utilized to compare the hydrologic response within the restored
wetland areas at the Site. The groundwater gages are set to record the groundwater level four times per
day and will be downloaded quarterly during site visits. The locations of the groundwater gages are
denoted in Figures 3.0 through 3.2.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 4‐1

Section 4: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND CONTINGENCY PLAN

Adaptive Management Plan
Wildlands will perform maintenance as needed on the mitigation project. A physical inspection of the
Site shall be conducted a minimum of once per year throughout the post‐construction monitoring
period or until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and
features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance for stream features should be most
often expected in the first two years following site construction. The need for maintenance will be
evaluated annually during monitoring activities. Maintenance may include the following activities.

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 – these shall be conducted
where success criteria are threatened or at the discretion of the Designer. Areas where
storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent bank failures and head‐cutting. Beaver activity will be monitored and beaver dams
on project streams will typically be removed, at the discretion of the Designer, during the
monitoring period to allow for bank stabilization and stream development outside of this
type of influence.

Wetlands
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental installations of
target vegetation within the wetland. Areas where storm water and floodplain flows
intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to prevent scour that adversely and
persistently threatens wetland habitat or function.

Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community.
Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species treatment will be conducted
per the Invasive Species Treatment Plan, outlined in Appendix 8 of the Deep Meadow
Mitigation Plan (2018), and in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules
and regulations.

Site Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. 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.
The Wildlands Team will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement appropriate remedial
actions in the event that the Site or a specific component of the Site fails to achieve the success criteria
outlined above. The project‐specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase identifies an
appropriate threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items. Any actions
implemented will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously and will include a work
schedule and updated monitoring criteria. If, during annual monitoring it is determined the Site’s ability
to achieve Site performance standards are jeopardized, Wildlands will notify the members of the IRT
and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 5‐1

Section 5: AS‐BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)

The Site construction and as‐built surveys were completed between September and November 2019.
The survey included developing an as‐built topographic surface and locating the channel boundaries,
structures, and cross‐sections. Planting and baseline vegetation data collection occurred between
November 2019 and January 2020.
Record Drawings
A sealed half‐size record drawing is located in Appendix 4 and includes redlines for any significant field
adjustments made during construction that were different from the design plans. Specific changes by
each project area are detailed below:

Stream Plan and Profile
• Sheet 1.1: Station 102+98 – Log vane replaced rock vane at Engineer’s discretion,
• Sheet 1.2: Station 104+32 – Rock J‐hook replaced rock vane at Engineer’s discretion,
• Sheet 1.3: Station 213+35 – 213+65 – Rock toe replaced brush toe,
• Sheet 1.5: Station 117+85 – 118+08 – Riffle added on Meadow Branch at its confluence with
WF2,
• Sheet 1.6: Station 125+25 – 125+75 – Riffle added on Meadow Branch with available on‐site
native material,
• Sheet 1.7: Station 201+98 – 202+30 – Rock toe replaced vegetated soil lift due to surrounding
bedrock and available on‐site native material,
• Sheet 1.8: Station 205+05 – 205+49 – Rock toe replaced brush toe due to surrounding bedrock
that limited excavation for brush toe anchor and available on‐site native material,
• Sheet 1.8: Station 206+51 – 206+93 – Rock toe replaced brush toe due to surrounding bedrock
that limited excavation for brush toe anchor and available on‐site native material,
• Sheet 1.9: Station 209+87 – 209+97 – Rock toe added along left bank tie‐in with culvert outfall,
• Sheet 1.9: Station 209+97 – 210+30 – Brush toe replaced vegetated soil lift,
• Sheet 1.9: Station 213+33 – Log vane removed due to bedrock in the field,
• Sheet 1.9: Station 213+35 – 213+65 – Rock Toe replaced brush toe due to surrounding bedrock
and available on‐site native material,

Vegetation Planting Plan
No changes were made to planting plan.
Baseline Data Assessment
MY0 was conducted between October and November 2019 with the vegetation data collection occurring
between December 2019 and January 2020, immediately following planting. The first annual monitoring
assessment (MY1) will be completed in the fall of 2020. The streams will be monitored for a total of
seven years, with the final monitoring activities scheduled for 2026.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 5‐2

Morphological State of the Channel
As‐built morphological data was collected between October and November 2019. Please refer to
Appendix 2 for summary data tables, morphological plots, and stream photographs.
Profile
The MY0 profiles generally match the profile design parameters. As‐built riffle slopes calculated for both
WF2 and EF1 resulted in a greater variation in range than those of design; however, overall channel
slopes were similar to design parameters, and on‐site as‐built reviews showed no visual indicators of
vertically instability. Variations from the design profile often reflect field changes during construction as
a result of field conditions and do not constitute a problem or indicate a need for remedial actions.
Channels profiles will continue to be assessed visually during the CCPV Site walks.
Dimension
The MY0 dimension numbers closely match the design parameters with minor variations. Bankfull
widths for as‐built channels slight exceed design parameters; however, channels are likely to narrow
over time as vegetation is established. This narrowing over time would not be an indicator of instability
in and of itself. On‐site as‐built reviews showed no visual indicators of lateral instability.
Pattern
The MY0 pattern metrics fell within acceptable ranges of the design parameters.
Bankfull Events
Bankfull events recorded following completion of construction will be reported in the Year 1 monitoring
report.

Vegetation
The overall MY0 planted density is 607 stems/acre for permanent vegetation plots and 647 stems/acre
for mobile vegetation plots. The total overall planted Site mean density is 612 stems/acre, which
exceeds the interim measure of vegetative success of at least 320 planted stems per acre required at the
end of the third monitoring year. Summary data and photographs of each plot can be found in Appendix
3.

Wetlands
Groundwater gage data will be reported in the annual MY1 report.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 6‐2

Section 6: CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as‐built survey of
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 Interagency Review Team (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 restart 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:
Table A: Credit Release Schedule – Stream Credits – Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring
Year Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
0 Initial Allocation – see requirements below 30% 30%
1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 40%
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met
(additional 10% released at second bankfull event in a separate year)
10% 50%
(60%)
3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 60%
(70%)
4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 5% 65%
(75%)
5 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 75%
(85%)
6 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 5% 80%
(90%)
7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met and project has received closeout approval 10% 90%
(100%)
Table B: Credit Release Schedule – Forested Wetland Credits – Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring
Year Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
0 Initial Allocation – see requirements below 30% 30%
1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 10% 40%
2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 10% 50%
3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 10% 60%
4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 10% 70%
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 6‐2

Monitoring
Year Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met; Provided that all performance standards are met, the IRT may
allow the DMS to discontinue hydrologic monitoring after the fifth year,
but vegetation monitoring must continue for an additional two years after
the fifth year for a total of seven years.
10% 80%
6 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 10% 90%
7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met, and project has received close‐out approval 10% 100%
6.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by DMS without
prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan.
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property.
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; per the DMS Instrument, construction means
that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as‐built
report has been produced. As‐built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
6.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
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. For stream projects a reserve of
10% of a site’s total stream credits shall be released after two bankfull events have occurred, in separate
years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that less
than two bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at
the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the DMS will
submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of
criteria required for release to occur.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report‐Final 7‐1

Section 7: REFERENCES

Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM‐245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2006. CVS‐EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from
http://www.nceep.net/business/monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2015. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), April 2015. DMS Annual Monitoring and Closeout
Reporting Template.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), October 2015. DMS Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina: North Carolina Survey,
General Geologic Map, scale 1:500,000. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy‐mineral‐land‐
resources/north‐carolina‐geological‐survey/ncgs‐maps/1985‐geologic‐map‐of‐nc4
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169‐199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), October 2016. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE,
NCDENR‐DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands), 2018. Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. DMS,
Raleigh, NC.
APPENDIX 1. General Figures, Tables, and Documentation
Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
2,507 2,449 Warm Enhancement II N/A 2.500 2,449 979.600 Bank stabilization and in-stream structures with planted buffer. Creditable length accounts for
96 LF of stream within an easement break.
1,201 1,322 Warm Restoration P1, P2 1.000 1,322 1,322.000 Full channel restoration and planted buffer. Creditable length accounts for 41 LF of stream
within an easement break
116 116 Warm Enhancement I N/A 1.500 116 77.333 Dimension and profile modified to provide stability.
20 20 Warm Preservation N/A 10.000 20 2.000
391 458 Warm Restoration P1, P2 1.000 458 458.000 Full channel restoration and planted buffer.
0.28 0.28 Warm Rehabilitation 1.500 0.28 0.190*Rehabilitation. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by reducing drainage
to Meadow Branch.
0.30 0.30 Warm Rehabilitation 1.500 0.30 0.200 Rehabilitation. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by reducing drainage
to Meadow Branch.
0.40 0.40 Warm Re-establishment 1.000 0.37 0.400*Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating
adjacent drainage swales.
1.70 1.70 Warm Re-establishment 1.000 1.72 1.700*Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating
adjacent drainage swales.
0.40 0.40 Warm Re-establishment 1.000 0.41 0.400*Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating
adjacent drainage swales.
0.40 0.40 Warm Re-establishment 1.000 0.36 0.400*Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating
adjacent drainage swales.
0.40 0.40 Warm Re-establishment 1.000 0.37 0.400*Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating
adjacent drainage swales.
0.20 0.20 Warm Re-establishment 1.000 0.20 0.200 Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating
adjacent drainage swales.
1.50 1.50 Warm Re-establishment 1.000 1.53 1.500*Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating
adjacent drainage swales.
1.00 1.00 Warm Re-establishment 1.000 1.04 1.000*Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating
adjacent drainage swales.
0.50 0.50 Warm Re-establishment 1.000 0.53 0.500*Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating
adjacent drainage swales.
1.70 1.70 Warm Re-establishment 1.000 1.73 1.700*Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating
adjacent drainage swales.
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riv
1,780.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.390*N/A N/A N/A
8.200*N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
77.333 N/A N/A
979.600 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
2.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2,838.933 N/A N/A 8.590*N/A N/A N/A
* Actual as-built wetland acreage/potential crediting slightly differs (excess or loss) that of the Mitigation Plan, the project credit assets listed reflect those of the approved Mitigation Plan.
WE-10
Non-Riparian
Wetland
Project Credits
Coastal Marsh
Totals
Restoration
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
Medow Branch
EF1
WH-1
WE-1
WE-2
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
As-Built
Footage/
Acreage
Project
Credit
Mitigation
CategoryProject Area/Reach
Existing
Footage (LF)
or Acreage
Mitigation
Plan Footage/
Acreage
Restoration Level Priority Level
Project Components
Notes/Comments
Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland
WF1
WF1
WF2
WH-2
WE-3
WE-6
WE-7
WE-4
WE-5
WE-9
WE-8
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Construction
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
Herbaceous Plugs
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Year 1 Monitoring
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Stream Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation SurveyYear 2 Monitoring
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Year 3 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Vegetation Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream SurveyYear 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Charlotte, NC 28203
Seed Mix Sources Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
PO Box 1197
Freymont, NC 27830
Construction Contractors
Planting Contractor
704.332.7754
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
July 2018 July 2018
December 2019 - January 2020 January 2020
January 2019 January 2019
July - September 2019 September 2019
July - September 2019 September 2019
July - September 2019 September 2019
June 2016 - October 2017
404 Permit
May/June 2018Mitigation Plan
Final Design - Construction Plans
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
Year 6 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
Year 4 Monitoring
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Monitoring, POC Kristi Suggs
[phone] x.110
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery
October 2019 - January 2020 March 2020
Designers
Stream SurveyYear 7 Monitoring
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
1,322 136
Moderatley Confined Unconfined
226 58
P P
Incised and Straightened E4 G4
C4 C4
III III
458
Unconfined
131
P
Incised and straighteded E4
C4
IV
WF2
Yes Yes Union County Floodplain Development Permit
#20180991
Zone AE
C
2,449
Unconfined
P
C4/5
Meadow Branch
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetlands
Groundwater and over bank events
Re-habilitation (hydrologic, vegetative)
Regulation
Union County
23.800
35° 1' 24.44"N 80° 27' 4.33"W
21.480
Project Name
Physiographic Province
River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 3040105
Project Area (acres)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Planted Acreage (Acre of Woody Stems Planted)
Regulatory Considerations
Endangered Species Act
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Wetland Type
4,472
Yes
NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit
NCG010000
Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan
Yes Yes
Restoration or enhancement method (hydrologic, vegetative etc.)
Size of Wetland (acres)
Mapped Soil Series
Source of Hydrology
Drainage class
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Essential Fisheries Habitat
FEMA classification
VIEvolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
Resolved?
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Project Watershed Summary Information
Piedmont Physiographic Province
Project Information
Yadkin River
Morphological Description (stream type) - Pre-Restoration C4/5
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post-Restoration
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
2011 NLCD Land Use Classification
Meadow Branch- Forest (25%), Cultivated (50%), Grassland (3%), Shrubland (< 1%), Urban (21%), Open Water (< 1%)
EF1 - Forest (27%), Cultivated (65%), Grassland (4%), Shrubland (2%), Urban (2%), Open Water (0%)
WF1 - Forest (28%), Cultivated (70%), Grassland (0%), Shrubland (0%), Urban (2%), Open Water (0%)
WF2 - Forest (16%), Cultivated (57%), Grassland (20%), Shrubland (4%), Urban (3%), Open Water (0%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
4%
Project Drainage Area (acres)EF1 226, WF1 58, WF2 131, Meadow Branch 4,472
3040105070060
03-07-14
EF1 WF1
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
DWR Sub-basin
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID #SAW-2012-01107
DWR# 18-0264
Morphological Description (stream type) - Post-Restoration
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Drainage area (acres)
No N/A N/A
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)No N/A N/A
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)Yes Yes
Yes
Riparian Riverine
Applicable?Supporting Documentation
Soil Hydric Status
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes
W-H1 W-H2
0.28 0.30
Tatum/ Chewacla Chewacla
Well Drained/ Poorly Drained Poorly Drained
No / Yes Yes
Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Meadow
Branch EF1 WF1 WF2
Riffle Cross-Section N/A 2 1 1 N/A
Pool Cross-Section N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Year 0
Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Year 0
Substrate Reach Wide (RW)
Pebble Count N/A 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 3
Hydrology Crest Gage (CG) and
or/Transducer (SG)N/A 1 CG 1 CG 1 CG N/A Quarterly 4
Wetland Hydrology Groundwater Gages N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 Quarterly
Vegetation CVS Level 2/Mobile
plots Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 5
Visual Assessment Semi-Annual
Exotic and Nuisance Vegetation Semi-Annual 6
Project Boundary Semi-Annual 7
Reference Photos Photographs Annual
Notes:
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile was collected during the as-built baseline monitoring survey only,
unless observations indicate widespread lack of vertical stability (greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor
adjustments or survey repair work.
1. Cross-sections were permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull,
edge of water, and thalweg.
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling were collected during the baseline monitoring only. A reach-wide pebble count will be performed on each restoration or
enhancement I reach each year for classification purposes.
4. Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected and downloaded quarterly or semi-annually. Evidence of bankfull events such as rack lines or floodplain
deposition will be documented with a photo when possible. Transducers, if used, will be set to record stage once every three hours.
5. Permanent vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document number of
planted stems, height, and species using a circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot.
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
7. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
2
Frequency Notes
1DimensionYear 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
18
Parameter Monitoring Feature
16 (12 permanent, 4 mobile)
Yes
Wetlands
Quantity / Length by Reach
03040105070060
03040 105070050
03040105070070
03040105070040
03040105081030
03040105081020
03040105070020
03040105081040
Union County, NC
Figure 1 Project Vicinity MapDeep Meadow Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97131Monitoring Year 0 - 2020¹
Hydrologic Unit Code (14 digit)
NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed
Project Location
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundar y and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
Directions to Site:From Charlotte: Take US‐74 E for approximately 9.5 miles. Keep left to continue on Monroe Expy/ U.S. 74 Bypass Road for approximately 15.4 miles. Take exit 270 toward Wingate. Turn right onto Austin Chaney Road. In 0.1 miles, turn left onto McIntyre Road. In 2.2 miles, turn left onto the farm road into the site.
0 1.5 3 Miles
EF1
WF2
Meadow BranchWF1
W-E6
W-E5
W-E2
W-E4
W-E3
W-E7
W-E10
W-H2 W-E9
W-E8
W-H1Me
a
d
o
w Br
a
n
c
h
W-E1
0 200 400 Feet
Figure 2 Project Component/ Asset Map
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020¹
Project Site
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Non-Project Streams
Union County, NC
2019 Aerial Photography
EF1
WF2
Meadow BranchWF1
W-E6
W-E5
W-E2
W-E4
W-E3
W-E7
W-E10
W-H2 W-E9
W-E8
W-E1Meadow Br
anc
h2
3
W-H1
5
PP8
PP7
PP9
PP6
PP5
PP4
PP3
PP2PP1
PP13
PP14
PP15
PP16
PP10
PP11PP12
PP17 PP18
CG1
CG3
CG2
GWG1
GWG3
GWG2
GWG5
GWG4
GWG6
GWG8
GWG9
GWG7
GWG10
GWG11
BAROTROLLXS6
XS3XS4XS1X
S
2
X
S
5
1
12
11
10
4
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
0 250 500 Feet
Figure 3.0 As-Built Monitoring Plan View (Key)
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020¹
Project Site
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Non-Project Streams
Vegetation Plots
Vegetation Plots (Mobile)
Cross Sections
!A Barotroll
!A Groundwater Gage
!A Crest Gage
GF Photo Points
Union County, NC
2019 Aerial Photography
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
GWG11
GWG10
GWG7
GWG9
GWG8
GWG6
GWG4
BAROTROLL
GWG5
GWG2
GWG3
CG3
GWG1
PP1
PP2
PP3
PP4
PP18PP17
PP5
PP6
PP10
PP9
PP16
PP15
PP7
PP8 XS
4X
S5 XS6EF1
WF2
Meadow BranchW-E6
W-E5
W-E2
W-E4
W-E3
W-E7
W-E10
W-H2
W-E9
W-E8
W-E1Meadow Br
a
nch2
3
W-H1
5
1
12
11
10
4
6
8
9
1
3
4
207+00
208+00209+00210+00
2 1 1 +0 0212+00104+00105+00107+00108+00109+00110+00111+00112+00113+001
1
5
+
0
0
1
1
6
+
0
0117+00119+00120+00121+00122+00123+00124+001
2
5
+
0
0 126+00302+00
303+00304+00
305+00
0 150 300 Feet
Figure 3.1 As-Built Monitoring Plan View
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020¹
Project Site
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Non-Project Streams
Bankfull
Vegetation Plots
Vegetation Plots (Mobile)
Cross Sections
!A Barotroll
!A Groundwater Gage
!A Crest Gage
GF Photo Points
Union County, NC
2019 Aerial Photography
EF1
Meadow BranchWF1
W-E2
W-E7
W-E1
W-H1
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4 202+00203+00205+00207+00
208+00209+00210+00
2 1 1 +0 0212+004 0 1 +0 0 401+93
101+001
0
2+
0
0 104+00105+00107+00108+00109+00110+00111+00112+00113+000 150 300 Feet
Figure 3.2 As-Built Monitoring Plan View
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020¹
Project Site
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Non-Project Streams
Bankfull
Vegetation Plots
Vegetation Plots (Mobile)
Cross Sections
!A Barotroll
!A Groundwater Gage
!A Crest Gage
GF Photo Points
Union County, NC
2019 Aerial Photography

MEETING NOTES

MEETING: Post-Contract IRT Site Walk
DEEP MEADOW Mitigation Site
Yadkin 03040105; Union County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 6887
Wildlands Project No. 005-02162

DATE: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 @ 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM

LOCATION: McIntyre Road
Wingate, NC 28174

Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
David Shaeffer, USACE
Harry Tsomides, DMS Project Manager
Paul Wiesner, DMS
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands Engineering
John Hutton, Wildlands Engineering
Eric Neuhaus, Wildlands Engineering Assistant Project Manager

Materials
 Wildlands Engineering Technical Proposal dated 3/15/2016 in response to DMS RFP 16-006785

Meeting Notes
1. Overview of project from farm road entrance off of McIntyre Road in Wingate, NC.
2. Discussed proposed project approach for both wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment and stream
enhancement and restoration. Site includes stream enhancement on Meadow Branch and UT3, stream
restoration on UT1 and UT2, and wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation in the floodplain of
Meadow Branch.
3. There was general discussion about the Hydric Soil Investigation done for the proposal stage by Michael
Wood and Three Oaks Engineering. Soil units including hydric, hydric over hydric, non-hydric over hydric,
and non-hydric were defined for potential wetland restoration areas on-site. IRT agreed with the overall
information presented in the report and Wildlands noted this information would be used to guide
overburden removal and delineation of wetland restoration areas during design.
4. The field walk began at the existing ford crossing along Meadow Branch. The group crossed Meadow
Branch at the existing ford and observed high flow in the reach from precipitation the night before the
meeting. The overall condition of Meadow Branch was discussed as well as the proposed enhancement.
Wildlands noted that more significant bank repair work than might be typical of an enhancement two
approach may be necessary on Meadow Branch.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Post-Contract IRT Site Walk
5. The Meadow Branch floodplain was planted in corn approximately 8 to 10 feet tall. Wildlands extended
an invitation to the IRT to set up another site visit in the fall after the corn in the floodplain has been
harvested.
6. Wildlands was asked about the potential for drain tiles on the site. Currently it is difficult to tell with the
floodplain in corn, but this winter after the corn is harvested a detailed inspection will be done for drain
tiles.
7. The group continued along the perimeter farm road that follows the western proposed easement
boundary to get an overview of topography and landscape position of the wetland restoration areas.
8. The group stopped at the upstream easement boundary for UT2 (just before the stream enters the
active corn field) to look at the flow and overall condition of the channel. Todd, Shawn, and Harry
walked upstream of project limits to look at the condition of UT2 in the wooded area upstream of the
agricultural fields. UT2 had steady flow in the channel the day of the meeting.
9. There was general discussion around intermittent channels and swales. The IRT prefers that these do
not comprise more than 20% of mitigation sites. Wildlands discussed our approach on limiting the
amount of intermittent channels in projects, but also noted the benefit of including these areas if there
is potential to eliminate major water quality stressors.
10. The field walk continued north along the western boundary of the proposed easement. The group
looked at the current ditch network and area proposed for wetland re-establishment in the left
floodplain of Meadow Branch. It was noted by both Wildlands and IRT that the ditch at the toe of slope
is negatively effecting wetland hydrology in this area.
11. The group entered the corn field in the left floodplain of Deep Meadow and took a soil boring to look at
in-situ soils and the possibility for wetland restoration. Overall, it was agreed upon by Wildlands and IRT
that the soil in wetland 1 was hydric and that the proposed approach of wetland re-establishment is
valid based on the existing ditch network, landscape position, and soil classification.
12. Overall the soils on-site are mapped as Chewacla but wetter areas are indicative of wehadkee inclusions.
13. The group continued into the potential reference wetland area on the parcel north of the proposed
project parcel in the left floodplain of Meadow Branch (PIN 09043010). Wildlands plans to install a
groundwater monitoring gage in this area for use during wetland design and monitoring but is waiting
on landowner approval. The group observed established vegetation and in-situ soils and confirmed that
the area was suitable for use as a reference wetland area for the project. The IRT noted that Meadow
Branch in this area was not in a reference condition. Wildlands agreed and maintained that the stream
would not be used as a reference for design.
14. Within the reference wetland area, there was general discussion about wetland design approach.
Wildlands noted that hydrology performance criteria will be set based on an iterative process using a
DRAINMOD hydrologic model and hydrology data from the proposed wetland reference area.
Additionally, Wildlands noted one other potential reference wetland upstream of the project that will be
considered as additional information for establishing hydrology performance criteria. The range of
wetland hydroperiod for performance criteria was listed between 7.5% and 12% in the proposal
documentation. Todd stated that the IRT would likely expect a higher hydroperiod for the proposed
project area.
15. There was general discussion about the use of soil temperature probes to set the growing season for
wetland hydroperiod. Wildlands and IRT agreed that the use of soil temperature probes can be valuable
for obtaining information about the growing season, however, regardless of recorded soil temperatures,
the beginning of the growing season should be set at a minimum of March 1.
16. Todd asked about anticipated grading for the removal of overburden material for wetland restoration.
Wildlands noted that hydrology data will affect the amount of overburden removal, but it is anticipated
that overburden removal would be required in wetland 1 (wetland in left floodplain at the downstream
end of the project) but that grading in depressional wetland areas such as wetland 2 would not be

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Post-Contract IRT Site Walk
necessary. Generally, depressional wetland areas will not be graded but ditch networks will be plugged
and depressional topography left. Corn growth in isolated depressional areas was stunted indicating a
high water table.
17. The group walked back over to the east side of the site to observe the current condition of UT1. On the
day of the site walk, UT1 had steady flow. Wildlands discussed why restoration was proposed on UT1
and it was agreed that this approach was appropriate. Wildlands noted that in some areas along UT1 the
proposed channel may tie to the exiting channel to take advantage of existing grade control.
18. There was general discussion about the use of wood in slate belt streams, and how low flows could
affect the longevity of grade control. Wildlands noted the concern and will consider this issue during
design.
19. It was noted that easement breaks will remain at existing crossing locations along Meadow Branch and
UT1.
20. David Shaeffer noted that Wildlands needs to ensure that Landowner Authorization forms are submitted
with Jurisdictional Determination requests to ensure that USACE has all the proper paperwork for right
of entry prior to site review. Additionally, it was discussed that the JD requests should be submitted via
hardcopy to the Asheville office and that the Asheville office will pass it on to David within 7 to 10
business days. Once David receives the package from the Asheville office, a time and date for site review
will be sent to Wildlands via email.
APPENDIX 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 6. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)10.3 13.1
Floodprone Width (ft)29 >39 18 36 26 70 30 68 57.0 64.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.8 1.0
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)1 5.0 7.9
Width/Depth Ratio 21.3 21.9
Entrenchment Ratio3 4.9 5.5
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)16.0 41.3 37.4 51.8
Profile
Riffle Length1 (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)1 ------------------0.014 0.036 0.007 0.031 ------0.00963 0.04802 0.00191 0.07879
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.4 2.6 1.4 2 1.5 2.8 1.3 2.3
Pool Spacing (ft)34 53 42 81 ------22 69 41 75 ------57 87 38 73
Pool Volume (ft3)1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)23 56 23 57 23 56 23 57
Radius of Curvature (ft)18 27 20 35 18 27 20 35
Rc/Bankfull Width 2.1 3.1 2.3 4.0 2.1 3.1 2.3 4.0
Meander Length (ft)73 135 93 146 73 135 93 146
Meander Width Ratio 2.7 6.5 2.7 6.5 2.7 6.5 2.7 6.5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.24 0.29
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)2.1 2.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)10 18
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope1 (ft/ft)
1. As-Built/ Baseline channel slope (ft/ft) was measured from channel bed rather than water surface slope due to a dry channel during survey data collection
2. Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
3. ER is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1.4
6.1
1.50.9
5.1
7.5
1.4
8.0
8.4
8.2
5.02.2 6.0
---
3.3 3.4
13 24
0.1/18.0/35.9/98.3/
160.7/256.0
SC/0.2/8.0/67.2/
128.0/256.0
1,201
---------
E4
0.0094 ------
1.04
0.0166 0.0170
---------
1.00 1.00
136 391
Pre-Restoration Condition
4%
0.35
E4
1.6
G4
---SC/SC/SC/36.7/78
.5/180.0
---
---
---
---
------
4.1
2.2
3.3
SC/10.5/19.7/68.5/
>2048/>2048
1.401.40 1.301.00
---
0.00780.01350.02740.0192 0.0168 0.0101 0.00950.0160 0.0133
1,3221361364581,322
1.30---
0.0167 0.0183 0.0124
458
---9712644 ------
---------13 24 36---------
3.44.1 4.5
10 20 30102030
3.2
0.35
B4 C3/4C4C4bE4E4
N/A
0.09 0.20
4%4%
0.20 0.350.090.09 0.20
90---
0.49 0.68 0.59
---
---0.59
103
N/A
SC/0.3/12.1/81.3/1
37.0/256.0------
N/A2N/A2------
N/A2N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2N/A2
N/A2N/A2
---N/A
---
---
N/A
---
---
---
---N/A N/A
---
37.5
1.0
---------SC
1.03.4 1.0
7.3
1.3
1.0
3.8
4.4
0.7
4.0
1.4
6.6
1.0
12.0
6.6
9.8
13.3
8.9
12.0
N/A
4.9
0.7
>82
3.2 8.7
WF2 EF1 WF1
1.1
6.0
8.1
0.9
1.1
0.7
10.2
0.8
---
13.621.3
As-Built/BaselineDesign
1.2
64.5
1.0
EF1WF1WF2 WF2 EF1WF1
24.4
9.3
0.70.4
7.1
---
---
15.0 12.7
N/A
---
---
---
---
---
Deep Meadow Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97131Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020Parameter GageMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxBankfull Width (ft) 8.8 10.411.5 12.36.3 9.3 18.5 19.4 14.8 18.6Floodprone Width (ft) 28.0 31.0 14.0 125.0 55.0 101.0Bankfull Mean Depth 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 2.1Bankfull Max Depth 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.8 2.1 1.9 2.9Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)7.8 8.5 8.9 12.2 6.6 8.7 23.9 24.1Width/Depth Ratio 10.0 12.8 12.3 14.4 7.9 9.3 14.3 15.7 7.9 13.8Entrenchment Ratio 2.5 4.0 2.5 2.7 1.7 4.3 2.9 5.3Bank Height Ratio 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.5‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.2 1.5D50 (mm)Riffle Length (ft)Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.018 0.036 0.015 0.035 0.018 0.034 0.061 0.089‐‐‐ ‐‐‐0.012 0.013Pool Length (ft)Pool Max Depth (ft) 14.7 16.0 2.5 2.9 1.2 1.8 2.5 2.9Pool Spacing (ft) 33 93 49 91 9 46 26 81‐‐‐ ‐‐‐50 105Pool Volume (ft3)Channel Beltwidth (ft) 10 50Radius of Curvature (ft) 23 38 12 85 16 87Rc/Bankfull Width 2.0 3.1 1.9 9.1 1.1 4.7Meander Length (ft) 53 178‐‐‐ ‐‐‐Meander Width Ratio 8.3 8.9 1.6 5.4 3.2 4.1Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfullStream Power (Capacity) W/m2Drainage Area (SM)Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)Rosgen ClassificationBankfull Velocity (fps) 5.0 5.6Bankfull Discharge (cfs)Q‐NFF regression (2‐yr)Q‐USGS extrapolation (1.2‐yr)Q‐ManningsValley Length (ft)Channel Thalweg Length (ft)Sinuosity 1.00 1.30Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.0131 0.0178 0.0190 0.0220SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided N/A:  Not Applicable27.812.272.41.316.39.16.01.022.6‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ProfilePattern61.0 41.6‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2.21.011.0‐‐‐ ‐‐‐2.2>50.034.6>3.4‐‐‐Dimension and Substrate ‐ RiffleFoust Creek US Long BranchUT to Richland Creek 31.0‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Additional Reach Parameters1.860‐‐‐Table 7. Reference Reach Data SummaryUT to Cane Creek Spencer Creek 3UT to Rocky CreekN/A‐‐‐‐‐‐1.49Reference Reach Data8.1/26.6/41.6/124.8/225.51.40‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐N/A‐‐‐ ‐‐‐102N/A‐‐‐‐‐‐1.9/8.9/11/64/128‐‐‐Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters<0.063/2.4/22.6/120/256N/A0.6/12.2/27.8/74.5/128‐‐‐9.6/37/61/130/1100‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐N/A0.37 1.053532‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.003.8 4.00.015085‐‐‐E4124C4 C/E45.5‐‐‐401.400.29‐‐‐E41.30‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.10‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐0.0040‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐0.0240‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐0.0090‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐4.04.10.28C4/E495E4b
Table 8.  Morphology and Hydraulic  Summary (Dimensional Parameters ‐ Cross‐Section)Deep Meadow Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97131Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020Dimension and SubstrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7bankfull elevation 485.90 491.66Bankfull Width (ft) 9.3 11.6Floodprone Width (ft) 13.3 N/ABankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 1.0Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.7 1.8Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)4.0 11.1Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 21.3 12.1Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio11.4 N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 N/ADimension and SubstrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7bankfull elevation 491.48 487.26Bankfull Width (ft) 10.3 13.1Floodprone Width (ft) 57.0 64.9Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.6Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8 1.0Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)5.0 7.9Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 21.3 21.9Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio15.5 4.9Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7bankfull elevation 485.68 485.50Bankfull Width (ft) 11.3 9.8Floodprone Width (ft) N/A 64.5Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 0.7Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.8 1.2Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)9.9 7.1Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.0 13.6Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1N/A 6.6Bankfull Bank Height Ratio N/A 1.01. ER is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain.N/A:  Not ApplicableWF2 Cross‐Section 5, Pool WF2 Cross‐Section 6, RiffleWF1 Cross‐Section 1, Riffle EF1 Cross‐Section 2, PoolEF1 Cross‐Section 3, Riffle EF1 Cross‐Section 4, Riffle
DMS Project No. 97131Longitudinal Profile PlotsDeep Meadow Mitigation SiteMonitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020WF1 (STA 400+75 to 401+95)XS1482484486488400754012540175Elevation (feet)Station (feet)TW (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)LBKF/LTOB (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)RBKF/RTOB (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)STRUCTURE (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)
DMS Project No. 97131Longitudinal Profile PlotsDeep Meadow Mitigation SiteMonitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020EF1 (STA 200+00 to 207+00)EF1 (STA 207+00 to 214+00)XS2XS348748848949049149249349449549649749849920000 20050 20100 20150 20200 20250 20300 20350 20400 20450 20500 20550 20600 20650 20700Elevation (feet)Station (feet)TW (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)LBKF/LTOB (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)RBKF/RTOB (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)STRUCTURE (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)WSF (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)XS448048148248348448548648748848949049149220700 20750 20800 20850 20900 20950 21000 21050 21100 21150 21200 21250 21300 21350 21400Elevation (feet)Station (feet)TW (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)LBKF/LTOB (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)RBKF/RTOB (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)STRUCTURE (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)WSF (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)
DMS Project No. 97131Longitudinal Profile PlotsDeep Meadow Mitigation SiteMonitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020WF2 (STA 301+25 to 305+75)XS5XS648048148248348448548648748830125 30175 30225 30275 30325 30375 30425 30475 30525 30575Elevation (feet)Station (feet)TW (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)LBKF/LTOB (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)RBKF/RTOB (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)STRUCTURE (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)WSF (MY0 ‐ 10/2019)
Cross‐Section  1 ‐ WF1Bankfull Dimensions4.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)9.3 width (ft)0.4 mean depth (ft)0.7 max depth (ft) 9.4 wetted perimeter (ft)0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)21.3 width‐depth ratio13.3 W flood prone area (ft)1.4 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 11/2019Field Crew: KeeDeep Meadow Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97131Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020View Downstream48448648851525Elevation (ft)Width (ft)401+04 RiffleMY0 (11/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  2 ‐ EF1Bankfull Dimensions11.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.)11.6 width (ft)1.0 mean depth (ft)1.8 max depth (ft) 12.3 wetted perimeter (ft)0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)12.1 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 11/2019Field Crew: KeeDeep Meadow Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97131Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020View Downstream48949049149210 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)204+19 PoolMY0 (11/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  3 ‐ EF1Bankfull Dimensions5.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)10.3 width (ft)0.5 mean depth (ft)0.8 max depth (ft) 10.5 wetted perimeter (ft)0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)21.3 width‐depth ratio57.0 W flood prone area (ft)5.5 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 11/2019Field Crew: KeeDeep Meadow Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97131Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020View Downstream49049149249310 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)204+36 RiffleMY0 (11/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  4 ‐ EF1Bankfull Dimensions7.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.)13.1 width (ft)0.6 mean depth (ft)1.0 max depth (ft) 13.4 wetted perimeter (ft)0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)21.9 width‐depth ratio64.9 W flood prone area (ft)4.9 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 11/2019Field Crew: KeeDeep Meadow Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97131Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020View Downstream48648748848910 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)210+89 RiffleMY0 (11/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  5 ‐ WF2Bankfull Dimensions9.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.)11.3 width (ft)0.9 mean depth (ft)1.8 max depth (ft) 12.0 wetted perimeter (ft)0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)13.0 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 11/2019Field Crew: KeeDeep Meadow Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97131Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020View Downstream48348448548648715 25 35 45 55Elevation (ft)Width (ft)303+49 PoolMY0 (11/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  6 ‐ WF2Bankfull Dimensions7.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.)9.8 width (ft)0.7 mean depth (ft)1.2 max depth (ft) 10.2 wetted perimeter (ft)0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)13.6 width‐depth ratio64.5 W flood prone area (ft)6.6 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 11/2019Field Crew: KeeDeep Meadow Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97131Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020View Downstream48348448548648720 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)303+81 RiffleMY0 (11/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Reachwide Pebble Count Plotsmin max Riffle Pool TotalClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay 0.000 0.062 5 5 10 10 10Very fine 0.062 0.125 2 4 6 6 16Fine 0.125 0.250 16Medium 0.25 0.50 1 2 3 3 19Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 2 2 21Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 1 1 2 2 23Very Fine 2.0 2.8 23Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 24Fine 4.0 5.6 2 1 3 3 27Fine 5.6 8.0 1 2 3 3 30Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 2 32Medium 11.0 16.0 1 1 1 33Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 3 6 6 39Coarse 22.6 32 1 6 7 7 46Very Coarse 32 45 7 5 12 12 58Very Coarse 45 64 7 10 17 17 75Small 64 90 4 2 6 6 81Small 90 128 8 4 12 12 93Large 128 180 3 3 3 96Large 180 256 3 1 4 4 100Small 256 362 100Small 362 512 100Medium 512 1024 100Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100BEDROCKBedrock 2048 >2048 10050 50 100 100 100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = Deep Meadow Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97131Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020WF1, ReachwideParticle ClassDiameter (mm)ReachwideReach SummarySANDGRAVELParticle CountCOBBLEBOULDERTotal 256.0Channel materials (mm)0.118.035.998.3160.70102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0‐12/201901020304050607080901000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0‐12/2019Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockWF1, ReachwideWF1, Reachwide
Reachwide Pebble Count Plotsmin max Riffle Pool TotalClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay 0.000 0.062 1 21 22 22 22Very fine 0.062 0.125 8 8 8 30Fine 0.125 0.250 4 4 4 34Medium 0.25 0.50 1 6 7 7 41Coarse 0.5 1.0 3 3 3 44Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 2 2 46Very Fine 2.0 2.8 46Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 47Fine 4.0 5.6 47Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 1 48Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 1 49Medium 11.0 16.0 3 1 4 4 53Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 2 5 5 58Coarse 22.6 32 5 5 5 63Very Coarse 32 45 2 2 2 65Very Coarse 45 64 12 12 12 77Small 64 90 9 1 10 10 87Small 90 128 6 1 7 7 94Large 128 180 5 5 5 99Large 180 256 1 1 1 100Small 256 362 100Small 362 512 100Medium 512 1024 100Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100BEDROCKBedrock 2048 >2048 10050 50 100 100 100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = Deep Meadow Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97131Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020EF1, ReachwideParticle ClassDiameter (mm)ReachwideReach SummarySANDGRAVELParticle CountCOBBLEBOULDERTotal 256.0Channel materials (mm)Silt/Clay0.312.181.3137.00102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0‐12/201901020304050607080901000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0‐12/2019Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockEF1, ReachwideEF1, Reachwide
Reachwide Pebble Count Plotsmin max Riffle Pool TotalClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay 0.000 0.062 2 21 23 23 23Deep Meadow Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97131Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020WF2, ReachwideParticle ClassDiameter (mm) Reach SummaryParticle CountVery fine 0.062 0.125 8 8 8 31Fine 0.125 0.250 1 8 9 9 40Medium 0.25 0.50 3 3 3 43Coarse 0.5 1.0 43Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 43SANDVery Fine 2.0 2.8 43Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 2 3 3 46Fine 4.0 5.6 3 3 3 49Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 1 50Medium 8.0 11.0 2 1 3 3 53Medium 11.0 16.0 1 1 1 54Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 1 4 4 58Coarse 22.6 32 2 1 3 3 61Very Coarse 32 45 2 2 2 63Very Coarse 45 64 20 20 20 83GRAVELSmall 64 90 7 7 7 90Small 90 128 5 5 5 95Large 128 180 3 3 3 98Large 180 256 2 2 2 100COBBLESmall 256 362 100Small 362 512 100Medium 512 1024 100Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100BEDROCKBedrock 2048 >2048 10050 50 100 100 100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = ReachwideBOULDERTotal 256.0Channel materials (mm)Silt/Clay0.28.067.2128.00102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0‐12/201901020304050607080901000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0‐12/2019Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockWF2, ReachwideWF2, Reachwide
Cross‐Section Pebble Count Plotsmin maxClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay 0.000 0.062 11 11 11Very fine 0.062 0.125 5 5 16Fine 0.125 0.250 2 2 18Medium 0.25 0.50 1 1 19Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 20Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 4 4 24Very Fine 2.0 2.8 24Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 25Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 26Fine 5.6 8.0 4 4 30Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 32Medium 11.0 16.0 4 4 36Coarse 16.0 22.6 10 10 46Coarse 22.6 32 18 18 64Very Coarse 32 45 10 10 74Very Coarse 45 64 11 11 85Small 64 90 6 6 91Small 90 128 4 4 95Large 128 180 3 3 98Large 180 256 2 2 100Small 256 362 100Small 362 512 100Medium 512 1024 100Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100BEDROCKBedrock 2048 >2048 100100 100 100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = Deep Meadow Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97131Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020WF1, Cross‐Section 1Particle ClassDiameter (mm)Cross‐Section 1SummarySANDGRAVELRiffle 100‐CountCOBBLEBOULDERTotal 256.0Channel materials (mm)0.114.624.462.0128.00102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0‐12/201901020304050607080901000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0‐12/2019Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockWF1, Cross‐Section 1WF1, Cross‐Section 1
Cross‐Section Pebble Count Plotsmin maxClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay 0.000 0.062 3 3 3Deep Meadow Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97131Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020EF1, Cross‐Section 3Particle ClassDiameter (mm)SummaryRiffle 100‐CountVery fine 0.062 0.125 1 1 4Fine 0.125 0.250 3 3 7Medium 0.25 0.50 7Coarse 0.5 1.0 7Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 7SANDVery Fine 2.0 2.8 7Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 8Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 9Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 10Medium 8.0 11.0 3 3 13Medium 11.0 16.0 3 3 16Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 5 21Coarse 22.6 32 10 10 31Very Coarse 32 45 13 13 44Very Coarse 45 64 15 15 59GRAVELSmall 64 90 9 9 68Small 90 128 15 15 83Large 128 180 6 6 89Large 180 256 8 8 97COBBLESmall 256 362 2 2 99Small 362 512 1 1 100Medium 512 1024 100Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100BEDROCKBedrock 2048 >2048 100100 100 100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = Cross‐Section 3BOULDERTotal 512.0Channel materials (mm)16.035.551.8135.5234.40102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0‐12/201901020304050607080901000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0‐12/2019Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockEF1, Cross‐Section 3EF1, Cross‐Section 3
Cross‐Section Pebble Count Plotsmin maxClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay 0.000 0.062 4 4 4Deep Meadow Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97131Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020EF1, Cross‐Section 4Particle ClassDiameter (mm)SummaryRiffle 100‐CountVery fine 0.062 0.125 4Fine 0.125 0.250 2 2 6Medium 0.25 0.50 3 3 9Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 10Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 2 12SANDVery Fine 2.0 2.8 12Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 13Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 14Fine 5.6 8.0 14Medium 8.0 11.0 3 3 17Medium 11.0 16.0 6 6 23Coarse 16.0 22.6 13 13 36Coarse 22.6 32 9 9 45Very Coarse 32 45 11 11 56Very Coarse 45 64 17 17 73GRAVELSmall 64 90 11 11 84Small 90 128 7 7 91Large 128 180 5 5 96Large 180 256 2 2 98COBBLESmall 256 362 1 1 99Small 362 512 1 1 100Medium 512 1024 100Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100BEDROCKBedrock 2048 >2048 100100 100 100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = Cross‐Section 4BOULDERTotal 512.0Channel materials (mm)9.922.037.490.0168.10102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0‐12/201901020304050607080901000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0‐12/2019Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockEF1, Cross‐Section 4EF1, Cross‐Section 4
Cross‐Section Pebble Count Plotsmin maxClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay 0.000 0.062 2 2 2Deep Meadow Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97131Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020WF2, Cross‐Section 6Particle ClassDiameter (mm)SummaryRiffle 100‐CountVery fine 0.062 0.125 2Fine 0.125 0.250 2Medium 0.25 0.50 2 2 4Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 2 6Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 1 1 7SANDVery Fine 2.0 2.8 7Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 8Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 9Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 11Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 12Medium 11.0 16.0 5 5 17Coarse 16.0 22.6 9 9 26Coarse 22.6 32 18 18 44Very Coarse 32 45 13 13 57Very Coarse 45 64 14 14 71GRAVELSmall 64 90 9 9 80Small 90 128 8 8 88Large 128 180 7 7 95Large 180 256 5 5 100COBBLESmall 256 362 100Small 362 512 100Medium 512 1024 100Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100BEDROCKBedrock 2048 >2048 100100 100 100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = Cross‐Section 6BOULDERTotal 256.0Channel materials (mm)14.826.937.5107.3180.00102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0‐12/201901020304050607080901000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0‐12/2019Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockWF2, Cross‐Section 6WF2, Cross‐Section 6

Stream Photographs 
Monitoring Year 0 

Photo Point 1 – W‐E10, North (12/16/2019) Photo Point 1 – W‐E10, South (12/16/2019)
  Photo Point 1 – W‐E10, East (12/16/2019) Photo Point 1 – W‐E10, West (12/16/2019) 
Photo Point 2 – MB, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 2 – MB, view downstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 3 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 3 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (12/16/2019) 
Photo Point 4 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 4 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (12/16/2019) 
Photo Point 4 – WF2 Confluence, view upstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 5 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 5 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (12/16/2019) 
Photo Point 6 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 6 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 7 – MB/EF1 confluence, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 7 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 8 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 8 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 9 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 9 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 10 – MB, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 10 – MB, view downstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 11 – MB, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 11 –MB, view downstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 11 –WF1 Confluence, view upstream (12/18/2019) 

Photo Point 12 – WF1, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 12 – WF1, view downstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 13 – EF1, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 13 – EF1, view downstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 14 – EF1, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 14 – EF1, view downstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 15 – EF1, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 15 – EF1, view downstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 16 – EF1, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 16 – EF1, view downstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 17 – WF2, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 17 – WF2, view downstream (12/16/2019) 

Photo Point 18 – WF2, view upstream (12/16/2019) Photo Point 18 – WF2, view downstream (12/16/2019) 
APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Permanent Vegetation Plot MY0 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
1 Y
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
Mobile Vegetation Plot MY0 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
1 Y
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
100%
100%
100%
Tract Mean (MY0 - 2020)
Table 10. CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Report Prepared By Jeffrey Turner
Date Prepared 12/19/2019 13:27
Database Name cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0_Deep Meadow (MY0).mdb
Database Location Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name JEFF-PC
File Size 76288000
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
Project Code 97131
Project Name Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Description Stream and wetland mitigation project in Union County, NC.
Sampled Plots 12
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree 2 2 2
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon, Possumwood Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 3 3 3
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 2 2 2
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane-tree Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak Tree
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
8 8 8 9 9 9 7 7 7 9 9 9
607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree 2 2 2
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 2 2 2
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon, Possumwood Tree 2 2 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree 2 2 2
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 3
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane-tree Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 2 2 2
Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
7 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7
607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10% P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
1 1 1
0.02
Stems per ACRE
size (ACRES)0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count
size (ACRES)
size (ares)
1
Stem count
Permanent Plot 5 Permanent Plot 6
0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count
Stems per ACRE
0.02
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY0 2020)
Permanent Plot 7 Permanent Plot 8
size (ares)
Table 11a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Stem count
Permanent Plot 2
1
Permanent Plot 1 Permanent Plot 4
1 1 1
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY0 2020)
Permanent Plot 3
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon, Possumwood Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 1 1 1
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 4 4 4
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane-tree Tree 3 3 3 5 5 5 2 2 2
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak Tree
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3
15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
6 6 6 6 6 6 9 9 9 6 6 6
607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree 6 6 6
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 26 26 26
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree 8 8 8
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 10 10 10
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon, Possumwood Tree 13 13 13
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 7 7 7
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree 12 12 12
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 17 17 17
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane-tree Tree 27 27 27
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 13 13 13
Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 18 18 18
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 22 22 22
180 180 180
13 13 13
607 607 607
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10% P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
size (ACRES)0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Permanent Vegetation Plot Annual Mean
MY0 (2020)
Stem count
size (ares)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Species count
Stems per ACRE
12
size (ACRES)0.30
1 1
Table 11b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Permanent Plot 9 Permanent Plot 10 Permanent Plot 11 Permanent Plot 12
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY0 2020)
Stem count
size (ares)1 1
Deep Meadow Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97131Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2020Annual MeanScientific Name Common Name Species Type MP1 MP2 MP3 MP4 MY0 (2020)PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLSAlnus serrulataTag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel AlderShrub Tree 11Betula nigraRiver Birch, Red Birch Tree 1 7 19Cephalanthus occidentalisButtonbush Shrub Tree 22Cornus amomumSilky Dogwood Shrub Tree 11Fraxinus pennsylvanicaGreen Ash, Red Ash Tree 1 23Lindera benzoinNorthern Spicebush Shrub Tree 11Liriodendron tulipiferaTulip PoplarTree 2 35Platanus occidentalisSycamore, Plane‐tree Tree494320Populus deltoidesEastern Cottonwood Tree 1 2 14Quercus michauxiiBasket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 22Quercus pagodaCherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak Tree 1 45Quercus phellosWillow OakTree5112916 17 16 13 621111 40.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.10855712647 688 647 526 627Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MY0 (2020)PnoLSAlnus serrulataTag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel AlderShrub Tree7Betula nigraRiver Birch, Red Birch Tree35Cephalanthus occidentalisButtonbush Shrub Tree10Cornus amomumSilky Dogwood Shrub Tree11Diospyros virginianaAmerican Persimmon, Possumwood Tree13Fraxinus pennsylvanicaGreen Ash, Red Ash Tree10Lindera benzoinNorthern Spicebush Shrub Tree13Liriodendron tulipiferaTulip PoplarTree22Platanus occidentalisSycamore, Plane‐tree Tree47Populus deltoidesEastern Cottonwood Tree17Quercus michauxiiBasket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree20Quercus pagodaCherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak Tree6Quercus phellosWillow OakTree31242160.4013612Color for DensityPnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakesExceeds requirements by 10% P‐all: Number of planted stems including live stakesExceeds requirements, but by less than 10%T: Total stemsFails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteer species included in totalTable 11c. Planted and Total Stem Countssize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACRECurrent Mobile Vegetation Plot (MP) Data (MY0 2020)Overall Site Annual MeanStem countsize (ares)Species countsize (ACRES)Stems per ACREStem count

Vegetation Photographs
Monitoring Year 0

Vegetation Plot 1 - (12/18/2019) Vegetation Plot 2 - (12/16/2019)

Vegetation Plot 3 - (12/16/2019) Vegetation Plot 4 - (12/16/2019)

Vegetation Plot 5 - (12/16/2019) Vegetation Plot 6 - (12/16/2019)

Vegetation Plot 7 - (12/16/2019) Vegetation Plot 8 - (12/16/2019)

Vegetation Plot 9 - (12/16/2019) Vegetation Plot 10 - (12/16/2019)

Vegetation Plot 11 - (12/16/2019) Vegetation Plot 12 - (12/16/2019)

Mobile Vegetation Plot Photographs
Monitoring Year 0

Mobile Vegetation Plot 1 - North (01/10/2020) Mobile Vegetation Plot 2 – North (01/10/2020)

Mobile Vegetation Plot 3 - North (12/16/2019) Mobile Vegetation Plot 4 - North (12/16/2019)

APPENDIX 4. Record Drawings
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Record Drawings
Union County, North Carolina
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040105
for
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
Title Sheet 0.1
General Notes and Symbols 0.2
Project Overview 0.3
Stream Plan and Profile 1.1-1.11
Wetland Grading 2.1-2.2
Planting List 3.1
Planting Plan 3.2-3.4
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
BEFORE YOU DIG!
IT'S THE LAW!
CALL 1-800-632-4949
N.C. ONE-CALL CENTER
Sheet Index
Project Directory
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:RECORD DRAWINGS
ISSUED MARCH 6, 2020
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-CoverNotes.dwgMarch 9, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaTitle Sheet005-02162HCBJCKASE0.1March 6, 2020SITE
N
Wingate, NC
Marshville, NC
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
License No. F-0831
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Aaron S. Earley, PE
704-332-7754
Existing Condition Surveying:
Turner Land Surveying
PO Box 148
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Elisabeth G. Turner, PLS
919-827-0745
Owner:
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Ste 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Harry Tsomides
828-545-7057
DMS Project No. 97131
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040105
As-Built Surveying:
Kee Mapping and Surveying, PA
88 Central Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Phillips B. Kee, PLS
828-575-9021
10/29/19 - 11/07/19
PHILLIP B. KEE
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY AND ACCURACY
I, ___________________, CERTIFY THAT THE GROUND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PORTION OF
THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY
MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION; THAT THE RECORD DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED BY
WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC. FROM DIGITAL FILES PROVIDED BY KEE MAPPING AND
SURVEYING, PA AS SHOWN ON AN AS-BUILT SURVEY FOR "WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC.",
JOB #1910115-AB, DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2020; THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED AT THE
95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL TO MEET THE FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE
STANDARDS AND TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO THE
ACCURACY OF CLASS A HORIZONTAL AND CLASS C VERTICAL WHERE APPLICABLE; THAT THE
ORIGINAL DATA WAS OBTAINED BETWEEN THE DATES OF ___________________; THAT THE
CONTOURS SHOWN AS BROKEN LINES MAY NOT MEET THE STATED STANDARD AND ALL
COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NAD 83 (NSRS 2011) AND ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON
NAVD 88 AND COORDINATE VALUES WERE TAKEN FROM AN EXISTING CONDITIONS
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY TURNER LAND SURVEYING, SIGNED, SEALED AND
DATED ON 03/02/2017 BY ELIZABETH G. TURNER, NC PLS LICENSE #4440; THAT THIS MAP
MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS AS STATED IN TITLE 21, CHAPTER
56, SECTION .1606.
WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER, AND
SEAL THIS _______ DAY OF ___________, ____, A.D.

____________________
PHILLIP B. KEE, PLS L-4647
3/10/2020 | 6:01 AM PDT
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:005-02162HCBJCKASE0.2March 6, 2020Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-CoverNotes.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaGeneral Notes and SymbolsQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-CoverNotes.dwgPre-construction Property Line
Pre-construction Major Contour (5' Interval)
Pre-construction Minor Contour
Published 1% Annual Chance of Floodplain Boundary
Effective Non-enchroachment Limits
Pre-construction Fence
Pre-construction Storm Pipe
Pre-construction Farm Road
Pre-construction Wetland
Pre-construction Farm Road
Recorded Conservation Easement
Designed Thalweg Alignment
Designed Major Contour (5' Interval)
Designed Minor Contour
Designed Bank Grading Limits
Designed 1% Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary
Designed Non-enchroachment limits
Designed Tree Removal
Designed Tree Save
Designed Safety Fence
Designed Silt Fence
Designed Temporary Rock Sediment Dam
Design Log Sill
Design Lunker Log
Design Log Vane
Design Rock Vane
Design Rock Sill
Design Permanent Crossing
10+00
100
100
CE CE CE
PROJECT NOTES:
Topographic survey was completed by Turner Land Surveying in November
2016 and supplemented with Union County LIDAR data provided by the North
Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program website. Parcel boundary survey
completed by Turner Land Surveying in February 2017.
Horizontal Datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)
Vertical Datum: North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88)
As-Built survey completed on December 6, 2019 by Kee Land Surveying.XXPre-construction Features Design Features Design Structures
Designed Various Constructed Riffles
Designed Brush Toe
Designed Boulder Cluster Riffle
Designed Wetland Rehabilitation
Designed Wetland Re-establishment
Designed Vegetated Soil Lift
Deposition bars to be removed
Designed Ditch Stabilization
Designed Wetland Berm
Design Structures
SAF SAF
[x][x]
FP-PROP FP-PROP FP-PROP
FP-PUB FP-PUB FP-PUB
NE-EFF NE-EFF NE-EFF
NE-PROP NE-PROP NE-PROP
Recorded Conservation Easement
As-Built Thalweg Alignment
As-Built Bankfull
As-Built Major Contour (5' Interval)
As-Built Minor Contour
As-Built Cross Section
Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Groundwater Gage
Crest Gauge
Photo Point
As-Built Log Sill
As-Built Lunker Log
As-Built Log Vane
As-Built Rock Vane
As-Built Rock Sill
As-Built J-Hook
CE CE CE
As-Built Features As-Built Structures
As-Built Various Constructed Riffles Per Sheet 6.1 and 6.2
As-Built Brush Toe
As-Built Wetland Rehabilitation
As-Built Wetland Re-establishment
As-Built Vegetated Soil Lift
As-Built Riprap as Ditch Stabilization and Permanent Crossing
As-Built Wetland Berm
As-Built Rock Toe
As-Built Gravel
As-Built Structures
>>
10+00
100
VPX
AS-BUILT DRAWINGS:
Deviations from the design will be shown in red.
0'100'200'300'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Overview.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaProject Overview005-02162HCBJCKASE0.3March 6, 2020NCECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CECECECECE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECE C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECEVEG
VEGVEGVEGVEGVEG
VEGVEGVEGVEGVEGVEG
Wetland Rehabilitation, 3.8 Acres
Wetland Re-establishment, 5.4 Acres WF2STATION 400+57
BEGIN WF1 - PRESERVATION
LAT: N35o 01' 14.92"
LON: W80o 27' 06.15"
STA: 200+38
BEGIN EF1 - RESTORATION
LAT: N35o 01' 23.90"
LON: W80o 26' 52.10"
STA: 100+66
BEGIN MEADOW BRANCH - ENHANCEMENT II
LAT: N35o 01' 14.19"
LON: W80o 27' 04.55"STA: 126+11
END MEADOW BRANCH - ENHANCEMENT II
STATION 400+77
END WF1 - PRESERVATION
BEGIN WF1 - ENHANCEMENT I
STA: 301+29
BEGIN WF2 - RESTORATION
LAT: N35o 01' 27.61"
LON: W80o 27' 10.40"
STA: 101+57
MEADOW BRANCH - ENHANCEMENT II
STA: 401+93
END WF1 - ENHANCEMENT I
CONFLUENCE
STA: 111+00
MEADOW BRANCH - ENHANCEMENT II
STA: 214+01
END EF1 - RESTORATION
CONFLUENCE
STA: 118+05
MEADOW BRANCH - ENHANCEMENT II
STA: 305+87
END WF2 - RESTORATION
CONFLUENCE
STA: 209+49
EASEMENT BREAK
STA: 209+90
EASEMENT BREAK
STA: 107+59
EASEMENT BREAK
STA: 108+55
EASEMENT BREAK
W-E1
W-H1
W-E2
W-E3 W-E4
W-E5
W-E6
W-E10
W-E9
W-E8
W-E7
W-H2
EF1WF1MEAD
O
W
B
R
A
N
C
H
EXISTI
N
G F
A
R
M
R
O
A
D
MCINTYRE ROAD
1.1 1.101.2
1.3
1.4
1.51.11
1.6
1.91.81.7EXIST
ING
FARM
ROAD
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Profiles.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaMeadow BranchStream Plan and Profile005-02162HCBJCKASE1.1March 6, 2020Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.11
1.9 1.8
1.7
1.10 Meadow BranchWF2
EF1
WF1
475
480
485
490
475
480
485
490
100+00 100+50 101+00 101+50 102+00 102+50 103+00 103+50 104+00 104+20
PRE-CONSTRUCTION GROUND
DESIGN GRADE AS-BUILT GRADE
48
7
485
485
488
487
485487
485
485
487 485
487
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE>401+00401+93100+00
101+00
102+
0
0
103+00104+00 105+00STA: 100+66
BEGIN MEADOW BRANCH - ENHANCEMENT II
STA: 101+57
MEADOW BRANCH - ENHANCEMENT II
STA: 401+93
END WF1 - ENHANCEMENT I
CONFLUENCE
LOG VANE REPLACED ROCK VANE
AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION
MEADOW BRANCH MEADOW BRANCHXS1
WF1
PP10
PP11
CG1
MATCH LINE - STA 104+20
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Profiles.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaMeadow BranchStream Plan and Profile005-02162HCBJCKASE1.2March 6, 2020Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.11
1.9 1.8
1.7
1.10 Meadow BranchWF2
EF1
WF1
475
480
485
490
475
480
485
490
104+20 104+50 105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50 108+00 108+50 108+65
PRE-CONSTRUCTION GRADE DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
485
4
9
0
49
0
4854
8
5
4
8
5
487
4854
8
6
485
485CECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECEVEGVEGVEGVEG
104
+
0
0 105+00106+0010
7
+
0
0
108+00
109+00
STA: 107+59
MEADOW BRANCH-EASEMENT BREAK
STA: 108+55
MEADOW BRANCH-EASEMENT BREAK
ROCK J-HOOK REPLACED ROCK
VANE AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETIONMEADOW BRANCH
VP5
PP10
PP9
PP8
MATCH LINE - STA 104+20MATCH LINE - STA 108+65
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Profiles.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaMeadow BranchStream Plan and Profile005-02162HCBJCKASE1.3March 6, 2020Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.11
1.9 1.8
1.7
1.10 Meadow BranchWF2
EF1
WF1
475
480
485
490
475
480
485
490
108+65 109+00 109+50 110+00 110+50 111+00 111+50 112+00 112+50 113+00
PRE-CONSTRUCTION GRADE
DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
485485486
485
485
485
490
485
485
485
487486
48
5
485CECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
VEGVEG VEGVEG109+00
110+00
112+00
113+0
0
213+00214+00
STA: 111+00
MEADOW BRANCH - ENHANCEMENT II
STA: 214+01
END EF1 - RESTORATION
CONFLUENCE
MEADOW

B
R
A
N
C
H
-
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T

B
R
E
A
K
GWG6
VP9
PP7
PP8
MEADOW BRANCH
EF1MATCH LINE - STA 108+65MATCH
L
INE

-

STA
113+00
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Profiles.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaMeadow BranchStream Plan and Profile005-02162HCBJCKASE1.4March 6, 2020Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.11
1.9 1.8
1.7
1.10 Meadow BranchWF2
EF1
WF1
475
480
485
490
475
480
485
490
113+00 113+50 114+00 114+50 115+00 115+50 116+00 116+50 117+00 117+50117+50
PRE-CONSTRUCTION GRADE DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
484485
485
485
484
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
486
VP3
PP18
PP4
CEVEGVEGVEGVEG
VEG VEGVEGVEGVEGVEGVEGVEGVEG
VEG
305+87304+00305+
0
0
113+00
114+00
115+00
116+00
117+00
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L

R
I
F
F
L
E

A
D
D
E
D
TO
C
O
N
F
L
U
E
N
C
E

A
T

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S

D
I
S
C
R
E
T
I
O
N
MEADOW BR
A
N
C
H
GWG7GWG4 VP10
PP5
PP4
PP6 WF2
MATCH LINE - STA 113+00MATCH LINE - STA 117+50
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Profiles.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaMeadow BranchStream Plan and Profile005-02162HCBJCKASE1.5March 6, 2020Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.11
1.9 1.8
1.7
1.10 Meadow BranchWF2
EF1
WF1
470
475
480
485
470
475
480
485
117+50 118+00 118+50 119+00 119+50 120+00 120+50 121+00 121+50 122+00122+00
PRE-CONSTRUCTION GRADE
DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
4
8
4
483
484
480
485
485
4
8
5
484
484
484485485480
VP3
PP4
VEGVEGVEGVEGVEGVEG
VEGVEGVEGVEG
3
0
5
+
8
7305+00119+00
120+00
121+0
0 122+00
STA: 118+05
MEADOW BRANCH - ENHANCEMENT II
STA: 305+87
END WF2 - RESTORATION
CONFLUENCE
ADDITIONAL RIFFLE ADDED
TO CONFLUENCE AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION
MEADOW BRAN
C
H
GWG9
GWG3
GWG8
MVP1
VP11
PP3
PP4
WF2
MATCH LINE - STA 117+50MATCH LINE - STA 122+00
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Profiles.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaMeadow BranchStream Plan and Profile005-02162HCBJCKASE1.6March 6, 2020Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.11
1.9 1.8
1.7
1.10 Meadow BranchWF2
EF1
WF1
470
475
480
485
470
475
480
485
122+00 122+50 123+00 123+50 124+00 124+50 125+00 125+50 126+00 126+20
PRE-CONSTRUCTION GRADE DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
483
484
483
484
484
483
480
484
484
485
483
484 CECECECECECECECECECECECECECEVE
G
VE
G VEGVEGVEGVEGVEG126+76
122+0
0
12
3
+
0
0
124+00
125+0012
6
+
0
0
STA: 126+11
END MEADOW BRANCH - ENHANCEMENT II
50' OF RIFFLE ADDED AT
ENGINEER'S DISCRETION
MEADOW BRANCH
GWG11
GWG10
GWG2
VP12
PP3
PP2
MATCH LINE - STA 122+00
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Profiles.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaEF1Stream Plan and Profile005-02162HCBJCKASE1.7March 6, 2020Sheet IndexN0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.11
1.9 1.8
1.7
1.10 Meadow BranchWF2
EF1
WF1
485
490
495
500
505
485
490
495
500
505
199+30 199+50 200+00 200+50 201+00 201+50 202+00 202+50 203+00 203+50 204+00 204+20
DESIGN GRADE
AS BUILT GRADE
60" CMP
EXISTING 61 LF 60" CMP
INV. IN= 494.75
INV. OUT= 494.48
494495495 493495
498
495
500
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
VEG
VEGVEGVEG>>>>199+39
200+00
201+00
202+00203+
0
0
204+
0
0
STA: 200+38
BEGIN EF1 - RESTORATION
ROCK TOE REPLACED VEGETATED SOIL LIFT
DUE TO SURROUNDING BEDROCK AND
ADDITIONAL NATIVE MATERIALS ON SITE
MCINTYRE ROADVP7 XS2PP13
PP14
MATCH LINE - STA 204+20
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Profiles.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaEF1Stream Plan and Profile005-02162HCBJCKASE1.8March 6, 2020Sheet IndexN0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.11
1.9 1.8
1.7
1.10 Meadow BranchWF2
EF1
WF1
490491 4894
9
0
49
0
492
490
495
489
495
490491CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
>>>>>>204+00205+00206+00
2
0
7
+
0
0
208+0020
9
+
0
0
ROCK TOE REPLACED BRUSH TOE
DUE TO SURROUNDING BEDROCK AND
ADDITIONAL NATIVE MATERIALS ON SITE
EF1XS3XS2CG2
PP14
PP15MATCH LINE - STA 208+65MATCH LINE - STA 204+20480
485
490
495
480
485
490
495
204+20 204+50 205+00 205+50 206+00 206+50 207+00 207+50 208+00 208+50 208+65
DESIGN GRADE
AS BUILT GRADE
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Profiles.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaEF1Stream Plan and Profile005-02162HCBJCKASE1.9March 6, 2020Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.11
1.9 1.8
1.7
1.10 Meadow BranchWF2
EF1
WF1
485487
487488
485490490485490
490
491
487
488490
48548
5CE
CECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
VEGVEGVEG VEGVEGVEGVE
G
VEG>>>110+00209+00
210+00
211+0
0
212+00213+00
214+00BRUSH TOE REPLACES
VEGETATED SOIL LIFT
PERMANENT CULVERT
CROSSING
STA: 214+01
END EF1 - RESTORATION
STA:111+00
MEADOW BRANCH - ENHANCEMENT II
CONFLUENCE MEADOW BRANCHEF1
VANE REMOVED DUE TO
BEDROCK IN FIELD
ROCK TOE REPLACED BRUSH
TOE DUE TO SURROUNDING
BEDROCK AND ADDITIONAL
NATIVE MATERIALS ON SITE
EF1
VP9
VP8
XS4PP16
PP7
PP15
ROCK TOE ADDED AT
ENGINEER'S DISCRETION
MATCH LINE - STA 208+65480
485
490
495
480
485
490
495
208+65 209+00 209+50 210+00 210+50 211+00 211+50 212+00 212+50 213+00 213+50 214+00
DESIGN GRADE
AS BUILT GRADE
40" RCP (2)
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Profiles.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaWF1Stream Plan and Profile005-02162HCBJCKASE1.10March 6, 2020Sheet Index
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.11
1.9 1.8
1.7
1.10 Meadow BranchWF2
EF1
WF1
480
485
490
495
480
485
490
495
400+00 400+50 401+00 401+50 402+00
AS-BUILT GRADE
DESIGN GRADE
487485485488487485485487485487CECECECECECECECECECECECE>400+00401+00
401+
9
3
450+0
0
450+40101+00102+00STATION 401+93
END WF1 - ENHANCEMENT I
STATION 101+57
MEADOW BRANCH ENHANCEMENT II
CONFLUENCESTATION 400+77
END WF1 - PRESERVATION
BEGIN WF1 - ENHANCEMENT I
STATION 400+57
BEGIN WF1 - PRESERVATION XS1WF1CG1
MEADOW BRANCHPP12
PP11
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Profiles.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaWF2Stream Plan and Profile005-02162HCBJCKASE1.11March 6, 2020Sheet Index
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.11
1.9 1.8
1.7
1.10 Meadow BranchWF2
EF1
WF1
475
480
485
490
475
480
485
490
301+00 301+50 302+00 302+50 303+00 303+50 304+00 304+50 305+00 305+50 305+87
DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
484
485486487485
485485487490
490485
WF2VP3
VP2
XS6PP18
PP17
PP4
CG3XS5
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
VEGVEGVEGVEGVEGVEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEGVEGVEGVEGVEG>>>>>>351+00305+
8
7
301+00 302+00303+0030
4
+
0
0
3
05
+
00
117+00STA: 301+29
BEGIN WF2 - RESTORATION
MEADOW BRANCHSTA: 118+05
MEADOW BRANCH - ENHANCEMENT II
STA: 305+87
END WF2 - RESTORATION
CONFLUENCE
ADDITIONAL RIFFLE LENGTH
ADDED AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Wetland Grading.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaWetland Grading005-02162HCBJCKASE2.1March 6, 2020N0'50'100'150'
(HORIZONTAL)
A'
A
CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE>
BAROTROLL
GAGE
XS4
XS1
MATCHLINE - STA 112+00401+934
0
0
+
0
0
401+00
100+00 101+00
102+0
0
103+
0
0
104+0
0 105+00106+0010
7
+
0
0
1
0
8
+
0
0
109+00
110+00
1
1
1
+
0
0
112+0
0
210+00211+002
1
2
+
0
0 213+000+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+008+32486
487
486
48
6
48
7
485
485
485 48548
5
490
485 485
485
485490
485
485
GWG6
GWG5
VP4
VP5
VP6
VP9
VP8
CG1
CROSS SECTION A-A'
480
485
490
480
485
490
3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50
DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Wetland Grading.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaWetland Grading005-02162HCBJCKASE2.2March 6, 2020N0'50'100'150'
(HORIZONTAL)
B'
B
A'
A
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECE CE CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEVEGVEGVEGVEGVEG VEGVEGVEGVEG
V
E
G VEGVEGVEGVEG
VEGVEGVEGVEG >>BAROTROLL
GAGE
MATCHLINE - STA 112+003
0
5
+
8
7
30
0
+
0
0
301+0030
2
+
0
0
303+00
304+00305+00126+
7
6
1
1
1
+
0
0
112+
0
0
113+00 114+00115+
0
0 116+00117+0
0
118+00
119+0
0
120+00
121+0
0
122+00
1
2
3
+
0
0
124+0
0
125+
0
0
12
6
+
0
00+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+008+320+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+008+32486
486
486 487
4
8
7
485
484
485485 484
485
485
485
485
485
485485485
485490 49
0
4
8
5
4
8
5
480485485
485
480
480 48548548548
5
485
48
5
485
VP3
VP2
484REPRESENTATIVE
TYPICAL SECTION B-B'
475
480
485
490
475
480
485
490
1+25 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+25
DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Planting.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaPlanting List005-02162HCBJCKASE3.1March 6, 2020Note:
Permanent Riparian seeding in
all disturbed areas within
Conservation Easement
Permanent Riparian Seeding
Pure Live Seed (20 lbs/ acre)
Approved Date Species Name Common Name Stratum Density (lbs/acre)
All Year Panicum rigidulum Redtop Panicgrass Herb 1.5
All Year Agrostis hyemalis Winter Bentgrass Herb 4.0
All Year Chasmanthium latifolium River Oats Herb 2.0
All Year Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed Susan Herb 1.0
All Year Coreopsis lanceolata Lanceleaf Coreopsis Herb 1.0
All Year Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge Herb 3.0
All Year Panicum clandestinum Deertongue Herb 3.5
All Year Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye Herb 2.0
All Year Asclepias syrica Common Milkweed Herb 0.2
All Year Baptisia australis Blue False Indigo Herb 0.2
All Year Gaillardia pulchella Annual Gaillardia Herb 1.0
All Year Echinacea purpurea Pale Purple Coneflower Herb 0.6
Streambank Planting Zone
Live Stakes
Species Common Name Spacing % of Stems
Salix nigra Black Willow 6 ft.10%
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 6 ft.35%
Salix sericea Silky Willow 6 ft.40%
Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark 6 ft.15%
Total 100%
Herbaceous Plugs
Juncus effusus Common Rush 5 ft.40%
Carex alata Broadwing Sedge 5 ft.40%
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 5 ft.20%
Total 100%
Wetland Bare Root Planting
Scientific Name Common Name Spacing %
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 12 ft.15
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 12 ft.15
Betula nigra River Birch 12 ft.10
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 12 ft.10
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 12 ft.10
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 12 ft.10
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 12 ft.10
Lindera benzoin Spice Bush 12 ft.10
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 12 ft.10
Total 100%
Buffer Planting Zone
Bare Root
Species Common Name Spacing % of Stems
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 12 ft.10%
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 12 ft.20%
Betula nigra River Birch 12 ft.15%
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 12 ft.15%
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Green Ash 12 ft.10%
Alternatives
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 12 ft.10%
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak 12 ft.10%
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 12 ft.10%
Total 100%
Temporary Seeding
Approved Date Type Planting Rate
(lbs/acre)
Jan 1 – May 1
Rye Grain (Secale cereale)120
Ground Agricultural Limestone 2,000
10-10-10 Fertilizer 750
Straw Mulch 4,000
May 1 – Aug 15
German Millet (Setaria italica)40
Ground Agricultural Limestone 2,000
10-10-10 Fertilizer 750
Straw Mulch 4,000
Aug 15 – Dec 30
Rye Grain (Secale cereale)120
Ground Agricultural Limestone 2,000
10-10-10 Fertilizer 1,000
Straw Mulch 4,000
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Planting.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaMeadow Branch and WF1005-02162HCBJCKASE3.2March 6, 2020NSheet Index
0'40'80'120'
(HORIZONTAL)Planting PlanEF1TBTBTBTB TB
TBTB
TB
T B TB
TB
TB TB TB
TB
T
B
T
B TB T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
T
B
TB T B
T B
TB
TB
TB TB T B
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBCECECE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECETBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB TB TB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB401+934
0
0
+
0
0
401+00100+00 101+00
102+0
0
103+
0
0
104+0
0 105+00106+00107
+
0
0
1
0
8
+
0
0
109+00
110+00
1
1
1
+
0
0
112+
0
0
113+00 114+00214+01
210+00211+002
1
2
+
0
0 213+00214+00
MEADO
W

B
R
A
N
C
HWF1
MEADO
W

B
R
A
N
C
H
EXISTIN
G

F
A
R
M

R
O
A
D
EXISTING FARM ROADMATCHLINE - STA 210+00 MATCHLINE - STA 114+00VP4
VP9
VP8
VP5
VP6
MATCHLINE - STA 210+00
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Planting.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaMeadow Branch and WF2005-02162HCBJCKASE3.3March 6, 2020NSheet Index
0'40'80'120'
(HORIZONTAL)Planting PlanTB
TB TB TB
T B
T B
TB TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB TB
TBTBTBT
B
T
B
TBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBCE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECE CE CE CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEVEGVEG
VEGVEGVEGVEGVEG VEGVEGVEGVEGVEG
V
E
G VEGVEGVEGVEGVEGVEG
VEGVEGVEGVEGVEG
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB3
0
5
+
8
7301+0030
2
+
0
0
303+0
0
304+00305+00126+
7
6114+00115+
0
0 116+00117+0
0
118+00
119+0
0
120+00
121+0
0
122+00
1
2
3
+
0
0
124+0
0
125+0
0
12
6
+
0
0WF2MEADO
W

B
R
A
N
C
HMATCHLINE - STA 114+00VP2
VP12
VP1
VP11
VP10
VP3
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring_2020\Plans\02162-AB-Planting.dwgMarch 6, 2020Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Record DrawingsUnion County, North CarolinaEF1005-02162HCBJCKASE3.4March 6, 2020NSheet Index
0'40'80'120'
(HORIZONTAL)Planting PlanEF1TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
T B
T B TB
T
B
T B
T B TB
TB TBTBTBTB
TB
TB TBTBT B
TB TBTBT B TB T B TBT B
T B TBTBT B TB T B TBT B TB
TB
T B
TB
TB
T B
T B TB
T
B
TB
T B TB
T B TBTBTBTB
TB
TB TBTBT B
TB
T B TBT B TB T B TBT B
T B TBTBT B TB T B TBT B
TB TB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
T B
TB
TBT
B TB
TB
T
B
TBT
B T B TB
TBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB T B TB
TBT
B
TB
T B TB
TBTB
T B
TB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB CE CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CECE109+00110+00111+00112+00113+00214+01199+3
9
200+0
0
201+00202+00203+00204+00205+00206+00
20
7
+
0
0
2
0
8
+
0
0
209+
0
0
210+00
211+00212+00
213+00214+00EF1MEADOW BRANCHMCINTYRE ROADEXISTING FARM

R
O
A
D MATCHLINE - STA 210+00VP9
VP8
VP7