20180264 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2020_20210115

ID#* 20180264 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/15/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal-1/15/2021
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 Monitoring Report
File Upload: DeepMeadow 97161_MY1_2020.pdf 38.67MB
Rease upload only one PDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*

MONITORING YEAR 1
ANNUAL 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: August 2020 — November 2020
FINAL Submission Date: January 8, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street; 3,a Floor
Raleigh, NC 27603

% P
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
December 30, 2020
Mr. HarryTsomides
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Deep Meadow Mitigation Site -Year 1 Monitoring Report
Final Submittal for DMS
Contract Number 006887, DMS# 97131
Yadkin River Basin — HUC 03040105; Union County, NC
Dear Mr. Tsomides:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
comments and observations from the Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Draft Year 1 Monitoring Report.
The report text has been revised for the final draft to reflect the most current condition of the site. The
following are your comments and observations from the report and are noted in Bold. Wildlands'
response to those comments are noted in Italics.
DMS Comment: Appendix 6- Please include written responses to the IRT comments from the 6/3/2020
IRT email indicating Initial Credit Release approval. These are referenced in the text however there
should be a response letter coupled with the comment letter.
Wildlands Response: A comment response to the IRT email indicating Initial Credit Release approval has
been included in Appendix 6.
DMS Comment: Please update the asset tables to reflect the MYO/baseline report format. (Project
Components, Length and Area Summations, and Overall Assets Summary).
Wildlands Response: The asset table matches the MY0/baseline report format.
DMS Comment: If the annual mean for the permanent plots is 482, and the annual mean for the
mobile plots is 465, how could the overall annual mean be higher (559) as indicated? Please QAQC the
table numbers.
Wildlands Response: The overall site annual mean was not calculated correctly in the draft report. The
calculations have been QAQC'ed. The overall site annual mean for MY1 was 478. The text and
appendices have been updated to reflect this change.
DMS Comment: Wildlands notes 10 bankfull events for 2020. While it was a wetter than normal year,
if there an explanation of why such an unexpected number of apparent bankfull events occurred in
2020? Please consider confirming bankfull elevations in the field in MY2 due to so many recorded
bankfull events.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

k rV
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
Wildlands Response: While the occurrence of such a large number of bankfull events is uncommon, a
definitive explanation, other than it being an unusually wet year and that systems lying in the slate belt
tend to be flashier than those in other areas of the Piedmont, is unknown. In order to verify the above
average bankfull occurrences at the Site, we reviewed the number of bankfull events that occurred at our
other restoration sites located in Union County. Each of them also experienced an unusually high
number of gaged bankfull events in 2020, ranging from 8 —10+ occurrences. We feel confident that our
results are accurate due to similar results experienced at other restoration sites in Union County and a
similar pattern of bankfull occurrences among the stream gages on -site. In addition, there were multiple
visual verifications of wrack lines, down vegetation, and alluvial deposition. However, we will re -confirm
bankfull elevations at each gaged on -site riffle cross-section during the MY2 survey collection.
DMS Comment: Digital Support File Comments: Please submit monitoring photos as JPEGS.
Wildlands Response: The photographs have been converted to JPEGS.
DMS Comment: Digital Support File Comments: Please add the figure for Stream Gage #1 to the
report.
Wildlands Response: The figure for Stream Gage #1 has been added to the report. Please note that the
gage was accidentally installed above the bankfull elevation as reflected in the plot. Gage #1 will be
lowered in the winter of 2020 to capture all events in MY2.
Enclosed please find two (2) hard copies of the Year 1 Final Monitoring Report and one (1) CD with all
the final corrected electronic files for DMS distribution. Please contact me at 704-332-7754 x101 if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
�Y�995
Kristi Suggs
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

PREPARED BY:
wk*
WILDLANDS
E N G INFER I N G
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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 (DIMS). 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 DIMS 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 8.647 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 2019 and November
2020. Monitoring Year (MY) 1 assessments and site visits were completed between August and
November 2020 to assess the conditions of the project.
Overall, the Site has met the required stream and vegetation success criteria for MY1. The overall
average planted stem density for the Site is 478 stems per acre and is on track to meet the MY3
requirement of 320 stems per acre. Geomorphic surveys indicate that cross-section bankfull dimensions
closely match the baseline monitoring with some minor adjustments, and streams are functioning as
intended. At least one bankfull event was documented on EF1, WF1, and WF2 since the completion of
construction. Ten of the eleven groundwater gages met the wetland hydrology success criteria. The MY1
visual assessment identified a few areas of concern including populations of invasive plant species and
WDeep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL

isolated areas of bank scour. Wildlands will continue to monitor these areas, and an adaptive
management plan will be implemented as necessary throughout the seven-year monitoring period to
benefit the ecological health of the Site.
WDeep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL

DEEP MEADOW MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives..............................................................................................
1-1
1.2
Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment...................................................................................
1-2
1.2.1
Vegetation Assessment..............................................................................................
1-2
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity .............................................
1-3
1.2.3
Stream Assessment....................................................................................................
1-3
1.2.4
Stream Hydrology Assessment...................................................................................
1-3
1.2.5
Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity ...................................................
1-4
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..................................................................................................
1-4
1.3
Monitoring Year 1 Summary..............................................................................................
1-5
Section 2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................3-1
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL iii

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Mitigation Assets and Components
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Table 5a
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0 — 3.2
Current Condition Plan View
Table 6a-c
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Permanent and Mobile Vegetation Plot Photographs
Area of Concern Photographs
Groundwater Gage Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9
CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10a-c
Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11b
Reference Reach Data Summary
Table 12
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Table 13a-c
Monitoring Data —Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross -Section Plots
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events
Recorded Bankfull Events
Table 15 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Bankfull Photographs
Appendix 6 Agency Correspondence
WDeep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL iv

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
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 (DIMS) targeted watershed for the Yadkin
River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 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-HI and W-H2, while the proposed wetlands are named W-El 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 crop production with on -site stream's
adjacent floodplains altered for agricultural uses. These practices resulted in degraded in -stream
habitat, sedimentation, and erosion. EF1 was re-routed to the edge of the valley and shortened to
join Meadow Branch at a 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.
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by DIMS 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. A conservation easement has
been recorded and is in place on 23.8 acres. The project is providing 2,838.933 stream mitigation units
(SMUs) and 8.590 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) for the Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040105. Annual
monitoring will be conducted for seven years with close-out anticipated to commence in 2027 given the
success criteria are met.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
1.1 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).
The following project specific goals and objectives outlined in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018)
include:
WDeep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1

Goals
Objectives
Restore stream channels that will maintain a stable pattern and
Improve stream channel stability.
profile considering the hydrologic and sediment inputs to the
system, the landscape setting, and the watershed conditions.
Create stable in -stream structures to protect restored streams.
Reconnect channels with historic floodplains
Reconstruct stream channels with appropriate bankfull
and re-establish wetland hydrology and
dimensions and depth relative to the floodplain. Restore steam
function in relic wetland areas.
plan form on East Fork 1 and West Fork 2 to promote
development of mutually beneficial stream/wetland complex.
Install habitat features such as constructed riffles, cover logs, and
Improve instream habitat.
brush toes into restored/enhanced streams. Add woody materials
to channel beds. Construct pools of varying depth.
Restore and enhance native floodplain and
Plant native tree and understory species in riparian zone and
wetland vegetation.
wetlands where currently insufficient. Remove invasive species
within the riparian corridor.
Permanently protect the project site from
Establish a conservation easement on the Site.
harmful uses.
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring for MY1 was conducted between August and November 2020, with hydrology data
collected between January and mid -November 2020, to assess the condition of the project. The stream,
vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria presented in
the Deep Meadow Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018).
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation plot monitoring is being conducted in post -construction monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Permanent plots are monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed by the
Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008) and the 2016 USACE Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Guidance to assess the vegetation success. A total of 12 permanent vegetation plots
were established within the project easement area using 10-meter by 10-meter square plots. In
addition, 4 mobile vegetation plots were established in monitoring year 1 throughout the planted
conservation easement to evaluate the random vegetation performance for the Site. These plots will be
subsequently reestablished in different random locations in monitoring years 2, 3, 5, and 7. Mobile
vegetation plot assessments will document stems, species, and height using 100-meter2 circular, square,
or rectangular plots. 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 MYS.
The MY1 vegetation survey was completed in August 2020, resulting in an average planted stem density
of 478 stems per acre for all monitored permanent and mobile vegetation plots. The Site is on track to
meet the interim MY3 requirement of 320 planted stems per acre, with all plots (100%) individually
exceeding this requirement with densities ranging from 364 to 567 planted stems per acre. In the
permanent vegetation plots and mobile vegetation plots stems appear to be thriving with a vigor of 3 or
WDeep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2

greater indicating that they have good or better plant health and damage is rare. Please refer to
Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity
Overall, the herbaceous cover is becoming well established throughout the site and wetland vegetation
has filled in nicely in wet seeps preventing the potential for rills or gullies from forming. No bare areas
or areas of low woody stem density were noted. There are isolated areas of native in -stream vegetation
on EF1, but this will likely be shaded out as the stream channel develops a stream canopy. The MY1
visual assessments did indicate that some invasive plant populations are present within the conservation
easement. The predominant invasive species found on the Site is Johnson grass (Sorghum holepense)
totaling 7.2% of the conservation easement acreage in MY1. Though these areas of Johnson grass had
previously been treated before construction, they re -sprouted during MY1. Adaptive management
activities will occur in MY2 to treat invasive plant areas, as needed. These vegetation areas of concern
are documented on Table 7 and shown on the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Figures 3.0-3.2 in
Appendix 2.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Riffle cross -sections on the restoration and enhancement I reaches should be stable and show little
change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. All riffle cross -sections should
fall within the parameters defined for the designated stream type. 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 and/or eroding channel banks. Remedial action would
not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in August 2020. Cross-section survey results indicate
that channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed on all restoration and enhancement I
reaches with minimal adjustments. Minor changes occurring within some cross -sections include
downcutting, narrowing of riffles, and alluvial deposition at the top of bank.
All cross -sections on EF1 and WF1 are stable with minor adjustments to bankfull area, bankfull width
and bankfull depth in MY1. Cross-section 6 has had a slight decrease in cross -sectional area and channel
depth since MYO likely due to migration of sediment and gravels form the upstream crossing. See
section 1.2.5 for additional information about the upstream crossing.
Reachwide pebble counts along all restoration and enhancement I reaches indicate maintenance of
coarser materials in riffle features and finer particles in the pool features. Please refer to Appendix 2 for
the visual stability assessment tables, CCPV Figures 3.0 — 3.2, and stream photographs, and Appendix 4
for the morphological tables and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Hydrology Assessment
Automated pressure transducers were installed to document stream hydrology and used on mitigation
reaches that implement restoration and/or enhancement level I approaches throughout the seven-year
monitoring period. Henceforth, these devices are referred to as "crest gages (CG)" for those recording
bankfull events. At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, four or more bankfull flow events must
have occurred in separate years within the restoration reaches. A total of 3 CGs were installed along
restoration and enhancement I reaches, were programmed to record data every 3 hours, and captured
many high flow events throughout the first year of monitoring.
In MY1, at least one bankfull event was recorded on all monitored reaches (EF1, WF1, and WF2), with
multiple events being documented on EF1 and WF2 by automated crest gages. Because the automated
WDeep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-3

pressure transducer, CG1, was accidentally installed above the bankfull elevation along channel WF1 in
MYO, only one bankfull event verified with photo documentation was included for Reach WF1 in Table
14. The photos capture deposition on plant material and wrack material around CG1 on WF1. CG1 will
be lowered in the winter of 2020 to capture all events in MY2. Please refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology
summary data, plots, and photographic evidence of bankfull events.
1.2.5 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity
All streams on the Site remained stable during multiple large storm events that occurred during 2020.
The Site's visual assessment was conducted the day after a 1.7-inch storm event that occurred on
11/13/2020 and the majority of the structures were still intact, and the channels had remained stable.
However, MY1 visual stream assessments did reveal a few areas of concern and include localized
instances of bank scour on WF2 and EF1. Currently, WF2 and EF1 are 96% and 97% stable, respectively,
and performing as intended. Also, in the left floodplain, just upstream of the Meadow Branch ford
crossing, an ephemeral drainage that begins outside of the conservation easement and leads to
Meadow Branch is scouring the floodplain.
The issues mapped on the CCPV figures are as follows: WF2 is experiencing slight aggradation from large
storm events washing gravel from the upstream crossing into the channel. EF1 has one brush -toe
structure issue located at station 212+00 where floodplain flows are washing behind the structure
creating a scour pocket. On Meadow Branch the structure at 103+50 appears to have been washed out
entirely. This area appears stable and will be monitored in future years for signs of instability. Wildlands
will continue to monitor these areas and remedial actions will be implemented if areas of concern begin
to threaten the stability of the project.
Stream areas of concern that are noted in this report and on the CCPV figures will continue to be
monitored in future years for signs of accelerated instability. If instability is observed, the area will be
addressed and evaluated for effectiveness in the MY2 report. Please refer to Appendix 2 for stream
stability tables, area of concern photos, and CCPV Figures 3.0— 3.2.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
Eleven groundwater monitoring gages (GWGs) were installed during baseline monitoring within the
wetland re-establishment area using In -situ Level TROLL® 100 pressure transducers. A reference 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. All monitoring gages are downloaded on a quarterly basis
and maintained as needed. Calibration was completed by manually measuring water levels on all gages
which confirmed the downloaded data. The Site does not contain a rainfall gage; therefore, the daily
precipitation data was collected from closest USGS gage, 3506270804 10645 CRN-39, located at the
NCDOT facility in Matthews NC.
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. 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 Mitigation Plan (2018) to assess whether atypical weather conditions occurred during
the monitoring period.
Of the eleven GWGs that were installed during baseline monitoring, all, except GWG 11 located in W-E6,
met the success criteria for MY1 with a range of 10.9% to 100% of the growing season. GWG11 missed
WDeep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-4

meeting the success criteria by 3 days this year. Monthly rainfall data in 2020 indicated higher than
normal rainfall amounts occurred during the months of February, April, May, July and October.
In response to a comment received from the Interagency Review Team (IRT) in reference to well
locations documented in the Baseline Monitoring Report (Wildlands, 2020), GWGs 3 and 11 are located
just outside of the wetland establishment areas for W-E6 and W-E8, respectively. The current location
of these wells is as close to the Mitigation Plan's proposed gage location as possible. Multiple holes
were bored in the areas surrounding the Mitigation Plan's proposed gage locations; however,
installation was difficult due to a shallow layer of bedrock where refusal was reached at approximately 3
- 4 feet. Though the resulting locations for GWG3 and GWG11, at the edge of the proposed wetland
boundary, is not optimal, it is the assumption that if the wetland meets criteria on the edge wetland
boundary, the remainder of the wetland will also meet. This was the case for GWG3; however, GWG 11
just barely missed meeting the success criteria of 10% with a rate of 8.7%. If GWG11 continues to not
meet the success criteria for wetland hydrology in subsequent monitoring years, Wildlands will install
another well closer to the center of W-E6.
Please refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations on figures 3.0-3.2 and the groundwater
gage photographs. Please refer to Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and plots and Appendix 6
for documentation of IRT correspondence.
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
Overall, the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY1. The
overall average planted stem density for the Site is 478 stems per acre and is on track to meet the MY3
requirement of 320 stems per acre. Geomorphic surveys indicate that cross-section bankfull dimensions
closely match the baseline monitoring with some minor adjustments, and the streams are functioning as
intended. At least one bankfull event was documented on all project streams since the completion of
construction. The MY1 visual assessment identified a few areas of concern including populations of
invasive plant species and isolated areas of bank scour and aggradation. Wildlands will continue to
monitor these areas, and an adaptive management plan will be implemented as necessary throughout
the seven-year monitoring period to benefit the ecological health of the Site.
WDeep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-5

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Stream gages were installed in riffles and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument
installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP
Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
WDeep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 2-1

Section 3: 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 (DIMS), April 2015. DIMS Annual Monitoring and
Closeout Reporting Template.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS), October 2015. DIMS 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), 2020. Deep Meadow Mitigation Site As -built Baseline
Monitoring Report. DIMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands, 2018. Deep Meadow Site Mitigation Plan. DIMS, Raleigh, NC.
WDeep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

030401
It III
I
/ h
r I
- III
II
II
0J040105070050
I r
�I
L
Pf Q"
err/e '� so�i Cf eek
4'; A
03040105070060
i Wnroe I've [J,Q:
h Rp z
Jr
.•� r � 03040105070020t
030401105070030n
74
ac
d
601
Counll_ I �)
Club �•r4. Z Sul"mur�o
0 I r 04
030a40105070040
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of °f s
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 .00
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not J
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 111
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles Itand activites requires prior coordination with DMS. n08k
A.-
Project Location
j_ Hydrologic Unit Code (14 digit)
NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed
Eagle g'
Chase
Gott Club J
N
ra
.�• 0`3nGh
�z �•�'�' �a°µZ of
@J i
f o�
� r., �i .4rf� P°�•
m, it
j 03040105070070
26
Pc I
Rd
WOM erandl
I`I cAj QM�I Pd i
iI
�r
G /
i
10
Nlarshvi e
0304010508,M40
�`�fo Springs e2 '
J ti � seP en branch �(
03040105081030
J
' RoekQ'd Reedy Branch ,coNr; Cif�a Rrf c �.�'\.
G A
" Ya 2° I•�•^, �.aeK er,, f', an eh
Directions to Site:
From Charlotte: Take US-74 E for approximately 9.5 miles.
le Keep left to continue on Monroe Expy/ U.S. 74 Bypass Road
h
for approximately 15.4 miles. Take exit 270 toward Wingate.
Turn right onto Austin Chaney Road. In 0.1 miles, turn left
U onto McIntyre Road. In 2.2 miles, turn left onto the
farm road into the site.
WILD LANDS o 1.5 3 Miles
ENGINEERING I I I I I
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Union County, NC

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
O Project Site
1 Conservation Easement
® Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Restoration
F.
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Preservation
Non -Project Streams
K
1!
Figure 2 Project Component/ Asset Map
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
0 200 400 Feet DMS Project No. 97131
1 { I { I Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Union County, NC

Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
ComponentsProject
Existing
Mitigation
As -Built
Mitigation
Mitigation
Project
Project Area/Reach
Footage (LF)
Plan Footage/
Restoration Level
Priority Level
Footage/
Notes/Comments
Category
Ratio (X:1)
Credit
or Acreage
Acreage
Acreage
Bank stabilization and in -stream structures with planted buffer. Creditable length accounts for 96 LF of stream
Medow Branch
2,507
2,449
Warm
Enhancement II
N/A
2.500
2,449
979.600
within an easement break.
Full channel restoration and planted buffer. Creditable length accounts for 41 LF of stream within an
EF1
1,201
1,322
Warm
Restoration
P1, P2
1.000
1,322
1,322.000
easement break
WF1
116
116
Warm
Enhancement I
N/A
1.500
116
77.333
Dimension and profile modified to provide stability.
WF1
20
20
Warm
Preservation
N/A
10.000
20
2.000
WF2
391
458
Warm
Restoration
P1, P2
1.000
458
458.000
Full channel restoration and planted buffer.
Rehabilitation. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by reducing drainage to Meadow
WH-1
0.28
0.28
Warm
Rehabilitation
1.500
0.28
0.190*
Branch.
Rehabilitation. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by reducing drainage to Meadow
WH-2
0.30
0.30
Warm
Rehabilitation
1.500
0.30
0.200
Branch.
Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating adjacent
WE-1
0.40
0.40
Warm
Re-establishment
1.000
0.37
0.400*
drainage swales.
Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating adjacent
WE-2
1.70
1.70
Warm
Re-establishment
1.000
1.72
1.700*
drainage swales.
Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating adjacent
WE-3
0.40
0.40
Warm
Re-establishment
1.000
0.41
0.400*
drainage swales.
Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating adjacent
WE-4
0.40
0.40
Warm
Re-establishment
1.000
0.36
0.400*
drainage swales.
Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating adjacent
WE-5
0.40
0.40
Warm
Re-establishment
1.000
0.37
0.400*
drainage swales.
Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating adjacent
WE-6
0.20
0.20
Warm
Re-establishment
1.000
0.20
0.200
drainage swales.
Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating adjacent
WE-7
1.50
1.50
Warm
Re-establishment
1.000
1.53
1.500*
drainage swales.
Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating adjacent
WE-8
1.00
1.00
Warm
Re-establishment
1.000
1.04
1.000*
drainage swales.
Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating adjacent
WE-9
0.50
0.50
Warm
Re-establishment
1.000
0.53
0.500*
drainage swales.
Re-establishment. Planted, removed agricultural activities, increased hydrology by eliminating adjacent
WE-10
1.70
1.70
Warm
Re-establishment
1.000
1.73
1.700*
drainage swales.
Project
Credits
W
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian
Wetland
Coastal Marsh
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riverine
Non-Riv
Restoration
1,780.000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Re-establishment
0.390*
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rehabilitation
8.200*
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement 1
77.333
N/A
N/A
Enhancement 11
979.600
N/A
N/A
Creation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Preservation
2.000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Totals
2,838.933
N/A
N/A
8.590*
N/A
N/A
N/A
* Actual as -built wetland acreaee/potential creditine
sliehtly differs
(excess or loss) that of the Mitieation
Plan. the
Droiect credi
t assets listed reflect those of the approved Mitigation Plan.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
ReportActivity or
Permit
Data Collection Complete
July 2018
Completion or Delivery404
July 2018
Mitigation Plan
June 2016 - October 2017
May/June 2018
Final Design - Construction Plans
January 2019
January 2019
Construction
July - September 2019
September 2019
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
July - September 2019
September 2019
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
July - September 2019
September 2019
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
December 2019 - January 2020
January 2020
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
October 2019 - January 2020
March 2020
Year 1 Monitoring
Invasive treatment
May- September 2020
November 2020
Stream Survey
August 2020
Vegetation Survey
August 2020
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Designers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
Construction Contractors
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
PO Box 1197
Freymont, NC 27830
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Live Stakes
Herbaceous Plugs
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kristi Suggs
Monitoring, POC
[phone] x.110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Project Name
Project Information
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Union County
Project Area (acres)
23.800
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35' 1' 24.44"N 80' 27' 4.33"W
Planted Acreage (Acre of Woody Stems Planted)
Physiographic Province
21.480
Project Watershed Summary Information
Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Yadkin River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
3040105
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
3040105070060
DWR Sub -basin
03-07-14
Project Drainage Area (acres)
EF1 226, WF1 58, WF2 131, Meadow Branch 4,472
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
4%
2011 NLCD Land Use Classification
Parameters
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
Meadow Branch EF1 WF1 WF2
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
2,449
1,322 136
458
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Unconfined
Moderatley Confined Unconfined
Unconfined
Drainage area (acres)
4,472
226 58
131
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
P
P P
P
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Description (stream type) - Pre -Restoration
C4/5
Incised and Straightened E4
G4
Incised and straighteded E4
Morphological Description (stream type) - Post -Restoration
C4/5
C4
C4
C4
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
VI
III
III
IV
FEMA classification
Parameters
Zone AE
Wetland Summary Information
Wetlands
W-HI
W-H2
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.28
0.30
Wetland Type
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Tatum/ Chewacla
Chewacla
Drainage class
Well Drained/ Poorly Drained
Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric Status
No / Yes
Yes
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater and over bank events
Restoration or enhancement method (hydrologic, vegetative etc.)
Regulation
Re -habilitation (hydrologic, vegetative)
Regulatory• •- •
Applicable? Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Action ID #SAW-2012-01107
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR# 18-0264
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)
Yes
Yes
NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit NCG010000
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan
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
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Union County Floodplain Development Permit #20180991
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Quantity / Length by Reach
Meadow
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Wetlands
Frequency
Notes
EF1
WF1
WF2
Branch
Dimension
Riffle Cross -Section
N/A
2
1
1
N/A
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
1
Pool Cross -Section
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Year
2
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Year 0
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW)
N/A
1 RW
1 RW
1 RW
N/A
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
3
Pebble Count
Hydrology
Crest Gage (CG) and
N/A
1 CG
1 CG
1 CG
N/A
Quarterly
4
or/Transducer SG
Wetland Hydrology
Groundwater Gages
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
11
Quarterly
Vegetation
CVS Level 2/Mobile
16 (12 permanent, 4 mobile)
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
5
lots
Visual Assessment
Yes
Semi -Annual
Exotic and Nuisance Vegetation
Semi -Annual
6
Project Boundary
Semi -Annual
7
Reference Photos
Photographs
1 18
Annual
Notes:
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.
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.
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.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 3.0 Current Condition Plan View (Key)
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
0 250 500 Feet DMS Project No. 97131
i I i I Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Union County, NC

Q Project Site
L__ Conservation Easement
;'
® Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
a
Preservation
Non -Project Streams
-- -- Bankfull
Cross Sections
0
Photo Points
+
Barotroll
+
Crest Gage
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY1
Criteria Not Met
+
Criteria Met
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MY1
Q Criteria Met (Permanent)
Q Criteria Met (Mobile)
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1
0 In -stream Veg
] Johnsongrass
Stream Areas of Concern - MY1
— Aggradation
— Erosion/Incision
• Issue
i
tiro a-,.'
n:+r ,:, ai'-¢ 's.r. s:._ _., Try-e.. -
df
GPq
12 s
+
M
UAW
7
Al Lf,,
� � 1
6, 0A wq
• • �•• , I
I! TF-_
1
Figure 3.1 Current Condition Plan View
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
WILD LANDS 0 150 300 Feet DMS Project No. 97131
ENGINEERING I i I i I Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Union County, NC

Figure 3.2 Current Condition Plan View
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
WILD LANDS 0 150 300 Feet DMS Project No. 97131
ENGINEERING I i I i I Monitoring Year 1-2020
Union County, NC

Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Reach:EF1
Assessed Length: 1,322
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Y Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
23
23
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
23
23
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
23
23
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
23
23
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
23
23
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
2
77
97%
0
0
97%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
2
77
97%
0
0
97%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
21
21
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
6
6
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
6
6
100%
Structures
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
1
15
7%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
15
15
100%
baseflow.

Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Reach: WF1
Assessed Length: 116
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
4
4
100%
1. Bed
3. Step Pool Condition
Depth Sufficient
4
4
100%
Length Appropriate
4
4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
4
4
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
4
4
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
4
4
100%
Structures
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
N/A
N/A
N/A
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
N/A
N/A
N/A
baseflow.

Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Reach: WF2
Assessed Length: 458
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
1
51
94%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
8
8
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7
7
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
7
7
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
7
7
N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
7
7
N/A
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
1
36
96%
0
0
96%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
36
96%
0
0
96%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
8
8
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
4
4
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
4
4
100%
Structures
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
4
4
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
4
4
100%
baseflow.

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Planted Acreage 21.5
Mapping
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold (acres)
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
0
0.00
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 5, or 7 stem
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
0
0.0
0.0
count criteria.
Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Easement Acreage 23.8
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold (SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
8
1.7
7.2%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0.00
0.0%

Stream Photographs
Monitoring Year 1

Photo Point 1— W-E10, North (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 1— W-E10, South (0812512020) 1
Photo Point 1— W-E10, East (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 1— W-E10, West (0812512020) 1
Photo Point 2 — MB outlet, view upstream (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 2 — MB outlet, view downstream (0812512020) 1

Photo Point 3 — Meadow Branch, view upstream (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 3 — Meadow Branch, view downstream (0812512020) 1
Photo Point 4 — Meadow Branch, view upstream (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 4— Meadow Branch, view downstream (0812512020) 1
Photo Point 4 — WF2 Confluence, view upstream (0910312020) 1

Photo Point 5 — Meadow Branch, view upstream (0910312020) 1 Photo Point 5 — Meadow Branch, view downstream (0910312020) 1
Photo Point 6 — Meadow Branch, view upstream (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 6 — Meadow Branch, view downstream (0812512020) 1
Photo Point 7 — Meadow Branch, view upstream (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 7 — Meadow Branch, view downstream (0812512020) 1

Photo Point 8 — Meadow Branch, view upstream (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 8 — Meadow Branch, view downstream (0812512020) 1
Photo Point 9 — Meadow Branch, view upstream (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 9 — Meadow Branch, view downstream (0812512020) 1
Photo Point 10 — Meadow Branch, view upstream (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 10 —Meadow Branch, view downstream (0812512020) 1

Photo Point 11— Meadow Branch Inlet, view upstream (0812512020) I Photo Point 11— Meadow Branch Inlet, view downstream (0812512020)
Photo Point 11—WF1 Confluence, view upstream (0910312020) 1
Photo Point 12 — WF1 Start, view upstream (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 12 — WF1 Start, view downstream (0910312020) 1

Photo Point 13 — EF1 Start, view upstream (0910312020) 1 Photo Point 13 — EF1 Start, view downstream (0812512020) 1
Photo Point 14 — EF1, view upstream (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 14 — EF1, view downstream (0910312020) 1
Photo Point 15 — EF1, view upstream (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 15 — EF1, view downstream (0812512020) 1

Photo Point 16 — EF1, view upstream (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 16 — EF1, view downstream (0812512020) 1
Photo Point 17 — WF2 Start, view upstream (0812512020) 1 Photo Point 17 — WF2 Start, view downstream (0812512020) 1
Photo Point 18 — WF2, view upstream (0910312020) 1 Photo Point 18 — WF2, view downstream (0910312020) 1

Vegetation Photographs
Monitoring Year 1

Vegetation Plot 1- (0812612020) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 - (0812612020) 1
Vegetation Plot 3 - (0812612020) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 - (0812612020) 1
r
Vegetation Plot 5 - (0812612020) 1 Vegetation Plot 6 - (0812612020) 1

1
I

Mobile Vegetation Plot Photographs
Monitoring Year 1

Area of Concern Photographs

E . t`w
I
�
IT,
1
r
_
Y 4
•�.1' { �11 �
�� "'%�TVA {F-0�
,��`{�
�
�y

' � .fix,,.- - - � - �� � • ,r��

T
a
j
w
f

Groundwater Gage Photographs
Monitoring Year 1

Groundwater Gage 1- (1111312020) Groundwater Gage 2 - (1111312020)
e
"I Z�.
Groundwater Gage 3 - (1111312020) 1 Groundwater Gage 4 - (1111312020) 1
Groundwater Gage 5 - (1111312020) 1Groundwater Gage 6 - (1111312020) 1

Groundwater Gage 7 - (1111312020) 1 Groundwater Gage 8 - (1111312020) 1
Groundwater Gage 9 - (1111312020) 1 Groundwater Gage 10 - (1111312020) 1
Groundwater Gage 11- (1111312020) 1

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Permanent Vegetation Plot
MYO Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean (MYO - 2020)
1
Y
100%
100%
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
MYO Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
1
Y
100%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y

Table 9. CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Report Prepared By
Sara Thompson
Date Prepared
9/1/2020 11:52
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0_Deep Meadow (MYO).mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 1_2020\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
SARA2020
File Size
176816384
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
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
IA 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.
PROJ ECT SU M MARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
97131
Project Name
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Description
Stream and wetland mitigation project in Union County, NC.
Sampled Plots
12

Table 10a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Scientific Name
Current
Common Name
Permanent Vegetation
Species Type
Plot D.
Permanent Plot 1
Permanent Plot 2 Permanent Plot 3 Permanent Plot 4
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Boxelder Maple
Tree
7
4
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
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
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
2
2
2
1 1
1 1
1
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
3
3
3
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
Populus deltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
ITree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1 1
3
3
3
2
2
1 2
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
Quercus phellos
lWillow Oak
ITree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Stem count
12
12
12
13
1 13
1 20
12
12
12
12
12
1 16
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
Species counti
8
1 8
8
18
8
1 9
6
6
6
8
8
9
Stems per ACREI
486
1 486
1 486
1 526
1 526
1 809
1 486
1 486
1 486
1 486
1 486
1 647
Current
Permanent Vegetation
Plot D.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Permanent Plot 5
Permanent Plot 6
Permanent Plot 7
Permanent Plot 8
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Boxelder Maple
Tree
20
2
3
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
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
Lindero benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifero
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
Populus deltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
ITree
Quercus michauxii
IBasket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
ITree
2
2
2
2
2
1 2
Quercus pagoda
I Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
ITree
Quercus phellos
lWillow Oak
ITree
2
1 2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Stem count
13
1 13
33
11
1 11
11
10
10
12
11
11
14
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)i
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
Species counti
7
1 7
8
6
6
6
6
6
7
6
6
7
Stems per ACRE
526
526
1335
44S
445
445
405
405
486
445
1 445
567
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

Table 10b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Scientific Name
Current Permanent
Common Name
Vegetation
Species Type
Plot D.
Permanent Plot 9
Permanent Plot 10 Permanent Plot 11 Permanent Plot 12
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Boxelder Maple
Tree
16
300
4
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
1
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
1
3
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
3
3
3
5
5
5
2
2
2
Populus deltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
JBasketOak,Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
Quercus pagoda
ICherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
Quercus phellos
JWillowCak
Tree
1
1 1
1 1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
14
1 14
1 30
12
12
312
12
1 12
12
11
11
18
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
Species count
6
1 6
1 7
5
1 5
6
7
1 7
1 7
5
5
1 7
Stems per ACREI
567
1 567
1 1214
1 486
1 486
1126261
486
1 486
1 486
445
1 445
1 728
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type MY1 (2020) MYO (2020)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
BoxelderMaple
Tree
356
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
4
4
4
6
6
6
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
24
24
24
26
26
26
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
7
7
7
8
8
8
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
9
9
9
10
10
10
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
13
13
13
13
13
1 13
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
7
7
10
7
7
7
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
12
12
12
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
6
6
6
17
17
17
Platanus occidentalis
ISycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
27
27
27
27
27
27
Populus deltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
Tree
8
8
8
13
13
13
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
18
1 18
18
18
1 18
18
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
18
18
18
22
22
22
Stem count
143
1 143
502
180
180
1 180
size (ares)
12
12
size (ACRES)
0.2965
0.2965
Species counti
12
1 12
13
13 13
13
Stems per ACRE
482
1 1693
607
607
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Table 10c. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Scientific Name
Current Mobile Vegetation Plot
Common Name
(MP) Data
Species Type
i i i
MP1
MP2 MP3 MP4
Pnol-S
Pnol-S
Pnol-S
Pnol-S
Acernegundo
Alnus serrulato
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
5
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
Corpus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
4
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
3
2
1
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
Liriodendrontulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
7
7
1
Populusdeltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
Tree
1
2
5
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
lTree
3
1 1
Quercus pagoda
ICherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
ITree
Quercus phellos
lWillow Oak
ITree
Stem count
11
13
13
9
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)i
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
Species count
3
5
3
5
Stems per ACREJ
445
526
1 526
1 364
Current Mobile
Scientific Name
Vegetation Plot (MP) Data i i
Common Name
Species Type
MY1(2020) MYO (2020)
PnoLS
PnoLS
Acernegundo
0
Alnus serrulato
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
0
1
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
6
9
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
0
2
Corpus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
0
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
5
0
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
6
3
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
0
1
Liriodendrontulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
5
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
15
20
Populusdeltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
Tree
8
4
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
4
2
Quercus pagoda
ICherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
0
5
Quercus phellos
lWillow Oak
Tree
0
9
Stem count
46
62
size (ares)
4
4
size (ACRES)i
0.0988
0.0988
Species count
13
13
Stems per ACREJ
465
1 627
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Iils to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
qP
Pnol-S: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Pre -Restoration Condition
Design
As-Bullt/Basellne
Gage WF1 WF2
EF1
WF1 WF2 EF1
WF1 WF2 EF1
Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Min Max Min I Max Min I Max
Min I Max Min I Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
4.9
6.1
8.2
8.1
8.9
10.2
9.3
9.8
10.3
13.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
6.0
>82
29 >39
18 36
26 1 70
30 68
13.3
64.5
57.0
64.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.9
1.5
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.6
0.5 1 0.9
0.8 1.2
1.0 1 1.3
0.7
1.2
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft2)1
3.2
5.1
8.4
4.4
6.6
8.7
4.0
7.1
5.0
7.9
Width/Depth Ratio
7.3
7.5
8.0
15.0
12.7
12.0
21.3
13.6
21.3
21.9
Entrenchment Ratio3
1.3
12.0
3.8
2.2
6.0
5.0
1.4
6.6
4.9
5.5
Bank Height Ratio
3.4
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
---
SC
16.0
41.3
---
---
---
24.4
37.5
37.4
1 51.8
Profile
Riffle Lengthl(ft)
N/A
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)1
---
---
-- --
0.014 0.036
0.007 0.031
--- ---
0.00963 0.04802
0.00191 1 0.07879
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
N/A
2.2
---
1.4
2.6
1.4
2
---
1.5
2.8
1.3
2.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A
34 F 53
42 81
22
69
41
75
---
---
57
87
38
73
Pool Volume (ft3)1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
---
---
---
N/AZ
23
56
23
57
N/AZ
23
56
23
57
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
---
---
N/AZ
18
27
20
35
N/AZ
18
27
20
35
Rc/Bankfull Width
---
---
---
N/AZ
2.1
3.1
2.3
4.0
N/AZ
2.1
3.1
2.3
4.0
Meander Length (ft)
---
---
---
N/AZ
73
135
93
146
N/AZ
73
135
93
146
Meander Width Ratio
---
N/AZ
2.7
1 6.5
2.7
1 6.5
N/AZ
2.7
1 6.5
1 2.7
1 6.5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D1oo
SC/SC/SC/36.7/78
.5/180.0
SC/10.5/19.7/68.5/
>2048/>2048
---
---
---
0.1/18.0/35.9/98.3/
160.7/256.0
SC/0.2/8.0/67.2/
128.0/256.0
SC/0.3/12.1/81.3/1
37.0/256.0
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
---
---
---
---
0.59
0.49
0.68
0.59
0.24 0.29
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
---
---
103
90
---
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.09 0.20 0.35
0.09
0.20
0.35
0.09 0.20 0.35
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
4%
4%
4%
Rosgen Classification
G4
E4
E4
CO
E4
E4
B4
C4
C3/4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.1
4.5
4.1
3.3
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.4
2.1
2.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
10
20
30
10
20
30
13
24
10
18
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
---
---
---
13
24
36
---
---
---
Max Q-Mannings
---
---
---
126
44
97
---
---
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.0166
0.0170
0.0094
0.0167
0.0183
0.0124
---
---
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
136
391
1,201
136
458
1,322
136
458
1,322
Sinuosity
1.00
1.00
1.04
1.00
1.40
1.30
---
1.40
1.30
Bankfull/Channel Slope' (ft/ft)
0.0192
0.0168
0.0101
0.0160
0.0133
0.0095
0.0274
0.0135
0.0078
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

Table 11b. Reference Reach Data Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Reference Reach Data
Parameter
Gage
UT to Richland Creek
UT to Cane Creek
Spencer Creek 3
UT to Rocky Creek
Foust Creek US
Long Branch
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
8.8
10.4
11.5
12.3
6.3
9.3
12.2
18.5
19.4
14.8
18.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
28.0
31.0
31.0
14.0
125.0
72.4
55.0
101.0
>50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
2.1
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.0
1.2
1.8
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.9
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ftz)
7.8
8.5
8.9
12.2
6.6
8.7
16.3
23.9
24.1
34.6
Width/Depth Ratio
10.0
12.8
12.3
14.4
7.9
9.3
9.1
14.3
15.7
7.9 1
13.8
Entrenchment Ratio
2.5
4.0
2.5
2.7
1.7
4.3
6.0
2.9
5.3
>3.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.4
2.1
1.4
2.5
1.0
1.0
---
---
1.2 1
1.5
D50 (mm)
27.8
11.0
22.6
61.0
41.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
---
---
---
--
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.018 1 0.036
0.015 1 0.035
0.018 1 0.034
0.061 1 0.089
---
0.012 1 0.013
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Max Depth (ft)
14.7
16.0
2.5
2.9
1.2
1.8
2.2
2.5
2.9
2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
33
93
49
91
9
46
26 81
---
---
50 105
Pool Volume (ft3)
---
---
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
---
102
10
50
---
---
60
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
23
38
12
85
---
---
16
87
Rc/Bankfull Width
---
2.0
3.1
1.9
9.1
---
---
1.1
4.7
Meander Length (ft)
---
---
53
178
---
---
---
---
Meander Width Ratio
8.3 8.9
1.6
5.4
---
3.2
4.1
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
---
0.6/12.2/28.8/74.5/12
1.9/8.9/11/64/128
<0.063/2.4562.6/120/
2
9 6/37/61/130/1100
8.1/26.6/25.5/124.8/2
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.28
0.29
0.37
1.05
1.40
1.49
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
---
---
---
--
Rosgen Classification
C4/E4
E4
E4
E4b
C4
C/E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.1
3.8
5.0 1 5.6
5.5
4.0
4.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
32
40
35
85
95
124
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
--
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
Sinuosity
1.00
1.40
1.00 1 1.30
1.10
---
1.30
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0131 1 0.0178
0.0150
0.0190 1 0.0220
0.0240
0.0090
0.0040
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided N/A: Not Applicable

Table 12. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6 MY7
Base MY1 MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation'
485.90
485.96
491.66
491.66
491.48
491.52
Low Bank Elevation
485.90
485.89
491.66
491.69
491.48
491.48
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.3
9.0
11.6
11.4
10.3
10.2
Floodprone Width (ft)2
13.3
13.2
---
---
57.0
57.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
1.0
1.1
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
1.8
2.1
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
4.0
3.3
11.1
12.7
5.0
4.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
21.3
24.7
12.1
10.2
21.3
22.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
1.5
---
---
5.5
5.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
SPI
Dimension and Substrate
1.0
Base
0.9
MY3
F1 Cross
MY2
-Section
MY3
4, Riffle
MY4
MYS
MY6�M7
---
Base
---
MY1
MY2
MY3
.01111,
MY4
r
MY5
MY6
MY7
1.0
Base
1.0
WF2
MYl
Cross
MY2
-Section
MY3
6, Riffle
MY4
MYS
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation'
487.26
487.20
485.68
485.68
485.50
485.63
Low Bank Elevation
487.26
487.21
485.68
485.71
485.50
485.58
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.1
13.1
11.3
10.5
9.8
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)2
64.9
65.9
---
---
64.5
63.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.8
2.0
1.2
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
7.9
8.0
9.9
10.5
7.1
6.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
21.9
21.4
13.0
10.6
13.6
17.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
4.9
5.0
---
---
6.6
6.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
'MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension
parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
2Floodprone width is calculated from the width of cross-section but may valley width may extend further.

Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
W F3
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Rifflez
Dimension and Sub7�,Flooclprone
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.0
9.0
Width (ft)
16.1
13.2
nkfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
0.7
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
6.5
3.3
Width/Depth Ratio
15.3
24.7
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
1.5
Bank Height Ratio
2.1
0.9
Dso (mm)
24.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
---
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/Al
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/Al
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A'
Meander Length (ft)
N/Al
Meander Width Ratio
N/Al
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Di6/D35/D50/Ds4/D95/Dlm
0.1/18.0/35.9/98.3/
160.7/256.0
2.0/10.1/26.2/80.3/
151.8/256.0
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
0.68
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
---
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.09
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
4%
Rosgen Classification
B4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
13
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
136
Sinuosity
---
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0274
'Pattern data is not applicable for A -type and B-type channels
2MYl-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
EF1
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.3
13.1
10.20
13.10
Floodprone Width (ft)
57.0
64.9
57.00
65.90
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.6
0.50
0.60
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
1.0
0.80
1.00
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
5.0
7.9
4.60
8.00
Width/Depth Ratio
2 .
1 21.9
21.40
1 22.50
Entrenchment Ratio
4.9
1 5.5
5.00
1 5.60
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
Dso (mm)
37.4 51.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001911 0.078794
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.3
2.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
38
73
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
23
57
Radius of Curvature (ft)
20
35
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.3
4.0
Meander Length (ft)
93
146
Meander Width Ratio
2.7
6.5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Dis/Das/Dso/Dsa/D9s/Dion
SC/0.3/12.1/81.3/137.
0/256.0
4.73/12.2/20.5/71.7/1
04.7/180.0/
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
0.24 7 0.29
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
---
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.35
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
0
Rosgen Classification
C3/4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.1
2.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
10
18
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,322
Sinuosity
1.30
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0078
'MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 13c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
WF2
Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.8
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
64.5
63.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.0
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
7.1
6.6
Width/Depth Ratio
13.6
17.1
Entrenchment Ratio
6.6
6.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
Dso (mm)
37.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.009632 0.04802
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
2.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
57
87
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
23
56
Radius of Curvature (ft)
18
27
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.1
3.1
Meander Length (ft)
73
135
Meander Width Ratio
2.7
6.5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Dis/Das/Dso/Dsa/D9s/Dion
SC/O.2/8.0/67.2/
128.0/256.0
SC/1.6/14.7/70.9/
110.1/256.0
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
0.59
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
---
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.20
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
4%
Rosgen Classification
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
24
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
458
Sinuosity
1.40
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0135
'MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Cross -Section Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Cross -Section 1 - WF1
401+04 Riffle
488
487
486
c
0
.m
m
w
485
---------------------- --------------------------------
-------------------- --------- ------------------------
484
5 15 25
Width (ft)
MYO (11/2019) MY1 (09/2020) - Bankfull ----- MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
3.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.0
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
9.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
24.7
width -depth ratio
13.2
W flood prone area (ft)
1.5
entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 09/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 2 - EF1
204+19 Pool
492
491
c
0
.m
490
w
489
10
20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
-MYO (11/2019) --$---MY1 (09/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.4
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
12.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 09/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 3 - EF1
204+36 Riffle
493
492
c
---------------------------
------------ ------------------
- ------- ---------
---------------------------
0
m
491
a
w
490
10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (11/2019) MY1 (09/2020) - Bankfull Floodprone Area ----- MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
4.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.2
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
10.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
22.5
width -depth ratio
57.0
W flood prone area (ft)
5.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 09/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 4 - EF1
210+89 Riffle
489
488
c
0
.m
0 487
w
486
10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (11/2019) + MY1(09/2020) - Bankfull Floodprone Area ----- MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
8.0
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)
21.4
width -depth ratio
65.9
W flood prone area (ft)
5.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 09/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Cross -Section 5 - WF2
303+49 Pool
487
486
485
c
0
.m
m
w
484
483
15
25 35 45 55
Width (ft)
-MYO (11/2019) MY1(09/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
10.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.5
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
11.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 09/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Cross -Section 6 - WF2
303+81 Riffle
487
486
-------------------- -- --
---------------------------------------
- --- --- ------------------
485
c
0
.m
m
w
484
483
20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (11/2019) +MY1 (09/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area ----- MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
6.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.6
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
10.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.1
width -depth ratio
63.7
W flood prone area (ft)
6.0
entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 09/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
WF1, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Panicle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
7
9
9
9
Very fine
0.062
0.125
9
Fine
0.125
0.250
9
Medium
0.25
0.50
9
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
4
6
6
16
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
16
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
16
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
18
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
5
9
9
27
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
6
11
11
38
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
6
6
44
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
2
3
3
47
Coarse
22.6
32
5
2
7
7
54
Very Coarse
32
45
5
4
9
9
63
Very Coarse
45
64
4
3
7
7
70
Small
64
90
12
9
21
21
91
Small
90
128
3
3
3
94
Large
128
180
2
2
2
96
Large
180
256
2
2
4
4
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
s0
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
2.0
D35 =
10.1
D50 =
26.2
D. =
80.3
D95 =
151.8
D100=
256.0
WF1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
-
90 SilUClay III
80
Sand Gravel
Cobble i er
Bedrock
70
e
60
>
16 50
3
E 40
v
30
m
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-12/2019 t MYl-08/2020
WF1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
u
60
�
a
50
�
40
�j
3
30
v
>
20
10
0
,y'b g0 5� �ti y'L .tib bW
1
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-12/2019 ■ MYl-08/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
EF1, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Panicle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
12
13
13
13
Very fine
0.062
0.125
13
Fine
0.125
0.250
13
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
14
Coarse
0.5
1.0
14
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
14
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
14
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
15
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
17
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
6
6
23
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
5
8
8
31
Medium
11.0
16.0
9
5
14
14
45
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
2
7
7
52
Coarse
22.6
32
4
7
11
11
63
Very Coarse
32
45
5
4
9
9
72
Very Coarse
45
64
6
2
8
8
80
Small
64
90 1
10
2 1
12
12 1
92
Small
90
128
6
1
7
7
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512 1
1024 1
100
Large/Very Large
1024 1
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
s0
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D 16 =
4.7
D35 —
12.2
D50 =
20.5
D. =
71.7
D95 =
104.7
D100=
180.0
EF1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
-
90 SiltlClay III
80
Sand Gravel
Cobble er
Bedrock
70
e
60
>
16 50
3
E 40
v
30
m
20
IM:L
LLL
-
-t
10
-77
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-12/2019 t MYl-08/2020
EF1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
u
60
�
a
50
�
40
�j
3
30
v
'>
20
10
0
,01 g0 5� �ti y'L .tib bb
1
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-12/2019 ■ MYl-08/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
WF2, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Panicle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
28
28
28
28
Very fine
0.062
0.125
28
Fine
0.125
0.250
28
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
3
4
4
32
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
33
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
1
3
3
36
Very Fine
2.0 1
2.8
36
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
36
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
37
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
2
2
39
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
4
43
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
6
9
9
52
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
2
5
5
57
Coarse
22.6
32
4
1
5
5
62
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
6
68
Very Coarse
45
64
11
2
13
13
81
Small
64
90
9
1
10
10
91
Small
90
128
7
7
7
98
Large
128
180
98
Large
180
256
2
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BE©Rf3CK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
s0
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
1.6
D50 =
14.7
D. =
70.9
D95 =
110.1
D100=
256.0
WF2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
-
SiltIClay III
Sand
90
80
Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
70
e
60
>
16 50
3
3 40
v
30
m
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-12/2019 t MY1-08/2020
WF2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
u
60
�
a
50
�
40
�j
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
bW
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-12/2019 ■ MYl-08/2020

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
WF1
P.
11/12/2020
j. P.
11/13/2020
1
Photographic
Documentation
EF1
2/6/2020
2/6/2020
Crest Gage
4/13/2020
4/13/2020
Crest Gage
5/21/2020
5/21/2020
Crest Gage
5/27/2020
5/27/2020
Crest Gage
8/9/2020
8/9/2020
Crest Gage
8/15/2020
8/15/2020
Crest Gage
10/11/2020
10/11/2020
Crest Gage
11/12/2020
11/13/2020
Crest Gage
WF2
1/25/2020
1/25/2020
Crest Gage
2/6/2020
2/6/2020
Crest Gage
4/13/2020
4/13/2020
Crest Gage
5/21/2020
5/21/2020
Crest Gage
5/27/2020
5/27/2020
Crest Gage
8/9/2020
8/9/2020
Crest Gage
8/15/2020
8/15/2020
Crest Gage
10/11/2020
10/11/2020
Crest Gage
10/30/2020
10/30/2020
Crest Gage
11/12/2020
11/13/2020
Crest gage and
photographs

Recorded Bankfull Flow Events
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
489
488
487
486
w
m
3
485
484
483
Deep Meadow: Bankfull Event Monitoring Crest Gage for Stream Gage #1 (WF1-XSI)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
C 4 T C75b0 O_ > u
m w Q 5 Q v�i O Z p LL
Rainfall Stream Gage #1 (WF1- XS1) Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — -Bankfull
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5
c
2.0 z
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Recorded Bankfull Flow Events
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Deep Meadow: Bankfull Event Monitoring Crest Gage for Stream Gage #2 (EF1- XS3)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
493
5.0
4.5
4.0
492
3.5
Z—
— — — — — — — —
3.0
c
-
a
491
2.5
�
c
3
— — ——
—————— — — — — ——
------------------ —
-----
2.0°�
1.5
490
1.0
0.5
489
0.0
C 4 T C b0 O_ > u
LL ¢ S ¢ v�i O z
Rainfall Stream Gage #2 (EF1-XS3) Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • Bankfull

Recorded Bankfull Flow Events
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Deep Meadow: Bankfull Event Monitoring Crest Gage for Stream Gage #3 (WF2- XS6)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
487
486
x
485
d
m
3
484
483
C 4 T C75 b0
LL
Q S -2 Q
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5
c
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
O >
o z
Rainfall Stream Gage #3 (WF2- XS6) Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • -Bankfull

Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gage
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Yes/111 days
1
(48.5%)
Yes/58 days
2
(25.3%)
Yes/25 days
3
(10.9%)
Yes/63 days
4
(27.5%)
Yes/229 days
5
(100%)
Yes/51 days
6
(22.3%)
Yes/58 days
7
(25.3%)
Yes/51 days
8
(22.3%)
Yes/27 days
9
(11.8%)
Yes/26 days
10
(11.4%)
No/20 days
11
(8.7%)

Groundwater Gage Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Wetland W-E10
20
10
0
-40
50
60
C
0
v
o
bD N
O
N
0 m
6 �
— rn
0
t=
Ln
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #1
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
111 days
Y
w 2: Q Q N O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level O Manual Water Level Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
2
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
m

Groundwater Gage Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Wetland W-E9
0
0
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #2
o
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
n o
bD
= 0
58 days
-C
N
3
6.0
O M
2
20
l7 C,
p M
O
10
;°
LL,
5.0
0
4.0
10
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
3,
3.0
-20
vAR
m
W
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
0.0
-60
—R LL 2
Q .2t Q
cn O z o
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level O Manual Water Level Measurement

Groundwater Gage Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Wetland W-E8
20
10
0
-10
Gl
J -20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C
0
v
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #3
bD
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
0
� N
o m
6 �
—
— m
0
I
V)
■ I 1
■��r:—
C
0
v
N o
c o
25 d� .� \
o
(7 �
0
0
w
Y
LL 2: Q Q N O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level O Manual Water Level Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
m

Groundwater Gage Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Wetland W-E7
20
10
0
-40
50
60
c
0
v
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #4
bD
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
63 days
No
o m
c7 n
—
0
0
t=
Y
LL 2: Q Q N O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level O Manual Water Level Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Wetland W-E1
30
20
10
0
> -10
J
N
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
C >- C 75 00 CL +-' > U
-�. LL 2 Q . Q to O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level O Manual Water Level Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Wetland W-E2
20
10
0
-10
v
J -20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C >- C 75 bD CL +-' > U
—�. LL 2 Q . Q to O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level O Manual Water Level Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Wetland W-E2
20
10
0
-10
v
J -20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C >- C 75 bD CL +-' > U
—�. LL 2 Q . Q to O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level O Manual Water Level Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Wetland W-E3
20
10
0
-10
v
J -20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C >- C 75 bD CL +-' > U
—�. LL 2 Q . Q to O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — Criteria Level O Manual Water Level Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Wetland W-E4
20
10
0
-10
v
J -20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C >- C 75 bD CL +-' > U
—�. LL 2 Q . Q to O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #9 — — Criteria Level O Manual Water Level Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Wetland W-E5
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #10
o
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020to
o
= 0
26 days
bn
=
3 �
��
3
6.0
o C
o O
20
l7
(7
o
o
10
m
Y
N
C
5.0
0
Vt\4
4.0
-F
KKK
-10
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_
3,
3.0
v
-20
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
If0.0
-60
-' °' 2:
a . <
Ln o z° o
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 — — Criteria Level O Manual Water Level Measurement

Groundwater Gage Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Wetland W-E6
_
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #11
_
0
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
v
o
= 0
20 days
to o
~�
o \
6.0
20
N
c
0 M
O
10
t
N
w
5.0
4.0
lk
-10
3,
3.0
-20
v
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
0.0
-60
-' °' � a < Ln o z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 — — Criteria Level O Manual Water Level Measurement

Groundwater Gage Plots
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
20
10
0
_ -10
a
-20
a
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C >T C 75 bD Q +-' > U
—O LL 2: Q g Q N O z 0
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
m
z
2.0
1.0
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Dat2
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Deep Meadow 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020
10
9
8
7
c 6
r
0
m 5
.a
'u
a
o` 4
3
2
1
0
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Date
USGS 3506270804 10645 CRN-39 RAINGAGE AT NCDOT FACILITY, MATTHEWS, NC -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
Annual Rainfall collected by USGS 350627080410645 CRN-39 RAINGAGE AT NCDOT FACILITY, MATTHEWS, NC (Downloaded 11/19/2020)
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS station Monroe 2 SE, NC

Bankfull Photographs

EF1 Wrackline (11/13/2020) 1 EF1 at bankfull (11/13/2020 1
EF1 Crest Gage 2 Wrackline (11/13/2020) 1
Meadow Branch at Bankfull (11/13/2020) 1Meadow Branch wracklines (11/13/2020) 1

WF1 Stream Gage Wrackline (11/13/2020) 1 Sediment deposit on bank of WF1 (11/13/2020) 1
WF1 Crest Gage 1 Wrackline/ Sediment Deposit (11/13/2020) 1
WF2 Wrackline (11/13/2020) 1WF2 at Bankfull (11/13/2020) 1

APPENDIX 6. Agency Correspondence

Ella Wickliff
To: Ella Wickliff
Cc: Aaron Earley
Subject: FW: Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Deep Meadow Mitigation Site/ SAW-2012-01077/
Union Co.
Attachments: Deep Meadow_97131_YD 105_Initial Release signed.pdf
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:28 AM
To: Tsomides, Harry <[e-mail]>; Aaron Earley <[e-mail]>; Shawn Wilkerson
<[e-mail]>; Stanfill, Jim <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>;
Baumgartner, Tim <[e-mail]>
Cc: Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; 'Wilson, Travis W.
([e-mail])' <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>; Merritt,
Katie <[e-mail]>; 'Bowers, Todd ([e-mail])' <[e-mail]>; Byron Hamstead
(byron [e-mail]) <byron [e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Subject: Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Deep Meadow Mitigation Site/ SAW-2012-01077/ Union Co.
Good morning,
The 15-Day Record Drawing review for the Deep Meadow Mitigation Site (SAW-2012-01077) ended May 30, 2020. Per
Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review followed the streamlined review process. All comments
received from the NCIRT are incorporated in this email. Please address IRT concerns in the MY1 Report. There were nc
objections to issuing the initial credit release. Please find attached the current signed ledger.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
Groundwater gauges 3 and 11 appear to be located outside of wetland reestablishment credit areas. If these gauges
were placed to demonstrate additional wetland area, that's fine. But DWR would like groundwater gauges installed
within the reestablishment areas W-E6 and W-E8 as specified in the approved mitigation plan to demonstrate success of
the wetland hydroperiod performance standard.
EPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the Deep Meadow Mitigation Site MY 0/As-Built
Report as a component of the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee program modification (SAW-
2012-01077). The project, located in Union County NC, restored, enhanced and preserved a total of 4,365 linear feet of
perennial stream and rehabilitated 0.58 acres and re-established 8.26 acres of riparian wetlands. The project is providing
2,838.933 stream mitigation units and 8.590 wetland mitigation units for the Yadkin River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code
03040105 (Yadkin 05). The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between September and November
2019 and planting and baseline vegetation data collection occurred between November 2019 and January 2020. After a
thorough review, the EPA Region 4 Oceans, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch has no comments or concerns with
the MYO Report for the Deep Meadow mitigation site. The report appears to be in order and presents a well built and
thus far, well performing site with much potential for functional uplift of aquatic resources.
Please contact the mitigation office if you have any questions.
Thanks
Kim

kt:�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 21, 2020
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
[e-mail]
RE: IRT Review Comments: 15-Day Record Drawing Review/ Notice of Initial Credit Release
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site, Union County, NC (SAW-2012-01077)
Yadkin River Basin — HUC 03040105
DMS Project ID No. 97131 / DEQ Contract #006887
Dear Ms. Browning:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the 15-Day Record Drawing review comments from
the NC Interagency Review Team (IRT) associated with the Deep Meadow Mitigation Site Initial Credit
Release. The MY1 report text includes responses to the IRT comments. Responses are also included
below. The following are your comments and observations from the report and are noted in Bold.
Wildlands' response to those comments are noted in Italics.
DWR Comment, Erin Davis: Groundwater gauges 3 and 11 appear to be located outside of wetland
reestablishment credit areas. If these gauges were placed to demonstrate additional wetland area,
that's fine. But DWR would like groundwater gauges installed within reestablishment areas W-E6 and
W-E8 as specified in the approved mitigation plan to demonstrate success of the wetland hydroperiod
performance standard.
Wildlands Response: The current location of these wells is as close to the Mitigation Plan's proposed
gage location as possible. Multiple holes were bored in the areas surrounding the Mitigation Plan's
proposed gage locations, however, installation was difficult due to a shallow layer of bedrock where
refusal was reached at approximately 3 - 4 feet. Though the resulting locations for GWG3 and GWG11,
at the edge of the proposed wetland boundary, is not optimal, it is the assumption that if the wetland
meets criteria on the edge wetland boundary, the remainder of the wetland will also meet. Results from
groundwater monitoring from MY1 are reflective of this assumption with GWG3 meeting the
performance criteria and GWG11 just barely missing the success criteria of 10% with a rate of 8.7%. If
GWG11 continues to not meet the success criteria for wetland hydrology in subsequent monitoring years,
Wildlands will install another well closer to the center of W-E6.
EPA Comment, Todd Bowers: Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site MYO/ As -Built Report as a component of the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee program modification (SAW-2012-01077). The project, located in Union
County NC, restored, enhanced and preserved a total of 4,354 linear feet of perennial stream and
rehabilitated 0.58 acres and re-established 8.26 acres of riparian wetlands. The project is providing
2,838.933 stream mitigation units and 8.590 wetland mitigation units for the Yadkin River Basin
Hydrologic Unit Code 03040105 (Yadkin 05). The Site construction and as -built survey were completed
between September and November 2019 and planting and baseline vegetation data collection
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
occurred between November 2019 and January 2020. After a thorough review, the EPA Region 4
Oceans, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch has no comments or concerns with the MYO Report
for the Deep Meadow mitigation site. The report appears to be in order and presents a well built and
thus far, well performing site with much potential for functional uplift of aquatic resources.
Wildlonds Response: Thank you for reviewing the report.
Sincerely,
�995
Kristi Suggs
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203