20160980 Ver 1_SAW-2016-01989 Neu Con Meadow Spring Year 4 Monitoring Report_20221122

ID#* 20160980
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 11/29/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 11/22/2022
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
O Yes O No
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Jamey McEachran [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#:* 20160980 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS • Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Meadow Spring Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
County: Johnston
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: SAW-2016-01989 Neu Con Meadow Spring Year 4
48.79MB
Monitoring Report.pdf
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name: * Jamey McEachran
Signature: *
I " §Cfa6&4A.

3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
November 22, 2022
Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Meadow SpringYear 4Monitoring Report(SAW-2016-01989)
Sam,
Please find attached the Meadow SpringYear 4 MonitoringReport.In Year 4, 20 of the 21vegetation plots
met the 320 stems per acre success criteria.Vegetation plot 18 failed with 202stems per acre; this area will
be replanted with livestakes and six-foot whips in the dormant season prior to MY5. Geomorphology data
was not collected in MY4 per the approvedmitigation plan; it will be collected again in MY5 and MY7. Data
collected in MY3 is included in Appendix D for reference.Bankfull events were recorded on both stage
recordersmarking the fourth year bankfull events have been recorded. Seven of the 11 groundwater wells
met success with a hydroperiod range of 4 to 52percent.A general wetland delineation was performed
throughout the western portion of the Project in February 2022 to evaluate successful wetland areas and
those at risk. Three additional groundwater wetland gauges were installed (GW1-B, GW4-B, and GW7-B)
following the delineation in order to capture supplementary hydrologic information throughout the
growing season; however, Johnston County suffered a severe drought throughout the majority of 2022,
skewing the data of the newly installed gauges(compared to a normalyear of precipitation). Additional
analysis of the wetlands at risk can be found in the MY4 monitoring report and Appendices.
An adaptive management plan addressing four areas of concern was submitted to the IRT in June 2022 and
work was completed in August 2022. The areas addressed included, two failing log toes, a failing log sill,
drained wetland hydrologyfrom an open backwater slough, and an area of stream bank failure.Additional
information regarding the AMP can be found in the MY4 report and Appendix B and F. A few areas of
loblolly pine were observed throughout the western portion of the Project and will be thinned in the
following monitoring year; these areas can be seen on Figure 2; Appendix B. Chinese privet was treated
throughout the Project in November 2022.
NC IRT MY3 Review Comments:
Todd Tugwell, USACE:
1. Some of the cross sections (Reach 2 –cross-section 2, Reach S6A –crosssection7) show some signs of
incision. Were these conditions noted in otherareas than just at the cross-sections? Additionally, it is helpful
to have thelocations of all problem areas identified on the map and more clearly addressedin the report,
including photos. Please address stream problem areas in moredetail in subsequent reports and include
photographs of the areas in question. Ifrepairs will be substantial (streambank repairs that exceed 75 linear
res.us

feet, or the addition of stabilization structures not included in the final mitigation plan), please be aware
that an Adaptive Management Plan should be submitted prior to conducting the work.
An adaptive management plan (AMP) was submitted in June 2022 regarding four areas of concern
throughout the Project, and work was completed in August 2022; information regarding the AMP can be
referenced in Appendix F of this report. Geomorphology data will be collected again in MY5, and these
areas of incision will be evaluated to determine whether or not further action is necessary.
2. Hydrographs do not show the period where the performance standard was met. Please include this on
subsequent reports.
The period where performance standard was met has been included on all hydrographs, located in
Appendix E.
3. We have concerns regarding the performance of wetlands on the site. Based on the data and locations
of gauges, it appears that these areas may be significant. We recommend adding gauges to determine the
area of concern with more detail. Based on these concerns, we are not releasing wetland credit this year
and would like to conduct a follow-up site visit prior to next year’s release to evaluate the ditch plugs and
other conditions on the site.
Three groundwater wetland gauges were installed throughout the western portion of the site, following a
general wetland risk delineation, performed in February 2022. Further analysis and wetland crediting
breakdown can be found in the MY4 report and appendices.
Casey Haywood, USACE
1. What species were planted in the January 2021 supplemental planting? In future reports please include
areas that were supplementally planted on the CCPV.
Species planted in January 2021 included: black willow, button bush, laurel oak, silky dogwood, and bald
cypress. Areas of supplemental planting have been included as callouts on the CCPV for MY4.
2. The narrative states that the eroded log sill at cross section 16 will be replaced, will it be replaced with
the same material? Appreciated the photo at XS16.
All information regarding the repaired area along S7 (XS 16) can be found in Appendix F, as a part of the
Adaptive Management Plan.
3. Please identify all repair areas on the CCPV in future reports. It would be helpful to include photos of MY3
repairs on S2 and S6A in the MY4 report or discuss the condition of the repair areas in the narrative.
All repair locations from MY4 can be found on the CCPV and associated information, detailing each repair
can be found in the MY4 report and Appendices.
4. Veg plots 2, & 9-11 are dominated by sweetgum and loblolly pine. It will be important to monitor and/or
manage these areas to ensure that the more desirable species are not outcompeted.
Veg plots 2, 9, 10, and 11 have a range of 607 to 850 planted stems per acre, of desirable native species.
These areas will continue to be monitored for undesirable species. Pines will be thinned, as needed,
throughout the end of 2022 and into 2023.
5. It is concerning that wetland gauges 1, 4, 5, & 7 have not met the performance standard in any of the
monitoring years. Besides installing an additional plug to the ditch near gauge 7, has any other actions been
considered for the other 3 gauges not meeting success? It appears that gauge 4 is also adjacent to a ditch,
would this area benefit from adding an additional plug?
Discussion of wetland success, risk, and general analysis can be found in the MY4 report and appendices.
2

6. Was the precipitation data collected from the airport similar to the rain gauge onsite? It might be helpful
to include the onsite rain gauge data as a separate table or as a graph.
The onsite rain gauge data was not available in MY3 or MY4 due to a malfunctioning gauge sensor. The
addition of this data will be considered in MY5. Because of the close proximity of the Project to the Johnston
County Airport Station (~4 miles), there is little concern for rain data accuracy.
Erin Davis, NCDWR
1. Figure 2 CCPV – Moving forward, please show/callout areas of work completed during monitoring year
and proposed for the upcoming year (e.g. S2 – S6A stream repairs; January 2021 supplemental planting
area(s); XS-16 stream repair; ditch plug construction).
All repair areas can be seen on the MY4 CCPV. Adaptive Management Plan repairs can be referenced in
Appendix F.
2. What species were installed during the January 2021 supplemental planting effort?
Species planted in January 2021 included: black willow, button bush, laurel oak, silky dogwood, and bald
cypress.
3. Based on the loblolly volunteers present in veg plot 2 and sweetgum volunteers in veg plots 9 – 11, is
management action being considered?
Veg plots 2, 9, 10, and 11 have a range of 607 to 850 planted stems per acre, of desirable native species.
These areas will continue to be monitored for undesirable species. Pines will be thinned, as needed,
throughout the end of 2022 and into 2023.
4. A few supplemental winter photos could be helpful in showing stream features along the smaller
tributaries.
This addition of photos will be considered in the MY5 report.
5. Based on the cross-section data, I would watch the aggradation along Reach S11.
Thank you for the suggestion. This area will be monitored closely for signs of aggradation in MY5.
6. What is the distance from the JoCo Airport Station to the project site?
Four miles; this information has been added to Table 11 in Appendix E.
7. At this point DWR would consider GW1, GW4, GW5 and GW7 as potentially “at risk”. I’m glad that an
adaptive management action has been developed for the GW7 wetland area. Please provide more
information on the proposed ditch plug installation. How long will the plug be? Has the fill material source
been identified? What is the total area of disturbance? Will all disturbed areas be reseeded and planted?
Also, have any adaptive management or additional data collection (e.g. soil samples, supplemental wells)
options been considered for the other three wetland credit areas around the wells not yet meeting the
project performance standard?
All information regarding the approved Adaptive Management Plan and wetland risk areas have been
included in the MY4 report, in sections 1.7 and 1.8 as well as the Appendices.

RES is requesting a 5% stream credit release (272.00 SMUs) and a 10% bankfull credit release (544 SMUs).
Additionally, RES is requesting that last years scheduled Wetland Credits of 15% plus this year’s 5% credit
releases be released to the sum of (2.88 WMUs) for the completion of the Year 4 monitoring report. Please
see enclosed the credit release schedule and an updated credit ledger.
Thank you,

Jamey McEachran | Regulatory Manager
3

Date
8/19/20192/25/202012/7/2022
11/13/201811/20/2020
Actual Release
4
Date
Varies
Projected
3/15/2020
12/31/202112/31/202112/31/202212/31/202412/31/202512/31/2026
Release Date
NANANA
Coastal
Credits
NANANA
15%15%10%15%20%10%15%
Releases
Scheduled
Non-Forested Wetland
Johnston302020110/24/201811/22/2022
NA
Credits
Coastal
Wetland
Non-Riparian
Non-Forested
NA
Riparian
Non-RiparianNon-Riverine
County:8-Digit HUC:Year Project Instituted:Date Prepared:
NA
2.162.161.441.442.160.722.160.721.44
7.20
Forested Wetland Credits
RiparianRiverine
Riparian
Non-Riverine
Forested Wetland Credits
4141
NA
5%5%
15%15%10%10%15%15%10%
14.14.
Riverine
Riparian
Releases
Scheduled
Current and Future Credit Releases
Cold Cold
WaterWater
Cool Cool
WaterWater
Wilmington District Mitigation Bank Credit Release Schedule
Total Potential Credits
Stream Credits
Warm Warm
WaterStream CreditsWater
899.00816.00
544.000544.000544.000272.000544.000544.000272.000544.000
3347.00
5%5%
10%
15%15%10%10%10%10%10%
Releases
Scheduled
Meadow SpringEBX-Neuse ISAW-2016-019892016-0980V1
1, 2 Signature of Wilmington District Official Approving Credit Release
4
3
Credit Classification
2 (Year 0/As-Built)
3 (Year 1 Monitoring)4 (Year 2 Monitoring)5 (Year 3 Monitoring)6 (Year 4 Monitoring)7 (Year 5 Monitoring)8 (Year 6 Monitoring)9 (Year 7 Monitoring)
Potential Credits from As-Built Survey
Potential Credits from Mitigation Plan
Credit Release Milestone
Stream Bankfull Standard
Total Credits Release to Date
) Execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan;) Mitigation bank site must be secured;) Delivery of the financial assurances described
in the Mitigation Plan;) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;) 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.

1 (Bank/Site Establishment)
123456
Project Name:Sponsor Name:USACE Action ID:NCDWQ Action ID:Contingencies (if any): None 1 - The first credit release milestone is based on the potential credits stated in the approved
mitigation plan.2 - The first credit release shall occur upon establishment of the mitigation bank, which includes the following criteria:3 - The second credit release is based on the
credit totals from the as-built survey, and may differ slightly from the credit totals stated in the mitigation plan.4 - A 15% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull
event performance standard has been met.

MEADOW SPRINGMITIGATION
SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

SAW-2016-01989 | NEU-CON STREAM AND WETLAND UMBI

YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT

Provided by:

Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse I, LLC,
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-623-9889

November 2022

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Project Location and Description ................................................................................. 2
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................ 3
1.3 Project Success Criteria ................................................................................................ 3
Stream Success Criteria ...................................................................................................... 4
Wetland Success Criteria .................................................................................................... 4
Vegetation Success Criteria ................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Project Components ....................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Design/Approach .......................................................................................................... 6
Stream ................................................................................................................................. 6
Wetland ................................................................................................................................ 7
1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions .......................................................................... 8
1.7 Wetland Risk and Adaptive Management Plan ............................................................ 8
1.8 Year 4 Monitoring Performance (MY4) ........................................................................ 8
Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 8
Stream Geomorphology ...................................................................................................... 9
Stream Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 10
Wetland Hydrology ............................................................................................................ 10
2.0 Methods ................................................................................................................................... 13
3.0 References ................................................................................................................................ 14

Meadow Spring Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

Appendix A: Background Tables
Table 1: Project Mitigation Components
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3: Project Contacts Table
Table 4: Project Background Information Table
Figure 1: Site Location Map

Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2: Current Conditions Plan View
Vegetation Plot Photos
Monitoring Device Photos
Vegetation Problem Areas
Adaptive Management Plan Before and After Repair Areas

Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5: Planted Species Summary
Table 6: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 7. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species

Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Cross-Section Overlay Plots (Last Year’s Plots for Reference)
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table

Appendix E: Hydrology Data
Table 10. 2022 Rainfall Data
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Table 12. 2022 Max Hydroperiod
Table 13. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
MY4 Groundwater Hydrographs
Figure 3: Wetland Risk Delineation and Groundwater Well Map

Appendix F: Adaptive Management Plan

Meadow Spring 1 Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

1.0 Project Summary
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site (Site) is located within a watershed dominated by agricultural land use
in Johnston County, North Carolina, approximately three miles north of Smithfield. The project streams and
wetlands were significantly impacted by channelization, impoundment, and cattle access. The project
involves the restoration and protection of streams in the Neuse River watershed and the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of adjacent riparian wetlands. The purpose of this mitigation site is to
restore, enhance and preserve a stream/wetland complex located within the Neuse River Basin. The Site
was designed in concurrence with the Meadow Spring Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank.
The Site lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201.

The total easement area is 60.93 acres. The wooded areas along the easement corridor designated for
restoration activities are classified as mixed hardwoods. Invasive species were present throughout the
wooded areas. Restored channels were both laterally and vertically unstable, impacted by cattle, have
disturbed riparian buffers, and did not fully support aquatic life. Previous stream conditions along the
restoration reaches exhibited habitat degradation because of impacts from livestock and impoundment to
promote agricultural activities.

The Meadow Spring Site includes stream Priority I/II Restoration, Enhancement Levels I II and III,
Preservation and wetland re-habilitation, re-establishment, enhancement and preservation. Priority I
Restoration reaches incorporate the construction of a single-thread meandering channel, with parameters
based on data taken from the reference site described above, published empirical relationships, NC Coastal
Plain Regional Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.

Wetland re-establishment occurred adjacent to Priority I Restoration reaches. The restoration approach was
to reconnect the floodplain wetlands to the stream, fill existing ditches, rough the floodplain surface, and
plant native tree and shrub species commonly found in small stream swamp ecosystems. The wetland
enhancement treatment included livestock exclusion, improving hydrology via pond removal and ditch
plugging, and planting native tree and shrub species.

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

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

Meadow Spring 2 Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

1.2Project Goals and Objectives
The 2010 Neuse RBRP identified several restoration needs for the entire Neuse River Basin, as well as for
HUC 03020201, specifically. The Site is in HUC 03020201100050 (Neuse River), a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW) that exhibits both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration. The
watershed includes 52 square miles of area, with 31 percent of the 106 stream miles lacking wooded buffers.
Thirty-seven percent of the watershed is used for agricultural purposes with 13 animal operations occurring
in the watershed. Impervious surface near the town of Smithfield is increasing and set to surpass the critical
seven percent benchmark (NCDMS 2010).

The Site was identified as a stream and buffer restoration opportunity to improve water quality, habitat, and
hydrology within the Neuse River Basin. This project is intended to provide Stream Mitigation Units to be
applied as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable authorized impacts to waters of the US under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and support the overall goal of “no net loss” of aquatic resources
in the United States. The Site is located within the downstream end of HUC 03020201 and includes an
unnamed tributary that directly discharges into the Neuse River. Many of the project design goals and
objectives, including restoration of riparian buffers to filter runoff from agricultural operations and improve
terrestrial habitat, and construction of in-stream structures to improve habitat diversity, will address the
degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major watershed stressors
in the 2010 Neuse RBRP.

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

1.3 Project Success Criteria
The Site follows the USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the “Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update” dated October 24, 2016. Cross section and vegetation plot data
will be collected in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream and wetland hydrology data and visual monitoring will
be reported annually.

Meadow Spring 3 Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

Stream Success Criteria
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down-cutting or
erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified
using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches.

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

Wetland Success Criteria
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has a current WETs table for Johnston County upon
which to base a normal rainfall amount and average growing season. The closest comparable data station
was determined to be the WETS station for Smithfield, NC. The growing season for Johnston County is 233
days long, extending from March 18 to November 6, and is based on a daily minimum temperature greater
than 28 degrees Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years.
Based upon field observation across the site, the NRCS mapping units show a good correlation to actual
site conditions in areas of the site. Mitigation guidance for soils in the Coastal Plain suggests a hydroperiod
for the Bibb soil of 12-16 percent of the growing season. The hydrology success criterion for the Site is to
restore the water table so that it will remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12
percent of the growing season (approximately 27 days) at each groundwater gauge location. Based on the
extensive management history of the Site and soil compaction, RES expects a slighty reduced hydroperiod
in the monitoring years 1 and 2.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site follow IRT
Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 0.02 acres in size and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring shall occur annually between July 15 and leaf drop.
The interim measures of vegetative success for the site are the survival of at least 320 planted three-year
old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 five-year old trees that are at least 7 feet tall at the end of Year
5, and the final vegetative success criteria is 210 trees per acre with an average height of ten feet at the
end of Year 7. Volunteer trees are to be counted, identified to species, and included in the yearly
monitoring reports, but do not count towards the success criteria of total planted stems.

Meadow Spring 4 Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

1.4Project Components
The project area is comprised of an easement area along an unnamed tributary to the Neuse River. The
easement is separated by an existing power easement and three agricultural crossings. The project is divided
into northern and southern portions by the existing power easement. The northern portion of the project
includes Reaches S1, S2, S5, S6A and S6B. The southern portion of the project includes Reaches S7, S9, S11,
S12 and S13. The stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized below.
Mitigation Plan Stream Credits
Stream Mitigation
Existing
Design Mitigation Base
Reach Mitigation Type Stationing Length
Length (LF) Ratio SMUs
(LF)
S1 Enhancement II 3+50 to 6+00250 2502.5:1 100
S2 Enhancement I 6+00 to 11+00 500 5001.5:1 333
S5 P1 / P2 Restoration0+76 to 3+07215 2311:1231
S6AP1 Restoration 11+00 to 24+50 1,220 1,350 1:11,350
S6B P1 Restoration 24+50 to 36+26 1,150 1,176 1:11,176
S6B Enhancement I 36+26 to 37+93 165 1671.5:1 111
S7 Enhancement I 38+80 to 48+70 1,035 9901.5:1 660
S7 Enhancement I 49+40 to 53+80 452 4401.5:1 293
S9 Enhancement III 53+80 to 60+55 665 6757.5:1 90
S11 P1 Restoration 60+55 to 71+00 906 1,045 1:11,045
S12 Preservation 71+00 to 74+80 380 38010:1 38
S13 Preservation 9+69 to 14+23 454 45410:1 45
Total 7,392 7,658 5,473
Non-Standard Buffer Width Adjustment* 50
Grand Total Adjusted SMUs 5,523
*The non-standard buffer width adjustment was only performed for reaches S7, S9, S12, S13
Mitigation Plan Wetland Credits
Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Mitigation Type Total Acres Mitigation Ratio WMUs
WBRehabilitation0.95 1.5:1 0.63
WD Preservation0.03 No CreditNo Credit
WE Preservation0.09 No CreditNo Credit
WF-A Preservation2.00 No CreditNo Credit
WF-BEnhancement2.02 3:1 0.67
WG-AEnhancement3.68 3:1 1.23
WG-B Enhancement18.03 5:1 3.61
WH Re-establishment 6.84 1:1 6.84
WI Re-establishment 2.87 2:1 1.44
Total36.51 14.41
Meadow Spring 5 Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

1.5Design/Approach
Stream
The Meadow Spring Site includes Priority I/Priority II Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level
II, Enhancement Level III. Priority I Restoration reaches incorporate the design of a single-thread meandering
channel, with parameters based on data taken from the reference site described above, published empirical
relationships, NC Coastal Plain Regional Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. As a result of the
restoration of planform and dimension, frequent overbank flows and a restored riparian buffer will provide
the appropriate hydrology and sediment transport throughout this coastal plain watershed. All non-
vegetated areas within the easement were planted with native vegetation and any areas of invasive species
were removed and/or treated.

Reach S1 (STA 03+50 to STA 06+00) – Reach beginning at northwestern limits of the project
flowing southeast to Reach S2 totaling 250 linear feet of Enhancement Level II. Row crops and active
pasture were located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement involved revegetating the buffer with
native vegetation.
Reach S2 (STA 06+00 to STA 11+00) – Reach begins at the downstream end of Reach S1 and
flows southeast through what was active pasture to Reach S6A. Reach S2 totals 500 linear feet of
Enhancement Level I. Active pasture and row crops used to surround this reach. Enhancement
involved revegetating the buffer and stream stabilization of localized erosion with the installation
of log cross vanes and sills.
Reach S5 (STA 00+76 to STA 03+07) – Reach begins north of Reach S6A and flows south through
active pasture to a confluence with Reach S6A totaling 231 linear feet of Priority I and II Restoration.
Active pasture and maintained lawn used to surround this reach. Restoration included meandering
the channel within the valley, backfilling the old stream, reconnecting to its floodplain, and restoring
hydrology to drained wetlands.
Reach S6A (STA 11+00 to STA 24+50) – Reach begins at the downstream end of Reach S2 and
flows east through what was active pasture, flows adjacent to a farm pond and ends at a confluence
with Reach S5. Reach S6A totals 1,350 linear feet of Priority I Restoration. Restoration included
meandering channel though the natural valley, backfilling the old channel, reconnecting to its
floodplain, removing the old dam, and restoring hydrology to drained wetlands.
Reach S6B – Section 1 (STA 24+50 to STA 36+26) – Reach begins at the confluence of Reach S5
and S6A flowing east to the second section of Reach S6B. Reach S6B-Section 1 totals 1,176 linear
feet of Priority I Restoration. Restoration included meandering the channel within the valley,
backfilling the old stream, reconnecting to its floodplain, and restoring hydrology to drained
wetlands.
Reach S6B – Section 2 (STA 36+26 to STA 37+93) – Reach begins at the downstream end of
Reach 6B-Section 1 and flows east to the Duke Energy right-of-way. Reach S6B-Section 2 totals 167
linear feet of Enhancement Level I. Enhancement included stabilization of localized erosion by
installing log sills, increasing radius of curvature, regrading point bars, removal of invasive
vegetation, and revegetating the buffer.
Reach S7 (STA 38+80 to STA 53+80) – Reach beginning downstream of the Duke Energy right-
of-way and flows south to Reach S9 totaling 1,430 linear feet of Enhancement Level I. A 70-linear
foot easement break is located in this reach to accommodate a proposed farm crossing. Hardwood
forests and active pasture are located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement included stabilization of
Meadow Spring 6 Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

localized erosion by installing log vanes, log sills, brush toes, and regrading point bars. As well as
removing dense areas of invasive vegetation and supplementing planting in its place.
Reach S9 (STA 53+80 to STA 60+55) – Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach S7 and
flowing south to Reach S11 totaling 675 linear feet of Enhancement Level III. Hardwood forests and
active hog lagoons are located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement included invasive treatment
and supplemental planting.
Reach S11 (STA 60+55 to STA 71+00) – Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach S9
and flows southeast to Reach S12 totaling 1,045 linear feet of Priority I Restoration. Hardwood
forests and grassed fields were located adjacent to the reach. Restoration included meandering the
channel within the valley, backfilling the old channel, reconnecting to its floodplain, and improving
hydrology to drained wetlands.
Reach S12 (STA 71+00 to STA 74+80) – Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach S11
and flows southeast toward the Neuse River floodway totaling 380 linear feet of Preservation.
Hardwood forests are located adjacent to the reach. Preservation included invasive treatment and
buffer/stream protection.
Reach S13 (STA 9+69 to STA 14+23) - Reach beginning downstream of the large wetland slough
along the Neuse River floodplain totaling 454 linear feet of Preservation. Preservation included
invasive treatment and buffer/stream protection.
Wetland
The Meadow Spring Site offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity. As such, the wetland restoration
and enhancement are closely tied to the stream restoration. The Site provides 14.41 WMUs through a
combination of wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement.
Because of the sites observed soil characteristics and landscape position, a combination of wetland re-
establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement was incorporated. In wetlands WH, the non-jurisdictional
area, hydrologic restoration, at a credit ratio of 1:1, was accomplished by plugging the existing incised
channel to restrict drainage and allowing a natural hydroperiod to return. In addition, re-constructing a
stream channel at a higher bed elevation in the natural valley, backfilling to create shallow depressions
within the old channel, and the removal of spoil from pond excavation along the floodplains aids in the
restoration of a natural floodplain surface relative to the surrounding landscape. Due to compaction and
long-term agricultural use, a shallow ripping of the surface along the contour to a depth of eight to ten
inches creates adequate porosity for infiltration and storage, provides microtopographic relief, and should
improve vegetative survival and growth.
As part of the wetland re-establishment in wetland WI, at a credit ratio of 2:1, the pond was removed. The
construction of a farm pond has altered surface drainage and placed spoil across the floodplain. The stream
was reconnected to the floodplain and in addition to out of bank events the large perennial spring serves
as a source for hydrology for the re-established wetlands. Retention and storage within the floodplain has
returned to a natural state having an increased hydroperiod.
In wetland WF-B, a credit ratio of 3:1 was implemented for wetland enhancement. This wetland has been
impacted by channel incision and active management for agriculture in the past. The wetland mitigation
treatment consisted of reconnecting the stream to the floodplain and replanting disturbed areas. These
activities result in a much healthier, better functioning wetland.
In wetland WG, the large disturbed Neuse River floodplain area, a credit ratio of 3:1 was implemented for
wetland enhancement in the areas that are planted (WG-A) and an enhancement credit ratio of 5:1 in the
areas not planted (WG-B). This wetland has been actively managed for agriculture and waterfowl through
Meadow Spring 7 Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

drainage manipulations and tree clearing. The wetland mitigation treatment was primarily re-planting the
disturbed areas, plugging the main ditch, and removing existing berms within the wetland. These activities
result in a large floodplain slough with a diversity of microhabitats.
1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions
Stream construction and planting was completed in June 2019. The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site was
built to design plans and guidelines. A redline version of the as-built survey is included with the sealed plat
in the As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report. Project credits are based on design centerline, but as-built
stream lengths are shown on Table 1.

1.7 Wetland Risk and Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of the year three monitoring and report submittal, the IRT declined to release the
associated wetland credits due to concerns related to the wetlands on site. Four of 11 wetland gauges had
not met the performance criteria for all three years they’d been installed. After an evaluation of wetland
conditions on site, a general wetland delineation of areas surrounding the at-risk wells (performed on
February 10, 2022), and an analysis of hydrology data, it was concluded that approximately 1.80 acres of
wetlands were at risk of not meeting successful performance criteria, at that time. Wetland H (WH) and
Wetland I (WI), on the western side of the project, were the two wetlands with a number of unsuccessful
gauges. Additional details regarding the results and future outlook of these areas are described in Section
1.8: Wetland Hydrology.

During the site walk in February, a list of additional problem areas was noted. These areas required a more
formulated approach than typical routine site maintenance; therefore, an Adaptive Management Plan (AMP)
was submitted on June 23, 2022. The AMP outlined the observed areas of concern and their corresponding
proposed repairs. The areas addressed included, two failing log toes, a failing log sill, drained wetland
hydrology (within Wetland H), and an area of stream bank failure. The AMP was approved on August 5,
2022, and construction was completed on August 31, 2022. The AMP can be found in Appendix F. The
repairs can be seen in Appendix B.

1.8 Year 4 Monitoring Performance (MY4)
The Meadow Spring Year 4 Monitoring activities were performed in October 2022. All MY4 data is present
below and in the appendices. The majority of the Site is on track to meeting vegetation, stream, and wetland
interim success criteria.

Vegetation
Monitoring of the 18 permanent vegetation plots and three random vegetation plots was completed on
October 5, 2022. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot
locations are in Appendix B. MY4 monitoring data indicates that 20 of the 21 plots are exceeding the
interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 202 to 931
planted stems per acre with a mean of 636 planted stems per acre across all the plots. Vegetation Plot 18
did not meet the success criteria with 202 stems per acre; the potential causes and solutions are discussed
below. A total of 22 species were documented within the plots. The average height in the plots was 5.1 feet.

Meadow Spring 8Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

The vegetative condition of plot 18 has struggled with meeting stems per acre success criteria in the past,
failing to meet 320 stems/acre in monitoring years 2 and 3, as well. Stem density aside, the average planted
stem height within this plot during MY4 was 6.3 feet, showing that the trees that have survived here have
demonstrated an ability to grow, and increase height. This stem density failure could be due to past
inundation from a recently removed beaver impoundment that was situated to the southwest of the plot,
or it could be a factor of the plot’s proximity to the Neuse River. Flashy, high bankfull events, which are
likely in this area, could hinder the stability and therefore the establishment of trees in this plot; this area
experiences flooding of up to seven feet deep. Plots 15, 16, and 17 to the west have managed to maintain
above 400 planted stems per acre, most likely due to the fact that they are father upland from the river.
During MY4, a random vegetation plot (RVP3) was placed just west of plot 18 and it exceeded success
criteria with 405 stems per acre, averaging seven feet tall. The living species remaining in plot 18 include
overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), black willow (Salix nigra), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). These
species will be chosen, or substituted, with other wet-tolerant, fast-growing species to be supplementally
planted, as 3-gallon container trees or 6-foot whips, in the dormant season, prior to Year 5 monitoring.

Areas of repair where construction/floodplain clearing took place as part of the approved AMP, specifically
along reach S6-B, will be replanted with 3-gallon container trees and livestakes, during the dormant season
prior to Year 5 monitoring. Species will be chosen based on availability, referencing the original planted
species list (Table 5). The cumulative planting area impacted by stream, wetland, and bank repairs, totals
0.54 acres. A small bare area (~0.10 ac.) along the right bank of S6-A, observed in February 2022, was
supplementally livestaked with black willow and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) on March 2, 2022 (Figure
2).

Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation
is becoming well established throughout the project. Invasive species, mainly Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), were treated via foliar spray along S6B (downstream), S7, S9, S11, S12 and throughout the eastern
side of WG-B in October and November 2022 (Figure 2). Loblolly pines (Pinus taeda) were noted in small
patches along the western portion of the Project. These areas will be monitored in following years to
determine whether treatment will be necessary; currently, there are no signs that the pines are
outcompeting planted trees. Areas of pines can be seen on Figure 2 denoted as yellow crosshatch polygons.
Current and future presence of additional invasive species will be documented and treated accordingly.
Visual assessments of the easement boundary found no encroachments or evidence of cattle entry.
Additional easement signage was nailed to existing, mature trees, along S7, S9, S11, and S12 in late October
and early November 2022.

Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data was not collected in MY4 per the approve mitigation plan. It will be collected again
in MY5 and MY7. Data collected in MY3 is included in Appendix D for reference.
Three stream problem areas were repaired in August 2022, as part of the AMP, including two failed log toes,
one failed log sill, and an area of bank failure. The log toes were removed and replaced with brush toes, the
log sill was reinstalled along with an additional brush toe and bank amendments, and the failing bank was
laid back, graded, and matted. All areas of repair will be livestaked along the banks and areas impacted by
grading will be replanted in the dormant season. All repairs will be monitored during MY5 to ensure they
are functioning properly.

Meadow Spring 9 Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

Stream Hydrology
Two stage recorders were installed in June 2019 to document bankfull events: one stage recorder on Reach
S6-B and one stage recorder on Reach S11. The stage recorder on Reach S6-B recorded one bankfull event
in MY4 measuring 0.62 feet above top of bank. This gauge was moved in July 2022 prior to construction to
repair two log toe failures, per the Adaptive Management Plan; bankfull events should increase in following
years. The stage recorder on Reach S11 recorded 31 bankfull events with the highest being 8.35 feet above
top of bank. Reach S11 experiences extreme flooding from backwater of the Neuse River. Stage recorder
locations can be found on Figure 2 and associated data is in Appendix E.

Wetland Hydrology
Following the general delineation conducted in February 2022, three groundwater wells were added to
Wetlands I and H (WI and WH); each named for their proximity to existing groundwater wells: GW1-B, GW4-
B, and GW7-B. The adjusted locations of the wells were chosen based on field observations made during
the general delineation and were installed on February 24, 2022. In August 2022, as part of the approved
AMP, a 150-foot-long plug was installed in the backwater slough that had become channelized along the
northern portion of Wetland H, that runs parallel to reach S6-B. The plug is 50 feet wide and one-half foot
high above top of bank. The downstream side of the plug is lined with Class B rip rap to stabilize potential
over-plug flows. This plug was installed in an attempt to limit water from being diverted out of the wetland
area and into the channelized slough. This plugged area will be planted with 3-gallon container trees in the
dormant season.

Seven of the 15 groundwater wells met the 12 percent hydroperiod success criteria during MY4. Of the
eight that did not meet the 12 percent hydroperiod, seven of them, including the reference well, had less
than a five percent hydroperiod. Hydroperiods ranged from 0 to 33 percent in year four. The newly installed
well, GW1-B recorded a 20 percent hydroperiod in its first season, and wells GW3 and GW8 both showed
increased hydroperiods from MY3; GW3 recorded a 27 percent hydroperiod (up from 15 percent), and GW8
recorded a 33 percent hydroperiod (up from 23 percent). Updated groundwater well locations can be found
on Figure 2 and the data is in Appendix E.

The low hydroperiods can be partially explained by the extended period of drought experienced in Johnston
County in 2022. February-April, June, August, and October all experienced lower than normal ranges of
precipitation as determined by the 30-year (1991-2021) WETS table from the Johnston County Airport
Station (KJNX). No single month, thus far in 2022, has exceeded normal ranges of precipitation, either.
Another potential reason for the lower hydroperiods, specifically for groundwater wells GW7 and GW7-B,
could be the vicinity and timing of the slough plug repair work, as noted above. Construction was completed
at the end of August, but the groundwater well data was collected at the beginning of October, leaving only
a short window for groundwater recharge through this area.

The methodology described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual in
conjunction with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), was used during the general wetland delineation, performed in
February 2022 (Section 1.7). RES used this information along with historic hydrology to make calls about
successful wetlands to determine successful WMU credits. A “Wetland Risk Map” (Figure 3) has been
included along with the hydrology data in Appendix E. This map displays areas, specifically in the
westernmost portion of the easement, that are at risk of credit loss due to low hydroperiod readings from
Meadow Spring 10 Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

wetland groundwater gauges or need more information and time before credit reduction takes place. The
calls are as follows:

All Rehabilitation (1.5:1) areas were successful: 0.636 credits
All Enhancement (3:1; 5:1) areas were successful: 5.507 credits
Parts of WI (Re-establishment, 2:1) were successful: 1.357 credits
Parts of WH (Re-establishment, 1:1) were successful: 2.652 credits

Total of 10.153 credits

Wetlands WB, WF (A and B), WG (A and B):
All wetlands have met success and are not risk of credit loss.
Groundwater well GW3 in Wetland B has been successful, recording hydroperiods ranging from 15-
27 percent, for the last three years. This area around the well and surrounding areas, to the north
(southwestern-most corner of WH), have displayed the same wetland characteristics throughout
(i.e., hydrology, soils, vegetation) since the beginning of the Project; therefore, the southwestern
portion of WH is considered successful as well and is not at risk of credit reduction.

Wetland I (WI), Re-establishment (2:1): 2.85 acres
GW1 recorded a 4% hydroperiod in MY4 (and marginal in previous years, ranging from 6%-9%)
(Table 13); but GW1-B, installed slightly upstream, displayed a 20% hydroperiod. GW1 was installed
on a terrace between the confluence of S2 and a perennial spring. This location has shown more
drainage effect from the open channels surrounding it than anticipated; therefore, the area around
GW1 has been designated to “need more information” before making a decision about cutting
credits permanently. If GW1-B continues to display appropriate hydrology, that will be considered
when delineating areas of suitable wetland to remain. Wetland I has been divided, and portions of
it, specifically a 0.14-acre area around GW1, are not included in the calculations for successful credit
areas during Year 4; however, with more information and time, the original crediting amount will
be considered for this wetland, if the data warrants.
GW2 is considered successful, exceeding a 12% hydroperiod in all previous years, but displayed a
7% hydroperiod in year 4 (Table 13). This wetland gauge and surrounding area is not of concern,
based on the past years’ hydroperiods and obvious wetland characteristics of the area (i.e. wetland
vegetation surrounding well and groundwater seepage from the adjacent slope). Additionally, the
area on the opposite bank shows the exact same characteristics and is also considered to be
meeting success.
RES believes this area has potential to improve hydrology in a year of normal precipitation.

Wetland H (WH), Re-establishment (1:1): 6.84 acres
GW4 had shown improvement from year 1 to year 3 (with a hydroperiod increasing from 2%-7%)
(Table 13). However, this year was unseasonably dry, due to the drought, and did not show
additional improvement, as it had a hydroperiod of 3% during MY4. This area, surrounding GW4, is
at-risk of not meeting the performance standards of wetland hydroperiods established in the
mitigation plan and therefore is not included in the successful credit calculations for MY4; however,
the groundwater well will continue to be monitored to gather any signs of improving hydrology in
following monitoring years.
o GW4-B, installed northeast of GW4, will need to be monitored in a normal year of
precipitation to gather any signs of improving hydrology in following monitoring years.
Meadow Spring 11 Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

GW5, was trending toward success with the hydroperiod improving from 2% to 8%. Generally, the
area around it looks like it is a wetland, with wetland characteristics like wetland vegetation and
soils. This year’s data, however, was unsuccessful, recording a 4% hydroperiod in MY4. GW5 is
located on a slight terrace in between the new and old channels. Although the old channel has
been backfilled, some drainage effects are still present as most surface flow is intercepted by the
slight depression of the backfilled channel. This area, surrounding GW5, has been designated to
“need more information” before making a decision about cutting credits permanently. If necessary,
a supplementary groundwater well will be installed in the vicinity of GW5 to capture additional
hydrology data. For the time being, this area will not be considered in successful credit calculations
for MY4; however, the groundwater well(s) will continue to be monitored to gather any signs of
improving hydrology in following monitoring years.
GW7 and GW7-B were unsuccessful in year four, displaying hydroperiods of 1% and 3%,
respectively. A few factors could have played a role in this area’s performance in MY4, including the
slough to the north diverting water (now plugged, as of August 2022), the construction that took
place along the slough and the stream banks of S6-B in August 2022, and the lack of rain for the
past year. This area has been designated to “need more information.” For the time being, this area
will not be considered in successful credit calculations; however, the groundwater wells will continue
to be monitored to gather any signs of improving hydrology in following monitoring years.
GW6 exceeded the success criteria, displaying an 18% hydroperiod in MY4, slightly lower than the
last two years, most likely attributed to rain amounts. This area is considered in successful credit
calculations.
Field observations supports the existence of wetlands within portions of the area. This wetland has
been divided into three categories: 1) areas that are meeting wetland success and do not need
supplemental data to prove success (2.65 acres), 2) areas that need more information and time in
order to make a decisive call whether or not the area is passing wetland success criteria (2.11 acres),
3) areas that are at risk of not meeting performance criteria (2.07 acres). The areas that need more
information and those at risk are not included in the calculations for successful credit areas during
Year 4.
RES believes this area has potential to improve hydrology in a year of normal precipitation; however,
not all portions of the originally proposed wetland are viable for successful crediting.

Data supports the success of at least 10.153 credits at this time, more than the 7.200 WMU credits that have
already been released, leaving 2.953 WMU credits available.

Delineated areas and associated credit calculations can be found on Figure 3. Groundwater well locations
can be found on Figure 2 and the associated data is in Appendix E.

Meadow Spring 12 Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

2.0 Methods
Stream monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates
associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200).
®
Morphological data were collected at 24 cross-sections. Survey data were imported into CAD, ArcGIS
, and
®
Microsoft Excelfor data processing and analysis. The stage recordersinclude an automatic pressure
transducer set in PVC piping in the channel. The elevation of the bed and top of bank at each stage recorder
location was recorded to be able to document presence of water in the channel and out of bank events.
Visual observations (i.e. wrack or debris lines) will also be used to document out of bank events.

Vegetation success is being monitored at 18 permanent monitoring plots and three random monitoring
plots. Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version
4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data are
processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked
with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the
origin each monitoring year. The random plots are to be collected in locations where there are no
permanent vegetation plots. Random plots will most likely be collected in the form of 100 square meter
belt transects with variable dimensions. Tree species and height will be recorded for each planted stem and
the transects will be mapped and new locations will be monitored in subsequent years.

Wetland hydrology is monitored to document success in wetland restoration and enhancement areas where
hydrology was affected. This is accomplished with 11 automatic pressure transducer gauges (located in
groundwater wells) that record daily groundwater levels. Ten have been installed within the wetland
crediting area and one within reference wetland areas. One automatic pressure transducer is installed above
ground for use as a barometric reference. Gauges are downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods are
calculated during the growing season. Gauge installation followed current regulatory guidance. Visual
observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators are also recorded during quarterly site
visits.

Meadow Spring 13 Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

3.0 References
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function-Based
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.

Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2

North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). “Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities 2010.”
(Amended 2018).

Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording vegetation
composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274

Resource Environmental Solutions (2018). Meadow Spring Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Final
Mitigation Plan.

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

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

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

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

USACE, 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Meadow Spring 14 Year 4 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site November 2022

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Meadow Spring Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Elapsed Time Since grading complete:3 years 4 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete:3 years 4 months
1
Number of reporting Years:
4
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or DeliverableCompleteDelivery
Restoration PlanNASep-18
Final Design – Construction PlansNAMar-19
Stream ConstructionNAJun-19
Site PlantingNAJun-19
As-built (Year 0 Monitoring – baseline)May-19Jun-19
Year 1 MonitoringDec-19Jan-20
Supplemental Livestake PlantingNAMar-20
Supplemental PlantingNAApr-20
Invasive TreatmentNAMay-20
S7 Brushtoe and WB Rill RepairNAOct-20
XS: Jul-20
Year 2 MonitoringOct-20
VP: Sept-20
NA
Supplemental PlantingJan-21
NA
S2 and S6-A Stream Hand RepairsMar-21
NA
Invasive TreatmentJul-21
XS: Jun-21
Year 3 MonitoringSep-21
VP: Sept-21
Adaptive Management Plan Construction Feb-22Aug-22
Invasive TreatmentNAOct-22
Year 4 MonitoringVP: Oct-22Nov-22
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
1 = The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Meadow Spring Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
WK Dickson and Co., Inc. / 720 Corporate Center Dr., Raleigh,
Designer
NC 27607
Primary project design POCDavid Perry
Wright Contracting, LLC / 453 Silk Hope Liberty Rd, Siler City,
Construction Contractor
NC 27344
Construction contractor POC(919) 663-0810
Matrix East, PLLC / 906 N. Queen St., Suite A, Kinston, NC
Survey Contractor
28501
Survey contractor POCJames Watson, PLS
H&J Forestry
Planting Contractor
Planting contractor POCMatt Hitch
Wright Contracting
Seeding Contractor
Contractor point of contact(866) 809-9276
Green Resource [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Arborgen [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
RES / 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Monitoring Performers
Stream Monitoring POCEmily Ulman [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POCEmily Ulman [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POCEmily Ulman [phone]

Table 4. Project Background Information
Project NameMeadow Spring
CountyJohnston
Project Area (acres) 60.9
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)Latitude: 35.5437 N Longitude: -78.3303 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)22.8
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic ProvinceRolling Coastal Plain
River BasinNeuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit03020201100050
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit03020201
DWR Sub-basin03-04-02
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)379 ac (0.592 sqmi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
CGIA Land Use ClassificationForest (45%) Agriculture (37%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
S1S2S5S6AS6B-1S6B-2S7S9S11S12S13
Length of reach (linear feet)
2505002311,3501,1761651,430
6751,0453845
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
---------------------------------
337ac, 379ac, 410ac, 31ac,
36ac, 46ac, 36ac, 97ac, 171ac, 171ac, 278ac,
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
0.53sqmi0.59sqmi0.64sqmi0.05sqmi
0.06sqmi0.07sqmi0.06sqmi0.15sqmi0.27sqmi0.27sqmi0.43sqmi
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
IIPPPPPPPPP
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
---------------------------------
Stream Classification (existing)
F5C5F4F4F4-E4F4-E4E4
E5E5F5F5
Stream Classification (proposed)
---E5E4/5E4/5E4/5E4/5------------
E5
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
---------------------------------
FEMA classification
------------------AE
AEAEAEAE
Regulatory Considerations
Supporting
ParametersApplicable?Resolved?
Docs?
SAW-2016-
Water of the United States - Section 404YesYes
01989
DWR # 16-
Water of the United States - Section 401YesYes
0980
Mit Plan
Endangered Species ActYesYes
Appendix B
Mit Plan
Historic Preservation ActYesYes
Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)NoN/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain ComplianceN/AN/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries HabitatNoN/A
N/A

Legend
Conservation Easement
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Date: 11/15/2022
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Drawn by: RTM
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
©
Checked by: BPB
01,0002,000
Johnston County, North Carolina
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Feet

Document Path: R:\\Resgis\\entgis\\Projects\\100133_Meadow_Spring\\MXD\\6_MonitoringMaintenance\\MY4\\USACE Figures\\Figure 2 - CCPV MY4 - Meadow Spring.mxd

dxm.gnirpS wodaeM - 4YM VPCC - 2 erugiF\\serugiF ECASU\\4YM\\ecnanetniaMgnirotinoM_6\\DXM\\gnirpS_wodaeM_331001\\stcejorP\\sigtne\\sigseR\\:R :htaP tnemucoD

dxm.gnirpS wodaeM - 4YM VPCC - 2 erugiF\\serugiF ECASU\\4YM\\ecnanetniaMgnirotinoM_6\\DXM\\gnirpS_wodaeM_331001\\stcejorP\\sigtne\\sigseR\\:R :htaP tnemucoD

Meadow Spring MY4 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

Vegetation Plot 1 (10/5/2022)Vegetation Plot 2(10/5/2022)

Vegetation Plot 3 (10/5/2022)Vegetation Plot 4(10/5/2022)

Vegetation Plot 5 (10/5/2022)Vegetation Plot 6(10/5/2022)

Vegetation Plot 7(10/5/2022)Vegetation Plot 8(10/5/2022)

Vegetation Plot 9 (10/5/2022)Vegetation Plot 10 (10/5/2022)

Vegetation Plot 11(10/5/2022) Vegetation Plot 12 (10/5/2022)

Vegetation Plot 13(10/5/2022)Vegetation Plot 14(10/5/2022)

Vegetation Plot 15(10/5/2022) Vegetation Plot 16 (10/5/2022)

Vegetation Plot 17(10/5/2022) Vegetation Plot 18 (10/5/2022)

Random Plot 1(10/5/2022)Random Plot 2(10/5/2022)

Random Plot 3 (10/5/2022)

Meadow Spring Monitoring DevicePhotos
Wetland Gauges
Groundwater Well 1 (10/5/2022) Groundwater Well 1-B (10/5/2022)

Groundwater Well 2 (10/5/2022) Surrounding Groundwater Well 3 (10/5/2022)

Groundwater Well 4 (10/5/2022) Groundwater Well 4-B (10/5/2022)

Groundwater Well 5 (10/5/2022) Groundwater Well 6 (10/5/2022)

Juncus surrounding Groundwater Well 7
Groundwater Well 7-B (10/5/2022)
(2/10/2022)

Groundwater Well 8(10/5/2022)Groundwater Well 9 (10/5/2022)

Groundwater Well 10 (10/5/2022) Groundwater Well 11 (10/5/2022)

Reference Groundwater Well 1(10/5/2022)

Stream Gauges

Stage Recorder S6-B (10/5/2022) Stage Recorder S11(10/5/2022)

Stream Problem Areas
Meadow Spring
Feature Issue / Location
Photo
NANA
Vegetation Problem Areas
Meadow Spring
Feature Category / Location / Size
Photo
Supplemental planting (0.52 ac.)/livestaking (145 LF) along
banks that underwent construction for AMP / S6-A&B
Livestake banks (65 LF) and supplementally plant (0.02 ac.)
where logsill was replaced (AMP) / S7
Vegetation Plot 18 failing, supplementally plant (0.11 ac.)

Meadow Spring Adaptive Management Plan Problem Area Photos
Area 1: S6B
Issue: Two failing log toe structures had become dislodged from their respective banks along the
downstream portion of S6B.
Log toes were installed with small gap between logs. Water eventually eroded through this area and
Cause:
subsequently eroded the banks behind the logs dislocating them from the bank.

Left bank erosion near stage recorder and dislodged Looking downstream from the stage recorder at the
log toe (3/02/2022) second dislodged log toe (2/10/2022)
Treatment: Remove both log toes and replace with brush toes and live stakes. Potential live stake species
could include black willow, silky willow, silky dogwood, or eastern cottonwood.

(9/15/2022) (8/31/2022)

Area 2: Wetland H
Issue:Wetland H wasfailing to meet the hydroperiod success criteria for re-established wetlands. The
hydroperiod for this portion of the wetland has remained under the 12% hydroperiod success criteria since
the construction of the site.
The backwater slough to the north of Wetland H, adjacent to reach S6B, has been diverting water
Cause:
from the wetland, into the slough. This has caused a loss of hydrology to the wetland and surrounding area
The sloughwasnot plugged properly and has been diverting water from the surrounding wetland area.

Looking at the banks along the sloughadjacent to Looking downstream along the sloughadjacent to
Wetland H (3/02/2022) Wetland H (2/10/2022)
Treatment: Install one 150-foot-long plug in the slough that runs parallel to stream (S6B). The plug
should be 50 feet wide and a half foot high above top of bank. Line downstream side of plug closest to the
powerline with Class B rip rap to stabilize potential “over plug” flows.

(8/31/2022)(9/15/2022)

Area 3: S6B
Issue: Bank failure/erosion along the Enhancement I section of S6B (upstream of the easement break).
Cause:Channel is incised, causing increase in channel forces.

Area 3: S6B, looking downstream at the bank Area 3: S6B, looking downstream at the bank
erosion (3/02/2022) erosion (3/02/2022)
Treatment: Lay back, grade, and mat the banks along this section of Enhancement I, just west of the
easement break. Live stake this area with potential species including black willow, silky willow, silky
dogwood, or eastern cottonwood.

(8/31/2022) (8/31/2022)

(9/15/2022)

Area 4: Downstream S7
Issue: Failing log sill causing bank erosion. The right bank of the log sill blew out and water worked its way
around instead of going over the log sill. Log sill no longer functioning or holding grade.
Cause:The brush toe on the downstream end of the log sill did not quite abut the log when installed. This
resulted in a small area of weakness which was eventually exploited and ultimately lead to significant erosion
and structure failure.

Area 4: S7, looking at and upstream from the failing Area 4: S7, Looking at the erosion on the right bank
log sill (2/10/2022) of the failing log sill (6/16/2021)

Treatment: Reinstall the log sill with the low side on the left bank. Add in brush toe to left bank. Rebuild
right bank with stone toe and soil lift. Live stake all grading with potential species including black willow,
silky willow, silky dogwood, or eastern cottonwood. All work will generally be conducted above the high-water
mark and therefore will not trigger the need for any additional permitting.

(9/15/2022) (9/15/2022)

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 5. Planted Species Summary
Common NameScientific NameTotal Stems Planted
Water Oak Quercus nigra 3,500
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 2,700
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 2,300
Baldcypress Taxodium distichum 2,000
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2,000
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 2,000
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 2,000
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 2,000
Swamp Tupelo Nyssa biflora 2,000
Water Tupelo Nyssa aquatica 1,700
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 1,600
Crab Apple Malus angustifolia 800
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 800
Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida 800
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 700
Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica 600
American Plum Prunus americana 500
American Hazelnut Corylus americana 400
River Birch Betula nigra 400
Elderberry Sambucus nigra 100
Total 28,900
Planted Area*31.39
921
As-built Planted Stems/Acre
* Includes 8.6 acres of supplemental planting

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Success Avg Planted
Planted Volunteer Total
Plot #Criteria Stem
Stems/AcreStems/AcreStems/Acre
Met?Height
1 8506071457Yes9.2
2 60787019308Yes5.4
3 80913762185Yes8.5
4 5260526Yes4.4
5 486243728Yes6.6
6 688121809Yes7.6
7 6883241012Yes6.7
8 7286071335Yes10.2
9 7698091578Yes3.4
10 80912552064Yes5.2
11 8504051255Yes8.4
12 8093241133Yes10.1
13 7280728Yes7.8
14 6880688Yes6.5
15 40510931497Yes5.1
16 445202647Yes5.5
17 4450445Yes4.8
18 2020202No6.3
R1 4860486Yes6.8
R2 9310931Yes5.1
R3 4050405Yes7.0
Project Avg6368931401Yes 6.9

Table 10. 2022 Rainfall Summary
Normal Limits
JoCo Airport
MonthAverage
Station Precipitation
30 Percent70 Percent
January3.422.414.053.15
February3.382.244.060.84
March3.962.924.641.46
April3.652.414.382.41
May 4.212.865.034.10
June4.723.195.641.00
July 5.784.436.725.60
August5.363.636.403.35
September5.323.666.354.15
October3.292.203.950.08
November3.291.884.00N/A
December3.392.274.06N/A
Total49.7734.1059.2826.14
Above Normal LimitsBelow Normal LimitsWithin Normal Limits
*The Johnston County Airport (KJNX) is approximately 4 miles east of the Project

Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Number of Bankfull Maximum Bankfull Date of Maximum Bankfull
Year
EventsHeight (ft)Event
Stage Recorder S6B
MY1 201900.00N/A
MY2 202050.752/7/2020
MY3 202110.097/9/2021
MY4 2022*10.621/16/2022
Stage Recorder S11
MY1 201920.779/5/2019
MY2 20201211.002/29/2020
MY3 202158.481/4/2021
MY4 2022318.351/4/2022
*Stage Recorder on S6B was moved to the inside bend, in July 2022, prior to construction to repair two
logtoe failures, per the Adaptive Management Plan.

Table 12.
2022 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 18-Mar through 6-Nov, 233 days)
Success Criterion 12%
ConsecutiveCumulative
Wetland Wetland
Well IDOccurrences
IDTreatment
Hydroperiod Hydroperiod
DaysDays
(%)(%)
GW1WIE (3:1)94592513
GW1-B*WIE (3:1)4820122529
GW2WIE (3:1)177502110
GW3WBRH (1.5:1)642794407
GW4WHRE (1:1)83271210
GW4-B*WHRE (1:1)521989
GW5WHRE (1:1)9446208
GW6WHRE (1:1)421877337
GW7WHRE (1:1)21312
GW7-B*WHRE (1:1)831675
GW8WF-BE (3:1)7833154665
†
GW9WG-AE (3:1)7733151654
GW10WG-BE (5:1)4720100438
GW11WF-AP 2912753210
RGW1WF-AP 10101
<5%5-11%
*New groundwater well was added February 24, 2022
†
Groundwater well replaced on February 24, 2022

Table 13.
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Meadow Spring
Hydroperiod (%); Success Criteron 12%
Wetland Wetland
Well ID
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
IDTreatment
(2019)(2020) (2021)(2022)(2023)(2024)(2025)
GW1WIE 9684
GW1-B*WIE---20
GW2WIE 1726407
GW3WBRH 7171527
GW4WHRE 2573
GW4-B*WHRE---2
GW5WHRE 2874
GW6WHRE 8232318
GW7WHRE 2441
GW7-B*WHRE---3
GW8WF-BE 8182333
†
GW9WG-AE 19815233
GW10WG-BE (5:1)8262320
GW11WF-AP 10221312
RGW1WF-AP 2510
<5%5-11%
*New groundwater well was added February 24, 2022
†
Groundwater well replaced on February 24, 2022

Precipitation (inches)
30-Sep-22
31-Aug-22
31-Jul-22
30-Jun-22
31-May-22
30-Apr-22
31-Mar-22
28-Feb-22
29-Jan-22
29-Dec-21
29-Nov-21
29-Oct-21
29-Sep-21
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
30-Sep-22
31-Aug-22
31-Jul-22
30-Jun-22
31-May-22
30-Apr-22
31-Mar-22
28-Feb-22
29-Jan-22
29-Dec-21
29-Nov-21
29-Oct-21
29-Sep-21
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
30-Sep-22
31-Aug-22
31-Jul-22
30-Jun-22
31-May-22
30-Apr-22
31-Mar-22
28-Feb-22
29-Jan-22
29-Dec-21
29-Nov-21
29-Oct-21
29-Sep-21
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
30-Sep-22
31-Aug-22
31-Jul-22
30-Jun-22
31-May-22
30-Apr-22
31-Mar-22
28-Feb-22
29-Jan-22
29-Dec-21
29-Nov-21
29-Oct-21
29-Sep-21
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
30-Sep-22
31-Aug-22
31-Jul-22
30-Jun-22
31-May-22
30-Apr-22
31-Mar-22
28-Feb-22
29-Jan-22
29-Dec-21
29-Nov-21
29-Oct-21
29-Sep-21
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
30-Sep-22
31-Aug-22
31-Jul-22
30-Jun-22
31-May-22
30-Apr-22
31-Mar-22
28-Feb-22
29-Jan-22
29-Dec-21
29-Nov-21
29-Oct-21
29-Sep-21
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
30-Sep-22
31-Aug-22
31-Jul-22
30-Jun-22
31-May-22
30-Apr-22
31-Mar-22
28-Feb-22
29-Jan-22
29-Dec-21
29-Nov-21
29-Oct-21
29-Sep-21
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
30-Sep-22
31-Aug-22
31-Jul-22
30-Jun-22
31-May-22
30-Apr-22
31-Mar-22
28-Feb-22
29-Jan-22
29-Dec-21
29-Nov-21
29-Oct-21
29-Sep-21
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
30-Sep-22
31-Aug-22
31-Jul-22
30-Jun-22
31-May-22
30-Apr-22
31-Mar-22
28-Feb-22
29-Jan-22
29-Dec-21
29-Nov-21
29-Oct-21
29-Sep-21
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
30-Sep-22
31-Aug-22
31-Jul-22
30-Jun-22
31-May-22
30-Apr-22
31-Mar-22
28-Feb-22
29-Jan-22
29-Dec-21
29-Nov-21
29-Oct-21
29-Sep-21
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
30-Sep-22
31-Aug-22
31-Jul-22
30-Jun-22
31-May-22
30-Apr-22
31-Mar-22
28-Feb-22
29-Jan-22
29-Dec-21
29-Nov-21
29-Oct-21
29-Sep-21
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Document Path: R:\\Resgis\\entgis\\Projects\\100133_Meadow_Spring\\MXD\\6_MonitoringMaintenance\\MY4\\USACE Figures\\Figure 3 - MeadowSpring_WetlandRisk_20221108.mxd

Document Path: R:\\Resgis\\entgis\\Projects\\100133_Meadow_Spring\\MXD\\6_MonitoringMaintenance\\MY4\\USACE Figures\\Figure 3 - MeadowSpring_WetlandRisk_20221108.mxd

Document Path: R:\\Resgis\\entgis\\Projects\\100133_Meadow_Spring\\MXD\\6_MonitoringMaintenance\\MY4\\USACE Figures\\Figure 3 - MeadowSpring_WetlandRisk_20221108.mxd

June 23, 2022
Sam Dailey
USACE – Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Meadow Spring (SAW-2016-01989) Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
Site – Year 4 Monitoring Adaptive Management Memo

Dear Ms. Dailey,
Throughout the life of the Meadow Spring Project, thus far, only minor maintenance activities have been
performed in order to create and maintain a high functioning stream, wetland, and riparian buffer system.
Maintenance activities within the 60.93-acre conservation easement, up to this point, have included:

• Supplemental livestake planting— March 2020, March 2022
• Supplemental bareroot planting— April 2020, January 2021
• Supplemental container planting— March 2022
• Invasive species treatment— May 2020, July 2021, December 2021
• Various hand stream repairs— October 2020, March 2021

During Year 3 (2021) monitoring activities performed in June and September 2021, RES observed a few
problem areas which require a more formulated approach than typical routine site maintenance. Of the
total 36.52 acres of Project wetlands, this plan will address roughly 1.54 acres, or four percent of all wetlands,
that are not meeting performance standards. Likewise, of the 7,658 linear feet of Project streams, this plan
will address roughly 150 linear feet, or 2 percent of all streams, that are in need of some maintenance
activity. The targeted areas within the conservation easement that this memo will address include, the
restoration portion of reach S6-B, the enhancement portion of reach S6-B, proposed Wetland H (to the
north of S6-B), and the downstream portion of reach S7 (Figure 1). Problem areas specified in this adaptive
management plan include failing log toes, a failing log sill, drained wetland hydrology, and stream bank
failure. RES engineers visited the site in March 2022 and compiled a list of four structures/areas that needed
some form of repair. These repair areas are outlined below and correspond by number with the attached
maps. After maintenance activities are completed, planted areas that were heavily disturbed will be
replanted. Upon approval of this plan, RES would like to conduct these maintenance activities in late
Summer or early Fall 2022. All of the activities mentioned above are all activities included in the impacts of
the original Pre-construction Notification NWP 27 and will be permitted under a Nationwide Permit 3:
Maintenance.

Thank you,

Jamey McEachran | Project Manager

2

MEADOW SPRING MITIGATION SITE
Adaptive Management Plan 2022
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Neuse River Basin 03020201
SAW-2016-01989 | NEU-CON STREAM AND WETLAND UMBI | DWR Project # 2016-0980v2
Provided by:

Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse I, LLC,
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1055
June 2022
res.us

Appendices
Figure 1 –Adaptive Management Problem Areas
Problem Area Photos
MY3 2021 Cross Section Plots, #13, 14, 15, and 16
MY3 2021 Rain and Stream Hydrology Tables
MY 3 2021 Wetland Tables
MY3 2021 Well Chart
Design Details
404/401 Authorizations from Approved Mitigation Plan

1

Introduction
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site (Site) is a Mitigation Bank in Year 4 of Monitoring (MY4) that is part of
th
the Neu-Con Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument. The site was approved on October 24
, 2018. It is
located in Johnston County, North Carolina, approximately three miles north of Smithfield and falls within
USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201 (35.5437, -78.3303). The project involves the restoration and
protection of streams in the Neuse River watershed and the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of
adjacent riparian wetlands. The purpose of this mitigation site is to restore, enhance and preserve a
stream/wetland complex located within the Neuse River Basin. The Site was designed in concurrence with
the Meadow Spring Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank.
Performance standards listed in the mitigation plan that fail to meet success, addressed in this adaptive
management plan, include:
Maintain wetland hydroperiod of at least 12 percent during growing season
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2 on riffles
Identify and document significant stream problem areas; i.e. degradation, aggradation, stressed
or failed structures, etc.
Summary From Previous Monitoring Year
Cross-section data
The cross-section monitoring stations in the vicinity of the problem areas discussed below include cross-
sections 13, 14, 15, and 16 (Appendices). Cross-sections 13 and 14 remained stable, as they are upstream
of the failing log toe structures (Area 1). Little change can be seen in cross-section 15, as it is between
problem areas. Some change can be seen from MY0; however, the natural alteration of the stream profile
remains only slight. Cross section 16 shows a larger impact from the failing log sill directly in line with the
monitoring station (Area 4). The erosion seen along the right bank is due to water moving around the log
sill, instead of over it, which in turn has caused the water to eat into the right bank. The progression of the
erosion can be seen in the cross-section plot (Appendices) from MY0, to the most recent monitoring data
from MY3. Photos can also be found in the Appendices.
Stream Hydrology data
Stage recorder S6B Year 3 data, between the problem Area 1 log toe failures, is included in the Appendices.
One bankfull event was recorded in 2021, 0.09 feet above the top of bank.

Wetland Hydrology data
Groundwater well 7 (GW7), situated adjacent to the stream, along the left bank of S6B did not meet the
hydroperiod success criteria of 12 percent in MY3. The hydroperiod for GW7 in 2021 was 4 percent. Problem
Area 2, described below, is most likely the cause of the hydroperiod failure. Photos and data regarding GW7
(wetland tables and graph) can be found in the Appendices.

3

Description of Proposed Corrective Measures
Area 1 (S6B)
Issue: Two failing log toe structures have become dislodged from their respective banks along the
downstream portion of S6B (33+55 to 33+85 and 34+45 to 34+65). These structures were intended to
provide bank stabilization, in order to dissipate and redirect the stream’s energy.
Cause: Log toes were installed with small gap between logs. Water eventually eroded through this area and
subsequently eroded the banks behind the logs dislocating them from the bank.
Treatment: Remove both log toes and replace with brush toes and live stakes. Potential live stake species
could include black willow, silky willow, silky dogwood, or eastern cottonwood.

Area 2 (Wetland H)
Issue: Wetland H is failing to meet the hydroperiod success criteria for re-established wetlands. The
hydroperiod for this portion of the wetland has remained under the 12% hydroperiod success criteria since
the construction of the site. Though hydrology has improved from a 2% hydroperiod to a 4% hydroperiod
over the past three years, a 12% hydroperiod is needed to meet the performance standard.
Cause: The ditch to the north of Wetland H, adjacent to reach S6B, has been diverting water from the
wetland, into the ditch. This has caused a loss of hydrology to the wetland and surrounding area The ditch
was not plugged properly and has been diverting water from the surrounding wetland area.
Treatment: Install one 150-foot-long plug to the ditch that runs parallel to stream (S6B). The plug should
be 50 feet wide and a half foot high above top of bank. Line downstream side of plug closest to the
powerline with Class B rip rap to stabilize potential “over plug” flows.
Area 3 (S6B)
Issue: Bank failure/erosion along the Enhancement I section of S6B (upstream of the easement break).
Cause: Channel is incised, causing increase in channel forces.
Treatment: Lay back, grade, and mat the banks along this section of Enhancement I (36+65 to 37+55),
just west of the easement break. Live stake this area with potential species including black willow, silky
willow, silky dogwood, or eastern cottonwood.

Area 4 (Downstream S7)
Issue: Failing log sill causing bank erosion. The r ight bank of the log sill blew out and water worked its way
around instead of going over the log sill. Log sill no longer functioning or holding grade.
Cause: The brush toe on the downstream end of the log sill did not quite abut the log when installed. This
resulted in a small area of weakness which was eventually exploited and ultimately lead to significant erosion
and structure failure.
Treatment: Reinstall the log sill with the low side on the left bank (50+70 to 50+80). Add in brush toe to
left bank. Rebuild right bank with stone toe and soil lift. Live stake all grading with potential species
including black willow, silky willow, silky dogwood, or eastern cottonwood. All work will generally be
conducted above the high water mark and therefore will not trigger the need for any additional permitting.
Photos of each problem area are found in the Appendices, as well as a site map with locations. The design
and construction details for each area are also found in the Appendices. The proposed work falls within the
treatment outlined in the approved Final Mitigation Plan. The original 404/401 authorizations from the
approved mitigation plan are included however these impacts mentioned above will be covered under a
Nationwide Permit 3 for Maintenance Activities under a concurrent process.
4

Appendices
Figure 1 –Adaptive Management Problem Areas
Problem Area Photos
MY3 2021 Cross Section Plots, #13, 14, 15, and 16
MY3 2021 Rain and Stream Hydrology Tables
MY 3 2021 Wetland Tables
MY3 2021 Well Chart
Design Details
404/401 Authorizations from Approved Mitigation Plan

dxm._2202_PMA_gnirpSwodaeM\\gnirotinoM\\DXM\\gnirpS_wodaeM_331001\\stcejorP\\sigtne\\sigseR\\:R :htaP tnemucoD

Meadow Spring Adaptive Management Plan Problem Area Photos

Area 1: S6B, left bank erosion near stage recorder Area 1: S6B, looking downstream from the stage
and dislodged log toe (3/02/2022) recorder at the second dislodged log toe
(2/10/2022)

Area 2:Looking at the banks along the ditch Area 2: Looking downstream along the ditch
adjacent to Wetland H(3/02/2022)adjacent to Wetland H(2/10/2022)

Area 3: S6B, looking downstreamat the bank Area 3: S6B,looking downstream at the bank
erosion (3/02/2022) erosion (3/02/2022)

Area 4: S7, looking at and upstream from the failing Area 4: S7, Looking at the erosion on the right bank
log sill(2/10/2022)of the failing log sill(6/16/2021)

Area 2: GW7, within Wetland H (2/10/2022) Area 2: Juncus around GW7 (2/10/2022)

Ejhjubmmz!tjhofe!cz!XJDLFS/IFOSZ/N/KS/233:929378!
XJDLFS/IFOSZ/N/KS/23
EO;!d>VT-!p>V/T/!Hpwfsonfou-!pv>EpE-!pv>QLJ-!
pv>VTB-!do>XJDLFS/IFOSZ/N/KS/233:929378!
3:929378
Ebuf;!3129/21/35!24;24;3:!.15(11(

EE ATTACHED RGP or NWP GENERAL, REGIONALAND SPECIAL CONDITIONS

Ejhjubmmz!tjhofe!cz!
EBJMFZ/TBNBOUIB/K/2498678:59!
EBJMFZ/TBNBOU
EO;!d>VT-!p>V/T/!Hpwfsonfou-!pv>EpE-!
pv>QLJ-!pv>VTB-!
IB/K/2498678:59 do>EBJMFZ/TBNBOUIB/K/2498678:59!
Ebuf;!3129/21/35!26;33;32!.15(11(

Ejhjubmmz!tjhofe!cz!
EBJMFZ/TBNBOUIB/K/2498678:59!
EBJMFZ/TBNBOUIB
EO;!d>VT-!p>V/T/!Hpwfsonfou-!pv>EpE-!pv>QLJ-!
pv>VTB-!do>EBJMFZ/TBNBOUIB/K/2498678:59!
/K/2498678:59
Ebuf;!3129/21/35!26;34;11!.15(11(

“may be” “may be”

Ejhjubmmz!tjhofe!cz!
EBJMFZ/TBNB
EBJMFZ/TBNBOUIB/K/2498678:59!
EO;!d>VT-!p>V/T/!Hpwfsonfou-!
pv>EpE-!pv>QLJ-!pv>VTB-!
OUIB/K/24986
do>EBJMFZ/TBNBOUIB/K/2498678
:59!
78:59
Ebuf;!3129/21/35!26;38;47!.15(11(

Waters_NameStateCowardin_CodeHGM_CodeMeas_TypeAmountUnitsWaters_TypeLatitudeLongitudeLocal_Waterway
NORTH CAROLINA
Wetland A (WA)PEMArea0.12ACREDELINEATE35.549-78.3424Neuse River
Wetland B (WB)NORTH CAROLINAPEMArea1.24ACREDELINEATE35.5479-78.3412Neuse River
NORTH CAROLINA
Wetland C (WC) out of easementPEMAreaACREDELINEATE35.5487-78.3352Neuse River
Wetland D (WD)NORTH CAROLINAPFOArea0.07ACREDELINEATE35.547-78.3355Neuse River
NORTH CAROLINA
Wetland E (WE)PFOArea0.1ACREDELINEATE35.5459-78.3357Neuse River
Wetalnd F (WF)NORTH CAROLINAPFOArea4.43ACREDELINEATE35.5438-78.3348Neuse River
NORTH CAROLINA
Wetland G (WG)PFOArea21.71ACREDELINEATE35.5436-78.3304Neuse River
PondNORTH CAROLINAPOWArea1.39ACREDELINEATE35.5491-78.3413Neuse River
NORTH CAROLINA
Ditch ULinearFOOTRPW35.5485-78.3409Neuse River
S1NORTH CAROLINAR4Linear250FOOTDELINEATE35.5505-78.3435Neuse River
NORTH CAROLINA
S2R4Linear500FOOTDELINEATE35.5492-78.3423Neuse River
S5NORTH CAROLINAR5Linear215FOOTDELINEATE35.55-78.3389Neuse River
NORTH CAROLINA
S6aR5Linear2535FOOTDELINEATE35.5495-78.3381Neuse River
S7NORTH CAROLINAR5Linear1487FOOTDELINEATE35.5472-78.3353Neuse River
NORTH CAROLINA
S9R5Linear665FOOTDELINEATE35.5444-78.3356Neuse River
S11NORTH CAROLINAR5Linear906FOOTDELINEATE35.5432-78.334Neuse River
NORTH CAROLINA
S12R5Linear380FOOTDELINEATE35.5415-78.3327Neuse River
S13NORTH CAROLINAR5Linear454FOOTDELINEATE35.5418-78.3331Neuse River

WA
WB
WC
WB
Powerline
WD
Easement
WE
WF
WG
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
Existing Streams
Ditches
Existing Wetlands
Existing Pond
Date: 9/19/2018
Figure 1 - Existing Conditions Map
Drawn by: JRM
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
©
Checked by: DI
0350700
Johnston County, North Carolina
1 inch = 700 feet
Feet