20200016 Ver 1_CrossCreek_100138_MY1_2022_20230224

ID#* 20200016 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Ryan Hamilton
Initial Review Completed Date 03/06/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/24/2023
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* Yes No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: * Email Address:
Kelly Phillips [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#: * 20200016 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Cross Creek Ranch Site
County: Montgomery
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: CrossCreek_100138_MY1_2022.pdf 19.83MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Kelly Phillips
Signature: *
,�e% PhllPs

MONITORING YEAR 1
ANNUAL REPORT
Final

January 2023
CROSS CREEK RANCH SITE
Montgomery County, NC
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040104

DMS Project No. 100138
NCDEQ Contract No. 7879-01
DMS RFP No. 16-007879 / Issued: May 6, 2019
USACE Action ID No. 2020-00051
DWR Project No. 2020-0016
Data Collection Dates: February 2022 – November 2022

PREPARED FOR:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609
January 30, 2023
Mr. Kelly Phillips
Project Manager
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services

Subject: Cross Creek Ranch Site – Monitoring Year 1 Draft Report
Montgomery County, NC
Yadkin River Basin – CU# 03040104
DMS Project ID No. 100138
Contract # 7879-01

Dear Mr. Phillips:
On January 20, 2023, Wildlands Engineering received comments from the Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS) regarding the Monitoring Year 1 Draft Report for the Cross Creek Ranch Site. The following letter
documents DMS feedback and Wildlands’ corresponding responses and additions to the Monitoring
Year 1 Annual Report.

Review Comments:
• Report Cover: Thank you for including the data collection dates.

• 1.1 Project Quantities and Credits – Table 1: The footnote indicates the total riparian wetland
credits have been updated to account for an error in the Mitigation Plan. Please add that the
corrections have been updated and are properly itemized in the ledger.
Response: The footnote now reflects that the corrections have been updated and are properly
itemized in the ledger.
• Section 1.2 – Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment: The Table 2 goal of protecting the site from
harmful uses includes visual inspection of the perimeter as the measurement criteria. Please
summarize the monitoring activities and results associated with this goal and indicate if the entire
easement boundary was observed during MY1 and marked in accordance with the marking
specifications.
Response: While the majority of the easement boundary was observed during MY1, it was not seen
in its entirety. Easement marking specifications remain consistent with those portrayed in Figures
1a-c within boundaries observed during MY1. The boundary will be walked in its entirety during
MY2, and the MY1 Monitoring Report has been updated to reflect this statement.
• 2.1 Vegetative Assessment: The first paragraph references stems per acre but it is unclear if these
are planted stems. Please add "planted" stems where appropriate.
Response: The word “planted” was omitted from the second sentence in the first paragraph of
section 2.1 to account for the fact that while we can definitively know and state the number of
planted stems per acre in each fixed vegetation plot, we cannot do so for random vegetation plots.
More specifically, because random vegetation plot locations change each year, there is no way to
definitively know, or display in Table 6 (refer to Appendix B), whether random vegetation plot stem

Page 2
counts portrayed in the “Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan” columns are planted, or
volunteers.

• 2.1 Vegetative Assessment: Please indicate in the second paragraph that volunteer species would
be inventoried according to the same metrics applied to planted stems.
Response: The second paragraph has been updated to reflect that all volunteer species, including
recently purposed species within Section 2.1 of the MY1 Monitoring Report, have been, and will be,
inventoried according to the same metrics applied to planted stems.
• 2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern: Please indicate how the privet responded to the initial treatment
and compare the current stem density, height and coverage area to pre-treatment conditions.

Response: The effectiveness of the initial treatment and recent treatments are currently being
monitored. It is worth noting there was less than a year in between the submittal of the MY0
Monitoring Report and the submittal of the MY1 Monitoring Report, so comparing the treated
privet coverage area of MY1 to the privet coverage area observed in MY0 is not indicative of how
vegetation areas of concern are responding to treatments. Addressing large vegetation areas of
concern will take multiple treatments implemented during multiple growing seasons. These areas
will need at least a full year of monitoring to observe the effectiveness of treatments. Stem density
of Chinese privet along Clarks Creek has greatly decreased since the initial mechanical treatment in
March of 2022. Due to the nature of treating dense tracts of privet, mechanical removals and
chemical treatments may continually need follow-up treatments. This will likely be a multi-year
endeavor. Wildlands will map and revise polygons within the Site’s Vegetation Area of Concern
(refer to Figure 1a-c) during MY2 to plan the next round of treatments accordingly. Changes to the
size of polygons with the Vegetation Area of Concern and treatments administered during MY2 will
be reflected in the MY2 Monitoring Report.

• 2.6 Wetland Assessment: Verify the growing season end date is consistent with the approved
mitigation plan. Leaf drop observations etc.
Response: Based on Wildlands’ observations, leaf senescence occurred in approximately mid-
October. This contradicts the growing season end date of November 20th defined in the Mitigation
Plan. Wildlands will gather more information on growing season end dates in future monitoring
years. Until then, the growing season end date of November 20th will be used.
• 2.6 Wetland Assessment: Gages 2, 7, and 9 did not meet their respective hydroperiods. DMS
conducted a field inspection on December 9, 2022, which raised the question, are these three
wells representative and useful for interpretating wetland classification? Add discussion that
identifies the relative gage locations and elevations within the local wetland topography. Are the
gages installed on isolated ridges with localized wetland boundaries? Have the gages been field
calibrated in their respective installations to accurately correlate their pressure readings with a
measured depth to water from ground surface?
Response: In an effort to best represent the conditions of each wetland re-establishment and
rehabilitation zone, gauges 2, 7, and 9 are placed within the middle of their respective wetland
boundaries. All gauges are calibrated correctly to accurately correlate their pressure readings with
a measured depth to water from ground surface. After construction of the stream channel, it is
anticipated that the groundwater table will take some time to recharge. Additional seasons of
water table observation are required to better understand hydrology at the Site and thoroughly
evaluate the success of wetland re-establishment areas. While Wildlands believes groundwater

Page 3
wells 2, 7, and 9 to be placed in a way that best interprets wetland classifications, Wildlands will
further investigate locations of gauges 2, 7, and 9 in MY2. Wildlands will continue to monitor the
success of wetlands wells failing to make their hydroperiods and will add wells accordingly if
needed in the future.

• 2.6 Wetland Assessment: Please include discussion of the rainfall data and expected percentile
ranking relative to wet/dry years.
Response: A discussion of the rainfall data has been added to section 2.6 Wetland Assessment.
• 2.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary: This section indicates the site is meeting the goals of nutrient and
sediment reduction. Although this is a likely outcome of the implemented mitigation measures,
these goals do not have specified direct measures for success. This goal needs to be re-stated to
conform with the goals section. Work at the site has resulted in cattle exclusion, riparian buffer
establishment and improved wetland function. These actions are likely to contribute to uplift but
this needs to be either summarized in accordance with the goals or quantified.

Response: Noted. The Monitoring Year 1 Report has been updated to address this comment.

• Appendix A - Stream Photographs: - Photo Point 31 and 32 are duplicates. Please update the
photo.

Response: Photo Point 31 has been updated within the stream photograph log.

• Appendix B – Vegetation Plot Data: Desirable volunteer species not listed in the approved plan
were only counted in the three failed plots and one other plot. Please include the volunteer stems
in all plots for each monitoring report if there could be potential need for them for calculating
stem density in the future.

Response: Desirable volunteer species not listed in the approved plan will be included in future
monitoring reports. Desirable volunteer species were intentionally left out of fixed vegetation plot
stem counts in Table 6 (refer to Appendix B) because, per IRT requirements, supplemental plantings
and volunteer plants must be present for at least two growing seasons before counting toward
success criteria. Within Table 6, stem counts of desirable volunteer species not listed in the
approved plan were included in random vegetation plots because it is difficult to ascertain if the
stems have been present before construction, or for two growing seasons. Both purposed and
approved species inventoried within all random vegetation plots met height requirements of at
least 30cm.

Site Inspection Comments:
• DMS conducted a site inspection on December 9, 2022. The conservation easement boundary was
found to be adequately marked and protected, no encroachments were observed and site
conditions were consistent with the baseline report.

Response: Noted.

• Improved visibility of the ground surface due to the dormant season leaf drop suggested some of
the wetland wells failing to make their hydroperiods may be positioned on localized high ground or
could be in need of calibration.

Response: Noted. See response to comment on 2.6 Wetland Assessment.

Page 4
Digital Deliverable Comments:
• Photo Point 31 and 32 are duplicates. Please update the photos.

Response: Photo Point 31 has been updated within the stream photograph log and a digital copy
has been submitted.
Thank you for your review and providing comments on this submittal. If you have any further questions,
please contact me at [phone], or by email ([e-mail]).

Sincerely,

Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator

PREPARED BY:

312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final i
CROSS CREEK RANCH SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits ................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Project Attributes ....................................................................................................................... 1-5
Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 1 DATA ASSESSMENT .......................................................................2-1
2.1 Vegetative Assessment .............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Stream Assessment .................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern ........................................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 Hydrology Assessment ............................................................................................................... 2-2
2.6 Wetland Assessment .................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2-3
Section 3: REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................3-1

TABLES
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits ..................................................................................................... 1-1
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements ...................................................... 1-3
Table 3: Project Attributes ......................................................................................................................... 1-5

FIGURES
Figure 1a-c Current Condition Plan View

APPENDICES
Appendix A Visual Assessment Data
Table 4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Culvert Crossing Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Groundwater Well Photographs

Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Appendix C Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross-Section Plots
Table 8 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9 Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary

Appendix D Hydrology Data
Table 10 Bankfull Events
Table 11 Rainfall Summary
Table 12 Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Summary

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final ii
Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plot
Table 13 Groundwater Gauge Summary
Groundwater Gauge Plots
Soil Temperature Probe Plot

Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 14 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 15 Project Contact Table
Appendix F Additional Documentation
IRT Correspondence
Soil Boring Descriptions
Photo Point 34 Bank Photos

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 1-1
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Cross Creek Ranch Site (Site) is located in Montgomery County, approximately 1.5 miles northwest
of Mount Gilead and 4.5 miles east of Norwood. Table 3 presents information related to the project
attributes.
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits
The Site is located on two parcels under one landowner and a conservation easement was recorded on
63.9 acres. Table 1 below shows stream credits by reach and the total amount of stream credits
expected at closeout.
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits
PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES
Project
Segment
Mitigation
Plan
Footage
As-Built
Footage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Mitigation
Ratio
(X:1)
Credits Comments
STREAMS
Clarks Creek 3,479 3,479 Warm EII 4.0 869.750
Fencing Out Livestock, Minor
Bank Grading, Invasive
Removal
Big Branch 64 15 Warm R N/A 0.000 DOT ROW
Big Branch 2,133 2,196 Warm R 1.0 2,133.000 Full Channel Restoration,
Fencing Out Livestock
UT1 R1 2,821 2,866 Warm R 1.0 2,821.000 Full Channel Restoration,
Fencing Out Livestock
UT1 R2 164 167 Warm R 1.0 164.000 Full Channel Restoration,
Fencing Out Livestock
UT1 R2 100 100 Warm R N/A 0.000 Culvert Crossing
UT1 R2 423 439 Warm R 1.0 423.000 Full Channel Restoration,
Fencing Out Livestock
UT1B 373 377 Warm R 1.0 373.000 Full Channel Restoration,
Fencing Out Livestock
UT1B 62 62 Warm R N/A 0.000 Culvert Crossing
UT1B 868 877 Warm R 1.0 868.000 Full Channel Restoration,
Fencing Out Livestock
UT3 33 47 Warm R N/A 0.000 Non-Jurisdictional
UT3 R1 748 754 Warm R 1.0 748.000 Full Channel Restoration,
Fencing Out Livestock
UT3 R2 2,432 2,437 Warm EII 3.0 810.667 Fencing Out Livestock, Minor
Bank Grading
UT3 R3 331 331 Warm P 10.0 33.100 Conservation Easement
Totals: 9,243.517

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 1-2
WETLANDS
Wetland 1 0.442 0.442 Riparian R 1.0 0.4422
Wetland 21 2.163 2.163 Riparian R 1.0 2.163
Wetland 3 1.781 1.781 Riparian R 1.0 1.781
Wetland A 0.075 0.075 Riparian RH 1.5 0.050
Wetland B 0.116 0.116 Riparian RH 1.5 0.077
Wetland D 0.033 0.033 Riparian RH 1.5 0.022
Wetland E 0.102 0.102 Riparian RH 1.5 0.068
Wetland F 0.103 0.103 Riparian RH 1.5 0.069
Wetland G 0.051 0.051 Riparian RH 1.5 0.034
Wetland H 0.158 0.158 Riparian RH 1.5 0.105
Wetland Q 0.063 0.063 Riparian RH 1.5 0.042
Total: 4.853
1 Wetland 2 boundary includes conversion of the existing farm pond to wetland.
2 Wetland 1 credits have been updated to account for an error in the Mitigation Plan. All corrections are reflected within
Table 1 and are properly itemized in the credit ledger.
* Crossing lengths have been removed from restoration footage.

Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland
Warm Riverine
Restoration2 7,530.000
Enhancement II 1,680.417
Preservation 33.100
Re-Establishment 4.386
Rehabilitation 0.467
Total Stream Credit 9,243.517
Total Wetland Credit 4.8531
1 Total Riparian Wetland Credits have been updated to account for an error in the Mitigation Plan.

1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits. Table 2 below describes expected
outcomes to water quality and ecological processes and provides project goals and objectives.

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 1-3
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements
Goal Objective/ Treatment Likely Functional
Uplift Performance Criteria Measurement
Cumulative
Monitoring
Results
Improve the
stability of
stream
channels.
Reconstruct stream
channels slated for
restoration with stable
dimensions and
appropriate depth relative
to the existing floodplain.
Add bank revetments and
instream structures to
protect restored/
enhanced streams.
Reduce erosion and
sediment inputs;
maintain
appropriate bed
forms and sediment
size distribution.
ER stays over 2.2 and
BHR below 1.2 with
visual assessments
showing progression
towards stability.
Cross-section
monitoring
and visual
inspections.
No deviations
from design.
Exclude
livestock
from stream
channels.
Install fencing to exclude
livestock from stream
channels, riparian areas,
proposed wetland areas,
and/or removed livestock
from adjacent fields.
Reduce and control
sediment inputs;
reduce and manage
nutrient inputs.
Fence conservation
easement to exclude
livestock. Install
fenced and gated
culvert crossings as
needed.
Visually
inspect the
Site to ensure
no cattle
encroachment
is occurring.
Cattle are
excluded from
project
streams.
Improve
instream and
wetland
habitat.
Install habitat features
such as cover logs, log sills,
and bush toes into
restored/enhanced
streams. Add woody
materials to channel beds.
Construct pools of varying
depth. Remove farm pond
and re-establish forested
riparian wetland habitat.
Support biological
communities and
processes. Provide
aquatic habitats for
diverse populations
of aquatic
organisms.
There is no required
performance standard
for this metric.
N/A N/A
Reconnect
channels
with
floodplains
and riparian
wetlands.
Reconstruct stream
channels with appropriate
bankfull dimensions and
depth relative to existing
floodplain.
Reduce shear stress
on channel; hydrate
adjacent wetland
areas; filter
pollutants out of
overbank flows;
provide surface
storage of water on
floodplain; increase
groundwater
recharge while
reducing outflow of
stormwater.
Four bankfull events
in separate years
within monitoring
period.
30 consecutive days
of flow for
intermittent channel.
Crest gauges
and/or
pressure
transducers
recording flow
elevations.
Big Branch
obtained
bankfull events
in MY1. UT3 R1
obtained 64
days of
consecutive
flow during
MY1.

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 1-4
Goal Objective/ Treatment Likely Functional
Uplift Performance Criteria Measurement
Cumulative
Monitoring
Results
Restore
wetland
function and
hydrology.
Restore wetlands through
re-establishment of
hydrology. Remove the
drainage effects of
agricultural ditching and
maintenance.
Improve terrestrial
habitat; and
contribute to
protection of or
improvement of a
Water Supply and
Nutrient-Sensitive
Water.
Free groundwater
surface within 12
inches of the ground
surface for a
minimum of 12% (re-
establishment) or 11%
(rehabilitation) of the
growing season for
Montgomery County.
Groundwater
gauges will be
placed in
wetland re-
establishment
and
rehabilitation
areas and
monitored
annually.
6 out of 9
groundwater
gauges
indicated
successful
criterion
attainment
during MY1.
Reduce
sediment and
nutrient
input from
adjacent
agricultural
fields.
Restore riparian stream
corridor and pocket
wetland areas to slow and
filter runoff from adjacent
agricultural fields.
Reduction of
sediment and
nutrients to 303(d)
receiving waters.
There is no required
performance standard
for this metric.
N/A N/A
Restore and
enhance
native
floodplain
and wetland
vegetation.
Convert active cattle
pasture and previously
maintained agricultural
areas to forested riparian
buffers along all Site
streams and wetlands.
Treat invasive vegetation
along stream corridors.
Protect and enhance
existing forested riparian
buffers.
Provide a canopy to
shade streams and
reduce thermal
loadings; stabilize
stream banks and
floodplain; support
water quality and
habitat goals.
Survival rate of 320
stems per acre at
MY3, 260 planted
stems per acre and
average height of 7ft
at MY5, and 210
stems per acre and
average height of 10
ft at MY7.
*Shrub and
subcanopy species
will be omitted from
average height
calculations.
One hundred
square meter
vegetation
plots are
placed on 2%
of the planted
area of the
Site and
monitored
annually.
26 out of 29
vegetation
plots have a
planted stem
density greater
than 320 stems
per acre.
Vegetation
plots 25 and 28
have a stem
density of 202
planted stems
per acre.
Vegetation plot
27 has a stem
density of 121
planted stems
per acre.
Permanently
protect the
project Site
from harmful
uses.
Establish conservation
easements on the Site.
Ensure that
development and
agricultural uses
that would damage
the Site or reduce
the benefits of the
project are
prevented.
Prevent easement
encroachment.
Visually
inspect the
perimeter of
the Site to
ensure no
easement
encroachment
is occurring.
No easement
encroachments.
Several
portions of the
Site boundary
were visually
inspected. A full
boundary
inspection will
be completed
in MY2.

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 1-5
1.3 Project Attributes
The Site was an active cattle farm composed of cattle pastures and previously deforested timber areas.
Historical aerials from 1955 to 2018 (Wildlands, 2021) showed that onsite streams existed in their same
approximate location for the last 65 years with minor changes to land management. Table 3 below and
Table 8 in Appendix C present additional information on pre-restoration conditions.
Table 3: Project Attributes
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name Cross Creek Ranch
Site County Montgomery County
Project Area (acres) 63.9 Project Coordinates 35.232211 N, 80.02425 W
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
Physiographic Province Piedmont River Basin Pee Dee
USGS HUC 8-digit 03040104 USGS HUC 14-digit 03040104020020
DWR Sub-basin 03-07-10 Land Use Classification 24% agriculture, 74% forested,
5% developed
Project Drainage Area (acres) 16,337 Percentage of Impervious Area 0.7%
RESTORATION TRIBUTARY SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters Clarks
Creek Big Branch UT1 UT1B UT3
Pre-project length (feet) 3,479 2,044 3,604 1,571 3,611
Post-project (feet) 3,479 2,211 3,535 1,292 3,568
Valley confinement Unconfined Unconfined Moderately
Confined
Moderately
Confined Confined
Drainage area (acres) 16,667 1,464 725 348 96
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial
DWR Water Quality Classification C
Dominant Stream Classification (existing) N/A C4/1 E4/1,
G3c/1
B4c/1 F1
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed) N/A C4/1 C4/1 C4/1 B4
Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) if applicable V II III/IV IV III
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and
DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification
No. 4134. Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion in Mitigation Plan
(Wildlands, 2021) Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA) N/A N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 2-1
Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 1 DATA ASSESSMENT
Annual monitoring and Site visits were conducted during MY1 to assess the condition of the project. The
vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2021). Performance criteria for vegetation, stream, and hydrologic
assessment are located in Section 1.2 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional
Improvements. Methodology for annual monitoring is presented in the MY0 Annual Report (Wildlands,
2022).
2.1 Vegetative Assessment
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in September 2022. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a stem
density range of 121 to 648 planted stems per acre. Out of the 29 vegetation plots, 26 exceed the
interim requirement of 320 stems per acre required at MY3. Herbaceous vegetation is also abundant
across the Site and includes native pollinator species, indicating a healthy riparian habitat. The riparian
habitat is helping to reduce nutrient runoff from the cattle fields outside the easement and stabilizing
the stream banks. Refer to Appendix A for Vegetation Plot Photographs and the Vegetation Condition
Assessment Table and Appendix B for Vegetation Plot Data.
Random vegetation plot 25, located along UT1, and random vegetation plots 27 and 28, located along
Clarks Creek, do not meet the interim requirement. Within random vegetation plots all stems
inventoried and counted in Table 6 (refer to Appendix B) were at least 30 cm in height. Stems under 30
cm were not counted. As seen through visual observations and vegetation plot data, many volunteers
are coming in across the Site that were not in the approved Mitigation Plan planting list. Wildlands
purposes to include several desirable volunteer species. Wildlands purposes to include boxelder (Acer
negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), and white oak
(Quercus alba) as desirable species that should be counted toward the vegetation success criteria. All
purposed volunteer species were inventoried according to the same metrics applied to planted stems,
and will continue to be inventoried in such a way.
There were a significant number of mature hardwood trees that were left untouched from construction.
A visual site assessment in October 2022 indicated that mature hardwood trees in construction areas
have survived. Planted trees and volunteer species are growing throughout the Site and starting to fill in
an understory that will eventually become a mature hardwood forest.
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
The primary cause for live stake mortality represented by random vegetation plots 27 and 28 along
Clarks Creek is likely competition with fescue. These areas will be evaluated and treated in 2023 with
ring-sprays to limit fescue competition.
A visual assessment conducted on October 26, 2022, revealed that Chinese privet is present along
portions of UT3 and UT1 (Figure 1a-b). A foliar chemical treatment will be applied to UT3 and UT1 during
monitoring year 2 (MY2).
Dense Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) along Clarks Creek (Figure 1a-b) was removed mechanically in
March 2022 on 19.57 acres. Initial removal was successful, with privet stem density greatly decreasing
along Clarks Creek. Due to the nature of treating dense tracts of Chinese privet, addressing vegetation
areas of concern will likely be a multi-year endeavor. Wildlands recognizes that multiple treatments are
typically needed for effective invasive plant control. Previously treated areas will be re-treated with a
foliar chemical treatment as necessary, and continue to be monitored in MY2. Refer to Appendix A for

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 2-2
the Vegetation Condition Assessment Table and Figures 1a-c for a mapped representation of previously
removed Chinese privet on the Site, as well as areas to be treated in MY2.
2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in October 2022. All streams within the Site are stable
and functioning as designed. All 16 cross-sections at the Site show little to no change in the bankfull area
and width-to-depth ratio, and bank height ratios are less than 1.2. Pebble count data is no longer
required per the September 29, 2021 Technical Work Group Meeting and is not included in this report.
The IRT reserves the right to request pebble count data/particle distributions if deemed necessary
during the monitoring period. Refer to Appendix A for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment Table and Stream Photographs and Appendix C for Stream Geomorphology Data.
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
No stream areas of concern were identified during MY1.
2.5 Hydrology Assessment
Big Branch exhibited six bankfull events in MY1 as of October 21, 2022, and is on track to meet
performance standards of four bankfull events in separate years during the 7-year monitoring period.
UT3 R1, UT1 R1, and UT1B have had no bankfull events as of October 21, 2022. Additional seasons of
observation are required to better understand hydrology at the site and thoroughly evaluate the success
of project reaches.
In addition, the presence of baseflow must be documented on intermittent reaches (UT3 R1) for a
minimum of 30 consecutive days during a normal precipitation year. The gauge on UT3 R1 exceeded
criteria with 64 consecutive days of flow during MY1.
2.6 Wetland Assessment
The performance criterion for groundwater gauges (GW) 5 and 6 is a free groundwater surface within 12
inches of the soil surface for 11% of the growing season (28 days). The performance criterion for GWs 1-
4 and GWs 7-9 is a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the soil surface for 12% of the growing
season (30 days). Growing season dates approved in the Mitigation Plan are March 17 through
November 20, with allowance for modification based on soil temperature data and bud burst. During
MY1, bud burst of red buckeye (Aesculus pavia) was observed on February 23, 2022 and soil
temperature was above 41 degrees Fahrenheit for the entire data observation period. Therefore,
growing season dates used for MY1 wetland hydrology evaluation are March 1, 2022 through November
20, 2022. The soil temperature probe recorded data properly from February 11, 2022, until March 13,
2022, after which it began to malfunction. Because of the probe malfunction, data from a soil
temperature probe deployed at a nearby mitigation site (approximately 28 miles southwest of the Site)
will be referred to from March 13, 2022, to October 21, 2022. Refer to Appendix D for the Soil
Temperature Probe Plot. The soil temperature probe was replaced on October 21, 2022.
Six of the nine GWs at the Site attained the success criterion for MY1 (Table 13). Refer to Appendix D for
hydrologic data. GW 5 and 6 within wetland rehabilitation zones exceed hydroperiod criterion. GWs 1, 3,
4, and 8 within wetland re-establishment zones exceed hydroperiod criterion. GWs 2, 7, and 9 have not
yet met hydroperiod criterion for wetland re-establishment zones in MY1. GW 9 experienced a
malfunction in which data was not recorded from May 9, 2022 to August 12, 2022. After construction of
the stream channel, it is anticipated that the groundwater table will take some time to recharge.
Additional seasons of water table observation are required to better understand hydrology at the Site
and thoroughly evaluate the success of wetland re-establishment areas.

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 2-3
Furthermore, groundwater hydrology across the Site was affected by dry conditions during the winter,
summer, and fall of 2022. According to the National Integrated Drought Information System,
Montgomery County experienced severe (D2) to abnormally dry conditions during the entire month of
December 2021. This was followed by moderate drought (D1) conditions to abnormally dry conditions
throughout January 2022, and abnormally dry conditions (D0) from February until mid-March 2022
(NOAA, 2023). Abnormally dry conditions re-occurred from the beginning of June through the beginning
of October, with a D1 drought beginning by the end of October and extending to the beginning of
December 2022 for approximately 80% to 100% of Montgomery county’s geographic area (NOAA, 2023).
Additionally, the annual precipitation total is close to the 30th percentile value obtained from the
Agricultural Applied Climate Information System DUNN 4 NW, NC WETS table (ACIS, 2022).
2.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
Out of the 29 vegetation plots, 26 exceed the MY3 interim requirement of 320 stems per acre. When
including desirable volunteers, all 29 vegetation plots are on track to meet success criteria. Chinese
privet is present throughout approximately 27 acres of the project area, primarily along Clarks Creek and
UT3, and will be treated in MY2. All streams within the Site are stable. Six bankfull events were
documented on Big Branch. UT3 R1, UT1 R1, and UT1B have yet to obtain a bankfull event during MY1,
but all streams are anticipated to meet bankfull criteria during MY2 with a full year of data available.
UT3 R1 has exhibited 64 consecutive days of stream flow, fulfilling MY1 success requirements. Overall,
the Site is meeting the goals outlined in Table 2, which were established within the Mitigation Plan, and
is on track to meet final success criteria.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. All raw data supporting the tables and
figures in the appendices are available from DMS upon request.

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 3-1
Section 3: REFERENCES
ACIS. 2022. Agricultural Applied Climate Information System (AgACIS). WETS Station: DUNN 4 NW, NC.
Accessed at: https://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=37085
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, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.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.
NOAA. 2023. National Integrated Drought Information System. Drought Conditions for Montgomery
County. Accessed at: https://www.drought.gov/states/north-carolina/county/Montgomery
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR). 2008. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Plan.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
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.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For
Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages
12-22.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2021. Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh,
NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2022. Cross Creek Ranch Site Monitoring Year 0 (MY0) Annual Report. DMS,
Raleigh, NC
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[[[
[
[[[[[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
!A
Cl
a
r
k
s

C
r
e
e
k
U
T
1
B
Big B
r
a
n
c
h
C
l
a
r
k
s

C
r
e
e
k
UT3 R3
UT3 R2
UT3 R1
U
T
3
UT1
UT1 R1
UT1 R2
Figure 1c.
Figure 1b.
Figure 1a.
¬«73
¬«73
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF
!A
!A !A
!A
!A !A!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!P
!P
!P
Conservation Easement
Internal Crossings
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY1
Criteria Met - Fixed
Criteria Met - Random
Criteria Not Met - Random
Stream Restoration
Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
Not for Credit
[Fence
Cross-Section
!P Reach Break
Groundwater Gauge - MY1
!A Criteria Met
!A Criteria Not Met
!A Crest Gauge
!A Flow Gauge
GF Photo Point
Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Montgomery County, NC
¹0 600 1,200 Feet
2021 Aerial Photography
Figure 1a. Current Condition Plan View
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Montgomery County, NC
2020 Aerial Photography
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[
[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
!A
Clarks C
r
e
e
k
U
T
1
B
U
T
1
UT1 R1
UT1 R2
PP 1
PP 2
PP 3
PP 4
PP 5
PP 6
PP 7
PP 8
PP 14
PP 13
PP 12
PP 11
PP 9
PP 10
PP 17
PP 30
PP 31
PP 15
GWG 1
GWG 3
GWG 4
GWG 6
GWG 5
GWG 2
XS
1
XS 5
XS

7
XS
1
0
XS 3
XS

4
XS
6
X
S

8
XS

2
XS 9
PP 16
STP25
2
3
4
26 5
6
11
10
8
12
7
9
1
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
403+00
406+0
0
409+00
412+00
51
2
+
0
0
515+0
0
106
+
0
0
109
+
0
0
1
1
2
+
0
0
1
1
5
+
0
0
300
+
0
0
303
+
0
0
30
6
+
0
0
309
+
0
0
312
+
0
0
31
5
+
0
0
32
1
+
0
0
32
4
+
0
0
32
7
+
0
0
329+00
33
2
+
0
0
335+
0
0
400+00
31
8
+
0
0
¬«73
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!P
Conservation Easement
Internal Crossings
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Vegetation Area of Concern - MY1
Chinese Privet
Treated Chinese Privet
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY1
Criteria Met - Fixed
Criteria Met - Random
Criteria Not Met - Random
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
Not for Credit
Top of Bank
Structure
[Fence
Cross-Section
!P Reach Break
Groundwater Gauge - MY1
!A Criteria Met
!A Criteria Not Met
!A Soil Temperature Probe
!A Barotroll
!A Crest Gauge
GF Photo Point
0 200 400 Feet ¹
2021 Aerial Photography
Figure 1b. Current Condition Plan View
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Montgomery County, NC
2020 Aerial Photography
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[[[[[
[
[
[
Clarks C
r
e
e
k
Big
B
r
a
n
c
h
C
l
a
r
k
s

C
r
e
e
k
UT1 R2PP 9
PP 10
PP 18
PP 19
PP 17
PP 20
PP 22
PP 24
PP 25
PP 26
PP 27
PP 21
GWG 7
GWG 8
GWG 9
XS

7
XS

1
1
XS

1
4
X
S

1
2
X
S

1
3
PP 16
27
28
20
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
23
22
19
7
!A
!A!A !A
109
+
0
0
1
1
2
+
0
0
1
1
5
+
0
0
118+
0
0
121+0
0
124+
0
0
127+
0
0
130+
0
0
133
+
0
0
136+0
0
139+00
2
0
6
+
0
0
2
0
9
+
0
0
2
1
2
+
0
0
2
1
5
+
0
0
2
1
8
+
0
0
221+
0
0
33
2
+
0
0
335+
0
0
2
0
3
+
0
0
PP 23
¬«73
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Treated Chinese Privet
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY1
Criteria Met - Fixed
Criteria Not Met - Random
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
Not for Credit
Top of Bank
Structure
[Fence
Cross-Section
Groundwater Gauge - MY1
!A Criteria Met
!A Criteria Not Met
!A Crest Gauge
GF Photo Point
0 250 500 Feet ¹
2021 Aerial Photography
Figure 1c. Current Condition Plan View
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Montgomery County, NC
2020 Aerial Photography
[
[
[
[
[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
UT3 R3
UT3 R2
UT3 R1
U
T
1
PP 5
PP 28
PP 29
PP 30
PP 31
PP 32
PP 33
PP 34
PP 35
GWG 3
XS

1
5
XS
1
6
XS 3
XS
4
3
26
2429
!A
!A
!A
509+
0
0
51
2
+
0
0
515+0
0
518+00
521+00
524+
0
0
530+00
533+0
0
535+44
312
+
0
0
31
5
+
0
0
50
6
+
0
0
50
3
+
0
0
50
0
+
0
0
527+00
UT3 R1
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!P
!P
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Vegetation Area of Concern - MY1
Chinese Privet
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY1
Criteria Met - Fixed
Criteria Met - Random
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
Not for Credit
Top of Bank
Structure
[Fence
Cross-Section
!P Reach Break
Groundwater Gauge - MY1
!A Criteria Met
!A Crest Gauge
!A Flow Gauge
GF Photo Point
0 200 400 Feet ¹
2021 Aerial Photography
APPENDIX A. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
UT1 R1
2,866
5,732
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 9 9 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 17 17 100%
Visual assessment was completed October 26, 2022.
UT1 R2
606
1,212
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 3 3 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 6 6 100%
Visual assessment was completed October 26, 2022.
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
Structure
Structure
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
UT1B
1,254
2,508
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 7 7 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 11 11 100%
Visual assessment was completed October 26, 2022.
Clark's Creek
3,479
6,958
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 0 0 N/A
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 1 1 100%
Visual assessment was completed October 26, 2022.
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Totals:
Bank
Structure
Totals:
Structure
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Big Branch
2,196
4,392
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 5 5 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 12 12 100%
Visual assessment was completed October 26, 2022.
UT3 R1
754
1,508
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 13 13 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 8 8 100%
Visual assessment was completed October 26, 2022.
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
Structure
Structure
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
UT3 R2
2,437
4,874
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 3 3 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 5 5 100%
Visual assessment was completed October 26, 2022.
UT3 R3
331
662
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 0 0 N/A
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 0 0 N/A
Visual assessment was completed October 26, 2022.
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
Structure
Structure
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Planted Acreage 43.50
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(ac)
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.10 0.00 0%
Low Stem Density
Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count
criteria.0.10 0.00 0%
0.00 0%
Areas of Poor Growth
Rates
Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance
Standard.0.10 0.00 0%
0.00 0%
Visual assessment was completed October 26, 2022.
Easement Acreage 63.90
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(ac)
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Easement
Encroachment Areas
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists
of any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common
encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no
threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area.
none
Visual assessment was completed October 26, 2022.
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Total
Cumulative Total
0 Encroachments Noted
/ 0 ac
Invasive Areas of
Concern
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will
therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage. Include species with the
potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term or
community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in
summation above should be identified in report summary.
0.10 27.11 42%

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 1 UT1 R1 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 1 UT1 R1 – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 2 UT1 R1 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 2 UT1 R1 – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 3 UT1 R1 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 3 UT1 R1 – downstream (10/17/2022)

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 4 UT1 R1 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 4 UT1 R1 – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 5 UT1 R1 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 5 UT1 R1 – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 6 UT1 R1 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 6 UT1 R1 – downstream (10/17/2022)

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 7 UT1 R1 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 7 UT1 R1 – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 8 UT1 R1 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 8 UT1 R1 – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 9 UT1 R2 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 9 UT1 R2 – downstream (10/17/2022)

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 10 UT1 R2 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 10 UT1 R2 – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 11 UT1B – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 11 UT1B – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 12 UT1B – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 12 UT1B – downstream (10/17/2022)

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 13 UT1B – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 13 UT1B – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 14 UT1B – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 14 UT1B – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 15 Clarks Creek – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 15 Clarks Creek – downstream (10/17/2022)

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 16 Clarks Creek – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 16 Clarks Creek – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 17 Clarks Creek – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 17 Clarks Creek – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 18 Clarks Creek – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 18 Clarks Creek – downstream (10/17/2022)

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 19 Clarks Creek – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 19 Clarks Creek – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 20 Clarks Creek – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 20 Clarks Creek – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 21 Clarks Creek – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 21 Clarks Creek – downstream (10/17/2022)

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 22 Big Branch – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 22 Big Branch – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 23 Big Branch – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 23 Big Branch – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 24 Big Branch – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 24 Big Branch – downstream (10/17/2022)

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 25 Big Branch – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 25 Big Branch – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 26 Big Branch – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 26 Big Branch – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 27 Big Branch – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 27 Big Branch – downstream (10/17/2022)

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 28 UT3 R1 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 28 UT3 R1 – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 29 UT3 R1 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 29 UT3 R1 – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 30 UT3 R2 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 30 UT3 R2 – downstream (10/17/2022)

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 31 UT3 R2 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 31 UT3 R2 – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 32 UT3 R2 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 32 UT3 R2 – downstream (10/17/2022)

PHOTO POINT 33 UT3 R2 – upstream (10/17/2022) PHOTO POINT 33 UT3 R2 – downstream (10/17/2022)

CULVERT CROSSING PHOTOGRAPHS

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Culvert Crossing Photographs

UT1 R2 - Looking Upstream (10/17/2022) UT1 R2 - Looking Downstream (10/17/2022)

UT1 R2 Culvert Crossing – Looking Southwest (10/26/2022) UT1 R2 Culvert Crossing – Looking Northeast (10/26/2022)

UT1B - Looking Upstream (11/21/2022) UT1B - Looking Downstream (11/21/2022)

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Culvert Crossing Photographs

UT1B Culvert Crossing – Looking West (10/26/2022) UT1B Culvert Crossing - Looking East (10/26/2022)

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS
Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs
FIXED VEG PLOT 1 (09/15/2022) FIXED VEG PLOT 2 (09/15/2022)
FIXED VEG PLOT 3 (09/15/2022) FIXED VEG PLOT 4 (09/15/2022)
FIXED VEG PLOT 5 (09/15/2022) FIXED VEG PLOT 6 (09/15/2022)
Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs

FIXED VEG PLOT 7 (09/15/2022) FIXED VEG PLOT 8 (09/15/2022)

FIXED VEG PLOT 9 (09/15/2022) FIXED VEG PLOT 10 (09/15/2022)

FIXED VEG PLOT 11 (09/15/2022) FIXED VEG PLOT 12 (09/15/2022)
Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs

FIXED VEG PLOT 13 (09/15/2022) FIXED VEG PLOT 14 (09/15/2022)

FIXED VEG PLOT 15 (09/15/2022) FIXED VEG PLOT 16 (09/15/2022)

FIXED VEG PLOT 17 (09/15/2022) FIXED VEG PLOT 18 (09/15/2022)
Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs

FIXED VEG PLOT 19 (09/15/2022) FIXED VEG PLOT 20 (09/15/2022)

FIXED VEG PLOT 21 (09/15/2022) FIXED VEG PLOT 22 (09/15/2022)

FIXED VEG PLOT 23 (09/15/2022) FIXED VEG PLOT 24 (10/17/2022)
Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs

RANDOM VEG PLOT 25 (09/15/2022) RANDOM VEG PLOT 26 (09/15/2022)

RANDOM VEG PLOT 27 (09/15/2022) RANDOM VEG PLOT 28 (09/15/2022)

RANDOM VEG PLOT 29 (10/17/2022)

GROUNDWATER WELL PHOTOGRAPHS

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Groundwater Well Photographs

GROUNDWATER WELL 1 – (11/21/2022) GROUNDWATER WELL 2 – (11/21/2022)

GROUNDWATER WELL 3 – (11/21/2022) GROUNDWATER WELL 4 – (11/21/2022)

GROUNDWATER WELL 5 – (11/21/2022) GROUNDWATER WELL 6 – (11/21/2022)

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Groundwater Well Photographs

GROUNDWATER WELL 7 – (11/21/2022) GROUNDWATER WELL 8 – (11/21/2022)

GROUNDWATER WELL 9 – (11/21/2022)

APPENDIX B. VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
43.5
2022-03-10
2022-09-15
0.0247
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Alnus serrulata tag alder Tree OBL 3 3
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree FAC 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush Shrub OBL 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
Euonymus americanus strawberry bush Shrub FAC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nyssa biflora swamp gum Tree FACW 1 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 4 1 1 3 3 3 3
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree FAC 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL 4 4
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL 1 1
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 2 2 2 2
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
Sum 14 14 14 14 15 15 13 13 14 14 13 13 15 15
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW
Gleditsia triacanthos honeylocust Shrub FAC
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree FAC
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU
Sum 14 14 14 14 15 15 13 13 14 14 13 13 15 15
Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet Tree FACU
14 14 15 13 14 13 15
567 567 607 526 567 526 607
9 6 8 7 9 8 8
21 29 20 31 21 23 27
2 2 2 2 2 3 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 14 15 13 14 13 15
567 567 607 526 567 526 607
9 6 8 7 9 8 8
21 29 20 31 21 23 27
2 2 2 2 2 3 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Performance Standard
Proposed Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Post Mitigation
Plan Species
Invasives
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 FVeg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 FScientific Name Common Name Tree/Sh
rub Indicator Status
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species"
section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years
through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The ""Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"
includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
43.5
2022-03-10
2022-09-15
0.0247
Alnus serrulata tag alder Tree OBL
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree FAC
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush Shrub OBL
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC
Euonymus americanus strawberry bush Shrub FAC
Nyssa biflora swamp gum Tree FACW
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree FAC
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC
Sum
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW
Gleditsia triacanthos honeylocust Shrub FAC
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree FAC
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU
Sum
Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet Tree FACU
Performance Standard
Proposed Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Post Mitigation
Plan Species
Invasives
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Scientific Name Common Name
Tree/Sh
rub Indicator Status
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
1 1 1 1
4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3
1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
1 1
1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2
14 14 13 13 11 11 11 11 16 16 15 15 15 15
14 14 13 13 11 11 11 11 16 16 15 15 15 15
14 13 11 11 16 15 15
567 526 445 445 648 607 607
8 8 7 8 9 9 9
29 23 27 18 19 20 20
2 3 3 2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 13 11 11 16 15 15
567 526 445 445 648 607 607
8 8 7 8 9 9 9
29 23 27 18 19 20 20
2 3 3 2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 FVeg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F Veg Plot 10 F
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species"
section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years
through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The ""Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"
includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
43.5
2022-03-10
2022-09-15
0.0247
Alnus serrulata tag alder Tree OBL
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree FAC
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush Shrub OBL
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC
Euonymus americanus strawberry bush Shrub FAC
Nyssa biflora swamp gum Tree FACW
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree FAC
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC
Sum
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW
Gleditsia triacanthos honeylocust Shrub FAC
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree FAC
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU
Sum
Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet Tree FACU
Performance Standard
Proposed Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Post Mitigation
Plan Species
Invasives
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Scientific Name Common Name
Tree/Sh
rub Indicator Status
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 3 3 1 1 5 5 3 3 1 1
2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3
1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2
1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1
14 14 16 16 13 13 14 14 14 14 10 10
14 14 16 16 13 13 14 14 14 14 10 10
14 16 13 14 14 10
567 648 526 567 567 405
9 9 8 8 8 6
14 19 31 36 21 30
2 2 2 3 2 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
14 16 13 14 14 10
567 648 526 567 567 405
9 9 8 8 8 6
14 19 31 36 21 30
2 2 2 3 2 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
Veg Plot 16 F Veg Plot 17 F Veg Plot 18 F Veg Plot 19 F Veg Plot 20 FVeg Plot 15 F
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species"
section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years
through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The ""Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"
includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
43.5
2022-03-10
2022-09-15
0.0247
Alnus serrulata tag alder Tree OBL
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree FAC
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush Shrub OBL
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC
Euonymus americanus strawberry bush Shrub FAC
Nyssa biflora swamp gum Tree FACW
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree FAC
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC
Sum
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW
Gleditsia triacanthos honeylocust Shrub FAC
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree FAC
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU
Sum
Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet Tree FACU
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name
Tree/Sh
rub Indicator Status
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Post Mitigation
Plan Species
Invasives
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Performance Standard
Proposed Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Veg Plot
25 R
Veg Plot
26 R
Veg Plot
27 R
Veg Plot
28 R
Veg Plot
29 R
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total Total Total
2 2 1 1
3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2
2 2 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
3 3 1 1 2 1
1 1 1
1 1
4 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 4
2 2 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 2 1
1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1
1 1 2 2
1 1
2 2 3 3 1 2
1 1 1 1 2
15 15 14 14 13 13 9 9 5 10 4 5 10
2 3
4 4 1 2
1 2
2
1
15 15 14 14 13 13 9 9 9 15 8 12 0
1
15 14 13 9 5 10 4 5 10
607 567 526 364 202 405 121 202 405
7 9 8 7 4 6 2 5 5
27 21 23 22 29 20 75 17 31
2 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0
15 14 13 9 9 15 8 12 10
607 567 526 364 364 607 283 486 405
7 9 8 7 5 8 5 8 5
27 21 23 22 29 20 75 17 31
2 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0
Veg Plot 21 F Veg Plot 22 F Veg Plot 23 F Veg Plot 24 F
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species"
section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years
through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The ""Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"
includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
567 2 9 0 567 2 6 0 607 2 8 0
648 2 10 0 567 2 6 0 607 2 8 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
526 2 7 0 567 2 9 0 526 3 8 0
607 2 8 0 567 2 9 0 567 2 9 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
607 2 8 0 567 2 8 0 526 3 8 0
648 2 9 0 607 2 8 0 607 3 8 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
445 3 7 0 445 2 8 0 648 2 9 0
567 3 8 0 567 2 9 0 648 2 9 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
607 2 9 0 607 2 9 0 567 2 9 0
607 2 9 0 607 2 9 0 567 3 9 0
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F.
Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 F Veg Plot 15 F
Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F
Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
648 2 9 0 526 2 8 0 567 3 8 0
648 2 9 0 567 2 8 0 688 3 9 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
567 2 8 0 405 3 6 0 607 2 7 0
607 3 8 0 567 2 8 0 648 3 8 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
567 2 9 0 526 2 8 0 364 1 7 0
607 2 10 0 607 2 8 0 607 2 9 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
202 3 4 0 405 2 6 0 121 3 2 0
445 2 5 0 445 2 4 0 607 2 10 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
202 2 5 17 405 2 5 0
607 3 9 0 526 2 6 0
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F.
Veg Plot 19 F Veg Plot 20 F Veg Plot 21 F
Veg Plot Group 28 R Veg Plot Group 29 R
Veg Plot 22 F Veg Plot 23 F Veg Plot 24 F
Veg Plot Group 25 R Veg Plot Group 26 R Veg Plot Group 27 R
Veg Plot 16 F Veg Plot 17 F Veg Plot 18 F
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
APPENDIX C. STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY DATA
CROSS-SECTION PLOTS 
Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots
Downstream (10/17/2022) 
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 306.21 306.21 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 1.00 0.94 
Thalweg Elevation 304.50 304.51 
LTOB Elevation 306.21 306.11 
LTOB Max Depth 1.71 1.60 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 16.20 14.67 
Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots
Downstream (10/17/2022) 
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Thalweg Elevation 302.39 302.41 
LTOB Elevation 305.35 305.40 
LTOB Max Depth 2.96 2.99 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 27.97 28.75 
Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots
Downstream (10/17/2022) 
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 294.99 295.00 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 1.00 0.93 
Thalweg Elevation 293.65 293.68 
LTOB Elevation 294.99 294.91 
LTOB Max Depth 1.35 1.23 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 12.96 11.60 
Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots
Downstream (10/17/2022) 
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Thalweg Elevation 291.24 291.48 
LTOB Elevation 294.28 294.26 
LTOB Max Depth 3.04 2.78 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 30.77 26.57 
Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots
Downstream (10/17/2022) 
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 284.75 284.76 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 1.00 1.02 
Thalweg Elevation 283.38 283.37 
LTOB Elevation 284.75 284.79 
LTOB Max Depth 1.37 1.42 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 12.58 12.99 

Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots

Downstream (10/17/2022) 
  MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Thalweg Elevation 281.35 281.21 
LTOB Elevation 284.20 284.18 
LTOB Max Depth 2.85 2.97 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 28.69 29.48            

Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots

Downstream (10/17/2022) 
  MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 268.28 268.30 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 1.00 1.03 
Thalweg Elevation 266.40 266.32 
LTOB Elevation 268.28 268.37 
LTOB Max Depth 1.88 2.05 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 24.72 26.14            

Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots

Downstream (10/17/2022) 
  MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 288.22 288.21 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 1.00 0.96 
Thalweg Elevation 286.80 286.81 
LTOB Elevation 288.22 288.15 
LTOB Max Depth 1.42 1.34 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 14.94 14.17            

Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots

Downstream (10/17/2022) 
  MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Thalweg Elevation 279.93 279.89 
LTOB Elevation 283.16 283.12 
LTOB Max Depth 3.24 3.23 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 36.04 34.98            

Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots

Downstream (10/17/2022) 
  MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 282.69 282.71 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 1.00 1.01 
Thalweg Elevation 281.27 281.30 
LTOB Elevation 282.69 282.73 
LTOB Max Depth 1.42 1.43 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 14.21 14.46            

Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots

Downstream (10/17/2022) 
  MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 272.62 272.55 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 1.00 0.95 
Thalweg Elevation 270.22 269.93 
LTOB Elevation 272.62 272.41 
LTOB Max Depth 2.40 2.47 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 36.87 33.41            

Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots

Downstream (10/17/2022) 
  MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Thalweg Elevation 266.67 266.66 
LTOB Elevation 271.45 271.14 
LTOB Max Depth 4.77 4.48 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 96.74 85.39            

Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots

Downstream (10/17/2022) 
  MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Thalweg Elevation 258.40 258.38 
LTOB Elevation 263.60 263.65 
LTOB Max Depth 5.20 5.27 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 113.83 113.86            

Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots

Downstream (10/17/2022) 
  MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 263.06 263.15 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 1.00 0.94 
Thalweg Elevation 261.09 261.21 
LTOB Elevation 263.06 263.03 
LTOB Max Depth 1.97 1.82 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 33.50 30.24            

Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots

Downstream (10/17/2022) 
  MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area N/A N/A 
Thalweg Elevation 356.71 356.74 
LTOB Elevation 358.16 358.00 
LTOB Max Depth 1.45 1.26 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 5.29 4.24            
Cross Creek Ranch Site 
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots
Downstream (10/17/2022) 
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 
Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 341.52 341.51 
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based 
on AB‐Bankfull Area 1.00 1.05 
Thalweg Elevation 340.55 340.57 
LTOB Elevation 341.52 341.56 
LTOB Max Depth 0.97 0.99 
LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 2.72 3.00 
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)1 14.3 15.4 3
Floodprone Width (ft)1 31.9 72.5 132.0 195.0 3
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 0.8 1.1 3
Bankfull Max Depth 1 1.3 1.7 3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 12.6 16.2 3
Width/Depth Ratio 1 14.7 18.1 3
Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 8.6 13.6 3
Bank Height Ratio 1 3
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 50.0 72.1 3
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 1 44.0 100.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 1
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 1 14.8 15.4 2
Floodprone Width (ft) 1 33.4 76.0 105.0 140.0 2
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 0.9 1.0 2
Bankfull Max Depth 1 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 14.2 14.8 2
Width/Depth Ratio 1 14.7 16.8 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 7.1 9.1 2
Bank Height Ratio 1 2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 60.1 66.5 2
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Other
45
1.0
1.4
0.0130 0.0118
UT1B
C4/1
17.2
20.0
19.1
---------
49.040.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.0151
2.0 1.0
34 45
F1 B4 B4
1.20
0.0130 0.0092
1.6
10.7 14.7
12.9 15.7
1.6
1.19 1.20
0.9 1.0
54.5
------
1.20
11.7 15.2
58.5
24.7
1.20
1.17
47
1.0
1.20
1.0
---
11.6
42
E4/1
1.0
---
21.1
240.0
1.2
0.0140
C4/1
44
15.3
13.8
1.0
8.0
>2.2
---
52.0
1.19 1.20
44
10.3
50.0
1.3
2.4
13.3
14.5
0.0143
G3c/1 C4/1 C4/1
85.0
0.00800.0160
120.6
13.8
1.9
50 50
11.2
1.2
4.6
17.9
11.4
1.2
UT1 R1
DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE
(MY0)
1.3
PRE-EXISTING
CONDITIONS
23.3
1.4
11.9
---
UT1 R2
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 15.8 23.3 2 20.0 25.4 2
Floodprone Width (ft) 19.4 50.0 2 52.8 120.0 230.0 260.0 2
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.6 1.8 2 1.2 1.4 2
Bankfull Max Depth 2.2 2.6 2 2.0 2.4 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)28.5 34.4 2 33.4 36.8 2
Width/Depth Ratio 8.8 13.3 2 19.3 20.1 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 2.3 2 2.2 5.0 9.1 9.6 2
Bank Height Ratio 2.3 3.0 2 2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)2 139.8 156.8 2
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)1 1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 7.3 11.4 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 1.4 2.2 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1 1
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Other
5.6
24.0
0.5
1.0
2.7
11.5
0.0083
0.0290 0.0327
1.14
0.0070
6.4
8.7
0.3
7.6
0.5
UT3 R1
5.2
0.0372
---------
1.3
2.4
F1
11.6
B4 B4
10.0
1.00 1.10 1.10
4.3
1.0
39 52 52
1.0
2.0 1.9
14.6
1.0
20.6
0.4
0.0090
16.9
37
---------
144.0
1.20
136.0
1.0
1.20
44 37
C4/1 - G4c/1 C4/1 C4/1
PRE-EXISTING
CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE
(MY0)
1.0
1.4
34.0
2.0
Big Branch
24.0
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull 1 Area 306.21 306.21 N/A N/A 294.99 295.00
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull 1 Area 1.00 0.94 N/A N/A 1.00 0.93
Thalweg Elevation 304.50 304.51 302.39 302.41 293.65 293.68
LTOB2 Elevation 306.21 306.11 305.35 305.40 294.99 294.91
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.71 1.60 2.96 2.99 1.35 1.23
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)16.20 14.67 27.97 28.75 12.96 11.60
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull 1 Area N/A N/A 284.75 284.76 N/A N/A
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull 1 Area N/A N/A 1.00 1.02 N/A N/A
Thalweg Elevation 291.24 291.48 283.38 283.37 281.35 281.21
LTOB2 Elevation 294.28 294.26 284.75 284.79 284.20 284.18
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)3.04 2.78 1.37 1.42 2.85 2.97
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)30.77 26.57 12.58 12.99 28.69 29.48
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull 1 Area 268.28 268.30 288.22 288.21 N/A N/A
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull 1 Area 1.00 1.03 1.00 0.96 N/A N/A
Thalweg Elevation 266.40 266.32 286.80 286.81 279.93 279.89
LTOB2 Elevation 268.28 268.37 288.22 288.15 283.16 283.12
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.88 2.05 1.42 1.34 3.24 3.23
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)24.72 26.14 14.94 14.17 36.04 34.98
1Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.
UT1 R2 UT1B
2LTOB Area and Max depth - These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB elevation and the
thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.
Cross-Section 7 (Riffle)Cross-Section 8 (Riffle)Cross-Section 9 (Pool)
Cross-Section 4 (Pool)Cross-Section 5 (Riffle)Cross-Section 6 (Pool)
Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Cross-Section 1 (Riffle)Cross-Section 2 (Pool)Cross-Section 3 (Riffle)
UT1 R1
UT1 R1
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 282.69 282.71 272.62 272.55 N/A N/A
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.01 1.00 0.95 N/A N/A
Thalweg Elevation 281.27 281.30 270.22 269.93 266.67 266.66
LTOB2 Elevation 282.69 282.73 272.62 272.41 271.45 271.14
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.42 1.43 2.40 2.47 4.77 4.48
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)14.21 14.46 36.87 33.41 96.74 85.39
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A 263.06 263.15 N/A N/A
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A 1.00 0.94 N/A N/A
Thalweg Elevation 258.40 258.38 261.09 261.21 356.71 356.74
LTOB2 Elevation 263.60 263.65 263.06 263.03 358.16 358.00
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)5.20 5.27 1.97 1.82 1.45 1.26
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)113.83 113.86 33.50 30.24 5.29 4.24
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 341.52 341.51
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.05
Thalweg Elevation 340.55 340.57
LTOB2 Elevation 341.52 341.56
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.97 0.99
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.72 3.00
1Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.
Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Cross-Section 10 (Riffle)Cross-Section 11 (Riffle)Cross-Section 12 (Pool)
UT3 R1
Big Branch
2LTOB Area and Max depth - These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg
elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.
UT1B
Big Branch UT3 R1
Cross-Section 16 (Riffle)
Cross-Section 13 (Pool)Cross-Section 14 (Riffle)Cross-Section 15 (Pool)
APPENDIX D. HYDROLOGY DATA
Reach MY1 (2022) MY2 (2023) MY3 (2024) MY4 (2025) MY5 (2026) MY6 (2027) MY7 (2028)
UT1 Reach 1 N/A
UT1B N/A
UT3 Reach 1 N/A
Big Branch
3/12/2022
3/16/2022
3/31/2022
4/18/2022
5/27/2022
7/15/2022
MY1 (2022) MY2 (2023) MY3 (2024) MY4 (2025) MY5 (2026) MY6 (2027) MY7 (2028)
Annual Precip
Total 45.69*
WETS 30th
Percentile 44.54
WETS 70th
Percentile 52.92
Normal *
*Annual precipitation total was collected up until 11/30/2022. Data will be updated in MY2.
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Table 10. Bankfull Events
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Table 11. Rainfall Summary
N/A: No bankfull events were recorded before 11/21/2022. Data will be updated in MY2.
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
MY1 (2022)** MY2 (2023) MY3 (2024) MY4 (2025) MY5 (2026) MY6 (2027) MY7 (2028)
UT3 R1 64 Days/
73 Days
**Data was colleted through 11/21/2022. Data will be updated in MY2.
*Success criteria is 30 consecutive days of flow.
Table 12. Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Summary
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Reach Max Consecutive Days/Total Days Meeting Success Criteria*
Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plot
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
64 days of consecutive stream flow
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
357
358
359
360
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Cross Creek : UT3 Reach 1 Flow Gauge
Table 13. Groundwater Gauge Summary
Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
MY1 (2022) MY2 (2023) MY3 (2024) MY4 (2025) MY5 (2026) MY6 (2027) MY7 (2028)
1 99 Days
(37.4%)
2 18 Days
(6.8%)
3 59 Days
(22.3%)
4 64 Days
(24.2%)
5 81 Days
(30.6%)
6 78 Days
(29.4%)
7 20 Days
(7.5%)
8 65 Days
(24.5%)
9 21 Days
(7.9%)
Gauge Max. Consecutive Hydroperiod (Percentage)
DMS Project No. 100138
WETS Station: Montgomery Co. Jackson Springs 5 WNW
Growing Season: 3/1/2021 to 11/20/2022 (264 Days)
Performance Standard: GW 5 and GW 6 have an 11% (28 consecutive day) hydroperiod criterion.
GW 1-4 and GW 7-9 have a 12% (30 consecutive day) hyrdoperiod criterion.
Groundwater Gauge Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
St
a
r
t

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
99 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Gauge #1 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gauge #1
Groundwater Gauge Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
St
a
r
t

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
18 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Gauge #2 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gauge #2
Groundwater Gauge Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
St
a
r
t

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
59 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Gauge #3 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gauge #3
Groundwater Gauge Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
St
a
r
t

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
64 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Gauge #4 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gauge #4
Groundwater Gauge Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
St
a
r
t

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
81 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Gauge #5 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gauge #5
Groundwater Gauge Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
St
a
r
t

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
78 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Gauge #6 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gauge #6
Groundwater Gauge Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
St
a
r
t

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
20 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Gauge #7 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gauge #7
2 consecutive days
below criteria
Groundwater Gauge Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
St
a
r
t

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
65 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Gauge #8 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gauge #8
Groundwater Gauge Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
St
a
r
t

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d

o
f

G
r
o
w
i
n
g

S
e
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
21 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Gauge #9 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gauge #9
GWG malfunction
from 5-9 to 8-12
Soil Temperature Probe Plot
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Data after 3/13/2022 was obtained from a nearby mitigation site (~28 miles SW of Cross Creek Ranch Site).
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
F
)
Soil Probe Temperature Criteria Level
Cross Creek Ranch Soil Temperature Probe
APPENDIX E. PROJECT TIMELINE AND CONTACT INFO
DMS Project No. 100138
DMS Project No. 100138
Wildlands Construction
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Main Stream Earthwork, Inc.
631 Camp Dan Valley Rd.
Reidsville, NC 27320
Table 14. Project Activity and Reporting History
Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Task Completion or Deliverable
Submission
Project Instituted NA November 2019
Mitigation Plan Approved NA September 2021
As-Built Survey Completed March 2022 March 2022
Construction (Grading) Completed NA February 2022
Planting Completed NA March 10, 2022
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)Stream Survey March 2022 July 2022Vegetation Survey March 2022
Year 1 Monitoring Stream Survey October 2022 December 2022Vegetation Survey September 2022
Year 2 Monitoring Stream Survey 2023 December 2023Vegetation Survey 2023
Year 3 Monitoring Stream Survey 2024 December 2024Vegetation Survey 2024
Year 4 Monitoring December 2025
Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey 2026 December 2026Vegetation Survey 2026
919.851.9986
Year 6 Monitoring December 2027
Year 7 Monitoring Stream Survey 2028 December 2028Vegetation Survey 2028
Invasive Vegetation Treatment March 2022
Monitoring, POC Jason Lorch
919.851.9986
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Construction Contractors
Table 15. Project Contact Table
Cross Creek Ranch Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Designer
Abigail Vieira, PE
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
APPENDIX F. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
IRT CORRESPONDENCE
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609
November 2, 2022
Ms. Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager
USACE – Regulatory Division
Subject: [External] Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site/ SAW-
2020-00051/ Montgomery County
Yadkin River Basin – CU# 03040104
Montgomery County
DMS Project ID No. 100138
Dear Ms. Isenhour:
On October 12, 2022, Wildlands Engineering received comments from the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team (IRT) regarding the 15-Day As-Built/MY0 review for the Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
(SAW-2020-00051) in accordance with Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule. The following
letter documents DMS feedback and Wildlands’ corresponding responses and additions to the
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report.
Casey Haywood, USACE:
1.Several adjustments were made during construction to save trees. Please note visual observations of
tree survival in these areas in future monitoring reports; the IRT is interested in tree survival on
mitigation sites following construction.
Response: Wildlands will visually observe tree survival and note this in future monitoring reports.
2. Vegetation plot data indicates the site is on a trajectory for success. When was the site planted? Table
10 shows it was planted in March 2022 but does not specify the day.
Response: As stated in Table 6 found in Appendix B of the Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report, the planting
date is March 10, 2022. Wildlands will include this in Table 14, Project Activity and Reporting History,
found within Appendix E of the Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report.
3. Concur with DWR’s comment 3. In addition, please make sure to capture the wetland rehabilitation
areas with a random veg plot in future monitoring reports.
Response: Wildlands will work to capture the wetland rehabilitation areas in future random vegetation
plots. However, wetland rehabilitation zones are small, and may be difficult to fully represent using
random vegetation plots. Both wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation zones were planted with the
same species.
Todd Bowers, USEPA:
1. There is a lack of, or at least I expected, a comprehensive summary of the work performed in the
opening paragraphs that outlines the length of streams and acres of wetlands
restored/enhanced/preserved and any additional features (monitoring devices etc.) of the site that were
implemented.
Response: In an effort to keep reports concise, information regarding work performed, length of streams
and acres of wetlands restored/enhanced/preserved is outlined in Tables 1 and 2 of the Monitoring Year
Page 2
0 Annual Report, rather than within the text. Additional features, including monitoring devices
implemented on the site, are portrayed in Figures 1a-c of the Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report.
2. The 19.57 acres of mechanically treated Chinese privet will receive a follow up chemical treatment in
MY1. Noted.
3. One random veg plot has a dominant species (Eastern cottonwood) but this is a random plot so there
is no expectation that this result will be repeated. Noted.
4. The photo of the culverts from the stream perspective are great but I would like to see some
additional photos of the crossing from the at-grade perspective to illustrate the crossing width.
Response: Wildlands will include additional culvert photos from the at-grade perspective in Appendix A
of the Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report. However, the width of the crossing is detailed in the as-built
plans, and is best observed by scaling from the plans.
Erin Davis, NCDWR:
1. As per the 2016 NCIRT guidance, please provide soil boring descriptions near all groundwater
monitoring gauges.
Response: Wildlands will include soil boring descriptions in Appendix F of the Monitoring Year 1 Annual
Report.
2. CCPV – The groundwater gauges in the two larger wetland reestablishment areas appear to have
shifted a bit more interior. DWR has mentioned in the past that the sections of wetland credit areas we
are most concerned with meeting the minimum hydroperiod threshold are near the credit boundary,
close to the upland transition and close to the stream. If during monitoring, vegetation establishment
and soils aren’t consistent across a wetland credit area, DWR may request another gauge be installed for
better representation.
Response: If requested in the future, Wildlands will install additional gauges for better representation of
the credit boundary and upland transition of the two larger wetland reestablishment areas.
3. CCPV – Most of the permanent veg plots are close to the stream, which is helpful to capture any
priority 2 cuts that we’re concerned about. However, there’s limited representation of the outer buffer
near the easement boundary by permanent veg plots. Please use a few of the random plots each year to
cover this zone, as well as, paying specific attention during the visual assessment.
Response: Wildlands will use a few of the random plots each year to represent vegetation in the outer
buffer near the easement boundary.
4. Sheet 1.3.8 – Is the additional riprap shown lining the pool downstream of the culvert or did it replace
the pool as more of a riffle?
Response: There is a pool downstream of the culvert. It was lined with riprap for outlet protection, which
may have given the appearance of a riffle.
5. Sheet 1.4.1 – Of all the added riprap reinforcement areas, the only one that appears to extend along
the stream credit area is the top of UT1B. Does maintenance of this riprap area need to be added as an
allowable activity by Stewardship? With the culvert ending on the easement boundary, what is the
likelihood that future crossing maintenance/replacement may impact the easement area?
Response: Wildlands does not anticipate the riprap reinforcement area at the top of UT1B to require
maintenance.
Page 3
The culvert that ends on the easement boundary of UT1B is a box culvert, which is unlikely to fail and
likely won’t need future maintenance, nor will maintenance impact the easement area.
6. Many of the construction changes are tied to attempts to save trees. Does the project engineer work
with the project ecologist on these decisions? Is tree health assessed? Are construction shifts away from
trees far enough not to impact critical root zones?
Response: Most alignment shifts during construction are made by the construction manager when the
project ecologist is not on site. Tree health is a key factor in these decisions.
Construction shifts are made as far away from the design alignment as possible, but there is no
guarantee that critical root masses won’t be impacted.
7. Photo Point 34, UT3 R2 – Were there any field indicators that the right bank shown in the photo is
actively eroding?
Response: Photo Point 34 at UT3 R2 shows a vertical, stable bank that has experienced erosion in the
past. There are no signs of active or recent erosion. Additionally, there are trees present with root masses
in place to further stabilize the bank. Wildlands will include additional photos of the bank in Appendix F
of the Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report.
8. DWR appreciated the planted species diversity.
Response: Thank you, we are pleased with vegetation survival and diversity thus far.
Thank you for your review and providing comments on this submittal. If you have any further questions,
please contact me at [phone], or by email ([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator
SOIL BORING DESCRIPTIONS
Soil Boring Descriptions
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Depth Range (in.) Color Redox Texture
0-4 10YR 5/2 (85%)7.5YR 6/8 (15%)SIL
4-20 10YR 5/2 (90%)7.5YR 5/6 (10%)SIL
20-40 2.5Y 4/2 (95%)10YR 6/8 (5%)SICL
40-44 10YR 5/2 (60%)10YR 6/8 (40%)CL
44-45 2.5Y 5/1 (75%)10YR 6/8 (25%)SICL
45+Bedrock layer
Depth Range (in.) Color Redox Texture
0-6 10YR 5/2 (95%)7.5YR 6/8 (5%)SIL
6-24 5Y 7/2 7.5YR 6/8 SICL
24-41 5Y 6/1 10YR 6/8 CL
41-65 2.5Y 6/1 10YR 6/8 CL
Depth Range (in.) Color Redox Texture
0-2 10YR 5/2 (100%)
2-16 5Y 6/3 (40%)10YR 6/6 (60%)SIL
16-32 5Y 6/2 (85%)10YR 6/6 (15%)SICL
32-45 5Y 7/1 (75%)10YR 6/8 (25%)SICL
45+SICL
Depth Range (in.) Color Redox Texture
0-2 2.5YR 5/2 (100%)SIL
2-10 2.5Y 6/2 (82%)7.5YR 5/6 (12%)SIL
10-15 2.5Y 6/1 (85%)7.5YR 5/8 (15%)CL
15-24 5Y 7/1 (80%)10YR 6/8 (20%)SICL
24-33 5Y 6/1 (90%)10YR 6/8 (10%)SICL
33+Bedrock layer
Depth Range (in.) Color Redox Texture
0-11 5Y 6/1 (85%)6.5 6/8 (15%)SIC
11-25 2.5Y 5/4 (50%) 10R 3/6 (5%), 2.5YR 4/6 (45%)C
25-38 2.5Y 6/2 (70%)7.5YR 6/8 (30%)SIC
38-45 2.5YR 4/8 (80%)2.5Y 6/4 (20%)CL (80%), Gravel (20%)
Depth Range (in.) Color Redox Texture
0-3 2.5Y 6/1 (90%)2.5YR 4/8 (10%)SIL
3-18 2.5Y 6/2 (90%)5Y 5/8 (10%)CL
18-30 2.5Y 7/1 (90%)5Y 5/8 (10%)CL
30-36 5Y 7/1 (50%)7.5 6/8 (50%)Sandy CL
36-50 2.5Y 6/1 (70%)7.5YR 6/8 (30%)C
Soil Profile Description at Location of Groundwater Well 6:
Notes
Soil Profile Description at Location of Groundwater Well 5:
Notes
Soil Profile Description at Location of Groundwater Well 4:
Soil Profile Description at Location of Groundwater Well 3:
Soil Profile Description at Location of Groundwater Well 2:
Soil Profile Description at Location of Groundwater Well 1:
Medium/large gravel
Bedrock layer
Notes
Notes
Notes
Notes
Grass/pond bed
Soil Boring Descriptions
Cross Creek Ranch Site
DMS Project No. 100138
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Depth Range (in.) Color Redox Texture
0-2 2.5Y 6/2 (95)7.5YR 5/6 (50 SiL
2-35 5Y 7/1 (90)10YR 6/8 (10)SiCL
35-47 5Y 6/1 (75)10YR 6/8 (25)SiCL
47-56 5Y 6/1 (65)10YR 6/8 (35)CL
Depth Range (in.) Color Redox Texture
0-6 10YR 5/2 (93)10YR 7/8 (7)SiL
6-14 2.5Y 7/2 (90)10YR 6/8 (10)SiCL
14-25 2.5Y 7/1 (75)10YR 6/8 (25)CL
25-34 5Y 6/1 (85)10YR 6/8 (15)C
34+2.5Y 6/1 (75)10YR 6/8 (25)C
Depth Range (in.) Color Redox Texture
0-7 2.5Y 6/2 (95)7.5YR 5/6 (5)SiL
7-15 2.5Y 7/1 (90)10YR 6/8 (10)CL
15-42 2.5Y 7/1 (80)10YR 6/8 (20)SiCL
Soil Profile Description at Location of Groundwater Well 9:
Notes
10% gravel, inc redox
Soil Profile Description at Location of Groundwater Well 8:
Notes
Soil Profile Description at Location of Groundwater Well 7:
Notes
Mg Conc

Photo Point 34 Bank Photos

Cross Creek Ranch Site
Appendix F: Additional Documentation – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 34 UT3 R2 – Right Bank (10/26/2022) PHOTO POINT 34 UT3 R2 – Right Bank (10/26/2022)