20180264 Ver 1_DeepMeadow_97131_MY3_2022_20230216

ID#* 20180264 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Ryan Hamilton
Initial Review Completed Date 03/31/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/16/2023
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:
Harry Tsomides [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#: * 20180264 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
County: Union
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: DeepMeadow_97131_MY3_2022.pdf 59.41MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:*
Signature: *
Harry Tsomides
yy� t t� �Joirr�df'J

MONITORING YEAR 3
ANNUAL REPORT

FINAL

DEEP MEADOW MITIGATION SITE
Union County, NC
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040105

DMS Project No. 97131
NC DEQ Contract No. 6887
DWR Certification No. 18-0264
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2012-01107
Data Collection Period: March 2022 – November 2022
Final Submission Date: February 2023
PREPARED FOR:

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

PREPARED BY:

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

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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

February 10th, 2023

Mr. Harry Tsomides
Western Regional Supervisor
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211

RE: Deep Meadow Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site – Draft Monitoring Year 3 Report
Yadkin River Basin – HUC 03040105
Union County, NC
DMS Project ID No. 97131
Contract # 006887

Dear Mr. Tsomides:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
comments and observations from the Deep Meadow Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3, received on January 30th, 2023. The report text has been revised for the final
submittal to reflect the most current condition of the site. Your comments and observations from the
report are noted below in Bold. Wildlands’ response to those comments are noted in Italics.
DMS’ Comment: The asset table shows the sum of rounded numbers for wetland credits; please
correct the wetland credit totals to reflect the prior year’s accurate final monitoring report (difference
of minus 0.003).
Wildlands’ Response: Table 1 has been updated accordingly.
DMS’ Comment: DMS project crossing and culvert photos must be included in all monitoring reports;
please include close-up photos for the installed crossings and culverts along EF1 and WF2, in order to
show if any erosion, debris jamming, infilling, perching etc. are occurring.
Wildlands’ Response: Photos of crossings and culverts have been added to Appendix 2.
DMS’ Comment: The report documents some areas of scour and aggradation however the visual
assessment tables indicate 100% performance across the site for all stream visual monitoring metrics;
please update the tables if necessary.
Wildlands’ Response: Areas of scour and aggradation are located on Meadow Branch, which consists of
Enhancement II level mitigation. The visual assessment tables are only required for restoration reaches.
DMS’ Comment: Wildlands describes the erosional gully repairs performed in 2022 but does not
provide any photos. If possible, please provide photos of the repaired gully.
Wildlands’ Response: Photos of the repaired gully have been added to Appendix 2.

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

DMS’ Comment: Thank you for the thorough and clear CCPV mapping, and the report quality in
general.
Wildlands’ Response: Thank you for the comment.
Enclosed please find two (2) hard copies of the Year 3 Final Monitoring Report and one (1) USB with all
the electronic files for DMS distribution. Wildlands has ordered the monitoring bond for MY4; however,
we have not received confirmation from Kristie Corson at DMS that it was received or approved. Please
contact me at 704-332-7754 x101 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Kristi Suggs
Senior Environmental Scientist

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full-delivery stream and wetland mitigation
project at the Deep Meadow Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). The project restored, enhanced,
and preserved a total of 4,365 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream in Union County, NC. In addition,
the project rehabilitated 0.58 acres and re-established 8.26 acres of riparian wetlands. The Site is
located within the DMS targeted watershed for the Yadkin River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03040105070060 and the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-07-14. The project is
providing 2,838.933 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 8.587 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) for
the Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040105 (Yadkin 05).
The immediate drainage area of the Site and the larger surrounding watershed have a long history
of agricultural activity. Stream and wetland functional stressors to the Site were related to these
historic and current land use practices. Major stream stressors included channel incision and
widening, an absence of stabilizing riparian vegetation, a lack of bedform diversity and aquatic
habitat, and agricultural related impacts such as channel manipulation or straightening and
concentrated run-off inputs from agricultural fields. The primary stressors to the wetlands on the
Site were lack of wetland vegetation, agricultural impact including ditching to drawdown the water
table, and the lack of hydrologic connection to the floodplain tributaries and hillside seeps. The
effects of these stressors resulted in channel instability, loss of floodplain connection, degraded
water quality, and the loss of both aquatic and riparian habitat throughout the watershed of the Site
when compared to reference conditions. The project approach for the Site focused on evaluating
existing functional condition, potential for recovery, and need for intervention.
The project goals defined in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018) were established with careful
consideration of 2009 Lower Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) goals and
objectives to address stressors identified in the watershed through the implementation of stream
restoration and enhancement activities and wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation activities,
as well as riparian buffer re-vegetation. The established project goals include:
 Improve stream channel stability,
 Reconnect channels with historic floodplains and re-establish wetland hydrology and
function in relic wetland areas,
 Improve in-stream habitat,
 Reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from adjacent agricultural fields,
 Restore and enhance native floodplain and wetland vegetation, and
 Permanently protect the project Site from harmful uses.
Site construction and as-built surveys were completed between September 2019 and November 2020.
Monitoring Year (MY) 3 assessments and Site visits were completed between March and November
2022 to assess the conditions of the project.
Overall, the Site has met most of the required stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for
MY3. With an average planted stem density of 397 stems per acre, the Site has met the MY3
requirement of 320 stems per acre and is on track to meet both the MY5 and MY7 planted stem density
requirements. Geomorphic surveys indicate that cross-section bankfull dimensions closely match the
baseline monitoring with some minor adjustments, and streams are functioning as intended. At least
one bankfull event was documented on EF1, WF1, and WF2 in MY3. The Site has met the hydrologic
requirement of 2 bankfull events in separate years for all restored and enhancement I reaches. Two of
the thirteen groundwater gages met the wetland hydrology success criteria with the revised growing

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL vi
season (March 1st to November 28th). The MY3 visual assessment identified a few areas of concern
including minor easement encroachment, two areas of low stem density, populations of invasive plant
species accounting for 1.0% of the Site, and minimal areas of aggradation and bank scour. Wildlands will
continue to monitor these areas and adaptive management will be implemented as necessary
throughout the seven-year monitoring period to benefit the ecological health of the Site.

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL vii
DEEP MEADOW MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................1-9
Section 2: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................3-1

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL viii
TABLES
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits ..................................................................................................... 1-9
Table 1.1: Credit Summary Table………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1-1
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements……………………………………………………1-2
Table 3: Project Attributes ....................................................................................................................... 1-13

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 4 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 5 Project Contact Table
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0 – 3.2 Current Condition Plan View
Table 6a-c Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Culvert/Crossing Photographs
Permanent and Mobile Vegetation Plot Photographs
Groundwater Gage Photographs
Bankfull Evidence Photographs
Areas of Concern Photographs
Repair Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9 CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10a-c Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11b Reference Reach Data Summary
Table 12 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Table 13a-c Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-Section Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14a-b Verification of Bankfull Events
Recorded Bankfull Events
Table 15 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Table 16 Wetland Gage Attainment Criteria Comparison
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Soil Temperature Data
Vegetation Seasonal Indicators
Appendix 6 Agency Correspondence
Meeting Notes - MY2 IRT Credit Release Site Evaluation (5/11/2022)
Revised Growing Season Confirmation Email

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL 1-9
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Deep Meadow Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Union County approximately two miles north
of Wingate, NC and approximately six miles northeast of Monroe, NC (Figure 1). The project is
located within the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) targeted watershed for the Yadkin
River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040105070060 and NC Division of Water Resources
(DWR) Subbasin 03-07-14. Located in the Slate Belt within the Piedmont physiographic province
(NCGS, 1985), the project watershed is dominated by agricultural and forested land.
The Site contains Meadow Branch, three unnamed tributaries of Meadow Branch, two existing
riparian wetlands and ten proposed riparian wetlands. The unnamed tributaries are referred to by
Wildlands as West Fork 1 (WF1), West Fork 2 (WF2), and East Fork 1 (EF1). The existing wetlands are
referred to as W-H1 and W-H2, while the proposed wetlands are named W-E1 through W-E10.
Meadow branch has a gentle (0.22%) unconfined alluvial valley. EF1 transitions from a gentle (1.00%)
moderately confined valley at the upstream project limits to an unconfined valley as it approaches
Meadow Branch. WF1 and WF2 are also located in unconfined valleys within the project. The two
existing riparian wetlands are in the floodplain of Meadow Branch at the toe of slope. The Site drains
approximately 6.99 square miles of rural land.
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits
A conservation easement has been recorded and is in place on 23.8 acres. The project is providing
2,838.933 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 8.587 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) for the Yadkin
River Basin HUC 03040105. Annual monitoring will be conducted for seven years with close-out
anticipated to commence in 2027 given the success criteria are met.
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
Stream
Meadow
Branch 2,449 2,449 Warm EII 2.5 979.600
Bank stabilization and in-
stream structures with
planted buffer
EF1 1,322 1,322 Warm R 1.0 1,322.000 Full channel restoration,
planted buffer
WF1 116 116 Warm EI 1.5 77.333 Bank stabilization
WF1 20 20 Warm P 10.0 2.000 No work proposed
WF2 391 458 Warm R 1.0 458.000 Full channel restoration,
planted buffer
Total: 2,838.933 Stream Mitigation Units

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL 1-10
PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES
Project
Segment
Mitigation
Plan Footage
As-Built
Footage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1) Credits Comments
Wetland
W-H1 0.28 0.28 Warm Rehabilitation 1.5 0.187
Planted, removed agriculture
activities, reduced drainage to
Meadow Branch
W-H2 0.30 0.30 Warm Rehabilitation 1.5 0.200
Planted, removed agriculture
activities, reduced drainage to
Meadow Branch
W-E1 0.40 0.37 Warm Re-establishment 1.0 0.400
Planted, removed agriculture
activities, removed adjacent
drainage swales
W-E2 1.70 1.72 Warm Re-establishment 1.0 1.700
Planted, removed agriculture
activities, removed adjacent
drainage swales
W-E3 0.40 0.41 Warm Re-establishment 1.0 0.400
Planted, removed agriculture
activities, removed adjacent
drainage swales
W-E4 0.40 0.36 Warm Re-establishment 1.0 0.400
Planted, removed agriculture
activities, removed adjacent
drainage swales
W-E5 0.40 0.37 Warm Re-establishment 1.0 0.400
Planted, removed agriculture
activities, removed adjacent
drainage swales
W-E6 0.20 0.20 Warm Re-establishment 1.0 0.200
Planted, removed agriculture
activities, removed adjacent
drainage swales
W-E7 1.50 1.53 Warm Re-establishment 1.0 1.500
Planted, removed agriculture
activities, removed adjacent
drainage swales
W-E8 1.00 1.04 Warm Re-establishment 1.0 1.000
Planted, removed agriculture
activities, removed adjacent
drainage swales
W-E9 0.50 0.53 Warm Re-establishment 1.0 0.500
Planted, removed agriculture
activities, removed adjacent
drainage swales
W-E10 1.70 1.73 Warm Re-establishment 1.0 1.700
Planted, removed agriculture
activities, removed adjacent
drainage swales
Total: 8.587 Wetland Mitigation Units

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL 1-11
*Actual as-built wetland acreage/potential crediting slightly differs (excess or loss) that of the Mitigation Plan, the
project credit assets listed reflect those of the approved Mitigation Plan.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is providing numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin Valley Basin. The project goals were
established with careful consideration to address stressors that were identified in the DWR 2008 Yadkin
River Basinwide Plan (NCDWR, 2008). Table 2 below describes expected outcomes to water quality and
ecological processes and provides project goals and objectives.
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements
Goal Objective/Treatment Likely Functional
Uplift
Performance
Criteria
Measurement Cumulative
Monitoring Results
Improve
stability of
stream
channels.
Construct stream
channels that will
maintain stable cross-
sections, patterns,
and profiles over
time.
Reduction in
sediment inputs
from bank erosion,
reduction of shear
stress, and
improved overall
hydraulic function.
Bank height
ratios remain
below 1.2 over
the monitoring
period. Visual
assessments
show
progression
towards
stability.
3 reachwide
sediment
surveys (not
required after
MY2); 6 cross-
section surveys
All cross sections
have a BHR <1.2.
Channels are
stable and have
maintained the
constructed riffle
and pool
sequence.
Reconnect
channels
with
floodplains
and riparian
wetlands to
allow a
natural
flooding
regime.
Reconstruct stream
channels with
appropriate bankfull
dimensions and
depth relative to the
existing floodplain.
Remove overburden
to reconnect with
adjacent wetlands.
Dispersion of high
flows on the
floodplain, increase
in biogeochemical
cycling within the
system, and
recharging of
riparian wetlands.
Two bankfull
events over
the cumulative
monitoring
period.
Crest gages on
EF1, WF1,
WF2.
11
groundwater
gages installed
in MY0. 2
groundwater
gages added in
MY3.

Reaches meeting
bankfull criteria:
MY1: 3/3 reaches
MY2: 2/3 reaches
MY3: 3/3 reaches
Groundwater
gages meeting
wetland success
criteria:
MY1: 10/11 gages
MY2: 2/11 gages
MY3: 2/13 gages
Table 1.1: Credit Summary Table
Restoration Level
Stream Riparian Non-Rip Coastal
Warm Cool Cold Wetland Wetland Marsh
Restoration 1,780.000 --
Re-establishment -- 8.200
Rehabilitation -- 0.387
Enhancement I 77.333 --
Enhancement II 979.600 --
Preservation 2.000 --
Total: 2838.933 8.587

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL 1-12
Goal Objective/Treatment Likely Functional
Uplift
Performance
Criteria
Measurement Cumulative
Monitoring Results
Improve
instream
habitat.
Install habitat
features such as
constructed riffles,
cover logs, and brush
toes into
restored/enhanced
streams. Add woody
materials to channel
beds. Construct pools
of varying depth.
Increase and
diversify available
habitats for
macroinvertebrates,
fish, and
amphibians leading
to colonization and
an increase in
biodiversity over
time.
There is no
required
performance
standard for
this metric.
N/A N/A
Restore and
enhance
native
floodplain
and
streambank
vegetation.
Plant native tree and
understory species in
riparian zones and
plant appropriate
species on
streambanks.
Reduction in
floodplain sediment
inputs from runoff,
increased bank
stability, increased
LWD and organic
material in streams
210 planted
stems per acre
at MY7.
Interim
survival rate of
320 planted
stems per acre
at MY3 and
260 at MY5.
12 permanent
vegetation
plots, and 4
mobile
vegetation
plots.
Vegetation plots
meeting the MY3
success criteria of
320 stems per
acre.
MY1: 16/16 (100%)
MY2: 12/16 (75%)
MY3: 14/16 (88%)
Permanently
protect the
project Site
from
harmful
uses.
Establish
conservation
easements on the
Site.
Protect Site from
encroachment on
the riparian corridor
and direct impact to
streams and
wetlands.
Prevent
easement
encroachment.
Visually inspect
the perimeter
of the Site to
ensure no
easement
encroachment
is occurring.
A missing
monument was re-
surveyed and
replaced by Turner
Surveyors in
August 2022.
Horse tape was
added to areas of
encroachment to
deter future
occurrences.

1.3 Project Attributes
Prior to construction activities, the Site had a history of crop production with adjacent floodplains
altered for agricultural uses. These practices resulted in sedimentation, erosion, and degraded in-
stream habitat. EF1 was re-routed to the edge of the valley and shortened to perpendicularly join
Meadow Branch. Existing wetlands were ditched to improve field drainage and cleared for row crops.
Riparian buffers also exhibited a lack of stabilizing streamside vegetation due to agricultural
practices. Pre-construction conditions are outlined in Table 3 and Table 6 of Appendix 2.
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by DMS in January of 2018 and the NC
Interagency Review Team (IRT) in May of 2018. Construction activities were completed in September
2019 by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. Kee Mapping and Surveying completed the as-built survey in
December 2019. Planting was completed following construction in January 2020 by Bruton Natural
Systems, Inc. Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are
illustrated for the Site in Figure 2.

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL 1-13
Table 3: Project Attributes
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Project Area (acres) 23.8
County Union County
Project Coordinates 35.022333, -80.447611
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
Physiographic Province Piedmont Physiographic Province
USGS HUC 8-digit 3040105
River Basin Yadkin River
USGS HUC 14-digit 3040105070060
DWR Sub-basin 03-07-14
Land Use Classification
Meadow Branch-
Forest (25%), Cultivated (50%), Grassland (3%), Shrubland (<1%), Urban
(21%), Open Water (<1%)
EF1-
Forest (27%), Cultivated (65%), Grassland (4%), Shrubland (2%), Urban
(2%), Open Water (0%)
WF1-
Forest (28%), Cultivated (70%), Grassland (0%), Shrubland (0%), Urban
(2%), Open Water (0%)
WF2-
Forest (16%), Cultivated (57%), Grassland (20%), Shrubland (4%), Urban
(3%), Open Water (0%)
Project Drainage Area (acres) 5,024
Percentage of Impervious Area 4%

REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters Meadow
Branch

EF1

WF1

WF2
Pre-project length (feet) 2,570 1,201 136 391
Post-project (feet) 2,499 1,322 136 458
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined,
unconfined) Unconfined Moderately
Confined Unconfined Unconfined
Drainage area (acres) 4,472 25 26 41.25
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial
DWR Water Quality Classification C
Dominant Stream Classification (existing) C4/5
Incised and
straightened
E4
G4
Incised and
straightened
E4
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed) C4/5 C4 C4 C4
Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) if applicable Stage VI Stage III Stage III Stage IV

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL 1-14
WETLAND SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters WH-1 WH-2
Size of Wetland (acres) 0.28 0.30
Wetland Type Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series Tatum/Chewacla Chewacla
Drainage Class Well Drained/ Poorly
Drained Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric Status No / Yes Yes
Source of Hydrology Groundwater and bankfull events
Restoration or enhancement method Rehabilitation (hydrologic, vegetative)
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting
Documentation
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Action ID #SAW-2012-
01107
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes DWR# 18-0264
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment
Control) Yes Yes
NPDES Construction
Stormwater General Permit
NCG010000
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion in
Mitigation Plan Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA) No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes
Union County Floodplain
Development Permit
#20180991
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
1.4 Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring for MY3 was conducted between March and November 2022, with hydrology data
collected between January and November 2022, to assess the condition of the project. The stream,
vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria presented in
the Deep Meadow Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018).
1.4.1 Vegetation Assessment
The MY3 vegetation survey was completed in August 2022, resulting in an average planted stem density
of 397 stems per acre for all monitored permanent and mobile vegetation plots. The Site has met the
interim MY3 requirement of 320 planted stems per acre and is on track to meet both the MY5 and MY7
performance criteria, with 14 out of 16 vegetation plots individually exceeding this requirement. Stem
density in permanent and mobile vegetation plots on Site ranges from 121 to 567 planted stems per
acre. Vegetation appears to be thriving, with an average vigor of 3 or greater, indicating robust overall
health and minimal stem damage. The two permanent vegetation plots (1 and 6) not meeting MY3
criteria are in wetland areas where soils have continued to be saturated for large portions of the
monitored growing seasons. Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and Appendix 3
for vegetation data tables.

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL 1-15
1.4.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity
Overall, herbaceous cover has become well-established throughout the Site. Several invasive species
continue to be monitored and treated throughout the monitoring year. Floodplain species which have
undergone targeted treatment in MY3 include Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea). Water primrose (Ludwigia
peploides) and water smartweed (Polygonum amphibium) were observed growing in a few isolated
areas on Meadow Branch and were treated in July of 2022. Isolated areas of in-stream vegetation will
likely be shaded out as riparian corridors develop a robust canopy. In total, 99% of the Site is free of
invasive and undesirable species. As needed, invasive species will be treated throughout the post-
construction monitoring period. Vegetation areas of concern are documented on Table 7 and shown
on the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Figures 3.0 – 3.2 in Appendix 2.
As discussed above in Section 1.4.1, two permanent vegetation plots (1 and 6) have experienced
higher stem mortality due to saturated soil conditions. In these areas of low stem density, upland and
facultative upland species have been inundated by standing water resulting in a high mortality rate.
Additionally, hydrophytic common rush (Juncus effusus) and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) are very
dense in these areas and have outcompeted some planted stems. Wildlands plans to supplementally
plant approximately 0.38 acres or 1.7% of the entire planted area, with approved facultative species
subject to availability in winter of 2022 - 2023.
In MY2, box elder (Acer negundo) populations on Site were beginning to form a monoculture in several
areas throughout the project. Box elder populations are most dense in the right floodplain of Meadow
Branch from station 114+00 to 124+00, where Wildlands did not disturb mature box elders along the
banks of Meadow Branch during construction. In September 2022, Wildlands re-assessed the
vegetative conditions and determined that competition has started to suppress the proliferation of
box elder within certain areas of the Site. Therefore, Wildlands will selectively prune box elders in
phases beginning in MY4.
During the MY3 visual assessment, Wildlands observed minor encroachments attributable to bent or
missing signposts. Encroachments consisted of minimal easement scalloping associated with the
management of the adjacent agriculture fields. However, the Site has maintained an adequate buffer as
the encroachments caused inconsequential damage to planted stems. To resolve the issue, the missing
corner monument near the upstream end of Meadow Branch was re-surveyed and replaced by Turner
Surveyors in August 2022. Wildlands also added additional signage, PVC markers, and horse tape
throughout the Site, and is currently working with the landowner to address these encroachment issues.
These areas will continue to be monitored closely in MY4 and throughout the remainder of the
monitoring period.
1.4.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY3 were conducted in March 2022. Cross-section survey results indicate
that channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed on all Restoration and Enhancement I
reaches. In general, cross-sections on EF1, WF1, and WF2 show little to no change in the bankfull area,
maximum depth ratio, or width-to-depth ratio. Moreover, all 6 cross-sections on EF1, WF1 and WF2 are
stable with bank height ratios less than 1.2, and cross-sectional areas that closely match the baseline
cross-sectional area. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment tables, CCPV Figures 3.0 –
3.2, and reference photographs, and Appendix 4 for the morphological tables and plots.

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL 1-16
1.4.4 Stream Hydrology Assessment
In MY3, crest gages documented at least one bankfull event on WF1, WF2, and EF1. All restoration and
enhancement I reaches have recorded at least two bankfull events in separate years; therefore, the stream
hydrological success criteria has been met. Wildlands will continue to collect stream hydrology data in
subsequent monitoring years. Please refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology summary and data plots.
1.4.5 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity
Based on MY3 visual assessments, restoration reaches WF2 and EF1 are 100% stable and performing as
intended. Minimal areas of concern including instances of scour and localized aggradation on the
enhancement II stream, Meadow Branch were revealed in MY3. Minor bank scour was observed on
Meadow Branch at stations 111+20, 113+50 and station 117+00. A large debris jam at station 112+40 is
facilitating scour in this area. Currently, these areas are not negatively impacting overall stream function
or stability; however, Wildlands plans to remove the debris jam and restabilize these areas by adding
additional live stakes to the banks in MY4. These areas will continue to be monitored in subsequent
years for signs of accelerated instability. On the upstream section of Meadow Branch near station
101+80, a mid-channel bar has developed where a recurring beaver dam used to be. The dam was
removed several times in MY2 and MY3, but the remnant sediment aggradation due to the dams
persists. Wildlands expects winter storms to transport accumulated sediment through the system.
Wildlands will continue to monitor these areas and remedial actions will be implemented if areas of
concern begin to threaten the stability of the project.
In MY3, repairs were completed on an erosion gully near the ford crossing on Meadow Branch. In
December 2021, the property owner partially filled in the portion of the gully that lies outside of the
easement. Wildlands resumed this floodplain stabilization work within the easement boundary in May
2022. Repairs consisted of laying back the banks of the gully and installing a series of stone check dams
to prevent gully reformation and excess sediment from entering the stream.
Several beaver dams were also identified and removed from Meadow Branch. Dams on the Site have
not impeded stream flow, but APHIS has been contacted regarding safe and sustainable dam removal.
Wildlands will continue to monitor all areas of concern in future years for signs of accelerated instability.
If instability is observed, the area will be addressed and evaluated for effectiveness in the MY4 report.
Please refer to Appendix 2 for stream stability tables, area of concern photos, and CCPV Figures 3.0 –
3.2.
1.4.6 Wetland Assessment
Eleven groundwater gages (GWG) were initially installed during baseline monitoring across the wetland
re-establishment and rehabilitation areas. As discussed in the MY2 report, two additional groundwater
gages (GWG 3a and GWG 11a) were installed in February 2022 before the onset of the MY3 growing
season. GWG 3a and GWG 11a were installed in the center of the wetland re-establishment areas for W-
E6 and W-E8, respectively.
On May 11th, 2022, Wildlands attended an MY2 Credit Release Site Evaluation with the IRT. During the
meeting, attendees had an in-depth discussion about the groundwater gage data for MY2. The IRT made
several suggestions regarding the proposed wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation areas on the
Site. Wildlands will implement these items in the current and/or subsequent monitoring years. Refer to
Appendix 6 for MY2 Credit Release Site Evaluation meeting notes.
 Cumulative versus Consecutive Gage Data: Due to the number of groundwater gages not
meeting criteria in MY2, the IRT suggested that Wildlands include a comparison of the
consecutive versus cumulative day gage data for MY3. Results of the comparison showed that

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL 1-17
for cumulative day results, 12 out of 13 gages met the success criteria in MY3, compared to 2
out of 13 gages that met with consecutive days. Refer to Table 16 in Appendix 5 for a
comparison of the data.
 Revised Growing Season: Due to soil temperature data and seasonal vegetation indicators,
the IRT approved a revised growing season of March 1st – November 28th for the project. Soil
temperatures in MY1 and MY2 were above the 40-degree threshold from March 1 st –
November 28th. (Refer to vii in the Meeting Minutes located in Appendix 6 for the MY1 and
MY2 soil temperature data.) Soil temperature data was also collected for MY3 and revealed a
range of 43.4 °F to 90.0 °F from March 1st – November 28th, which supports the revision of the
growing season. See Appendix 5 MY3 for soil temperature data.
 On-Site Rain Gage: After reviewing the MY2 hydrographs, Wildlands suspected that the
precipitation data recorded at the Monroe 2 SE, NC station was not representative of the rainfall
received on Site. An on-site rain gage was installed in August of 2022 to address this concern.
From August to November, the Site's rain gage recorded 0.45 inches of rainfall less than the
Monroe 2 SE, NC station (12.03 vs. 12.48 inches, respectively). Therefore, the on-site rain gage
will be the primary source of precipitation data starting in MY4. Refer to Table 15 in Appendix 5
for a comparison of the rain gage data.
 Additional Wetland Assessment Area: To offset potentially lost credit for the failing
groundwater gages, the IRT suggested that additional gages be installed along restoration
reaches in areas not currently proposed for wetland credit. Wildlands plans to further
investigate the installation of additional gages during the winter between MY3 and MY4.
Wildlands will verify the presence of hydric soils within the study areas to outline
reestablishment versus creation sub-areas. Refer to the map attached in the Meeting Minutes
located in Appendix 6 for the location of the study areas.
As defined in the Site’s Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018), the original performance standard for wetland
hydrology is a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for 23 consecutive days
(10% percent) of the originally defined growing season for Union County (March 23 rd through November
6th) under typical precipitation conditions. If a groundwater gage does not meet the performance
standard for a given monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed, and the hydrograph will be
compared to that of the reference wetlands analyzed in the Mitigation Plan to assess whether atypical
weather conditions occurred during the monitoring period. Using the original growing season, two of
the thirteen groundwater gages (GWG 1 and GWG 5) met the success criteria with the percentage of the
growing season ranging from 29 to 37.8%. The remaining eleven GWGs did not meet the original success
criteria with percentage of the growing season ranging from 4.1 to 7.9%.
As described above in the MY2 credit release meeting notes, the revised growing season dates is March
1st to November 28th which is supported by soil temperature data and seasonal vegetation indicators.
Using the revised growing season dates, two GWGs (GWG 1 and GWG 5) met success criteria with the
percentage of the growing season ranging from 29.3 to 37.0%. The remaining eleven GWGs did not
meet the success criteria with a percentage of the growing season ranging from 4.4 to 9.9%. GWG 2 fell
one day short of meeting the 28-day success criteria, and GWGs 3a and 6, would have met the success
criteria if the groundwater level did not drop slightly below the 12-inch threshold on 03/08/2022. Refer
to Appendix 2 for the GWG locations on CCPV Figures 3.0 – 3.2 and the GWG photographs and Appendix
5 for hydrology data, soil temperature data and seasonal vegetation indicators.
1.5 Monitoring Year 3 Summary
Overall, the Site has met most of the required stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for
MY3. With an average planted stem density of 397 stems per acre, the Site has met the MY3

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL 1-18
requirement of 320 stems per acre and is on track to meet both the MY5 and MY7 planted stem density
requirements. Geomorphic surveys indicate that cross-section bankfull dimensions closely match the
baseline monitoring with some minor adjustments, and streams are functioning as intended. At least
one bankfull event was documented on EF1, WF1, and WF2 in MY3. The Site has met the hydrologic
requirement of 2 bankfull events in separate years for all restored and enhancement I reaches. Two of
the thirteen groundwater gages met the wetland hydrology success criteria with the revised growing
season (March 1st to November 28th). The MY3 visual assessment identified a few areas of concern
including minor easement encroachment, two areas of low stem density, populations of invasive plant
species accounting for 1.0% of the Site, and minimal areas of aggradation and bank scour. Wildlands will
continue to monitor these areas and adaptive management will be implemented as necessary
throughout the seven-year monitoring period to benefit the ecological health of the Site.

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL 2-1
Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Stream gages were installed in riffles and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument
installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP
Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).

Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report – FINAL 3-1
Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003.
Stream Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from
http://www.nceep.net/business/monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm
North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2020. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. Station ID Monroe 2 SE. Accessed
November 2021.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2015. Surface Water
Classifications. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), April 2015. DMS Annual Monitoring and
Closeout Reporting Template.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), October 2015. DMS Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina: North Carolina
Survey, General Geologic Map, scale 1:500,000. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-
mineral-land- resources/north-carolina-geological-survey/ncgs-maps/1985-geologic-map-of-nc4
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), October 2016. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
USACE, NCDENR-DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands), 2020. Deep Meadow Mitigation Site As-built Baseline
Monitoring Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands, 2018. Deep Meadow Site Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables
0304010507006003040105070050
03040105070070
03040105070010
03040105081030
03040105070040
03040105081020
03040105070020
03040105070030
03040105040010
03040105081040
03040105081010
03040105040010
03040105040020
03040105070080
Union County, NC
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022¹
Project Location
Hydrologic Unit Code (14 digit)
NCDMS Targeted Local Watersheds
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
Directions to Site:
From Charlotte: Take US‐74 E for approximately 9.5 miles.
Keep left to continue on Monroe Exp/ U.S. 74 Bypass Road
for approximately 15.4 miles. Take exit 270 toward Wingate.
Turn right onto Austin Chaney Road. In 0.1 miles, turn left
onto McIntyre Road. In 2.2 miles, turn left onto the
farm road into the site.
0 1.5 3 Miles
EF1
WF2
Me
a
d
o
w

B
r
a
n
c
h
WF1
W-E6
W-E5
W-E2
W-E4
W-E3
W-E7
W-E10
W-H2
W-E9
W-E8
W-H1
M
e
a
d
o
w

B
r
a
n
c
h
W-E1
0 200 400 Feet
Figure 2 Project Component/ Asset Map
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022¹
Project Site
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Non-Project Streams
Union County, NC
2019 Aerial Photography
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
Herbaceous Plugs
Beaver Dam Removal September 2022
Year 4 Monitoring
August 2021Year 2 Monitoring
October 2021
November 2021
Beaver Dam Removal
Year 1 Monitoring
Invasive treatment May- September 2020
November 2020
Monitoring, POC Kristi Suggs
[phone] x.110
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery
October 2019 - January 2020 March 2020
August 2020
May 2021
March 2022
August 2020
November 2022
Designers
Year 7 Monitoring
June - September 2022
Year 6 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Table 4. Project Activity and Reporting History
July 2018 July 2018
December 2019 - January 2020 January 2020
January 2019 January 2019
July - September 2019 September 2019
July - September 2019 September 2019
July - September 2019 September 2019
June 2016 - October 2017
404 Permit
May/June 2018Mitigation Plan
Final Design - Construction Plans
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
Construction
Invasive treatment
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Charlotte, NC 28203
Seed Mix Sources Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
PO Box 1197
Freymont, NC 27830
Construction Contractors
Planting Contractor
704.332.7754
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
August 2022Vegetation Survey
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Stream Survey
Stream Survey
September 2021Vegetation Survey
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM
Invasive treatment
Stream Survey
Year 3 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Table 5. Project Contact Table
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Vegetation Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream SurveyYear 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data
!(
B
B
!A
!A
!A
!A
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
EF1
WF2
Me
a
d
o
w

B
r
a
n
c
h
WF1
W-E5
W-E2
W-E4
W-E3
W-E7
W-E10
W-H2
W-E9
W-E8
W-E1
M
e
a
d
o
w

B
r
a
n
c
h
W-H1
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
0 250 500 Feet
Figure 3.0 Current Condition Plan View - Key
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022¹
Union County, NC
2019 Aerial Photography
Project Parcels
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Non-Project Streams
GF Photo Points
!A Barotroll
!A Crest Gage
!A Soil Probe
Groundwater Gage Conditions - MY3
!A Criteria Met
!A Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MY3
Criteria Met (Permanent)
Criteria Not Met (Permanent)
Criteria Met (Mobile)
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY3
Morning Glory
Johnson Grass
Cattails
Low Stem Density (Scheduled
for Supplemental Planting 2023)
Easement Encroachment
Stream Areas of Concern - MY3
Aggradation
Scour
!(Debris Jam
B Beaver Dam Removed
!(
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
WF2
W-E5
W-E2
W-E4
W-E3
W-E7
W-E10
W-H2
W-E9
W-E8
M
e
a
d
o
w

B
r
a
n
c
h
CG3
GWG1
GWG3
GWG2
GWG4
GWG6
GWG8
GWG9
GWG7
GWG10
GWG11
BAROTROLL
GWG11a
W-E6
GWG3a
PP8
PP7
PP6
PP5
PP4
PP3
PP2
PP1
PP16
PP17
PP18
XS
6
X
S
4
X
S
5
4
1
8
9
4
1
12
11
10
3
2
Soil Probe
21
0
+
0
0
211+00
212
+
0
0
1
0
9
+
0
0
1
1
0
+
0
0
111
+
0
0
11
2
+
0
0
1
1
3
+
0
0
1
1
5
+
0
0
1
1
6
+
0
0
1
1
7
+
0
0
11
9
+
0
0
1
2
0
+
0
0
1
2
1
+
0
0
1
2
2
+
0
0
123
+
0
0
12
4
+
0
0
1
2
5
+
0
0
126
+
0
0
30
2
+
0
0
30
3
+
0
0
304+
0
0
30
5
+
0
0
0 100 200 Feet
Figure 3.1 Current Condition Plan View
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022¹
Union County, NC
2019 Aerial Photography
Project Parcels
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Restoration
Enhancement II
Non-Project Streams
GF Photo Points
!A Barotroll
!A Crest Gage
!A Soil Probe
Groundwater Gage Conditions - MY3
!A Criteria Met
!A Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MY3
Criteria Met (Permanent)
Criteria Not Met (Permanent)
Criteria Met (Mobile)
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY3
Cattails
Low Stem Density (Scheduled
for Supplemental Planting 2023)
Easement Encroachment
Stream Areas of Concern - MY3
Scour
!(Debris Jam
!(
B
B
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!A
!A
!A
EF1
Me
a
d
o
w

B
r
a
n
c
h
WF1
W-E2
W-E7
W-E1
W-H1
CG1
CG2
GWG5
GWG4
GWG6
BAROTROLL
PP8
PP7
PP9
PP6
PP13
PP14
PP15
PP16
PP10
PP11
PP12
X
S
3
X
S
4
XS
1
X
S
2
2
3
7
8
6
5
9
4
2
0
2
+
0
0
20
3
+
0
0
20
5
+
0
0
20
7
+
0
0
208+0
0
209+
0
0
21
0
+
0
0
211+00
212+
0
0
401+00
401+93
1
0
1
+
0
0
1
0
2
+
0
0
10
4
+
0
0
105+0
0
10
7
+
0
0
108
+
0
0
1
0
9
+
0
0
11
0
+
0
0
111
+
0
0
11
2
+
0
0
1
1
3
+
0
0
0 150 300 Feet
Figure 3.2 Current Condition Plan View
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022¹
Union County, NC
2019 Aerial Photography
Project Parcels
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Non-Project Streams
GF Photo Points
!A Barotroll
!A Crest Gage
Groundwater Gage Conditions - MY3
!A Criteria Met
!A Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MY3
Criteria Met (Permanent)
Criteria Not Met (Permanent)
Criteria Met (Mobile)
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY3
Morning Glory
Johnson Grass
Low Stem Density (Scheduled
for Supplemental Planting 2023)
Easement Encroachment
Stream Areas of Concern - MY3
Aggradation
Scour
!(Debris Jam
B Beaver Dam Removed
Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Reach: EF1
Assessed Length:1,322
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 23 23 100%
Depth Sufficient 23 23 100%
Date of Last Assessment: 11/28/2022 23 23 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)23 23 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)23 23 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.21 21 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 6 6 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.6 6 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
15 15 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
15 15 100%
Date of Last Assessment: 11/29/2022
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Reach: WF1
Assessed Length:116
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 4 4 100%
Depth Sufficient 4 4 100%
Date of Last Assessment: 11/28/2022 4 4 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)N/A N/A N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A N/A
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.4 4 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 4 4 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.4 4 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
N/A N/A N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
N/A N/A N/A
Date of Last Assessment: 11/29/2022
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Step Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Reach: WF2
Assessed Length:458
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 8 8 100%
Depth Sufficient 7 7 100%
Date of Last Assessment: 11/28/2022 7 7 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)7 7 N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)7 7 N/A
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.8 8 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 4 4 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.4 4 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
4 4 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
4 4 100%
Date of Last Assessment: 11/29/2022
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Planted Acreage: 21.5
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold (acres)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0.00 0.0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 5, or 7 stem count
criteria.0.1 2 0.4 1.7%
2 0.4 1.7%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the
monitoring year.0.1 0 0.0 0.0%
2 0.4 1.7%
Easement Acreage: 23.8
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold (SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 3 0.2 1.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none 3 0.04 0.2%
Total
Cumulative Total
Date of Last Assessment: 11/28/2022
Date of Last Assessment: 11/28/2022

Stream Photographs

Monitoring Year 3

Photo Point 1 – W-E10, North (03/10/2022) Photo Point 1 – W-E10, South (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 1 – W-E10, East (03/10/2022) Photo Point 1 – W-E10, West (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 2 – MB outlet, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 2 – MB outlet, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 3 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 3 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 4 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 4 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 4 – WF2 Confluence, view upstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 5 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 5 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 6 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 6 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 7 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 7 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 8 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 8 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 9 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 9 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 10 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 10 –Meadow Branch, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 11 – Meadow Branch, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 11 – Meadow Branch, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 11 –WF1 Confluence, view upstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 12 – WF1 Start, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 12 – WF1 Start, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 13 – EF1 Start, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 13 – EF1 Start, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 14 – EF1, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 14 – EF1, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 15 – EF1, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 15 – EF1, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 16 – EF1, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 16 – EF1, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 17 – WF2 Start, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 17 – WF2 Start, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Photo Point 18 – WF2, view upstream (03/10/2022) Photo Point 18 – WF2, view downstream (03/10/2022)

Culvert/Crossing Photographs
Monitoring Year 3

Culvert Photo – EF1, inlet (02/06/2023) Culvert Photo – EF1 outlet (02/06/2023)

Ford Crossing Photo – WF2, looking northwest (02/06/2023) Ford Crossing Photo – WF2, looking southeast (02/06/2023)

Ford Crossing Photo – Meadow Branch, looking east
(02/06/2023)
Ford Crossing Photo – Meadow Branch, looking west
(02/06/2023)

Permanent Vegetation Plot Photographs 

Monitoring Year 3 

Permanent Vegetation Plot 1 ‐ (08/02/2022) Permanent Vegetation Plot 2 ‐ (07/28/2022) 
Permanent Vegetation Plot 3 ‐ (07/29/2022) Permanent Vegetation Plot 4 ‐ (08/02/2022) 
Permanent Vegetation Plot 5 ‐ (07/28/2022) Permanent Vegetation Plot 6 ‐ (07/28/2022) 

Permanent Vegetation Plot 7 ‐ (07/28/2022) Permanent Vegetation Plot 8 ‐ (07/29/2022) 
Permanent Vegetation Plot 9 ‐ (07/29/2022) Permanent Vegetation Plot 10 ‐ (07/29/2022) 
Permanent Vegetation Plot 11 ‐ (07/29/2022) Permanent Vegetation Plot 12 ‐ (07/29/2022) 

Mobile Vegetation Plot Photographs 

Monitoring Year 3 

Mobile Vegetation Plot 1 ‐ North (08/02/2022) Mobile Vegetation Plot 2 – North (08/02/2022) 
Mobile Vegetation Plot 3 ‐ North (08/02/2022) Mobile Vegetation Plot 4 ‐ North (09/29/2022) 

Groundwater Gage Photographs
Monitoring Year 3

Groundwater Gage 1 - (09/28/2022) Groundwater Gage 2 - (09/28/2022)

Groundwater Gage 3 - (09/28/2022) Groundwater Gage 3a - (09/28/2022)

Groundwater Gage 4 - (09/28/2022) Groundwater Gage 5 - (09/28/2022)

Groundwater Gage 6 - (09/28/2022) Groundwater Gage 7 - (09/28/2022)

Groundwater Gage 8 - (09/28/2022) Groundwater Gage 9 - (09/28/2022)

Groundwater Gage 10 - (09/28/2022) Groundwater Gage 11 - (09/28/2022)

Groundwater Gage 11a - (09/28/2022)

Bankfull Evidence Photographs

Monitoring Year 3

Bankfull Evidence on Meadow Branch (11/29/2022) Bankfull Evidence on EF1 (11/29/2022)

Bankfull Evidence on WF1 (11/29/2022) Bankfull Evidence on WF2 (11/29/2022)

Areas of Concern Photographs

Monitoring Year 3

Meadow Branch, station 101+80 – Aggradation (11/02/2022)
(9/28/2022)
Meadow Branch, station 111+20 – Bank scour (11/02/2022)

Meadow Branch, station 112+40 – Debris jam (11/02/2022) Meadow Branch, station 112+50 – Bank scour (11/02/2022)

Meadow Branch, station 113+50 – Bank scour (11/02/2022) Meadow Branch, station 117+00 – Bank scour (11/02/2022)

EF1, easement boundary – Encroachment (11/02/2022) Meadow Branch, easement boundary – Encroachment (11/02/2022)

Meadow Branch, easement boundary – Encroachment (11/02/2022)

Repair Photographs 

Monitoring Year 3

Meadow Branch, station 107+10 – Repaired gully (02/06/2023) Meadow Branch, station 107+10 – Repaired gully (02/06/2023) 
Meadow Branch, station 107+10 – Repaired gully (02/06/2023) Meadow Branch, station 107+10 – Repaired gully (02/06/2023) 

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8.  Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Permanent Vegetation Plot MY3 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
1 N
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 N
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
Mobile Vegetation Plot MY3 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
1 Y
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
83%
100%
88%
Tract Mean (MY3 ‐ 2022)
Table 9. CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Report Prepared By Sara Thompson
Date Prepared 9/20/2022 11:52
Database Name cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0_Deep Meadow (MY3).mdb
Database Location Z:\ActiveProjects\005-02162 Deep Meadow\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 3_2022\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name SARA2020
File Size 76816384
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
Project Code 97131
Project Name Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
Description Stream and wetland mitigation project in Union County, NC.
Sampled Plots 12
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Boxelder Maple Tree 9 10 27 23
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 14 4 1
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree 2 1 1 1
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon, Possumwood Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 1 3 3 4 1 1 1
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree 15 9 1
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane-tree Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 7 2 2 2 1 1 8 2 2 3
Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak Tree
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
7 7 53 12 12 37 8 8 45 10 10 34
4 4 9 7 7 11 5 5 8 8 8 9
283 283 2145 486 486 1497 324 324 1821 405 405 1376
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Boxelder Maple Tree 135 2 16
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree 2 2 2
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon, Possumwood Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 1 1 5 3 3 7 1 1 3
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree 7
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane-tree Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree
Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak Tree
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
12 12 158 3 3 3 9 9 15 9 9 27
7 7 9 2 2 2 3 3 4 6 6 7
486 486 6394 121 121 121 364 364 607 364 364 1093
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10% P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
0.0247
Stems per ACRE
size (ACRES)0.0247 0.0247
1
0.0247
Species count
size (ACRES)
size (ares)
1
Stem count
Permanent Plot 5 Permanent Plot 6
0.0247 0.0247 0.0247
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY3 2022)
Permanent Plot 7
1
0.0247
Permanent Plot 8
size (ares)
Table 10a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Stem count
Permanent Plot 2
1
Permanent Plot 1 Permanent Plot 4
1 1
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY3 2022)
Permanent Plot 3
1 1
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Boxelder Maple Tree 62 133 25 37
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon, Possumwood Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 1 1 4 2 19
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree 10
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 3 3 3
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane-tree Tree 3 3 3 5 5 5 2 2 2
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 51 2 2 14 2 2 2
Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak Tree
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
14 14 130 11 11 168 12 12 37 12 12 68
6 6 8 5 5 8 7 7 8 5 5 7
567 567 5261 445 445 6799 486 486 1497 486 486 2752
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Boxelder Maple Tree 479 585 356
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 19
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 6 6 6
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 21 21 21 21 21 21 24 24 24 26 26 26
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree 7 7 9 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 7 7 7 7 7 8 9 9 9 10 10 10
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon, Possumwood Tree 10 10 10 10 10 10 13 13 13 13 13 13
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 10 10 46 7 13 23 7 7 10 7 7 7
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree 2 2 2 12 12 12
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree 42 16
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 17 17 17
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane-tree Tree 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 9 9 87 7 8 25 8 8 8 13 13 13
Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 11 11 11 11 11 11 18 18 18 18 18 18
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 12 12 12 12 12 12 18 18 18 22 22 22
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree 1
119 119 775 114 121 752 143 143 502 180 180 180
11 11 14 11 11 14 12 12 13 13 13 13
401 401 2614 384 408 2536 482 482 1693 607 607 607
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10% P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Species count
Stems per ACRE
MY2 (2021)
0.0247
MY0 (2020)
Permanent Vegetation Plot Annual Mean
0.0247 0.02470.0247size (ACRES)
12
0.2965
MY3 (2022)
12
0.2965
MY1 (2020)
12
0.2965
Stem count
Species count
Stems per ACRE
size (ACRES)
12
0.2965
size (ares)
1
Table 10b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Permanent Plot 9 Permanent Plot 10 Permanent Plot 11 Permanent Plot 12
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY3 2022)
Stem count
size (ares)1 1 1
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MP1 MP2 MP3 MP4
PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS
Acer negundo Box Elder Maple Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 1 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree 2 1
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Tree 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 4 4 5
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane-tree Tree 1 4 1
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 4 1 1
Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 1
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak Tree 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
8 10 9 11
1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
4 4 6 7
324 405 364 445
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MY3 (2022)MY2 (2021)MY1 (2020)MY0 (2020)MY3 (2022)MY2 (2021)MY1 (2020)MY0 (2020)
PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS
Acer negundo Box Elder Maple Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree 3 3 1 2 5 4 7
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 2 4 4 9 23 29 30 35
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree 3 3 3 2 10 10 7 10
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 3 1 10 7 9 11
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon, Possumwood Tree 1 1 1 11 11 18 13
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 13 12 10 3 23 19 13 10
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree 1 2 13
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 3 3 5 4 7 8 22
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane-tree Tree 6 11 8 20 32 37 42 48
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 6 2 2 4 15 9 16 16
Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 1 2 12 11 22 20
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak Tree 1 2 2 5 1 2 2 6
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 2 1 1 9 14 13 18 31
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
38 42 37 62 157 160 189 242
4 4 4 4 16 16 16 16
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
10 10 10 12 12 12 13 13
384 425 374 627 397 405 478 612
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10%P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Current Mobile Vegetation Plot (MP) Data (MY3 2022) Total Stem Counts & Annual Means
Table 10c. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Overall Site Annual Mean
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Current Mobile Vegetation Plot (MP) Data (MY3 2022)
Stem count
size (ares)
Species count
size (ACRES)
Stems per ACRE
Stem count
size (ACRES)
size (ares)
APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft) 10.3 13.1
Floodprone Width (ft) 29 >39 18 36 26 70 30 68 57.0 64.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.5 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.8 1.0
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)1 5.0 7.9
Width/Depth Ratio 21.3 21.9
Entrenchment Ratio3 4.9 5.5
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)16.0 41.3 37.4 51.8
Profile
Riffle Length1 (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)1 --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.014 0.036 0.007 0.031 --- ---0.00963 0.04802 0.00191 0.07879
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.4 2.6 1.4 2 1.5 2.8 1.3 2.3
Pool Spacing (ft) 34 53 42 81 --- --- 22 69 41 75 --- ---57 87 38 73
Pool Volume (ft3)1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 23 56 23 57 23 56 23 57
Radius of Curvature (ft) 18 27 20 35 18 27 20 35
Rc/Bankfull Width 2.1 3.1 2.3 4.0 2.1 3.1 2.3 4.0
Meander Length (ft) 73 135 93 146 73 135 93 146
Meander Width Ratio 2.7 6.5 2.7 6.5 2.7 6.5 2.7 6.5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.24 0.29
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 2.1 2.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 10 18
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope1 (ft/ft)
1. As-Built/ Baseline channel slope (ft/ft) was measured from channel bed rather than water surface slope due to a dry channel during survey data collection
2. Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
3. ER is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
---
---
15.0 12.7
N/A
---
---
---
---
---
WF1 WF2 WF2 EF1WF1
0.7
10.2 9.89.3
0.4
As-Built/BaselineDesign
1.2
64.5
1.0
EF1
7.1
WF2 EF1 WF1
6.0
8.1
0.9
1.1
0.7
8.9
1.50.9
N/A
4.9
0.7
>82
3.2
---SC
3.4
6.1
1.1
8.7
0.8
4.4 6.6
1.0
12.0
6.65.02.2
13.67.3
1.3 3.8
1.4
37.5
21.3
6.012.0
1.0
--- ---
1.01.0
---
---
---N/A N/A
---
2.2
---N/A
---
---
N/A
---
N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2N/A2
N/A2N/A2
N/A2--- --- ---
N/A
SC/0.3/12.1/81.3/13
7.0/256.0--- ---
---
--- 0.59
103
---
---
0.49 0.68 0.59
C3/4C4C4bE4E4
0.350.090.09
N/A
0.09 0.20
4%4%
4.1 4.5
10 20 30102030
3.2
---------
126 44 ------
---------13 24 36
0.0167 0.0183 0.0124
458
1.401.40 1.301.00
---
458
0.0192 0.0168 0.0101 0.00950.0160 0.0133 0.00780.01350.0274
1,322136
1.30---
1,322
SC/SC/SC/36.7/78
.5/180.0
---
---
---
---
---
E4
Pre-Restoration Condition
4%
0.35
E4
1.6
G4
1.04
0.0166 0.0170
---------
1.00 1.00
136 391
0.0094 ------
4.1 3.3
---97
3.4
1,201
---------
---SC/10.5/19.7/68.5/
>2048/>2048
136
13.3
0.7
4.0
24.4
1.4
1.0
13 24
0.1/18.0/35.9/98.3/
160.7/256.0
SC/0.2/8.0/67.2/
128.0/256.0
B4
0.20
---
3.33.4
0.35
90
0.20
N/A2
N/A2
5.1
7.5
1.4
8.0
8.4
8.2
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft) 8.8 10.4 11.5 12.3 6.3 9.3 18.5 19.4 14.8 18.6
Floodprone Width (ft) 28.0 31.0 14.0 125.0 55.0 101.0
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 2.1
Bankfull Max Depth 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.8 2.1 1.9 2.9
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)7.8 8.5 8.9 12.2 6.6 8.7 23.9 24.1
Width/Depth Ratio 10.0 12.8 12.3 14.4 7.9 9.3 14.3 15.7 7.9 13.8
Entrenchment Ratio 2.5 4.0 2.5 2.7 1.7 4.3 2.9 5.3
Bank Height Ratio 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.5 --- --- 1.2 1.5
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.018 0.036 0.015 0.035 0.018 0.034 0.061 0.089 --- --- 0.012 0.013
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft) 14.7 16.0 2.5 2.9 1.2 1.8 2.5 2.9
Pool Spacing (ft) 33 93 49 91 9 46 26 81 --- --- 50 105
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 10 50
Radius of Curvature (ft) 23 38 12 85 16 87
Rc/Bankfull Width 2.0 3.1 1.9 9.1 1.1 4.7
Meander Length (ft) 53 178 --- ---
Meander Width Ratio 8.3 8.9 1.6 5.4 3.2 4.1
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 5.0 5.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity 1.00 1.30
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.0131 0.0178 0.0190 0.0220
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided N/A: Not Applicable
27.8
12.2
72.4
1.3
16.3
9.1
6.0
1.0
22.6---
---
---
---
---
---
---
61.0 41.6
---------
2.2
1.0
11.0
------
2.2
>50.0
34.6
>3.4
---
Foust Creek US Long BranchUT to Richland Creek
31.0
---
N/A
---
---
---
---
1.8
60
Table 11b. Reference Reach Data Summary
UT to Cane Creek Spencer Creek 3 UT to Rocky Creek
1.49
Reference Reach Data
8.1/26.6/41.6/124.8/2
25.5
1.40
---
--- ---
N/A
--- ---
102
N/A ---
---
---
------
---
1.9/8.9/11/64/128---<0.063/2.4/22.6/120/
256N/A
---
---
0.6/12.2/27.8/74.5/12
8
N/A
0.37 1.05
3532
---
---
E4
---
---
9.6/37/61/130/1100
124
--- ---
1.00
3.84.1
0.0150
85
---
1.40
---
---
---
---
---
---
------
C/E4
5.5
40
---
0.29
---
E4
1.301.10
---
0.0090
---
---
0.0240
C4
---
4.0
---
0.0040
---
------
4.0
0.28
C4/E4
95
E4b
---------
---
Table 12. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation 1 485.90 485.96 486.02 486.04 491.66 491.66 491.62 491.61 491.48 491.52 491.56 491.54
Low Bank Elevation 485.90 485.89 485.97 486.05 491.66 491.69 491.62 491.61 491.48 491.48 491.62 491.57
Bankfull Width (ft)9.3 9.0 7.7 9.6 11.6 11.4 9.6 10.2 10.3 10.2 10.3 10.2
Floodprone Width (ft)2 13.3 13.2 13.6 14.5 --- --- --- --- 57.0 57.0 62.6 60.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.8 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)4.0 3.3 3.4 4.3 11.1 12.7 11.8 10.5 5.0 4.6 5.6 5.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 21.3 24.7 17.4 21.6 12.1 10.2 7.8 9.9 21.3 22.5 19.0 19.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.5 --- --- --- --- 5.5 5.6 6.1 5.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 --- --- --- --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation 1 487.26 487.20 487.31 487.27 485.68 485.68 485.68 485.65 485.50 485.63 485.69 485.67
Low Bank Elevation 487.26 487.21 487.28 487.22 485.68 485.71 485.68 485.65 485.50 485.58 485.58 485.58
Bankfull Width (ft)13.1 13.1 11.1 11.1 11.3 10.5 9.8 9.5 9.8 10.6 10.0 9.3
Floodprone Width (ft)2 64.9 65.9 64.8 63.4 --- --- --- --- 64.5 63.7 64.9 62.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)7.9 8.0 7.6 7.3 9.9 10.5 10.6 9.6 7.1 6.6 6.1 6.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 21.9 21.4 16.4 17.0 13.0 10.6 9.0 9.3 13.6 17.1 16.5 14.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 4.9 5.0 5.8 5.7 --- --- --- --- 6.6 6.0 6.5 6.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 --- --- --- --- 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0
2Floodprone width is calculated from the width of cross-section but valley width may extend further.
WF1 Cross-Section 1, Riffle EF1 Cross-Section 2, Pool EF1 Cross-Section 3, Riffle
EF1 Cross-Section 4, Riffle WF2 Cross-Section 5, Pool
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension
parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
WF2 Cross-Section 6, Riffle
Table 13a. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
WF1
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A‐type and B‐type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
As‐Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
9.3 9.0 7.7 9.6
13.3 13.2 13.6 14.5
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
4.0 3.3 3.4 4.3
21.3 24.7 17.4 21.6
1.4 1.5 1.8 1.5
1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0
‐‐‐
24.4
0.1/18.0/35.9/98.3/ 
160.7/256.0
2.0/10.1/26.2/80.3/ 
151.8/256.0
7.3/14.9/26.9/107.4/ 
162.1/362.0
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
136
‐‐‐
0.68
‐‐‐
0.0274
2MY1‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section 
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
0.09
4%
B4
3.3
13
‐‐‐
Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
EF1
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft) 10.3 13.1 10.2 13.1 10.3 11.1 10.2 11.1
Floodprone Width (ft) 57.0 64.9 57.0 65.9 62.6 64.8 60.1 63.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.0
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)5.0 7.9 4.6 8.0 5.6 7.6 5.3 7.3
Width/Depth Ratio 21.3 21.9 21.4 22.5 16.4 19.0 17.0 19.6
Entrenchment Ratio 4.9 5.5 5.0 5.6 5.8 6.1 5.7 5.9
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1
D50 (mm)37.4 51.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.001911 0.078794
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.3 2.3
Pool Spacing (ft)38 73
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 23 57
Radius of Curvature (ft) 20 35
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 2.3 4.0
Meander Length (ft) 93 146
Meander Width Ratio 2.7 6.5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.24 0.29
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 2.1 2.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 10 18
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7As-Built/Baseline MY1
1.0 1.01.0
SC/0.3/12.1/81.3/137.
0/256.0
4.73/12.2/20.5/71.7/1
04.7/180.0/
SC/20.7/49.5/120.7/
196.6/512.0
---
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
---
1,322
0.35
0
C3/4
1.30
0.0078
Table 13c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
WF2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.009632 0.04802
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.5 2.8
Pool Spacing (ft)57 87
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 23 56
Radius of Curvature (ft) 18 27
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 2.1 3.1
Meander Length (ft) 73 135
Meander Width Ratio 2.7 6.5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
9.8 10.6 10.0 9.3
64.5 63.7 64.9 62.6
0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7
1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0
7.1 6.6 6.1 6.1
13.6 17.1 16.5 14.1
6.6 6.0 6.5 6.8
1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0
37.5
SC/0.2/8.0/67.2/
128.0/256.0
SC/1.6/14.7/70.9/
110.1/256.0
SC/9.4/19.4/79.2/
128.0/180.0
1.40
0.0135
0.59
---
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
24
---
458
0.20
4%
C4
3.4
Cross‐Section  1 ‐ WF1
Bankfull Dimensions
4.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
9.6 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft) 
9.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
21.6 width‐depth ratio
14.5 W flood prone area (ft)
1.5 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 03/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site  
NCDMS Project No. 97131
Cross‐Section Plots
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
View Downstream
484
485
486
487
488
5 10152025
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
401+04 Riffle
MY0 (11/2019)MY1 (09/2020)MY2 (04/2021)MY3 (03/2022)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankful Area Elevation
Cross‐Section  2 ‐ EF1
Bankfull Dimensions
10.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
10.2 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft) 
11.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
9.9 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 03/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site  
NCDMS Project No. 97131
Cross‐Section Plots
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
View Downstream
489
490
491
492
10 20 30 40 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
204+19 Pool
MY0 (11/2019)MY1 (09/2020)MY2 (04/2021)MY3 (03/2022)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  3 ‐ EF1
Bankfull Dimensions
5.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
10.2 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft) 
10.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
19.6 width‐depth ratio
60.1 W flood prone area (ft)
5.9 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 03/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site  
NCDMS Project No. 97131
Cross‐Section Plots
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
View Downstream
490
491
492
493
10 20 30 40 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
204+36 Riffle
MY0 (11/2019)MY1 (09/2020)MY2 (04/2021)MY3 (03/2022)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation
Cross‐Section  4 ‐ EF1
Bankfull Dimensions
7.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
11.1 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft) 
11.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
17.0 width‐depth ratio
63.4 W flood prone area (ft)
5.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 03/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site  
NCDMS Project No. 97131
Cross‐Section Plots
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
View Downstream
486
487
488
489
10 20 30 40 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
210+89 Riffle
MY0 (11/2019)MY1 (09/2020)MY2 (04/2021)MY3 (03/2022)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation
Cross‐Section  5 ‐ WF2
Bankfull Dimensions
9.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
9.5 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft) 
10.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
9.3 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 03/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site  
NCDMS Project No. 97131
Cross‐Section Plots
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
View Downstream
483
484
485
486
487
15 25 35 45 55
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
303+49 Pool
MY0 (11/2019)MY1 (09/2020)MY2 (04/2021)MY3 (03/2022)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  6 ‐ WF2
Bankfull Dimensions
6.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
9.3 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft) 
9.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.1 width‐depth ratio
62.6 W flood prone area (ft)
6.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 03/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site  
NCDMS Project No. 97131
Cross‐Section Plots
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
View Downstream
483
485
487
20 30 40 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
303+81 Riffle
MY0 (11/2019)MY1 (09/2020)MY2 (04/2021)MY3 (03/2022)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation
APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14a. Verification of Bankfull Events
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Reach MY Date of Occurrence Date of Data Collection Method
MY1 11/12/2020 11/13/2020
Photographic
Documentation
1/1/2021 1/1/2021
1/3/2021 1/3/2021
1/28/2021 - 1/29/2021 1/28/2021 - 1/29/2021
2/4/2021 2/4/2021
2/11/2021 2/11/2021
2/14/2021 - 2/16/2021 2/14/2021 - 2/16/2021
2/18/2021 - 2/20/2021 2/18/2021 - 2/20/2021
2/22/2021 2/22/2021
7/8/2021 7/8/2021
8/18/2021 8/18/2021
9/23/2021 9/23/2021
1/2/2022 1/2/2022
1/16/2022 1/16/2022
1/29/2022 - 1/31/2022 1/29/2022 - 1/31/2022
2/4/2022 2/4/2022
3/12/2022 3/12/2022
3/16/2022 3/16/2022
3/31/2022 3/31/2022
4/5/2022 4/5/2022
4/18/2022 4/18/2022
7/9/2022 7/9/2022
9/9/2022 9/9/2022
9/30/2022 9/30/2022
2/6/2020 2/6/2020
4/13/2020 4/13/2020
5/21/2020 5/21/2020
5/27/2020 5/27/2020
8/9/2020 8/9/2020
8/15/2020 8/15/2020
10/11/2020 10/11/2020
11/12/2020 11/12/2020
MY2 No bankfull events recorded No bankfull events recorded
1/3/2022 1/3/2022
3/12/2022 3/12/2022
4/18/2022 4/18/2022
MY3
WF1
MY1
EF1
Crest Gage
MY3
MY2
Table 14b. Verification of Bankfull Events
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Reach MY Date of Occurrence Date of Data Collection Method
1/25/2020 1/25/2020
2/6/2020 2/6/2020
4/13/2020 4/13/2020
5/21/2020 5/21/2020
5/27/2020 5/27/2020
8/9/2020 8/9/2020
8/15/2020 8/15/2020
10/11/2020 10/11/2020
10/30/2020 10/30/2020
11/12/2020 11/13/2020
Crest Gage and
Photographs
MY2 2/16/2021 2/16/2021
WF2
Crest Gage
Crest Gage
MY1
MY3 1/3/2022 1/3/2022
Recorded Bankfull Events
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
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 3 -2022
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow: Crest Gage #1 (WF1, XS1)
Recorded Bankfull Events
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
489
490
491
492
493
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 3 -2022
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow: Crest Gage #2 (EF1, XS3)
Recorded Bankfull Events
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
483
484
485
486
487
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 3 -2022
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow: Crest Gage #3 (WF2, XS6)
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
MY1 - Original Growing Season 2 MY2 - Original Growing Season 2 MY3 - Original Growing Season 2 MY3 - Revised Growing Season 3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
1 111 days (48.5%) 30 days (13.1%) 70 days (29.0%) 80 days (29.3%)
2 58 days (25.3%)13 days (5.7%) 17 days (7.1%) 27 days (9.9%)
3 25 days (10.9%)10 days (4.4%) 16 days (6.6%) 18 days (6.6%)
3a N/A N/A 18 days (7.5%) 20 days (7.3%)
4 63 days (27.5%)11 days (4.8%) 19 days (7.9%) 21 days (7.7%)
5 229 days (100%) 42 days (18.3%) 91 days (37.8%) 101 days (37.0%)
6 51 days (22.3%)12 days (5.2%) 18 days (7.5%) 20 days (7.3%)
7 58 days (25.3%)14 days (6.1%) 16 days (6.6%) 18 days (6.6%)
8 51 days (22.3%)11 days (4.8%) 15 days (6.2%) 17 days (6.2%)
9 27 days (11.8%)2 days (0.9%) 10 days (4.1%) 12 days (4.4%)
10 26 days (11.4%)7 days (3.1%) 14 days (5.8%) 16 days (5.9%)
11 20 days (8.7%) 11 days (4.8%) 15 days (4.4%) 17 days (6.2%)
11a N/A N/A 17 days (7.1%) 19 days (7.0%)
Reference 49 days (21.4%) 26 days (11.4%) 49 days (20.3%) 59 days (21.6%)
1)The wetland hydrology success criteria is free groundwater within 12 inches of the ground surface for 10% of the growing season.
2) The original growing season defined in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018) is March 23rd to November 6th. Therefore, the original success criteria is 23 consecutive days of the original growing season.
3) Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st to November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days of the revised growing season.
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Gage
Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage) 1
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Groundwater Gage
Most Consecutive
Days Meeting
Criteria
Percent
Consecutive Days
in Revised Growing
Season
Total Days
Meeting
Criteria
Percent Cumulative
Days in Revised
Growing Season
Number of
Instances
Meeting
Criteria
Reference Well 59 21.6%59 21.6%117
Groundwater Gage #1 80 29.3%88 32.2%175
Groundwater Gage #2 27 9.9%47 17.2%92
Groundwater Gage #3 18 6.6%41 15.0%80
Groundwater Gage #3a 20 7.3%49 17.9%96
Groundwater Gage #4 21 7.7%48 17.6%94
Groundwater Gage #5 101 37.0%168 61.5%335
Groundwater Gage #6 20 7.3%42 15.4%82
Groundwater Gage #7 18 6.6%42 15.4%82
Groundwater Gage #8 17 6.2%31 11.4%60
Groundwater Gage #9 12 4.4%21 7.7%41
Groundwater Gage #10 16 5.9%34 12.5%67
Groundwater Gage #11 17 6.2%31 11.4%61
Groundwater Gage #11a 19 7.0%40 14.7%78
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st to November 28th.
Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised growing season.
Table 16. Wetland Gage Attainment Criteria Comparison
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Wetland W-E10
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
80 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Gage #1 Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #1
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Wetland W-E9
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
27 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Gage #2 Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #2
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Wetland W-E8
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
18 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Gage #3 Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #3
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Wetland W-E8
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
20 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Gage #3a Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #3a
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Wetland W-E7
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
21 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Gage #4 Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #4
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Wetland W-E1
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
101 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Gage #5 Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #5
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Wetland W-E2
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
20 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Gage #6 Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #6
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Wetland W-E2
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
18 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Gage #7 Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #7
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Wetland W-E3
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
17 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Gage #8 Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #8
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Wetland W-E4
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
12 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Gage #9 Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #9
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Wetland W-E5
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
16 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Gage #10 Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #10
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Wetland W-E6
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
17 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Gage #11 Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #11
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Wetland W-E6
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
19 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Gage #11a Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Groundwater Gage #11a
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Reference Gage
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE.
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
*Due to supporting soil temperature and seasonal vegetation indicators, the growing season was revised to March 1st through November 28th. Therefore, the revised success criteria is 28 consecutive days (10%) of the revised
growing season.
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
8
/
2
0
2
2
59 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
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 3 - 2022
Daily Precipitation Criteria Level Soil Surface Reference Gage Depth 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Deep Meadow Reference Gage
Monthly Rainfall Data
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
*Annual precipitation data was derived from the NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE. (Downloaded 11/30/2022)
*An on-site rain gage was installed in August 2022, and will function as the primary source of precipitation data starting in MY4. (Downloaded 11/29/2022)
*30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE. (Downloaded 11/30/2022)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Date
Deep Meadow 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2022
NC - CRONOS Station 315771 - Monroe 2 SE On-Site Rain Gage 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
Soil Temperature Data
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97131
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
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
)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2022
Soil Probe #1 Temperature Criteria Level
DEEP MEADOW Soil Temperature Probe #1

Vegetation Seasonal Indicators

Monitoring Year 3

Start of the Growing Season - Red Maple Bud Burst -
(03/02/2022)
End of the Growing Season - Over 50% Leaf Drop -
(11/29/2022)

APPENDIX 6. Agency Correspondence

MEET ING NO TES

MEETING: MY3 IRT Credit Release Site Walk 
DEEP MEADOW Mitigation Site 
Yadkin 03040105; Union County, NC 
DEQ Contract No. 6887 
DMS Project No. 97131 
Wildlands Project No. 005‐02169 

DATE: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 

LOCATION:  McIntyre Road 
Wingate, NC 

Attendees 
Kim (Browning) Isenhour, USACE 
Casey Haywood, USACE 
Erin Davis, NCDWR 
Olivia Munzer, NCWRC 
Harry Tsomides, DMS 
Paul Wiesner, DMS 
Sam Kirk, Wildlands 
Kristi Suggs, Wildlands 
Aaron Earley, Wildlands 
John Hutton, Wildlands 

Meeting Notes 
The meeting began at 10:30 pm. Attendees discussed the site conditions and issues noted in the MY1 and MY2 
reports as summarized in the Opening Remarks section below. From there, the group walked to upstream 
extent of Meadow Branch, on to GWG4, and then over to wetland W‐E2 and stream EF1. The meeting concluded 
at 1:30 PM. 
1) Opening Remarks 
a) Attendees had an in‐depth discussion about the failing groundwater gage data in MY2. 
i) Kim asked how growing season was established. Kristi said that WETS data was used. Erin asked 
which WETS data set was used and recommended that the newest 30‐year data set be employed. 
Kristi responded that the data set used for Deep Meadow was from 1971 – 2020 and will consider 
30‐year data for future projects, but that range was incorrect. It was 1971 – 2000. Kristi further 
investigated the growing season by using the most recent 30 years of data (1992 – 2022). Using this 
range of thirty years results in a growing season from 3/17 – 11/17. 
DEEP MEADOW Mitigation Site – IRT Meeting Notes 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
DEEP MEADOW Mitigation Site 
MY3 Credit Release IRT Site Walk 
page 2 

ii) John proposed that soil temperature be used to establish a revised growing season that starts 
March 1. Kim replied that to use soil temperature along with the other 12 indicators (i.e., spring/fall 
veg indicators) from the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation 
Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region, Version 2.0 to support a revised growing season. 
Kim said that the revised growing season must be extended on the back end accordingly and to use 
the revised growing season for all monitoring years. Wildlands agreed and developed a revised 
growing season after the site walk. See bullet viii) for the revised growing season dates. 
iii) Casey asked how many additional gages were installed since baseline. Kristi replied two additional 
gages had been installed (3a and 11a). 
iv) Kim remarked that she expects the reference well to be drier due to mature tree water uptake and 
that it might not be the best source for on‐site gages. 
v) Kristi asked how the extended growing season would affect the monitoring report submittal 
schedule. Paul replied that DMS would work with Wildlands on deliverable schedule. Erin replied 
that data collected at the end of the growing season could be included on subsequent monitoring 
report. 
vi) Kim suggested to not stop collecting gage data even if it meets criteria early in the growing season. 
Wildlands agreed. 
vii) Kim suggested that additional gages be installed in areas not currently proposed for wetland credit 
along restoration reaches in case additional wetlands are needed to offset failing gages. Wildlands 
agreed and plans to further investigate the installation of additional gages during the winter 
between MY3 and MY4 within the study areas outlined on the attached map. 
viii) Kim noted that an addendum is not required to establish a new growing season. She suggested that 
the new growing season, along with justifications, be included in the meeting minutes. Minutes 
should be included in MY3 report. MY3 should include original growing season data versus revised 
growing season data. Erin suggested adding a footnote to the to clarify why growing season was 
revised. Wildlands agreed with the suggestions and would like to propose a March 1st – November 
28th as the growing season for the project. Soil temperature data supports this growing season with 
a range of 52.0 °F to 80.0 °F from Mar 1st – Nov 28th in MY1, a range of 40.1 °F to 78.1 °F from Mar 
1st – Nov 28th in MY2, and a range from 50.4 °F to 89.1 °F from Mar 1st – Nov 28th in MY3. Additional 
documentation for the growing season revision will be collected in the field during the appropriate 
time of year. Wildlands will include this data in the subsequent monitoring reports. 
DEEP MEADOW Mitigation Site – IRT Meeting Notes
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
DEEP MEADOW Mitigation Site
MY3 Credit Release IRT Site Walk
page 3

Beginning Date Ending Date Success Criteria Max Consecutive Days &
Percentage of Growing Season
Current Growing Season 3/17/2022 11/12/2022 24 days, 10%
Revised Growing Season* 3/1/2022 11/28/2022 28 days, 10%
*Current growing season was revised because the ground water wells were failing to meet the success criteria outlined in the WETS Table
for the Monroe 2 SE, NC Station, and the soil temperature data and seasonal indicators support an extended growing season.
b) Kristi asked Paul how the missing monument should be re-installed. Paul responded that monuments
must be surveyed and set by a PLS.
c) Sam gave a summary on maintenance issues:
i) Additional PVC markers have been installed to help curb scalping by the farmer.
ii) Previous Johnson grass treatments, coupled with shade from taller trees, have almost eradicated
the invasive.
iii) Wildlands has and will continue to treat parrot feather in the wetlands.
2) Items of Discussion During Walk
a) Casey asked if the in-stream vegetation treated was parrot feather. Sam replied that it was creeping
water primrose that was successfully eradicated.
b) Kim noted that FAC species could be added to the failing veg plots in wetlands. Wildlands agreed to
evaluate adding FAC species.
100
DEEP MEADOW Soil Temperature Probe #1
Monitoring Years 1-3
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
MY1 Soil Temp MY2 Soil Temp MY3 Soil Temp Criteria Level
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(F
)

Ja
n

Fe
b

Ma
r

Ap
r

Ma
y

Ju
n

Ju
l

Au
g

Se
p

Oc
t

No
v

De
c

DEEP MEADOW Mitigation Site – IRT Meeting Notes 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
DEEP MEADOW Mitigation Site 
MY3 Credit Release IRT Site Walk 
page 4 

c) Kim asked about removal of beaver dams. Sam replied that they have been removed in the past and that 
it will be an ongoing effort. 
d) Kim remarked about the large amount of box elder species and clarified that over 50% of a single species 
is considered monoculture. She suggested adding transects to help support vegetation success. Kim 
asked without volunteer box elder species, do veg plots meet criteria? Kristi looked at the data after the 
site meeting and confirmed that in MY2 no box elder (Acer negundo) volunteers were used to meet 
success criteria for any of the permanent or mobile vegetation plots. However, volunteers of box elder 
for VP3, VP5, VP9, and VP10 were recorded as greater than 50% of the overall stem density. The total 
MY2 density of box elder recorded was 77.8%. Wildlands will reassess the vegetative conditions during 
MY3 to see if natural selection and competition begin to suppress the proliferation of box elder within 
the site. If the trend of box elder establishment continues, Wildlands will work to thin out the species 
monoculture. 
e) Kim asked how wetland areas were determined. Wildlands confirmed wetland areas were based on soil 
report data gathered during proposal stage. 
f) At GWG4, Kim noted the significant reduction in consecutive growing days between MY1 and MY2. John 
agreed that the decrease was surprising. Kim and Casey suggested that soil profiles be included with 
groundwater gage data in MY4 and MY6 reports. Wildlands agreed. 
g) At wetland W‐E2, Kim suggested that Wildlands look at consecutive versus cumulative gage data. She 
noted that the Corps is considering including cumulative criteria in future guidance. Using the revised 
growing season dates, Wildlands compared the number of consecutive versus cumulative days for MY2 
in the table below. We will include a discussion of cumulative data in subsequent monitoring reports. 

GROWING SEASON: 3/1 – 11/20 
 MY2 Results: 
o Consecutive = 5 out of 11 wells 
o Cumulative = 7 out of 11 wells 
GAGE MEASUREMENTS MY2 
Most 
Consecutive 
Days Meeting 
Criteria 
Percent 
Consecutive 
Days in Growing 
Season 

Total Days 
Meeting 
Criteria 
Percent 
Cumulative Days 
in Growing 
Season 
Number of 
Instances 
Meeting 
Criteria 
Reference Well 48 17.5% 49.0 17.8% 96 
Groundwater Gage #1 53 19.3% 54.0 19.6% 106 
Groundwater Gage #2 20 7.3% 31.0 11.3% 62 
Groundwater Gage #3 17 6.2% 26.0 9.5% 51 
Groundwater Gage #4 34 12.4% 34.0 12.4% 66 
Groundwater Gage #5 64 23.3% 106.0 38.5% 211 
Groundwater Gage #6 34 12.4% 34.0 12.4% 67 
Groundwater Gage #7 21 7.6% 35.0 12.7% 69 
Groundwater Gage #8 34 12.4% 34.0 12.4% 66 
Groundwater Gage #9 5 1.8% 9.0 3.3% 18 
Groundwater Gage #10 8 2.9% 21.0 7.6% 42 
Groundwater Gage #11 17 6.2% 26.0 9.5% 52 
DEEP MEADOW Mitigation Site – IRT Meeting Notes 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
DEEP MEADOW Mitigation Site 
MY3 Credit Release IRT Site Walk 
page 5 

h) At stream EF‐1, attendees gathered at monitoring cross section XS4. 
i) Kim asked if the restored channel was intermittent or perennial and if the number of dry days 
changed post‐project. Kristi responded that it still scores perennial and the dry periods had not 
changed compared to pre‐project conditions. The continuous flow gage data, which is located on 
XS3, shows continuous flow in MY1 within the recorded dates of 1/1/20 – 1/12/20. In MY2, the 
gage shows continuous flow within the recorded dates of 1/1/21 – 11/8/21. In MY3, the gage shows 
continuous flow within the recorded dates of 1/1/22‐ 5/2/22. 
ii) Kim asked it Wildlands has pre‐project photos that showed if the channel was flowing or dry. Aaron 
checked after the site meeting and found pre‐construction photos of EF‐1 from 2016 as shown in 
attached photo log. 
iii) Casey asked about the risk of wood structures (log sill and brush toe) rotting due to dry channel. 
Aaron responded that there is a risk but implementing habitat into the restored channel was a goal 
of the mitigation plan. 
iv) Kim asked why veg plot 7 on EF‐1 did not meet criteria since it is not in a wetland like the other 
failing veg plots. Likely due to a couple of reasons, the location of the plot is drier than conditions 
required for some of the planted species (FACW & OBL) and competition with herbaceous 
vegetation. 
3) Closing Remarks 
a) Kim reiterated that a revised growing season must be backed up with data such as on‐site soil temp, bud 
burst, emergence of herbaceous plants, and other indicators listed in the guidance. See our response 
outlined table in Section 1a bullet #8. 
b) Kim said that the IRT agrees with releasing MY2 (2021) stream and wetland credits. She said that if the 
groundwater gage data is bad again next year, a conversation about credits will be needed. 
These meeting minutes were prepared by Aaron Earley and reviewed by John Hutton and Kristi Suggs on June 7, 2022 and 
represent the authors’ interpretation of events. Please report and discrepancies or corrections within 5 business days of 
receipt of these minutes. 

●
●

FG PP1

1
!AGWG1

PP2 GF

!A GWG11a
12 A!
GWG11

W-E6

W-E10

W-H2
W-E9

GWG2 !A

FGPP3
GWG10 A!
W-E5

1

W-E8

W-E4
!A GWG9
11

!A
GWG3a
!A GWG3

PP4GF

GWG8 A
2 !A GF PP18 W-E3
PP17GF
WF2
CG3 3

GWG13a
GWG13b

W-E13
GF PP5

10

GWG7 A

BAROTROLL

GWG4 !A

GWG13c

FGPP6

W-E2
!A W-E7
4

GWG6 A
4

FG PP13
7

PP8 FG
FGPP7

9

GF PP16

8

3

FG
PP15

EF1

PP14
CG2 FG A

PPGF9

5

!AGWG5

6

W-E1

GWG12
PP10GF

W-H1
W-E12

PP12
2

GF PP11 !A FG WF1
CG1

2019 Aerial Photography

0 250 500 Feet ¹ Proposed Wetland Mitigation Study Area 
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site 
DMS Project No. 97131 
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022 
Union County, NC 
Project Site 
Conservation Easement 
Wetland Re‐establishment 
Wetland Rehabilitation 
Proposed Additional Wetland Mitigation Study Areas 
Restoration 
Enhancement I 
Enhancement II 
Preservation 
Non‐Project Streams 
Vegetation Plot Origin Pole 
GF Photo Points 
!A Barotroll 
!A Crest Gage 
!A Groundwater Gage (GWG) ‐ MY3 
Proposed GWGs 
Vegetation Plot Conditions ‐ MY3 
Mobile Vegetation Plots ‐ MY3 

June 2016 June 2016
June 2016 October 2016
October 2016 October 2016
EF1 Historic Photo Log
1
Sara Thompson
From:Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, November 2, 2022 3:26 PM
To:Kristi Suggs
Cc:Aaron Earley; Sara Thompson
Subject:RE: Deep Meadow's revised growing season discrepancy
Hey Kristi
I have documentation where Erin and I both approved the extended growing season based on soil temperatures and
vegetative indicators. You should stick to the 3/1-11/28 dates for the remainder of monitoring.
Thanks
Kim

Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers l 919.946.5107

-----Original Message-----
From: Kristi Suggs <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2022 11:33 AM
To: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Aaron Earley <[e-mail]>; Sara Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Deep Meadow's revised growing season discrepancy

Hi Kim!

I was looking at the 2016 Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update recently and noticed a possible issue
with the revised growing season for Deep Meadow (3/1 - 11/28). The guidance states the following when using an
alternative growing season to the period identified on the WETS tables, "In general, growing seasons that start earlier
than March 1st or end later than November 20th may not be approved, depending on project location". So, I am
wanting to confirm that since the IRT has approved the extension of the growing season to November 28th, we are able
to use the end date of Nov 28th moving forward. If you need any more information from me, please let me know.
Thank you!

Kristi

Kristi Suggs | Senior Environmental Scientist

O: 704.332.7754 x110 M: 704.579.4828

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. <Blockedhttp://www.wildlandseng.com/>