20160980 Ver 1_Meadow_Mitigation-Plan_report_05.05.2017_20170515

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
Prepared by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse I, LLC,
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1056
May 2017

1 *14 11 ►L .YIIu lu I\ 1
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site (the "Site") is located within a watershed dominated by agricultural
land use in Johnston County, North Carolina, approximately three miles north of Smithfield. The
project streams and wetlands have been significantly impacted by channelization, impoundment, and
cattle access. The project will involve the restoration and protection of streams in the Neuse River
watershed and the enhancement of adjacent riparian wetlands. The purpose of this mitigation site is to
restore and enhance a stream/wetland complex located within the Neuse River Basin.
The Site lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201100050 (USGS, 2012). The 2010
Neuse River Basin Plan (NRBP) identified the Meadow Spring Creek watershed (HUC
03020201100050) as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the need and
opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration. The Site is in the Meadow Spring Creek
Watershed, a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW). The Site supports many of the Neuse River Basin
Restoration Priorities Pan (RBRP) and Neuse Regional Watershed Pan (RWP) goals. Twenty-three
percent of the watershed is used for agricultural purposes and twenty-three percent is currently
developed.
The Site is located within the downstream end of HUC 03020201 and includes streams that directly
discharge into Meadow Spring Creek. Many of the project design goals and objectives, including
restoration of riparian buffers to filter runoff from agricultural operations and improve terrestrial
habitat, and construction of in -stream structures to improve habitat diversity, will address the degraded
water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major watershed stressors in the
2010 Neuse RBRP. The project presents 7,393 linear feet of stream restoration and enhancement
generating 5,506 Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) and 36.53 acres of wetland restoration and
enhancement generating 17.07 riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WNW).
The site consists of agricultural fields, cattle pastures and wooded areas. The total easement area is
60.93 acres. The wooded areas along the easement corridor designated for restoration activities are
classified as mixed hardwoods. Invasive species are present throughout the wooded areas. Channels
proposed for restoration are both laterally and vertically unstable, impacted by cattle, have disturbed
riparian buffers, and do not fully support aquatic life. Current stream conditions along the proposed
restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation because of impacts from livestock and impoundment to
promote agricultural activities.
The objective for this mitigation site is to restore and design natural waterways through stream/wetland
complexes with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet
success criteria. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of natural stream characteristics,
such as stable cross sections, planform, and in -stream habitat. The floodplain areas will be
hydrologically reconnected to the channels where feasible to provide natural exchange and storage
during flooding events. The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE,
2005), and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success. Additional site objectives,
such as restoring the riparian buffer with native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and treating
invasive species, are listed in Section 1.
The stream design approach for the Site is to combine the analog method of natural channel design with
analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain.
The analog method involves the use of a "template" stream adjacent to, nearby, or previously in the
same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are replicated to create
the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan ii May2017

are similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). Hydraulic geometry was
developed using analytical methods to identify the design discharge.
The Meadow Spring Site will include Priority FII restoration, Enhancement Levels III, and 111, and
wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation. Priority I restoration reaches will incorporate the
design of a single -thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from the reference
site described above, published empirical relationships, NC Coastal Plain Regional Curves, and
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.
Enhancement Level III is proposed along Reaches 9, 12, and 13 due to the channels' current stability
and presence of mature trees located along the top of banks. Similar to Enhancement Level 11 reaches,
the design approach on these reaches will focus on improving the riparian buffer.
The Site will include wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Wetland restoration will
occur adjacent to Priority I stream restoration reaches. The restoration approach is to reconnect the
floodplain wetlands to the stream, fill existing ditches, rough the floodplain surface, and plant native
tree and shrub species commonly found in small stream swamp ecosystems. The wetland enhancement
treatment will primarily be livestock exclusion, improving hydrology via pond removal and ditch
plugging, and planting native tree and shrub species.
After completion of all construction and planting activities, the Site will be monitored on a regular basis
and a physical inspection of the Site will be conducted at a minimum of twice per year throughout the
seven-year post -construction monitoring period, or until performance standards are met. These site
inspections will identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. The measure
of stream restoration success will be documented by bankfull flows and no change in stream channel
classification. Sand bed channels are dynamic and minor adjustments to dimension and profile are
expected. The measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 210 seven-year
old planted trees per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end of year seven of the monitoring
period.
Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to the
North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation (NCWHF). The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic
inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed
restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed
restrictions will be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan iii May2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 7
1.1 Site Selection..........................................................................................................................
7
1.2 Project Components................................................................................................................
7
2 WATERSHED APPROACH.........................................................................................................
8
2.1.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends...............................................................
9
2.2 Soil Survey.............................................................................................................................
9
2.3 Site Photographs..................................................................................................................
12
3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT.........................................................................................
15
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information...........................................................
15
4 BASELINE INFORMATION......................................................................................................
16
4.1 Watershed Summary Information........................................................................................
16
4.1.1 Drainage Area...............................................................................................................16
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification........................................................................................16
4.2 Reach Summary Information...............................................................................................
16
4.2.1 Channel Classification..................................................................................................17
4.2.2 Discharge......................................................................................................................17
4.2.3 Bankfull Verification....................................................................................................17
4.2.4 Channel Morphology....................................................................................................18
4.2.5 Channel Stability Assessment......................................................................................19
4.2.6 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................21
4.3 Wetland Summary Information............................................................................................
21
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands.........................................................................................................21
4.3.2 Existing Hydric Soil.....................................................................................................
22
4.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
.......................................................... 23
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities...............................................................
23
4.4.2 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass........................................................................................23
4.4.3 Environmental Screening and Documentation.............................................................
23
5 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL.......................................................................................
25
6 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS.............................................................................................
26
7 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE...............................................................................................
27
7.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits..................................................................................
28
7.2 Subsequent Credit Releases..................................................................................................
28
8 MITIGATION WORK PLAN.....................................................................................................
29
8.1 Reference Stream Studies.....................................................................................................
29
8.1.1 Target Reference Conditions........................................................................................
29
8.2 Design Parameters................................................................................................................
31
8.2.1 Stream Mitigation Approach........................................................................................
31
8.2.2 Wetland Restoration and Enhancement........................................................................
37
8.2.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration.........................................................................
38
8.2.4 Best Management Practices (BMPs)............................................................................
39
8.2.5 Soil Restoration............................................................................................................40
8.3 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................
40
8.3.1 Stream Data Analysis...................................................................................................
40
8.3.2 Mitigation Summary.....................................................................................................43
9 MAINTENANCE PLAN.............................................................................................................
44
10 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................................45
10.1 Stream And Wetland Restoration Success Criteria..............................................................
45
10.1.1 Bankfull Events............................................................................................................
45
10.1.2 Cross Sections..............................................................................................................45
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan iv May 2017

List of Tables
Table 1. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation ............................................... 7
10.1.3 Digital Image Stations..................................................................................................
45
Table3. Mapped Soil Series.................................................................................................................
10.1.1 Wetland Hydrology Criteria.........................................................................................45
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information............................................................................15
10.2 Vegetation Success Criteria..................................................................................................
45
11
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................
46
20
11.1 As -Built Survey....................................................................................................................47
Table 9. Regulatory Considerations.....................................................................................................
11.2 Visual Monitoring................................................................................................................
47
25
11.3 Cross Sections......................................................................................................................
47
Table 12a. Stream Credit Release Schedule.........................................................................................27
11.4 Wetland Hydrology..............................................................................................................
47
28
11.5 Vegetative Success Criteria..................................................................................................
47
Table14. Proposed Plant List...............................................................................................................
11.6 Scheduling/Reporting...........................................................................................................48
Table15. Peak Flow Comparison........................................................................................................
41
11.7 Adaptive Management..........................................................................................................
48
12
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN.....................................................................................
49
13
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.........................................................................................
50
14
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES......................................................................................................
51
15
OTHER INFORMATION............................................................................................................
52
15.1 References............................................................................................................................
52
List of Tables
Table 1. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation ............................................... 7
Table 2. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation ............................................
8
Table3. Mapped Soil Series.................................................................................................................
11
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information............................................................................15
Table 5. Project Watershed Summary Information..............................................................................16
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics.......................................................................17
Table 7. Channel Stability Assessment Results....................................................................................
20
Table 8. Wetland Summary Information..............................................................................................22
Table 9. Regulatory Considerations.....................................................................................................
24
Table 10. Functional Benefits and Improvements................................................................................
25
Table 11. Mitigation Credits.................................................................................................................26
Table 12a. Stream Credit Release Schedule.........................................................................................27
Table 12b. Wetland Credit Release Schedule......................................................................................
28
Table13. Scaling Factors.....................................................................................................................
36
Table14. Proposed Plant List...............................................................................................................
39
Table15. Peak Flow Comparison........................................................................................................
41
Table 16. Stable Channel Design Output.............................................................................................
42
Table 17. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses......................................................
42
Table 18. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities.............................................................
43
Table19. Maintenance Plan.................................................................................................................
44
Table 20. Monitoring Requirements.....................................................................................................
46
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan v May 2017

List of Figures
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
Figure 2- USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3- Historical Conditions Map
Figure 4- Soils Map
Figure 5- Landowner Map
Figure 6- Land -use Map
Figure 7- Existing Conditions Map
Figure 8- National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 9- FEMA Map
Figure 10- Conceptual Plan Map
Figure 11- Non -Standard Buffer Width Calculations
Figure 12- Monitoring Plan
Appendices
Appendix A
—Site Protection Instrument(s)
Appendix B
— Baseline Information Data
Appendix C
— Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Appendix D-
Soil Scientist Report
Appendix E
— Design Plan Sheets (11"x17")
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan vi May 2017

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site (the "Site") is located within a primarily rural watershed with
limited residential and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) development in Johnston
County, North Carolina. The project streams proposed for restoration have been significantly impacted
by channelization and agricultural practices. Due to its location and proposed improvements, the Site
will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the Neuse River Basin.
1.1 Site Selection
The Site is located in Johnston County approximately three miles north of Smithfield, North Carolina
(Figure 1). To access the Site head East on NC 70 from the Town of Wilson Mills, turn right onto
Wilson Mills Road and head south for approximately 1.5 miles. The Site is located in the Neuse River
Basin within Cataloging Unit 03020201, 14 -digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03020201100050 (USGS, 2012) (Figure 2). The Site is located in the Rolling Coastal Plains ecoregion.
1.2 Project Components
The project area is comprised of one primary perennial stream (UT to Neuse River) that flows west to
east to a confluence with the Neuse River. The northern easement area captures a single tributary and
a portion of its headwaters. The southern easement area is separated from the northern area by an active
agricultural field, and is divided into three different areas due to a utility crossing and a powerline
easement. The stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, as well
as Figure 10.
Table 1. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation
Mitigation
Stationing
Existing
ProposedMitigation
Base
Adjusted
Reach
Type
(Proposed)
Length
Length
Ratio
SMUs
SMUs
(LF)
(LF)
S1
Enhancement II
3+47
to
6+00
253
253
2.5:1
51
101
S2
Enhancement I
6+00
to
11+00
500
500
1.5:1
333
333
S6A
P1 Restoration
11+00
to
23+80
1,220
1,280
1:1
1,280
1,280
S6B
P1 Restoration
23+80
to
35+55
1,150
1,175
1 : 1
1,175
1,175
S6B
Enhancement I
35+55
to
37+22
165
167
1.5:1
111
111
S7
Enhancement I
38+08
to
48+01
1,035
993
1.5:1
662
703
S7
Enhancement I
49+04
to
53+20
452
416
1.5:1
277
297
S9
Enhancement III
53+20
to
59+85
665
665
5:1
266
133
S11
P1 Restoration
59+85
to
70+21
898
1,036
1 : 1
1,036
1,047
S12
Enhancement III
70+21
to
74+09
388
388
5:1
155
78
S5
P1 / P2 Restoration
0+76
to
3+06
215
230
1 : 1
230
230
S13
Enhancement III
0+00
to
4+52
452
452
5:1
452
90
Total
7,393
7,555
5,506
5,591
*Credits adjusted using non-standard buffer width guidance.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan
7
May 2017

Table 2. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation Type
Total Acres
Mitigation Ratio
WMUs
Re-establishment
7.33
1:1
7.33
Re-establishment
2.39
2:1
1.20
Rehabilitation
0.95
1.5:1
0.63
Enhancement
23.73
3:1
7.91
Preservation (no credit)
2.13
N/A
N/A
Total
36.53
17.07
2 WATERSHED APPROACH
The 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) identified several restoration needs for the
entire Neuse River Basin, as well as for HUC 03020201, specifically. The Site is located in HUC
03020201100050 (Neuse River), a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) that exhibits both the need and
opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration. The watershed includes 52 square miles
of watershed area, with thirty-one percent of the 106 stream miles lacking wooded buffers. Thirty-seven
percent of the watershed is used for agricultural purposes with 13 animal operations occurring in the
watershed.
The Site was identified as a stream, wetland, and buffer restoration opportunity to improve water
quality, habitat, and hydrology within the Neuse River Basin. The Site is located within the downstream
end of HUC 03020201 and includes streams that directly discharge into the Neuse River. Many of the
project design goals and objectives, including restoration of riparian buffers to filter runoff from
agricultural operations and improve terrestrial habitat, and construction of in -stream structures to
improve habitat diversity, will address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that
were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2010 Neuse RBRP.
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Nutrient removal,
• Sediment removal,
Invasive species treatment,
Filtration of runoff, and
• Improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Exclusion of livestock,
• Treatment of exotic invasive species,
• Restoration of forested riparian stream buffers,
• Stabilization of eroding stream banks due to lack of vegetation and livestock hoof shear,
• Addition of large woody debris, such as log vanes, log weirs, and root wads,
• Preservation and enhancement of hydrology in existing riparian wetland seeps, and
• Restoration of appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile in stream channels.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 8 May 2017

2.1.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Aerial imagery indicates that the subject Site has been used extensively for agricultural purposes, and
that the agricultural pond has been in place for well over 40 years (Figure 3). Since the early 1990s
little has changed in the project area. The area remains in an agricultural community with some
neighboring property forested. Several watershed characteristics, such as groundwater, vegetation,
surface drainage, and potentially soil parameters have been modified. Soil structure and surface texture
have been altered from intensive agricultural operations.
2.2 Soil Survey
The Site is located in the Rolling Coastal Plains Physiographic Province. Existing soil information from
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) shows the property is located within the
Wehadkee-Bibb-Chewacla soil association. This association is on nearly level, well drained to poorly
drained soils that are subject to flooding typically in flood plains and stream terraces. This soil
association is located along major streams and creeks throughout Johnston County. The largest mapped
area of this soils association is along the Neuse River south of Smithfield.
The Johnston County Soil Survey shows several mapping units across the site. Map units include 11
soil series (Figure 4). The soil series found on the Site are described below and summarized in Table
3.
Site soils are mapped by the NRCS as Altavista, Augusta, Bibb, Goldsboro, Norfolk, Rains, Roanoke,
and Wagram on the low lying depressions and floodplains at the project Site (Figure 4). Augusta, Bibb,
Goldsboro Rains and Roanoke soils are generally poorly drained sandy loam to loamy soils and range
from 0 to 2 percent slopes. Altavista and Wagram are fine sandy loam and loamy sand well -drained
soils typically located on slopes ranging from 0 to 6 percent. Altavista, Augusta, Bibb, Goldsboro,
Rains, and Roanoke soils are listed on the NRCS hydric soil list as hydric or having hydric inclusions.
The surrounding upland soils are mapped as Marlboro -Cecil complex, Norfolk and Wagram. Norfolk
and Wagram soils are well drained and have moderate permeability. Norfolk and Wagram are found
on slopes ranging from 0 to 6 percent. Marlboro -Cecil complex is sandy loam soil made up of Marlboro
and Cecil soils. This soil type is well -drained and typically located on slopes ranging from 2 to 8
percent.
Altavista fine sandy loam. This is a very deep, moderately to well -drained soil that occurs on stream
terraces of the Coastal Plain. They formed in old loamy alluvium derived from igneous and
metamorphic rock, and generally occur on slopes between 0-3 %. Runoff is negligible and permeability
is moderate. Major uses are cropland. Altavista fine sandy loam occurs along the southeast boundary
of the proposed easement throughout most the wetland area.
Augusta sandy loam. This is a very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs on stream terraces
of the Southern Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain. They formed in loamy alluvial sediments, and
generally occur on slopes between 0-2%. Runoff is negligible and permeability is moderate. Major us
is cropland. Augusta sandy loam occurs along the northwest end of the of the planned wetland and near
the southern reach of the stream.
Bibb sandy loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil found on flood plains of the Coastal Plain.
Slopes are generally less than 2%. Soils formed in stratified sandy alluvium and have very slow runoff
with moderate permeability. The water table is generally within 8 inches of the surface for six to eleven
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 9 May 2017

months of the year. Bibb sandy loams occurs along the northernmost reach of the easement; it can also
be found in small patches around the project Site.
Goldsboro sandy loam. This is a very deep, moderate well -drained soil that occurs on marine terraces
and uplands of the lower to upper Coastal Plain. They formed in marine and fluviomarine deposits, and
generally occur on slopes between 0-10%. Runoff is negligible to medium and permeability is
moderate. Major uses are cropland. Goldsboro sandy loam occurs along the middle of the easement and
is scattered along the project vicinity.
Marlboro- Cecil complex. Marlboro consists of very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on the smooth
uplands of the Coastal Plain. They formed in clayey Coastal Plain sediments, and generally occur in
slopes 0-15%. Runoff is medium and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland. Cecil consists
of very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on ridges and side slopes of the Piedmont uplands. They
formed in residuum weathered from felsic, igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont
uplands, and generally occur on slopes between 0-25%. Runoff is medium to rapid and permeability is
moderate. Major uses are cultivation, pasture, and forest. Marlboro -Cecil complex is found outside of
the easement area in the surrounding cultivated plots.
Norfolk loamy sand. This is a very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on interfluves and side slopes
of the Coastal Plain. They formed in marine or fluviomarine deposits, and generally occur on slopes
between 0-10%. Runoff is negligible to medium and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland.
Norfolk loamy sand is found along the floodplains of the northwestern stream reaches.
Rains sandy loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil that occurs on crests of the Coastal Plain.
They formed in loamy and sandy marine deposits, and generally occur on slopes between 0-2%. Runoff
is low and permeability is moderate. Major uses are forest and cropland. Rains sandy loam occurs along
the area just north of the easement and along the stream reaches extending out from the site easement.
Roanoke loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil that occurs on terraces and drainageways of
the piedmont and the upper and middle Coastal Plain. They formed in clayey fluvial sediments, and
generally occur on slopes between 0-2%. Runoff and permeability are slow to very slow. Major uses
are woodland. Roanoke loam occurs along the left floodplain of the southernmost reach of the
conservation easement.
Wagram loamy sand. This is a very deep, somewhat excessively drained soil that occurs on the
interfluves and side slopes of the upper and middle Coastal Plain. The formed in marine and
fluviomarine deposits, and generally occur on slopes between 0-15%. Runoff is negligible to medium
and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland. Wagram loamy sand occurs along the right
stream bank and floodplain of the northernmost reach in the easement.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 10 May 2017

Table 3. Mapped Soil Series
Map
Unit
Map Unit Name
Percent
Drainage
Hydrologic
Landscape
Symbol
Hydric
Class
Soil Group
Setting
AaA
Altavista fine sandy
9°
�°
Moderately
C
Stream terraces
loam, 0-2% slopes
well
AsA
Augusta sandy loam,
7%
Somewhat
B/D
Stream terraces
0-2% slopes
poorly
Bb
Bibb sandy loam, 0-
90%
Poorly
A/D
Floodplains
2% slopes
Flats on marine
GoA
Goldsboro sandy
2°
�0
Moderately
B
terraces, broad
loam, 0-2% slopes
well
interstream divides
on marine terraces
Broad interstream
McB
Marlboro -Cecil
0%
Well
B
divides on marine
complex, 2-8% slopes
terraces, ridges on
marine terraces
Flats on marine
NoA
Norfolk loamy sand, 0-
5%
Well
A
terraces, broad
2% slopes
interstream divides
on marine terraces
Flats on marine
NoB
Norfolk loamy sand, 2-
5o
�0
Well
A
terraces, broad
6% slopes
interstream divides
on marine terraces
Carolina bays on
marine terraces,
Ra
Rains sandy loam, 0-
90%
Poorly
B
broad interstream
2% slopes
divides on marine
terraces, flats on
marine terraces
Depressions on
Ro
Roanoke loam, 0-2%
100%
Poorly
C/D
stream terraces,
slopes
backswamps on
stream terraces
Broad interstream
WaB
Wagram loamy sand,
5%
Well
A
divides on marine
0-6% slopes
terraces, ridges on
marine terraces
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 11 May 2017

2.3 Site Photographs
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 12 May 2017

h
=d �
77mgm- or
Reach S5. 10/06/2015 Reach S6. 10/06/2015
kAI /
%b
Reach S6. 10/06/2015 General conditions along Reach ST 10/06/2015
z
.. 4
f:
f
General channel conditions along Reach ST Reach S8. 03/09/2015
10/06/2015
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 13 May 2017

Reach S9. 10/06/2015
Reach S9. 10/06/2015
Reach S 10. 10/06/2015
Reach 11. 10/06/2015
Reach S12. 05/10/2016
Reach S13. 10/06/2015
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 14 May 2017

3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Site includes portions of
the following parcels (Table 4 & Figure 5). Once finalized, a copy of the land protection instrument(s)
will be included in Appendix A.
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
The Wilmington District Conservation Easement model template was utilized to draft the site protection
instrument. Once finalized, a copy of the final recorded easement will be provided in Appendix A.
EBX-Neuse I, LLC, acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a Conservation Easement, and will
monitor the Site for a minimum of seven years. This Mitigation Plan provides detailed information
regarding bank operation, including long term management and annual monitoring activities, for review
and approval by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). Upon approval of the Site by the IRT, the Site
will be transferred to the NCWHF. The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site
to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s)
are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions will be negotiated
prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the Conservation Easement will allow for the implementation of an
initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during the design phase and conducted by the Bank
Sponsor. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring and, if necessary, maintenance
of the Site during the initial monitoring phase. These activities will be conducted in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the approved Mitigation Plan for the Meadow Spring Mitigation Site. The
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site will be authorized under the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella
Mitigation Bank made and entered into by EBX-Neuse I, LLC, US Army Corps of Engineers, and NC
Division of Water Resources.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 15 May 2017
Deed Book
Parcel
Protected
Landowner
Pin
County
and Page
Number
Acreage
Acreage
Stephenson
169500-74-
1997 Family
Johnston
01732-0151
246.34
60.93
Limited
6294
Partnership
The Wilmington District Conservation Easement model template was utilized to draft the site protection
instrument. Once finalized, a copy of the final recorded easement will be provided in Appendix A.
EBX-Neuse I, LLC, acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a Conservation Easement, and will
monitor the Site for a minimum of seven years. This Mitigation Plan provides detailed information
regarding bank operation, including long term management and annual monitoring activities, for review
and approval by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). Upon approval of the Site by the IRT, the Site
will be transferred to the NCWHF. The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site
to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s)
are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions will be negotiated
prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the Conservation Easement will allow for the implementation of an
initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during the design phase and conducted by the Bank
Sponsor. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring and, if necessary, maintenance
of the Site during the initial monitoring phase. These activities will be conducted in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the approved Mitigation Plan for the Meadow Spring Mitigation Site. The
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site will be authorized under the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella
Mitigation Bank made and entered into by EBX-Neuse I, LLC, US Army Corps of Engineers, and NC
Division of Water Resources.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 15 May 2017

4 BASELINE INFORMATION
4.1 Watershed Summary Information
4.1.1 Drainage Area
The easement totals 60.9 acres and the project includes one unnamed tributary to the Neuse River. The
total drainage area at the downstream limits of the main project area is approximately 379 acres (0.59
mi'). The land use in the Site watershed is approximately 37% agricultural and 45% forested (Table 5
& Figure 6).
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification
The current State classification for the Site restoration reaches is undefined. Tributaries of the Site run
directly into a large floodplain wetland adjacent to the Neuse River. Neuse River is defined as WS -IV
and NSW (NCDWQ 2012a). WS -1V waters are sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes. The NSW is a designation for nutrient sensitive waters — intended for waters
needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation.
Table 5. Project Watershed Summary Information
Level IV Ecoregion
65m - Rolling Coastal Plain
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03020201100050
DWR Sub -basin
03-04-02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
379
Percent Impervious Area
<1%
4.2 Reach Summary Information
The project area is comprised of a contiguous easement area along an unnamed tributary to the Neuse
River. The easement is separated by an existing power easement and three agricultural crossing. The
project is divided into northern and southern portions by the existing power easement. The northern
portion of the project includes Reach S1, Reach S2, Reach S3, Reach S4, Reach S5, and Reach S6. The
southern portion of the project includes Reach S7, Reach S8, Reach S9, Reach 510, Reach S11, and
Reach S 12.
The Meadow Spring stream channels include unnamed tributaries to the Neuse River (Figure 7). The
Neuse River is a FEMA Detailed Studied Stream and all project reaches located in its floodplain are
subject to all applicable floodplain development permit requirements (Figure 9). Stream Classification
Forms were completed at representative locations throughout the project area and stream
determinations were confirmed by NCDWR staff (Appendix B). Results of the preliminary data
collection are presented in Table 6. The Stream Morphology Table is included in Appendix C.
In general, all or portions of S1, S2, S5, S6, S7, S9, and S11 do not function to their full potential.
Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts from agriculture,
historic land uses, and water diversion. Having been channelized in the past, some of the streams do
not access their floodplains as frequently as they naturally would have prior to agricultural operations.
In most cases, the riparian buffer is in poor condition where much of the riparian buffer is devoid of
trees or shrubs and active pasture is directly adjacent to both banks of the existing channel. Habitat
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 16 May 2017

along the majority of the restoration reaches is poor in that there is little woody debris or overhanging
vegetation for fish cover or protection for other aquatic species. Morphological parameters are located
in Appendix C.
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
IABKF= cross-sectional area (measured at approximate bankfall stage as estimated using existing conditions
data and NC Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present)
4.2.1 Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as intermittent and perennial streams using the NCDWR Stream
Identification Form version 4.11 and are E-, G-, and C -stream types as classified using the Rosgen
stream classification system (Rosgen, 1994). The design reaches are described in Section 8.2. Channel
characteristics are summarized in Table 6, and Appendix C. Stream determinations have been verified
by NCDWR staff (Appendix B).
4.2.2 Discharge
Estimating flows (discharge) for the Meadow Spring Site is difficult due to the channelization and
agricultural impacts of the existing streams. Several models, regression equations, and the Coastal Plain
Regional curves were used to estimate existing bankfull discharges. Land use and slope were
considered when the discharge calculations were developed. All hydraulic and hydrologic analyses are
discussed in Section 8.3. Data and analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic models are included as
Appendix C.
4.2.3 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull is difficult and often times impossible to accurately identify on actively maintained channels
and agricultural ditches. The usual and preferred indicators rarely exist, and other factors may be taken
into consideration in order to approximate a bankfull stage. Other factors that may be used are wrack
lines, vegetation lines, scour lines, or top of a bankfull bench; however, complete confidence should
not be placed on these indicators. Along the proposed restoration reaches, the channel is generally
entrenched and actively maintained, which means bankfull indicators were very limited or non-existent.
Therefore, bankfull stage was estimated by using Coastal Plain Regional Curves and other hydrologic
analyses, existing cross-sections, and in-house spreadsheets to estimate bankfull area and bankfull
discharge.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 17 May 2017
Drainage
ABxFi
Width
Mean
Width:Depth
Reach
z
Sinuosity
Slope (ft/ft)
Area (ac)
(ft)
(ft)
Depth (ft)
Ratio
S1
36
1.5
10.1
0.1
70.9
1.01
0.0130
S2
46
1.6
4.9
0.3
15.1
0.93
0.0110
S4
12
1.0
3.0
0.3
9.3
1.04
0.0140
S5
36
1.8
4.6
0.4
11.6
1.18
0.0130
S6A
97
6.2
9.0
0.7
13.7
1.21
0.0039
S613
171
6.6
8.2
0.8
10.2
1.15
0.0060
S7
278
10.2
9.0
1.1
8.0
1.32
0.0032
S9
337
8.7
10.6
0.8
13.0
0.87
0.0033
S11
379
6.6
6.9
1.0
7.4
1.06
0.0041
S12
410
8.8
13.5
0.7
20.7
1.25
0.0030
IABKF= cross-sectional area (measured at approximate bankfall stage as estimated using existing conditions
data and NC Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present)
4.2.1 Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as intermittent and perennial streams using the NCDWR Stream
Identification Form version 4.11 and are E-, G-, and C -stream types as classified using the Rosgen
stream classification system (Rosgen, 1994). The design reaches are described in Section 8.2. Channel
characteristics are summarized in Table 6, and Appendix C. Stream determinations have been verified
by NCDWR staff (Appendix B).
4.2.2 Discharge
Estimating flows (discharge) for the Meadow Spring Site is difficult due to the channelization and
agricultural impacts of the existing streams. Several models, regression equations, and the Coastal Plain
Regional curves were used to estimate existing bankfull discharges. Land use and slope were
considered when the discharge calculations were developed. All hydraulic and hydrologic analyses are
discussed in Section 8.3. Data and analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic models are included as
Appendix C.
4.2.3 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull is difficult and often times impossible to accurately identify on actively maintained channels
and agricultural ditches. The usual and preferred indicators rarely exist, and other factors may be taken
into consideration in order to approximate a bankfull stage. Other factors that may be used are wrack
lines, vegetation lines, scour lines, or top of a bankfull bench; however, complete confidence should
not be placed on these indicators. Along the proposed restoration reaches, the channel is generally
entrenched and actively maintained, which means bankfull indicators were very limited or non-existent.
Therefore, bankfull stage was estimated by using Coastal Plain Regional Curves and other hydrologic
analyses, existing cross-sections, and in-house spreadsheets to estimate bankfull area and bankfull
discharge.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 17 May 2017

4.2.4 Channel Morphology
4.2.4.1 Reach S1
Reach S1 has a drainage area of 0.06 square miles (36 acres), and flows southeast from Wilson's Mill
Road through cultivated fields to Reach S2. The planform of this F -type channel is straight (K = 1.0)
and entrenched throughout. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 1.5 square feet with
approximate dimensions of 10.1 feet width and 0.1 feet deep, while the cross-sectional area of the
channel at top of bank is 91.7 square feet. The existing length of S 1 is 250 feet, and the dominate bed
material is very coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0130 ft/ft. The reach is
severely oversized with no floodplain access. The riparian buffer is comprised of row crops and grassed
fields with a mix of grassed and small woody vegetation growing within the existing top of bank.
4.2.4.2 Reach S2
Reach S2 has a drainage area of 0.07 square miles (46 acres), and flows east from Reach S1 through
active pasture to Reach S6. The planform of this C-type channel is straight (K = 1.1) with evidence of
past entrenchment. The channel has developed a new limited floodplain and adjusted to a state of
equilibrium. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 1.6 square feet with approximate
dimensions of 4.9 feet width and 0.3 feet deep, while the cross-sectional area of the channel at top of
bank is 58.7 square feet. The existing length of S2 is 500 feet, and the dominate bed material is very
coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0110 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any
functional riparian buffer or aquatic habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle
access were found throughout the reach.
4.2.4.3 Reach S5
Reach S5 has a drainage area of 0.06 square miles (36 acres), and flows south from through narrow
forest and active pasture to a confluence with Reach S6. The planform of this F -type channel has a
sinuosity (K) of 1.2 and is entrenched throughout. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 1.8
square feet with approximate dimensions of 4.6 feet width and 0.4 feet deep. The existing length of S5
is 215 feet, and the dominate bed material is very medium gravel. The gradient of the reach is
approximately 0.0130 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any functional riparian buffer or aquatic
habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle access were found throughout the reach.
4.2.4.4 Reach S6A
Reach S6A flows east from Reach S2 through active pasture to a confluence with Reach S5 and is an
F -type channel. The drainage area for Reach S6A at the confluence with Reach S5 is 0.15 square miles
(97 acres). The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 6.2 square feet with approximate
dimensions of 9.0 feet width and 0.7 feet depth. The existing length of S6A is 1,220 feet and the
dominate bed material is fine gravel. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0039 ft/ft. Cattle
access has eliminated any functional riparian buffer or aquatic habitat. Bank erosion and sediment
inputs attributed to cattle access were found throughout the reach.
4.2.4.5 Reach S6B
Reach S6B continues east to Reach S7 and has a drainage area of 0.27 square miles (171 acres). Reach
S6B is an F -type channel but transitions to an E -type channel approximately 940 feet downstream. The
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 6.6 square feet with approximate dimensions of 8.2 feet
width and 0.8 feet depth. The existing length of S6B is 1315 feet and the dominate bed material is fine
gravel. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0060 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any
functional riparian buffer or aquatic habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle
access were found throughout the reach.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 18 May 2017

4.2.4.6 Reach S7
Reach S7 has a drainage area of 0.43 square miles (278 acres), and flows south from Reach S6 through
mature forest to S9. This E -type channel has a sinuosity of 1.3 and an entrenchment ratio of 2.1. The
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 10.2 square feet with approximate dimensions of 9.0 feet
width and 1.1 feet deep. The existing length of S7 is 1487 feet, and the dominate bed material is very
fine gravel. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0032 ft/ft. The reach is slightly oversized but
maintains floodplain access. The riparian buffer is comprised of mature hardwood forest; however,
significant invasive vegetation is present throughout the reach.
4.2.4.7 Reach S9
Reach S9 has a drainage area of 0.53 square miles (337 acres), and flows south from Reach S7 through
mature forest to S1 1. This E -type channel has a sinuosity of 0.87 and an entrenchment ratio of 2.0. The
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 8.7 square feet with approximate dimensions of 10.6 feet
width and 0.8 feet deep. The existing length of S9 is 665 feet, and the dominate bed material is coarse
sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0033 ft/ft. The bankfull depth noted above is lower
than water surface depths observed during field visits. Water surface depths observed were abnormally
high due to backwater caused by sediment deposits resulting from Hurricane Matthew (October 2016).
The riparian buffer is comprised of mature hardwood forest and wetlands.
4.2.4.8 Reach S11
Reach S 1 has a drainage area of 0.59 square miles (379 acres), and flows south from Reach S9 through
mature forest and grassed fields to S 12. This E -type channel has a sinuosity of 1.1 and an entrenchment
ratio greater than 2.2. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 6.6 square feet with approximate
dimensions of 6.9 feet width and 1.0 feet deep. The existing length of S 11 is 898 feet, and the dominate
bed material is coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0041 ft/ft. The riparian buffer
is comprised of mature hardwood forest and grassed fields. During field visits a headcut was observed
migrating in the middle of the reach. The headcut appeared to have been stabilized by a substantial
root mass located in the channel bed. Though stabilized, the headcut has left a significant amount of
the reach with vertical and vegetated banks that are acting as a considerable sediment source to the
downstream channel.
4.2.4.9 Reach S12
Reach S9 has a drainage area of 0.64 square miles (410 acres), and flows south from Reach S 11 through
mature forest to the Neuse River. This F -type channel has a sinuosity of 1.25 and an entrenchment
ratio of 0.9. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 8.8 square feet with approximate
dimensions of 13.5 feet width and 0.7 feet deep. The existing length of S 12 is 388 feet, and the dominate
bed material is coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0030 ft/ft. The dimensions of
this reach are significantly different from the rest of the project due to impacts from Neuse River
backwater. The riparian buffer is comprised of mature hardwood forest and wetlands.
4.2.5 Channel Stability Assessment
A modified version of the channel stability assessment method (CSA) provided in "Assessing Stream
Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions" by Johnson (2006) was used to assess channel
stability for the Poplin Ridge existing channels and reference reach. This method may be rapidly applied
on a variety of stream types in different physiographic regions having a range of bed and bank materials.
The original CSA method was designed to evaluate thirteen stability indicators in the field. These
parameters are: watershed characteristics (frequency of watershed disturbances such as agricultural
activities, urbanization, etc), flow habit, channel pattern, entrenchment/channel confinement, bed
material, bar development, presence of obstructions/debris jams, bank soil texture and coherence,
average bank angle, bank vegetation/protection, bank cutting, mass wasting/bank failure, and upstream
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 19 May 2017

distance to bridge. See Appendix B for a detailed description of the stability indicators. As this method
was initially developed to assess stability at bridges, a few minor adjustments were made to remove
indicators that contradict stability characteristics of natural channels in favor of providing hydraulic
efficiency at bridges. First, the "channel pattern" indicator was altered such that naturally meandering
channels scored low as opposed to straightened/engineered channels that are favorable for stability near
bridges. Secondly, the last indicator, "upstream distance to bridge," was removed from the assessment
as bridges are not a focus of channel stability for this project. The twelve indicators were then scored
in the field, and a rating of excellent, good, fair, or poor was assigned to each project reach based on
the total score.
The CSA results (scores and ratings) for the Meadow Spring project are provided in Table 7. Two of
the six project stream reaches received "Fair" ratings, while four reaches received "Poor" ratings. The
reach score trended upward as we move downstream through the project. This improvement correlated
with an increase in forested drainage area in the downstream portion of the project. S 11 does not follow
this trend due to its lack of buffer and the increased sediment inputs from the upstream reaches. Overall,
the upstream project streams appear to be actively adjusting due to constant stress from surrounding
livestock. The downstream portions of the project are stable but have localized areas of erosion and
deposition due to confined upstream flows and sediment inputs. These characteristics are reflected in
the poor CSA scores throughout the project. (Table 7).
Table 7. Channel Stabilitv Assessment Results
S2
S5
S6
S7
S9
Sll
Ref.
Reach
1
Watershed characteristics
11
8
11
7
8
9
8
2
Flow habit
9
8
8
7
7
8
4
3
Channel pattern
7
9
10
4
4
9
3
4
Entrenchment/channel
9
9
9
7
4
6
3
confinement
5
Bed material
10
6
7
8
10
10
5
6
Bar development
9
10
10
9
2
8
5
7
Obstructions/debris jams
7
5
5
7
3
3
3
8
Bank soil texture and coherence
8
9
7
7
7
10
4
9
Average bankangle
8
10
10
7
10
10
4
10
Bank vegetation/protection
12
9
7
7
2
11
3
11
Bank cutting
7
8
9
8
5
8
4
12
Mass wasting/bank failure
8
10
8
8
7
8
2
13
Upstream distance to bridge
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Score
105
101
101
86
69
100
48
Rating*
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
Good
*
Excellent (0 < Score <= 33), Good (33 < Score <=
66), Fair (99 < Score <=
99), Poor (99 < Score <=
132)
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan
20
May 2017

4.2.6 Vegetation
Current land use in the vicinity of the project is primarily pasture, row crop, and forest. There are low-
density residential lots, maintained vegetation, and two lane roads also present in the area surrounding
the project.
Forested riparian areas have been intermittently cattle -grazed and lack a well-developed understory and
shrub strata. The areas most closely resemble a disturbed Coastal Plain small stream swamp and are
dominated by hardwoods and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Canopy species include loblolly pine,
blackgum (Nyssa biflora), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua), and various
oaks (Quercus spp.). Sub -canopy species include sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) and the
main herbaceous species are giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium
vivenium), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) and in the wetter areas, common rush (Juncus
effusus), awlfruit sedge (Carex stipata), and netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata).
4.3 Wetland Summary Information
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands
A wetland delineation was performed in November 2016. Wetland boundaries were delineated using
current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(DOA 1987) and Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010).
Soils were characterized and classified using the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States,
Version 7.0 (USDA-NRCS 2010). Wetland boundaries were marked with sequentially numbered
wetland survey tape (pink/black striped) (Figure 7; Table 8).
Jurisdictional wetlands are present in the enhancement and preservation areas throughout the site. The
wetlands are divided between heavily disturbed and functional. A jurisdictional determination request
was sent to the USACE on January 2, 2017 and is included in Appendix B.
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts three wetland areas within the site
(Figure 8). There is a pond mapped as PUBM (Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Permanently
Flooded Diked/Impound) on the west end of the project. There are two large wetland areas mapped on
the east end of the project as PSS1C (Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Broad -Leaved Deciduous Seasonally
Flooded) and PFO IC (Palustrine Forested Broad -Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded).
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 21 May 2017

Table 8. Wetland Summary Information
Wetland Summary Information
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland D
Wetland E
Wetland F
Wetland G
Parameters
WA
WB
WD
WE
WF
WG
Size of
Wetland
0.12
0.76
0.22
0.11
4.83
23.09
(acres)
Wetland Type
PEM
PEM
PFO
PFO
PFO
PEM/PSS/PFO
Mapped Soil
Norfolk sandy
Norfolk sandy
Marlboro -Cecil
Marlboro-
Augusta
Augusta sandy
Series
loam
loam
complex
Cecil
sandy loam
loam
complex
Drainage
Somewhat
Somewhat
Class
Well
Well
Well
Well
poorlyoorl
Soil Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Status
Inclusions
Inclusions
No
No
Inclusions
Inclusions
Source of
Freshwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Hydrology
spring
Hydrology
Hydrology
Hydrology
Hydroloav
Hydrologic
N/A
Ditch
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ditches
Impairment
Native
vegetation
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Forest
Forest
Forest
community
Percent
composition
of exotic
<5%
<5%
15010
<51X,
30%
<5%
invasive
vegetation
4.3.2 Existing Hydric Soil
In addition to the jurisdictional wetlands, areas of hydric soil were located and delineated within the
project area. The site is currently in agricultural use that is different from the historic landscape and
hydrologic regime. Past landscape/land use changes at this site includes enhanced drainage, a deeply
incised channel through the floodplain, active livestock resulting in soil compaction and surface
churning, a loss of surface organic matter, and the change of the normal reduction cycle characteristic
of wetlands to an oxidation cycle. The construction of a farm pond within the narrow drainage way has
severely altered the surrounding landscape and drainage, creating a discontinuity of the natural
drainage. Soil borings within the project boundary exhibited hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of
the soil surface throughout the natural drain way.
Outside of the NRCS map suitable hydric soil was identified that that extend into the concave nearly
level landform west of the pond dam. Around the pond is evidence of disturbance and spoil over the
natural soil surface extending beyond the limits of the pond and dam. Where excavated spoil is not
spread too thick hydric indicators within 13 inches are observed like those found throughout the
drainage way. The dam structure and inundated pond areas were not investigated but because of the
landscape position and presence of hydric soil above and below it is likely that the pond and dam are
underlain by a hydric soil.
Soils examined within the project area typically have thin dark sandy or loamy surface textures with a
gray subsoil ranging from sandy loam to sandy clay. The improved drainage from the incised channel
has disturbed hydric characteristics in the surface and modification of subsurface indicators was
observed. Many mottle features in the upper 10 inches appear to be relict having sharp boundaries at
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 22 May 2017

the edge of the mottle instead of a diffuse boundary usually observed in active wetland process. The
reduced hydroperiod allows increased mineral oxidation to occur within the matric and blur some of
the typical indicators expected. Hydric Soil Indicators are still present within most areas of the
floodplain. The indicators present are the 173 -Depleted Matrix, F6 -Redox Dark Surface, and F8 -Redox
Depressions. Hydric soils within the proposed enhancement and restoration areas were verified through
auger borings by a licensed soil scientist (Appendix D)
4.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities
There are no major constraints to construction of the Site. There is one utility crossing between S6 and
ST There is also a timber road that crosses Reach ST
4.4.2 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass
Reaches S7, S9, S 11 and S 12 are located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain (Zone AE) but outside
of the floodway of the Neuse River. Grading activities are proposed within the Neuse River floodway
for the wetland enhancement portion of the project. These grading activities will be limited in size and
will result in no net increase of fill within the floodway. This information was conveyed to the
Floodplain Administrators of both Johnston County and the Town of Smithfield. It was agreed that the
impacts were insignificant and could not be accurately modeled. Therefore a No -Rise or CLOMR will
likely not be required for this project. Hydrologic trespass is a not a concern for this project. While
designing the Meadow Spring project, appropriate measures were taken to eliminate hydrologic
trespass of the adjacent agricultural fields. The adjacent land use will not be affected by the proposed
design, and no detrimental impacts are expected beyond the easement limits. RES will verify final
FEMA coordination in the permitting phase of the project.
4.4.3 Environmental Screening and Documentation
4.4.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under
provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (accessed 11 May 2016) lists four endangered species for Johnston
County, North Carolina: Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Tar River spinymussel
(Elliptio steinstansana), Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii). No protected species or potential habitat for protected species was observed during
preliminary site evaluations. No protected species or potential habitat for protected species was
observed during preliminary site evaluations. The Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected
under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) and prohibits take of bald and golden eagles.
No protected species or potential habitat for protected species was observed during preliminary site
evaluations.
In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database was
consulted to determine whether previously cataloged occurrences of protected species are mapped
within one mile of the project Site. Results from NHP indicated that there are six known occurrences
within a one -mile radius of the project area. The NHP database shows an occurrence of Kidney Sedge
(Carex reniformis) historically mapped in 1949. Also within the Neuse River the database has
documented occurrences of the Triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), Eastern lampmussel
(Lampsilis radiate), and Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) which were mapped in 2005 and
2010. The fifth occurrence is the Two -spotted Skipper which is a species of butterfly. The occurrence
was mapped on the other side of the Neuse River in 2000. The last occurrence is the Oak Toad which
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 23 May 2017

was last observed in 1969. Based on initial site investigations, no impacts to federally protected species
are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. RES submitted a request to USFWS for review and
comments on the proposed Meadow Spring Project on May 5, 2017 in regards to any potential impacts
to threatened and endangered species.Documentation is included in Appendix B.
4.4.3.1 Cultural Resources
A review of North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service (accessed 29
March 2017) database did not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or archeological resources
in the proposed project area. RES submitted a request to the NC SHPO to search records to determine
the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that may be affected
by the Meadow Spring Mitigation Site on May 5, 2017. Documentation is included in Appendix B.
Table 9. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States -
Yes
No
Appendix B
Section 404
Waters of the United States -
Yes
No
Appendix B
Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.4.3; Appendix B
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.4.3; Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)/Coastal Area
No
N/A
N/A
Management Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
N/A
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 24 May 2017

5 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
The Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Harman et. al. 2012) separates stream functions into five
categories, ordered into a hierarchy, which communicate the interrelations among functions and
illustrate the dependence of higher level functions (biology, physiochemical and geomorphology) on
lower level functions (hydrology and hydraulics). Anticipated functional benefits and improvements
within the project area, as based on the Function -Based Framework are outlined in Table 10.
Table 10. Functional Benefits and Improvements
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 25 May 2017
Functional
Objective
Description
Level
(1-5)
Benefit will be achieved through cattle exclusion and direct removal of fecal
Nutrient removal
inputs, filtering of runoff through buffer areas, the conversion of active farm
3,4
fields to forested buffers, and improved denitrification and nutrient uptake
through buffer zones.
Benefit will be achieved through the stabilization of eroding stream banks
Sediment removal
through cattle exclusion (passive) and bioremediation, bed loss will be
3
arrested with grade control structures, and reduction of sediment loss from re-
forested pasture.
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas that will
Runoff filtration
receive and filter runoff, thereby reducing nutrients and sediment
3
concentrations reaching aquatic resources.
Benefit will be achieved through the enhancement of floodplain connectivity
Water storage
which will store more water during precipitation events than under current
1,2
drainage conditions.
Improved
Benefit will be achieved through the increased storage of precipitation in
groundwater
floodplain wetlands. Greater storage of water will lead to improved
2
recharge
infiltration and groundwater recharge.
Restoration of
Benefit will be achieved by restoring riparian buffer and wetland buffers to
habitats
hardwood ecosystems.
3
Improved substrate
Substrate will become coarser as a result of the stabilization of stream banks
and instream cover
and an overall decrease in the amount of fine materials deposited in the
3
stream.
Addition of large
Benefit will be achieved through the addition of wood structures as part of
woody debris
the restoration design. Such structures may include log vanes, root wads, log
3,4
weirs, and log toes.
Reduced water
temperature due to
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of canopy tree species to the
4
shading
stream buffer areas.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 25 May 2017

6 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based upon site design (Figure 10). Upon
completion of site construction, the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent
with the as -built condition.
Table 11. Mitigation Credits
*Credits adjusted using non-standard buffer width guidance.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 26 May 2017
The Meadow Spring Site Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
=S tream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Totals
5,591
17.07
N/A
STREAM
Existing
ProposedMitigation
Mitigation
Stationing
Base
Adjusted
Reach
Type
(Existing)
Length
Length
Ratio
SMUs
SMUs*
LF
LF
S1
Enhancement II
3+47
to
6+00 253
253
2.5:1
51
101
S2
Enhancement I
6+00
to
11+00 500
500
1.5:1
333
333
S6A
P1 Restoration
11+00
to
23+80 1,220
1,280
1:1
1,280
1,280
S6B
P1 Restoration
23+80
to
35+55 1,150
1,175
1 : 1
1,175
1,175
S6B
Enhancement I
35+55
to
37+22 165
167
1.5:1
111
111
S7
Enhancement I
38+08
to
48+01 1,035
993
1.5:1
662
703
S7
Enhancement 1
49+04
to
53+20 452
416
1.5:1
277
297
S9
Enhancement III
53+20
to
59+85 665
665
5:1
266
146
Sll
P1 Restoration
59+85
to
70+21 898
1,036
1 : 1
1,036
1,047
S12
Enhancement III
70+21
to
74+09 388
388
5:1
155
78
S5
P 1 / P2 Restoration
0+76
to
3+06 215
230
1 : 1
230
230
S13
Enhancement III
0+00
to
4+52 452
452
5:1
155
90
Total
7,393
7,555
5,506
5,591
Wetland
Mitigation Type
Total Acreage
Mitigation
WMUs
Re-establishment
7.33
1:1
7.33
Re-establishment
2.39
2:1
1.20
Rehabilitation
0.95
1.5:1
0.63
Enhancement
23.73
3:1
7.91
Preservation
2.13
N/A
N/A
Total
36.53
17.07
*Credits adjusted using non-standard buffer width guidance.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 26 May 2017

7 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District
Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA
authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the
IRT, will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements
of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits
may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to be restarted
or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance
standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows in Table 12a.
Table 12a. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Release
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total Released
Milestone
Release
1
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
15%
15%
stated above
2
Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey
15%
30%
3
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
40%
performance standards are being met.
4
Second year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
50%
performance standards are being met.
(60%**)
5
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
60%
performance standards are being met.
(70%**)
6
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
65%
performance standards are being met.
(80%**)
7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
o
10%
75%
erformance standards are beingmet.
85%**
g
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
80%
performance standards are being met.
(90%**)
9
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
90%
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
(100%**)
has received close-out approval.
* *10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 27 May 2017

Table 12b. Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Released
I
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
15%
15%
stated above
2
Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey
15%
30%
3
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
40%
performance standards are being met.
4
Second year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
50%
performance standards are being met.
5
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
60%
performance standards are being met.
6*
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
70%
performance standards are being met.
7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
80%
performance standards are being met.
8*
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
90%
performance standards are being met.
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
9
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
100%
has received close-out approval.
*Please note that vegetation plot data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during
these monitoring years unless otherwise stated by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the IRT.
7.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the IRT
with written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
b) Recordation of the Conservation Easement, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property
c) Financial assurances.
d) 404 Permit Approval
7.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
The second credit release will occur after the completion of implementation of the Mitigation Plan and
submittal of the Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey. All subsequent credit releases must
be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a determination that required
performance standards have been achieved. As projects approach milestones associated with credit
release, the Bank Sponsor will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation
substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included
with the annual monitoring report.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 28 May 2017

8 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
8.1 Reference Stream Studies
8.1.1 Target Reference Conditions
The restoration portions of the project site are characterized by agricultural and livestock practices.
Several ditches exist in the watershed and contribute to the project site. Physical parameters of the site
were used, as well as other reference materials, to determine the target stream type. An iterative process
was used to develop the final information for the site design.
To develop the target reference conditions, physical site parameters were reviewed. This included the
drainage area, land use, soils mapping units from the Johnston County Soil Survey for the watershed
and Site, typical woody debris and habitat available for the area, as well as general topography. The
"Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina" was also used to narrow the potential
community types that would have existed at the site (Schafale and Weakley, 2003).
Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the Physiographic Region — Inner Coastal Plain,
• Similar drainage area,
• Similar land use onsite and in the watershed,
• Similar watershed soil types,
• Similar site soil types,
• Ideal, undisturbed habitat — several types of woody debris present,
• Similar topography,
• Similar slope,
• Pattern common among coastal streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.
8.1.1.1 Reference Site Search Methodology
All the parameters used in Section 4.1 (WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION) were used
to find appropriate reference stream sites. Obtaining property owner information and owner
authorization for access was another factor in locating suitable reference sites for the project. For this
project, there was no predetermined amount of reference sites needed as long as the site was suitable
and met the parameters. Several potential reference sites were assessed, and their characteristics were
noted. It is difficult to find reference sites on the coastal plain because many have been disturbed by
farming or urban development. Most streams tend to be modified ditches and may have some of the
characteristics that are sought in a reference, but too few to make it an ideal reference for the project
site. One reference stream site that proves to be ideal in both geomorphology and habitat is located near
the intersection of Little Divine Road and Howard Road. Located approximately 5 miles northeast of
the project site the reference reach is in the wooded area east of Howard Road.
8.1.1.2 Reference Watershed Characterization
The reference stream flows west to east and is the most downstream portion of an unnamed tributary
that drains to Buffalo Creek. The reach that was surveyed and analyzed is approximately 375 feet long.
The drainage area for the unnamed tributary is 0.84 square miles (540 acres). The land use in the
watershed is characterized by mostly mixed pines and hardwoods (40 percent), cultivated row crops
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 29 May 2017

(29 percent), residential (18 percent), and managed herbaceous cover/pasture land (8 percent), pine
plantations (4 percent), and open water (1 percent).
The current State classification for reference reach is undefined, but the tributary runs into Buffalo
Creek. Buffalo Creek is defined as Class C NSW (NCDWQ 2012a). Class C waters are suitable for
aquatic life, secondary recreation, and agricultural usage. The NSW is a designation for nutrient
sensitive waters — intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to
excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Buffalo Creek is listed on the 2012 303d
list for impaired waters (NCDWQ 2012b). It is impaired for aquatic use, receiving a Fair
Bioclassification rating for benthic ecological/biological integrity.
8.1.1.3 Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge for the reference site.
Existing drainage area, land use, slope, roughness, and cross-sectional area were all factors considered
when performing the calculations. Using a combination of Coastal Plain Regional Curves, in-house
spreadsheet tools, and a project specific regional flood frequency analysis, the existing discharge was
found to be around 17 cubic feet per second (ft3/s). See Section 8.3.1.1 for a more detailed description
of the hydrologic analyses performed for this project.
8.1.1.4 Reference Channel Morphology
In comparison to the restoration reaches, the reference reach is approximately the same size to slightly
larger than Reaches S5, S6 and S 11 when comparing pattern, dimension and profile, which is the reason
for using a scaling factor for the design. The scaling factor is based on the difference in bankfull width
of the reference channel. The new reach would then have the necessary dimensions of that of either a
smaller or larger stream corresponding to differences in drainage area. The stream was typically eight
to ten feet wide and one to two feet deep. The cross sectional area was typically around 11 square feet
with a width to depth ratio around 8.
8.1.1.5 Reference Channel Stability Assessment
The reference reach was stable and showed no evidence of incision or erosion in the portion that was
surveyed and analyzed. The stream appeared to maintain its slope and had sufficient amounts of
vegetation to secure its banks. Riparian buffer widths exceeded fifty feet on each side. The CSA results
(scores and ratings) for the reference reach are provided above in Table 8 (Section 4.2.5). The reference
reach received a "Good" rating as the channel demonstrates a stable meandering pattern and a well
vegetated riparian buffer.
8.1.1.6 Reference Bankfull Verification
Typical indicators of bankfull include vegetation at the bankfull elevation, scour lines, wrack lines,
vegetation lines, benches/inner berm, and point bars. Throughout the entire length of the reference
reach, bankfull is located at the top of bank elevation. The accuracy of this bankfull stage is verified by
the Coastal Plain Regional Curves and hydrologic analyses using existing cross sections to calculate
area and discharge. Evidence that can further support the location of bankfull is the lack of any bench
or berm features within the channel, and wrack lines present within the floodplain.
8.1.1.7 Reference Riparian Vegetation
The reference reach riparian community is characteristic of a bottomland hardwood forest community.
This community was determined to have had past disturbance altering the species composition.
Common species include red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 30 May 2017

(Liquidambar styraciflua), and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora). Some invasive species are present, most
notably Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
It is anticipated that a local seed source for high dispersal species is present at the Meadow Spring site
and will disperse across much of the project. These species are often found in early successional
communities and quickly fill disturbance gaps. Because many of these high dispersal species often
become aggressive in these sites, they are not included in the Restoration Planting List (Section 8.2.2).
Hardwood species typical of the target community were observed in adjacent and nearby communities,
and were judged to be more appropriate for this site.
8.2 Design Parameters
8.2.1 Stream Mitigation Approach
Stream restoration and enhancement efforts along the tributaries at the Meadow Spring Stream
Mitigation site will be accomplished through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed
characteristics. The design approach applies a combination of analytical and reference reach based
design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic
improvements. Proposed treatment activities may range from minor bank grading and planting to re-
establishing a stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For reaches requiring full restoration, natural
design concepts have been applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling.
The objective of this approach is to design a geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat
improvements and ties into the existing landscape.
The Meadow Spring Site will include Priority I Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level
II, and Buffer Enhancement. Priority I Restoration reaches will incorporate the design of a single -thread
meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from the reference site described above,
published empirical relationships, NC Coastal Plain Regional Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic
analyses. As a result of the restoration of planform and dimension, frequent overbank flows and a
restored riparian buffer will provide the appropriate hydrology and sediment transport throughout this
coastal plain watershed. A conceptual plan view is provided in Figure 10.
Current stream conditions along the proposed restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation as a result
of impacts from impoundment and channelization performed to promote agricultural activities.
Additionally, the riparian buffer is in poor condition throughout most of the project area where much
of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs and active pasture is present on both sides of the
existing channel.
The Meadow Spring Site design approach began with a thorough study of existing conditions, including
the onsite streams, valleys, and watershed. Design parameters, including active channel, habitat and
floodplain features were developed from analyses performed on the reference site data. Analytical
design techniques were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.
Engineering analyses were performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the
reference reach based design. A combination of methods (including Hydraflow Hydrographs, regional
curves and flood frequency analysis) were used to calculate flows received by the channel for bankfull
and other significant storm events. Through this hydrologic analysis, the design discharge (typically
referenced as bankfull or dominant discharge) was determined, and the subsequent design was based
on this calculated discharge. Design parameters developed through the analyses of reference reach data
and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling were confirmed using the Stable Channel Design function
components within HEC -RAS and through spreadsheet tools.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 31 May 2017

Engineering analyses were performed concurrently to geomorphic and habitat studies. While the stream
design was verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable habitat
features were derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both riparian habitat
features, excavated floodplains, and in -stream structures such as rock a -vanes, log sills, brush toes, log
j -hooks, log toes, and log drops were used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank
stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the stream's energy. Bank stability will also be enhanced
through the installation of live stakes that include native species (e.g. black willow (Salix nigra) and
silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)).
Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled to the elevation of the floodplain in areas
adjacent to the new channel with material excavated onsite and by installing channel plugs where
necessary. The floodplain will be planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will
provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks will be stabilized using a
combination of grading, erosion control matting, bare -root plantings, native material revetment
techniques (i.e. bioengineering), structure placement, and sod transplants where possible. The stream
and adjacent riparian areas will be protected by a permanent conservation easement.
The Meadow Spring Site has been broken into the following design reaches:
• Reach S1(STA 03+50 to STA 06+00) —Reach beginning at northwestern limits of the project
flowing southeast to Reach S2 totaling 250 linear feet of Enhancement Level Il. Row crops and
active pasture are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S2 (STA 06+00 to STA 11+00) —Reach begins at the downstream end of Reach Sl and
flows southeast through active pasture to Reach S6A. Reach S2 totals 500 linear feet of
Enhancement Level I. Active pasture and row crops surround this reach.
• Reach S5 (STA 00+76 to STA 03+07) — Reach begins north of Reach S6A and flows south
through active pasture to a confluence with Reach S6A totaling 231 linear feet of Priority I and
11 Restoration. Active pasture and maintained lawn surround this reach.
• Reach S6A (STA 11+00 to STA 23+80) —Reach begins at the downstream end of Reach S2
and flows east through active pasture and ends at a confluence with Reach S5. Reach S6A totals
1,280 linear feet of Priority I Restoration.
• Reach S6B —Section 1(STA 23+80 to STA 35+55) —Reach begins at the confluence of Reach
S5 and S6A flowing east to the second section of Reach S6B. Reach S6B-Section 1 totals 1,175
linear feet of Priority I Restoration.
• Reach S6B — Section 2 (STA 35+55 to STA 37+20) — Reach begins at the downstream end of
Reach 6B -Section 1 and flows east to the Duke Energy right-of-way. Reach S6B-Section 2
totals 165 linear feet of Enhancement Level I.
• Reach S7 (STA 38+09 to STA 53+20) — Reach beginning downstream of the Duke Energy
right-of-way and flows south to Reach S9 totaling 1,443 linear feet of Enhancement Level I.
A 68 linear foot easement break is located in this reach to accommodate a proposed farm
crossing. Hardwood forests and active pasture are located adjacent to the reach.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 32 May 2017

• Reach S9 (STA 53+20 to STA 59+85) — Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach S7
and flowing south to Reach S 11 totaling 665 linear feet of Enhancement Level III. Hardwood
forests and active hog lagoons are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S11 (STA 59+85 to STA 70+21) —Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach
S9 and flows southeast to Reach S12 totaling 1,036 linear feet of Priority I Restoration.
Hardwood forests and grassed fields are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S12 (STA 70+21 to STA 74+09) — Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach
S11 and flows southeast toward the Neuse River floodway totaling 388 linear feet of
Enhancement Level III. Hardwood forests are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S13 (STA 0+00 to STA 4+52) - Reach beginning downstream of the large wetland
slough along the Neuse River floodplain totaling 452 of Enhancement Level III.
Reaches S1, S2, S6A, S6B, S7, S9, S11 and S12
A combination of Priority I Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level II, and
Enhancement Level III is proposed along the primary project channel to address existing impairments,
particularly floodplain dislocation, bank erosion, nutrient input and buffer degradation. The watershed
that drains to the upper end of the project is approximately 36 acres, and land use is primarily
agricultural.
Enhancement Level II is proposed for Reach S1, beginning at the northern limits of the proposed
conservation easement. The channel is stable throughout, except for a few minor areas of erosion, and
provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The riparian buffer is severely degraded with row crops and
active pasture directly adjacent to the channel. The project will involve revegetating the buffer with
native vegetation for a minimum 50 -foot width.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for the upstream portion of Reach S2 which will include stabilization
of localized erosion by installing log cross vanes and sills. Priority I Restoration is proposed for the
downstream portion of Reach S2. The restoration will include the lowering of the stream profile to
provide a bankfull channel and the removal of an existing berm in the right overbank to provide
floodplain access, and restoring hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50 -foot buffer
will be established along the reach and will be planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much
of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures
will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S6A to address historic straightening, buffer degradation,
impoundment, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed
channel within the natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its
floodplain, removing the existing dam embankment and restoring hydrology to historically drained
wetlands. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation.
Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log grade
control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability. The drainage
area at the downstream end of the reach is 97 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for the upstream portion of Reach S6B to address historic
straightening, buffer degradation, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering
the proposed channel within the natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 33 May 2017

to its floodplain, and restoring hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50 -foot buffer
will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid
of significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along
the bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability. A 70 -foot easement break is proposed for an existing
utility easement at the end of S613 -Section 1. The drainage area at the downstream end of Reach 6B is
171 acres.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for the downstream portion of Reach 6B which will include
stabilization of localized erosion by installing log sills, increasing radius of curvature, regrading point
bars, removal of invasive vegetation and buffer restoration. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be
established along the reach and will be planted with native riparian vegetation. The drainage area at
the downstream end of Reach 6B is 171 acres.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reach S7 to address channel entrenchment, bank -cutting, and
invasive vegetation. The design approach will include stabilization of localized erosion by installing
log vanes, log sills, brush toes, and regrading grading point bars. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be
established and planted with native riparian vegetation. A 68 -foot easement break is proposed for an
existing ford crossing. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 278 acres.
Enhancement Level III is proposed for Reach S9 which will include removal of invasive vegetation,
buffer improvements, and channel preservation. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along
the reach and will be planted with native riparian vegetation. The drainage area at the downstream end
of the reach is 337 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach SI I to address historic straightening, entrenchment and
buffer degradation. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the
natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and improving
hydrology to historically impacted wetlands. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established and planted
with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation,
woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream
habitat and stability. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 379 acres.
Enhancement Level III is proposed for Reach S9 which will include removal of invasive vegetation,
buffer improvements, and channel preservation. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along
the reach and will be planted with native riparian vegetation.
Reach S5
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S5 to address historic straightening, buffer degradation and
livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the
natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and restoring
hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established and planted
with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation,
woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream
habitat and stability. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 36 acres.
8.2.1.1 Design Discharge
Based upon the hydrologic analyses described below, design discharges were selected that fall between
model results for the 1.0 -year and 2.0 -year Hydraflow Hydrographs analysis for each reach. The
selected flows for the restoration reaches are 4 ft'/s, 3 ft3/s, 7 ft'/s, 11 ft'/s, and 15 ft3/s for Reaches S2,
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 34 May 2017

S5, S6A, S613, and S11, respectively. These discharges will provide frequent inundation of the adjacent
floodplain.
The design discharges were selected based on the following rationale:
• The calculated bankfull discharge for the analog/reference reach and existing reaches fall
between the results of the 1.0 -year and 2.0 -year Hydraflow Hydrographs analysis,
• The results of the 1.0 -year Hydraflow Hydrographs analysis are slightly higher than the NC
regional curve (Doll et al., 2003), and
• Selecting design discharges around the 1.5 -year storm events allows frequent inundation of the
adjacent floodplain.
8.2.1.2 Design Methods
There are three primary methods that have demonstrated success in stream restoration: analog,
empirical, and analytical. All three methods have advantages and limitations, and it is often best to
utilize more than one method to address site-specific conditions or to verify the applicability of design
elements. This is particularly true in developed watersheds where existing conditions do not always
reflect current inputs and events, and sediment and hydrologic inputs may remain unstable for some
time. Combinations of analytical and analog methods were used to develop the stream designs for the
Meadow Spring site.
Analytical Approach
Analytical design is based on principles and processes considered universal to all streams, and can
entail many traditional engineering techniques. The analytical approach utilizes continuity, roughness
equations, hydrologic and hydraulic models, and sediment transport functions to derive equilibrium
conditions. Since the project is located within a rural watershed, restoration designs are based on
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, including rainfall -runoff models to determine design discharges
coupled with reference reach techniques.
Analog Approach
The analog method of natural channel design involves the use of a "template" or reference stream
located near the design reach, and is particularly useful when watershed and boundary conditions are
similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). In an analog approach, the
planform pattern, cross-sectional shape, longitudinal profile, and frequency and locations of woody
debris along the analog reaches are mimicked when developing the design parameters for the subject
stream.
1. The appropriate bankfull cross-sectional area (CSA) of each design reach was calculated using
an in-house spreadsheet based on Manning's Equation. The input parameters included the
design discharge as determined by the hydrologic analysis described above, and proposed slope
based on site conditions, and the sinuosity measured for the analog reach.
2. The cross-sectional shape was adjusted within the spreadsheet to replicate the width -depth
ratios and side slopes surveyed along the analog reach, while also maintaining the CSA
necessary to convey the design discharge.
3. The scaling factor is determined from the ratio of the design top width to the analog top width
(Table 13). For this project, several cross-sections and planform geometry were measured at
the analog site, resulting in an average width of 9.9 feet.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 35 May 2017

4. Pool cross-sectional areas were calculated using both typical reference reach techniques and
the analog approach. Design CSA areas were determined using the measured analog ratios of
shallow/riffle CSA to pool CSA as applied to the design CSAs. The pool cross-sectional shape
was adjusted within the in-house spreadsheet as described above in step 2.
Table 13. Scaling Factors
ReachFactor
Drainage
Area (ac)
Proposed Bankfull
CSA (ft2)
Design
Top Width (ft)
Analog Reach
Top Width (ft)
Scaling
S2
46
3.2
5.4
9.9
0.55
S5
36
2.6
4.8
9.9
0.48
S6A
97
5.3
7
9.9
0.71
S613
171
7.8
8.4
9.9
0.85
S11
379
10.2
9.6
9.9
0.97
8.2.1.3 Typical Design Sections
Typical cross sections for shallows and pools are shown on the design plan sheets in Appendix E. The
cross-section dimensions were developed for the two design reaches by using a WK Dickson in-house
spreadsheet described in Section 8.3 of this report. The cross-sections were altered slightly to facilitate
constructability; however, the cross-sectional area, width to depth ratio, and side slopes were preserved.
Typical pool sections include pools located on straight reaches and pools on meander bends.
8.2.1.4 Meander Pattern
The design plans showing the proposed channel alignment are provided in Appendix E. The meander
pattern was derived directly from the analog reach and was altered in some locations to provide
variability in pattern, to avoid onsite constraints, to follow the valley pattern, and to make the channel
more constructible. The morphologic parameters summarized in the Appendix C were applied
wherever these deviations occurred.
8.2.1.5 Longitudinal Profiles
The design profiles are presented in Appendix E. These profiles extend throughout the entire project
for the proposed channel alignment. The profiles were designed using the analog reach bed features
that were sized with the scaling factors. The bed slopes and bankfull energy gradients were determined
for each design reach based on the existing valley slope and the sinuosity of the design reach. A mix
of rock and log structures will be utilized in the design to control grade, divert flows, and provide
additional habitat diversity and stability.
8.2.1.6 In -Stream Structures
Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional stability and improve
aquatic habitat. Native materials and vegetation will be used for revetments and grade control structures
where applicable. Additionally, rock structures will be utilized intermittently along Reaches S6A, S6B,
and S 11 to provide increased stability and habitat. Typical rock structures that will protect the channel
bed and/or banks will include riffle grade controls, and j -hooks.
Woody debris will be placed throughout the channel at locations and at a frequency that is similar to
those observed in the analog reaches. Woody habitat features installed will include dead brush, root
wads, brush toes, and log vanes. To provide additional bank stability, sod mats harvested onsite will be
installed along stream banks during construction if and when feasible. Sod mats will only be harvested
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 36 May 2017

and used if comprised of appropriate vegetation. The use of sod mats that include aggressive turf grasses
will be avoided. Sod mats are natural sections of vegetation taken from the banks when they were cut
during construction, and are about nine inches thick. Before installation, proposed banks are graded
lower than specified to accommodate the thickness of the mat. The mats are placed on top of the bank
to act as a natural stabilizer of native species, and they grow much faster than the combination of coir
fiber matting and seeding. Other bank stability measures include the installation of live stakes, log sills,
brush toes, log vanes, and log toes. Typical details for proposed in -stream structures and revetments
are in Appendix E.
8.2.2 Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
The Meadow Spring Site offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity. As such, the wetland
restoration and enhancement is closely tied to the stream restoration. The Site will provide 17.07
WMUs through a combination of wetland restoration and enhancement.
Because of the sites observed soil characteristics and landscape position, a combination of wetland re-
establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement is proposed. In the non jurisdictional areas, hydrologic
restoration, at a credit ratio of 1:1, will be accomplished by plugging the existing incised channel to
restrict drainage and allowing a natural hydroperiod to return. In addition, re -constructing a stream
channel at a higher bed elevation in the natural valley, backfilling to create shallow depressions within
the old channel, and the removal of spoil from pond excavation along the floodplains will aid in the
restoration of a natural floodplain surface relative to the surrounding landscape. Due to compaction
and long term agricultural use, a shallow ripping of the surface along the contour to a depth of 8 to 10
inches is called for to create adequate porosity for infiltration and storage, provide microtopographic
relief, and improve vegetative survival and growth.
The construction of a farm pond has altered surface drainage and placed spoil across the floodplain. As
part of the wetland re-establishment, at a credit ratio of 2:1, the pond will be removed and the stream
will be reconnected to the floodplain. The large perennial spring will serve as a source for hydrology
when the pond is removed and the stream is reconnected to the floodplain. Retention and storage within
the floodplain will be returned to a natural state having an increased hydroperiod. A credit ratio of 3:1
is proposed for the large disturbed Neuse River wetland area. This wetland has been actively managed
for agriculture and waterfowl through drainage manipulations and tree clearing. The wetland mitigation
treatment will primarily be re -planting the disturbed areas, plugging the main ditch, and removing
existing berms within the wetland. These activities will result in a large floodplain slough with a
diversity of microhabitats.
Given the observed soil characteristics indicating past wetland hydrology, and because of favorable
landscape positon, the presence of a restrictive horizon, and the potential source for restoring hydrologic
inputs, this site appears suitable for successful hydrologic wetland restoration.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 37 May 2017

8.2.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration
8.2.3.1 Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration project. The selection
of plant species is based on what was observed at the reference reach, species present in the forest
surrounding the restoration site, and what is typically native to the area. Several sources of information
were used to determine the most appropriate species for the restoration project. The reference stream is
located within a disturbed Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. Dominant species included sweetgum,
red maple, tulip poplar, swamp tupelo (Nyssa b flora), and various oak species (Quercus sp.) in the
canopy. Shrubs included sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) and American holly (Ilex opaca). The
reference site was chosen due to the stability of the channel, the physical structure of the forest
community, and to evaluate stream habitat. The species present are indicative of early successional
species that have high dispersal rates. The mitigation site also supports many species typical of this
community type due to its past disturbance history. Typically, a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
would occur along the stream banks and adjacent floodplain of the proposed restoration site.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp will be the target community type and will be used for all areas
within the project, as well as for buffer around the site. The plant species list has been developed and
can be found in Table 14.
The restoration of plant communities along the Site will provide stabilization and diversity. For rapid
stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), silky dogwood, cottonwood (Populus
deltoides) buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), silky willow (Salix sericea), and black willow were
chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because of their rapid growth patterns and high success
rates. Willows grow at a faster rate than the species planted around them, and they stabilize the stream
banks. Willows will also be quicker to contribute organic matter to the channel. When the other species
are bigger, the black willows and silky willows will slowly stop growing or die out because the other
species would outgrow them and create shade that the willows do not tolerate. The live stake species
will be planted along the outside of the meander bends three feet from the top of bank, creating a three-
foot section along the top of bank. The live stakes will be spaced one per linear foot with alternate
spacing vertically. See Appendix E for a detailed planting plan.
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled/ripped
before the topsoil is placed back over the site. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be
stockpiled and placed over the site during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable
soil conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization
for the site.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 38 May 2017

Table 14. Proposed Plant List
Planting Zone 1- Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Acres: 32.6
Common Name
% of Total Species Composition
Spacing
Black willow
% of Total
Species
Common Name
(ft)
Unit Type
Species
20
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
20
Composition
Nyssa biflora
Black Gum
9x6
Bare root
15
Taxodium distichum
Bald cypress
9x6
Bare root
15
Platanus occidentalis
American
9x6
Bare root
15
sycamore
Betula nigra
River birch
9x6
Bare root
15
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
9x6
Bare root
15
Quercus michauxii
Swamoak chestnut
9x6
Bare root
10
Quercus lyrata
Overcup oak
9x6
Bare root
10
Asimina triloba
Paw Paw
9x6
Bare root
5
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Species
Common Name
% of Total Species Composition
Salix nigra
Black willow
40
Salix sericea
Silky willow
20
Cornus ammomum
Silky dogwood
20
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
20
On -Site Invasive Species Management
Treatment for invasive species will be required within all grading limits associated with stream
restoration. Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant
phenology and the location of the species being treated. All treatment will be conducted so as to
maximize its effectiveness and reduce chances of detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment
methods will include mechanical control (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical
control (foliar spray, cut stump, and hack and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds
will be removed from the site and properly disposed. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a
certified ground pesticide applicator with a North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services (NCDA&CS) license and adhere to all legal and safety requirements according to herbicide
labels and NC and Federal laws. Management records will be kept on the plant species treated, type of
treatment employed, type of herbicide used, application technique, and herbicide concentration and
quantities used. These records will be included in all reporting documents.
8.2.4 Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Diffuse flow structures will be applied at locations where ditches or other forms of concentrated flow
enter the conservation easement. All diffuse flow structures will be installed within the conservation
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 39 May 2017

easement so that landowners will not have access to the structures. Failure or maintenance of the
structures is not anticipated as these structures will be installed in low -gradient areas, and the areas
proposed to diffuse flow will be well vegetated and matted.
Stormwater management issues resulting from future development of adjacent properties will be
governed by the applicable state and local ordinances and regulations. It is recommended that any future
stormwater entering the site maintain pre -development peak flow. Any future stormwater diverted into
the project should be done in a manner as to prevent erosion, adverse conditions, or degradation of the
project in any way.
8.2.5 Soil Restoration
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before
the topsoil is placed back over the site. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be
stockpiled and placed over the site during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable
soil conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization
for the site.
8.3 Data Analysis
8.3.1 Stream Data Analysis
8.3.1.1 Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to determine
and validate the design bankfull discharge and channel geometry required to provide regular floodplain
inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a
single model. Peak flows (Table 15) and corresponding channel cross-sectional areas were determined
for comparison to design parameters using the following methods:
• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• AutoCAD's Hydraflow Hydrographs,
• NC and VA/MD Regional Curves for the Coastal Plain, and
• USGS regional regression equations for rural conditions in the Coastal Plain.
Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby
USGS gauges with drainage areas less than 6,400 acres (10 mit) which passed the Dalrymple
homogeneity test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations.
Regional flood frequency equations were developed for the 1.1-, 1.5-, and 2 -year peak discharges based
on the gauge data. Discharges were then computed for the design reach. These discharges were
compared to those predicted by the discharge regional curve and USGS regional regression 2 -year
discharge equations.
AutoCAD's Hydraflow Express
Hydraflow Express was used to simulate the rainfall -runoff process and establish peak flows for the
watersheds. This model was chosen over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers model HEC -HMS because
it allows the user to adjust the peak shape factor for the watershed conditions. Rainfall data reflecting
100, 284 and 484 peak shape factors were used along with a standard Type I1 distribution, and NRCS
hydrology (time of concentrations and runoff curve numbers), to simulate the rainfall -runoff process.
A 284 peak shape factor was determined to be the most representative for this watershed.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 40 May 2017

Regional Curve Regression Equations
The North Carolina Coastal regional curves by Doll et al. (2003) and Sweet and Geratz (2003), and the
Virginia/Maryland (Krstolic and Chaplin, 2007) Coastal Plain regional curves for discharge were used
to predict the bankfull discharge for the site. The NC regional curves predicted flows that are similar to
those predicted by the 1.1 -year flood frequency, while the VA/MD curves are comparable to flows
predicted by the 1.5 -year flood frequency equation. The regional curve equations for NC discharges by
Doll et al. (2003) (1), Sweet and Geratz (2003) (2), and VA/MD (3) discharges are:
(1) Qbk=l6.56*(DA)0.72 (Doll et al., 2003)
(2) Qbkj�=8.79*(DA)0.76 (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
(3) Qak> 28.3076*(DA)o.51134 (Krstolic and Chaplin, 2007)
Where Qbkf=bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mi').
USGS Regional Regression Equations
USGS regression equations estimate the magnitude and frequency of flood -peak discharges (Gotvald,
et al., 2009). The regression equations were developed from gauge data in different physiographic
regions of the Southeastern United States. For this analysis, there was only concern for the 2 -year return
interval. The equation for the rural Coastal Plain (Hydrologic Region 4) is:
(4)
Q2=60.3 *(DA)0.649
Table 15. Peak Flow Comparison
Reach
Drainage
Area
(Ac)
Hydraflow
Q�
FFQ
Q�'�
FFQ
QA's
NC
Regional
Curve Q (1)
NC Regional
Curve Q (2)
VA/MD
Regional
Curve Q (3)
Regional
Regression
Eqns. Qz
Design/
Calculated
Q
S1, S2
46
3.6
2.4
8.8
2.5
1.2
5.9
11
4
S5
36
3.0
1.9
7.4
2.1
1.0
5.1
9
3
S6A
97
4.4
14.3
4.6
2.1
9.2
17.7
7
S6B
171
11.6
7.2
20.9
6.4
3.2
12.8
25.6
11
S7
278
11.6
10.8
28.8
9.1
4.7
17.2
35.1
S9
337
12.4
12.7
32.7
10.4
5.4
19.3
39.8
S 1 1
379
16.2
14.0
35.3
11.4
5.9
20.7
43.0
15
8.3.1.2 Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a
stable sand bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically, sediment transport is
assessed to determine a stream's ability to move a specific grain size at specified flows. Various
sediment transport equations may be easily applied when estimating entrainment for gravel bed
streams; however, these equations are not as effectively applied to sand bed channels where the entire
bed becomes mobile during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, more sophisticated modeling
techniques were used to analyze the stream design for this project. The following methods and functions
were utilized during the sediment transport analysis:
• Permissible Shear Stress Approach
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 41 May 2017

• Permissible Velocity Approach
Stable Channel Design
Design cross-section dimensions as determined from the analog approach were evaluated using the
stable channel design functions within HEC -RAS. These functions are based upon the methods
presented in the SAM Hydraulic Design Package for Channels developed by the USACE Waterways
Experiment Station. The Copeland Method was developed specifically for sand bed channels (median
grain size restriction of 0.0625 mm to 2 mm) and was selected for application at the Meadow Spring
Site. The method sizes stable dimensions as a function of slope, discharge, roughness, side slope, bed
material gradation, and the inflowing sediment discharge. Results are presented as a range of widths
and slopes, and their unique solution for depth, making it easy to adjust channel dimensions to achieve
stable channel configurations. The stable design output parameters are listed in Table 16. The results
are acceptable and match closely with the design reach parameters.
Table 16. Stable Channel Design Output
Reach
Q (ft/s3)
Bottom
Width (ft)
Depth (ft)
Energy
Slope (ft/ft)
Composite
n value
Velocity
(ft/s)
Shear Stress
(lbs/ft )
S2
4
1.8
0.9
0.0029
0.043
1.2
0.16
S5
3
1.6
0.8
0.0028
0.043
1.2
0.13
S6A
7
2.6
1.1
0.0027
0.043
1.4
0.17
S613
11
2.8
1.4
0.0027
0.044
1.5
0.21
S 11
15
3.2
1.6
0.0027
0.045
1.6
0.25
Shear Stress Approach
Shear stress is a commonly used tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear stresses
are a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size, and gradation),
cohesiveness of bank materials, and vegetative cover. The shear stress approach compares calculated
shear stresses to those found in the literature. Shear stress is the force exerted on a boundary during the
resistance of motion as calculated using the following formula:
(5) i = yRS
i = shear stress (lb/ft')
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft')
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)
Table 17. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Proposed Shear Stress
Allowable Shear Stress'
Reach at Bankfull Stage
Critical Shear Stress
(lbs/ft)
Sand/Silt/Clay
Gravel
Vegetation
z
(lbs/ft)
(lbs/ft2)
(lbs/ft2)
(lbs/ft')
S2 0.10
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
S5 0.06
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
S6A 0.13
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
S613 0.16
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
S11 0.15
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
'(Fischenich, 2001)
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan
42
May 2017

Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Meadow Spring design reaches
fall between the critical shear stress (shear stress required to initiate motion) and the allowable limits.
Therefore, the proposed channel should remain stable.
Velocity Approach
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank
materials. A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method to
aid in the verification of channel stability. Table 18 compares the proposed velocities calculated using
Manning's equation with the permissible velocities presented in the Stream Restoration Design
Handbook (MRCS, 2007).
Table 18. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities
Reach
Manning's "n"
value
Design Velocity (ft/s)
Fine Sand
Allowable Velocity' (ft/s)
Coarse Sand Fine Gravel
S2
0.050
1.1
2.0
4.0 6.0
S5
0.045
0.9
2.0
4.0 6.0
S6A
0.050
1.3
2.0
4.0 6.0
SO
0.050
1.5
2.0
4.0 6.0
S 11
0.045
1.6
2.0
4.0 6.0
l(NRCS, 2007
8.3.2 Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the restoration designs described in this
document. The combination of the analog and analytical design methods was determined to be
appropriate for this project because the watershed is rural, the causes of disturbance are known and
have been abated, and there are minimal infrastructure constraints. The original design parameters were
developed from the measured analog/reference reach data and applied to the subject stream. The
parameters were then analyzed and adjusted through an iterative process using analytical tools and
numerical simulations of fluvial processes. The designs presented in this report provide for the
restoration of natural Coastal sand -bed channel features and stream bed diversity to improve benthic
habitat. The proposed design will allow flows that exceed the design bankfull stage to spread out over
the floodplain, restoring wetland hydrology to the overbank areas.
A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the restoration
channel. However, many segments will be left partially filled to provide habitat diversity and flood
storage. Native woody material will be installed throughout the restored reach to reduce bank stress,
provide grade control, and increase habitat diversity.
Forested riparian buffers of at least fifty feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the
project reach. An appropriate riparian plant community will be established to include a diverse mix of
species. Replanting of native species will occur where the existing buffer is impacted during
construction.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 43 May 2017

9 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection will be conducted a minimum
of once per year throughout the post construction monitoring period until performance standards are
met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction
and may include the following:
Table 19. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of
in -stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along
the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the
channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head -
cutting. Stream maintenance activities will be documented and reported in
annual monitoring reports.
Wctland
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of
loose coir matting, channel plug maintenance, and supplemental
installations of live stakes and other target vegetation within the wetland.
Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may
include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic
invasive plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical
methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be
performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules
and regulations. Vegetation maintenance activities will be documented and
reported in annual monitoring reports. Vegetation maintenance will
continue through the monitoring period.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be
marked with signs identifying the property as a mitigation site, and will
include the name of the long-term steward and a contact number.
Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree -blazing,
or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement.
Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or
replaced on an as -needed basis. Easement monitoring and staking/signage
maintenance will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Road Crossing
Road crossings within the Site may be maintained only as allowed by
conservation easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of
way, or corridor agreements. Crossings in easement breaks are the
responsibility of the landowner to maintain.
Livestock Fencing
Livestock fencing is to be placed outside the easement limits. Maintenance
of fencing is the responsibility of the landowner.
Beaver
Routine site visits and monitoring will be used to determine if beaver
management is needed. If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability
or vegetative success, RES will trap beavers and remove impoundments as
needed. All beaver management activities will be documented and included
in annual monitoring reports. Beaver monitoring and management will
continue through the monitoring period.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 44 May 2017

10 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Site will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in the
USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent agency guidance. Specific success criteria
components are presented below.
10.1 Stream And Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
10.1.1 Bankfull Events
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The four
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four
bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
10.1.2 Cross Sections
There should be little change in as -built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -
cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections shall
be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross-sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
10.1.3 Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images
should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
10.1.1 Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) has a current WETs table for Johnston County
upon which to base a normal rainfall amount and average growing season. The closest comparable data
station was determined to be the WETS station for Smithfield, NC. The growing season for Johnston
County is 233 days long, extending from March 18 to November 6, and is based on a daily minimum
temperature greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years.
Based upon field observation across the site, the NRCS mapping units show a good correlation to actual
site conditions in areas of the site. Mitigation guidance for soils in the Coastal Plain suggests a
hydroperiod for the Bibb soil of 12-16 percent of the growing season. The hydrology success criterion
for the Site is to restore the water table so that it will remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil
surface for at least 12 percent of the growing season (approximately 27 days) at each groundwater
gauge location. Based on the extensive management history of the Site and soil compaction, RES
proposes a target hydroperiod of nine percent for monitoring years 1 and 2, with the understanding that
12 percent will be the target hydroperiod for the remainder of the monitoring period.
10.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site will
follow IRT Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover
a minimum of two percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually between
July 15 and leaf drop. The interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 45 May 2017

at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 five-year old trees at the
end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an average
height of ten feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species, and
included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of total
planted stems.
11 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the IRT monitoring template. A detailed monitoring plan
is provided in Figure 12. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will
facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, research purposes, and assist in decision making
regarding project close-out. The success criteria for Site will follow current accepted and approved
success criteria presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines, and subsequent agency
guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented in Table 20. Monitoring reports will be
prepared annually and submitted to the IRT.
Table 20. Monitoring Requirements
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
As per April 2003
USACE Wilmington
Additional surveys will be performed
Pattern
District Stream
Baseline
if monitoring indicates instability or
Mitigation
significant channel migration
Guidelines
As per April 2003
Baseline,
USACE Wilmington
Years
Dimension
District Stream
1,2,
Surveyed cross sections and bank pins
Mitigation
7
and 7
Guidelines
As per April 2003
USACE Wilmington
Additional surveys will be performed
Profile
District Stream
Baseline
if monitoring indicates instability
Mitigation
Guidelines
As per April 2003
Crest gauges and/or pressure
Surface
USACE Wilmington
transducers will be installed on site; the
Water
District Stream
Annual
devices will be inspected on a quarterly
Hydrology
Mitigation
basis to document the occurrence of
Guidelines
I bankfull events
Vegetation
Annual
Vegetation will be monitored per IRT
guidelines
Exotic and
Nuisance
Annual
Locations of exotic and nuisance
Vegetation
vegetation will be mapped
Project
Semi-
Locations of fence damage, vegetation
Boundary
annual
damage, boundary encroachments, etc.
will be mapped
Stream
/Wetland
Annual
Semi-annual visual assessments
Visual
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 46 May 2017

11.1 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank
to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by USACE. Stream channel stationing will be marked with stakes
placed near the top of bank every 200 feet.
11.2 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species,
and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete
streamwalk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to
record each monitoring event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual
monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital
images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
11.3 Cross Sections
Permanent cross-sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in
pools and half in shallows. All cross-section measurements will include bank height ratio and
entrenchment ratio. Cross-sections will be monitored annually. There should be little change in as -built
cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent
movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -cutting or erosion), or are minor changes
that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the
banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment
ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches. Channel stability should be demonstrated through
a minimum of two bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring period.
11.4 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydric conditions in the wetland restoration areas.
This will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges installed in
representative locations across the restoration areas and reference wetland. The gauges will be
downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be calculated during the growing season. Gauge
installation will follow current NCIRT guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland
hydrology indicators will also be recorded during quarterly site visits.
11.5 Vegetative Success Criteria
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be 18 plots within the planted area (22.8 acres). Planted area
indicates all area in the easement that will be planted with trees. Existing wooded areas are not included
in the planted area. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the plots: species, height, planting
date (or volunteer), and grid location. Monitoring will occur each year during the monitoring period.
Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and controlled so that none become dominant or alter
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 47 May 2017

the desired community structure of the site. If necessary, RES will develop a species-specific control
plan.
11.6 Scheduling/Reporting
A mitigation plan and as -built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be developed
within 60 days of the planting completion on the Site. The report will include all information required
by IRT mitigation plan guidelines, including elevations, photographs and sampling plot locations,
gauge locations, and a description of initial species composition by community type. The report will
also include a list of the species planted and the associated densities. Baseline vegetation monitoring
will include species, height, date of planting, and grid location of each stem. The baseline report will
follow USACE guidelines.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the
success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final
success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to the IRT.
The monitoring reports will include all information, and be in the format required by USACE.
11.7 Adaptive Management
In the event that the site, or a specific component of the site, fails to achieve the defined success criteria,
RES will develop necessary adaptive management plans and/or implement appropriate remedial actions
for the site in coordination with the IRT. Remedial action required will be designed to achieve the
success criteria specified previously, and will include identification of the causes of failure, remedial
design approach, work schedule, and monitoring criteria that will take into account physical and
climatic conditions. If tree mortality affects 40 percent or greater of the canopy in a stream restoration
area, then a remedial/supplemental planting plan will be developed and implemented for the affected
area(s). If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability or vegetative success, RES will trap beavers
and remove impoundments as needed. All beaver management activities will be documented and
included in annual monitoring reports
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 48 May 2017

12 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval of the Site by the IRT, the site will be transferred to the NCWHF:
North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation
[phone]
PO Box 29187
Greensboro, NC 27429
www.ncwh£or
The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required
in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Easements held by the
NCWHF are stewarded in general accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land Trust
Alliance. These guidelines include annual monitoring visits to easements and related communication
with the landowner(s). During the visit a standard report is completed and pictures taken for the record.
If the Site is found to be in violation of the easement terms NCWHF works with the landowner to see
the problem rectified. When appropriate NCWHF pursues legal action to enforce the easement terms.
NCWHF typically requires the site developer to install standard NCWHF signage as part of the
easement transfer package. This includes well marked corners of the easement boundary, as well as
plastic or metal signs identifying the easement. The current sign standard is a 6"x6" aluminum sign
with contact information. Signs are refreshed on an as needed basis. Typically a sign will last 5-10
years before it is no longer legible due to sun fading. An overview of the NCWHF Easement
Stewardship program is included in Appendix A.
NCWHF requires and endowment for each easement it agrees to hold. All endowments are held
together in an investment fund. Endowments are sized so that the interest from the principal will pay
the expected monitoring costs for that easement. This assumes a seven year monitoring period for the
site during which NCWHF will not incur any expenses. It also assumes a 5% annual return. Currently
NCWHF employs a contractor to handle annual monitoring visits and basic easement stewardship. This
flat fee includes a property walkthrough, report, pictures, sign installation, etc. The endowment fee has
not yet been confirmed for the easement transfer of the Meadow Spring Site, and it will be updated
once finalized.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 49 May 2017

13 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of project construction, RES will implement the post -construction monitoring
protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described
previously in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is determined that the Site's
ability to achieve site performance standards are jeopardized, RES will notify the USACE of the need
to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized RES
will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 50 May 2017

14 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $585,000 Construction Performance
Bond to the USACE to assure completion of mitigation construction and planting. Construction and
planting costs are estimated to be at or below $585,000 based on the Engineer's construction materials
estimate and recent bid tabulation unit costs for construction materials. Following completion of
construction and planting the Construction Performance Bond will be retired and a $195,000
Monitoring Performance Bond will be provided to assure completion of seven years of monitoring and
reporting, and any remedial work required during the monitoring period. The $195,000 amount includes
contingency and estimated monitoring costs from the Engineer. The Monitoring Performance Bond
will be reduced by $ 27,500 following approval of each annual monitoring report. The Monitoring
Performance Bond will be retired in total following official notice of site close-out from the IRT.
Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby trust or other designee at the direction of the obligee.
Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Bank
Sponsor are not acceptable. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the USACE
receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation. The Performance
Bonds will be provided by RLI Insurance Company. All Performance Bonds will be submitted to the
USACE in draft form for approval prior to execution. In the event of Sponsor default, the NCWHF has
agreed to receive the funds and ensure the work is successfully completed.
Construction Costs
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc)
$ 70,000
Sitework
$ 140,000
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs,logs, rocks, coir,
etc)
$ 190,000
Crossings
$ 20,000
Vegetation
$ 110,000
Miscellaneous
$ 55,000
Total
$ 585,000
Monitoring
Annual Monitoring and Reports
$ 135,000
Equipment (e.g. gauges, markers, etc)
$ 5,000
Miscellaneous
$ 5,000
Contingency (8%)
$ 51,000
Total
$ 195,000
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 51 May 2017

15 OTHER INFORMATION
15.1 References
Johnston County, North Carolina. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. [Accessed 25
October 2011.]
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open -Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood Frequency Analyses. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1543-
A.
Doll, Barbara A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton and D.A. Bidelspach. 2003. Hydraulic
Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams. NC Stream Restoration
Institute, Report to N.C. Division of Water Quality for 319 Grant Project No. EW20011.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Fischenich, C. 2001. "Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials." ERDC Technical Note
No. EMRRP-SR-29, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Miss.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number FHWA-HRT-05-
072.
Krstolic, J.L., and Chaplin, J.J. 2007. Bankfull regional curves for streams in the non -urban, non -tidal
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5162, 48 p. (available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2007-5162)
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH
654), USDA
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 52 May 2017

NCDENR 2012a. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water
Quality http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (February 2012).
NCDENR 2012b. "2012 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5." Water Quality Section.
htlp:Hportal.ncdenr.ora/web/wq/home. (August 2012).
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). "Neuse River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2010." (September 2014).
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T. S., and White, P. S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Sweet, W. V. and Geratz, J. W. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships And Recurrence
Intervals For North Carolina's Coastal Plain. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 39: 861-871.
Tweedy, K. A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater Systems.
Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and Practice, November 2008, Asheville,
NC. Unpublished Conference Paper, 2008.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edE/programs/extension/wgg/srp/2008conference/tweedy paper.pdf
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2,
December 24, 2002.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS),
1994. Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS),
Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov (September 2014).
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble
(eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 53 May 2017

United States Environmental Protection Agency, (USEPA, 1999) 1999. EPA Manual. Quantifying
Physical Habitat in Wadeable Streams.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina."
North Carolina Ecological Services. http://www.fws.gov/raleighh/. (September 2014).
USDA-NRCS. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 54 May 2017