20041612 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20130328

Meredell Farm
Monitoring Report
FINAL
Year 5 of 5 (2012)
Randolph County, North Carolina
USGS HUC: 03030003
Project ID No. 247
Contract No. D09081 S
Oul— �6 11
MENR - W eFt QUALITY
Prepared for:
r-;J1
n
Easy, tE 11
a
M
0
�
�'
C
O
�a
NCDENR- Ecosystem Enhancement Program
�—
ow
1652 Mail Service Center
W
w
ww
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
LL-
Zz
Submitted November 2012
w
Revised February 8, 2013

Executive Summary
Project Background
The Meredell Farm Stream Restoration project falls within USGS hydrologic unit 03030003.
The project lies within a rural setting that includes agricultural, forested, and low - density
residential areas The project is located on Meredell Farm, a small farm operation that includes
dairy and row crop production Prior to restoration work, the project stream had been
historically destabilized through channelization and hoof -shear
Baker Engineering designed the restoration plans and restoration was completed in 2008
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc (KHA) began the stream and riparian monitoring for Meredell
Farms in 2008 and most recently completed Year 5 stream and riparian monitoring in October
2012
The goal of the project is to restore and improve the stream channel and riparian buffer form and
function on -site through the following objectives
• Restore 3,865 LF of channel dimension, pattern and profile
• Enhance 4,704 LF of channel dimension, and /or profile
• Preserve 5,136 LF of stream channel and riparian buffer
• Improve floodplain functionality by matching floodplain elevation with bankfull stage
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation in the permanent conservation
easement
• Improve the water quality in the Upper Cape Fear River watershed by fencing cattle out
of the stream and reducing bank erosion
KHA performed stream and riparian monitoring in the fall of 2012 for this Year 5 Monitoring
Report, and is discussed in greater detail below
Vegetation Assessment
Year 5 vegetation monitoring included visual assessment of the riparian zone and buffer
mitigation areas to update the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) and CVS assessment of
twelve (12) vegetation plots (Veg Plots) KHA observed areas of concern that based on visual
assessment did not appear to be meeting riparian zone success criteria of 260 stems per acre after
5 years These observed conditions are reflected in the CCPV figures (Figures 2 -7) within this
report and briefly discussed below
The conservation easement area surrounding stream reaches UT I, UT2, M1, and UT5
continue to have large areas that lack significant counts of visible planted woody stems
It was visually observed that the vegetation established within the buffer and outside of
the bankfull bench area primarily consists of grasses and herbaceous species Good
vegetation growth was primary observed within the bankfull bench area for each of these
reaches
■ The lower M1 area (downstream of the stream crossing) continues to have a significant
invasive species population consisting of Tree of Heaven, Chinese Privet, and Cattails
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 ❑0" =AW.' , ft

UT3, UT4, and UT5 also had instances of Tree of Heaven, Chinese Privet, and Cattails
throughout the reaches
■ The site continues to be free of encroachments to the vegetation
Detailed collected data from the CVS assessment of the twelve Veg Plots can be found in
Appendix C of this report Table ES -1 below provides a summary of Veg Plot performance
against vegetation success criteria
Table FS -1: Vegetation Plot Success Summary
Vegetation Success
Criteria
Total Number of Veg
Criteria
(Stems /Acre)
Plots Meeting Success
Veg Plot ID
Criteria
Riparian Zone
260
3
2, 4, 12
Buffer Mitigation
320
2
4, 12
Total Veg Plot Average
192
Stem Density
Three (3) of the twelve (12) Veg Plots exceeded the riparian zone success criteria of 260
stems /acre after 5 years, and two (2) of the twelve (12) Veg Plots exceeded the buffer mitigation
success criteria of 320 stems /acre after 5 years The total average planted stem density for all
twelve Veg Plots is 192 stems /acre for Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Assessment
Year 5 stream channel monitoring included visual assessment of the stream channel and in-
stream structures to update the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV), and collection of
geomorphic cross - section and profile dat Visual observations of the stream channel conditions
were conducted to determine if the project is establishing toward the stream success criteria
outlined in the approved Restoration Plan (2004) These goals are outlined below
Stream Success Criteria
■ Cross- Sections
• "There should be little or no change in as -built cross - sections from year to year
If changes do take place, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition (e g down - cutting, erosion) or are
minor changes that represent an increase in stability (e g settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, decrease in width/depth ratio and /or cross -
sectional area)"
■ Longitudinal Profile
• "The longitudinal profile data should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable, and are not aggrading or degrading The pools should remain
deep with flat water surface slopes and the riffles should remain steep and
shallow"
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 ❑orl ®mom Inc

The visual assessment and geomorphic data collection completed for the site indicated that
approximately 95% of the project reaches were performing within established success criteria
ranges The remaining 5% were exhibiting impacts such as beaver dam impoundments,
headcuts, and stream structure instabilities The observed stream channel conditions are
reflected in the CCPV figures (Figures 2 -7) within this report and briefly discussed below
■ UT2 contained a section of braided stream flow between Stations 20 +800 to 20 +900
■ There is a sediment plume present in the lower portion of UT3b from station 21 +25 —
23 +00
■ Three in- stream structures (UT1 and M1) had flow going between the header rocks, but
no further instability was observed as a result of the conditions
■ Two log structures on UT3b and UT5 were in fair condition or falling condition due to
the lack of water in the channel, which is causing the structures to rot The rotting
structure has water flowing behind and under the structures
■ Five instances of headcut were recorded on UT4 and UT5
■ There was a small area of concentrated overland runoff through the buffer on UT3a near
Station 10 +50 that was causing erosion to the stream bank
■ The lower portion of Ml (STA 31 +600 — 32 +200) downstream of the crossing has been
impacted by beaver activity Refer to photographs SP3 through SP6 contained in
Appendix B, herein Four (4) beaver dams have been established in the channel ranging
from 2 -5 feet in height, and a significant portion of the established bank vegetation has
been removed in the adjacent area
Geomorphic monitoring included collection of ten (10) cross sections and four (4) longitudinal
profile segments Channel profile stability assessment includes the entire restored length of the
project Refer to Appendix D contained herein for detailed results of the cross - section and
longitudinal profile data collection
Site Hydrology
KHA is tasked with collecting hydrologic bankfull indicators during monitoring field visits to the
site These indicators include collection of visually observed wracklines at, or above, the
bankfull elevation and recordation of the crest gauge height located at Station 30 +700 on reach
M1 The following hydrologic bankfull indicators were collected during Year 5 monitoring field
visits
• Wracklines were noted above the bankfull bench and within the floodplain during the
initial site assessment field visit conducted on March 26, 2012 At the time the wracklines
appeared to have occurred recently, indicating a bankfull event had occurred Refer to
photograph SP2 within Appendix B of this report
• A crest gauge reading of 1 17 feet was recorded during the annual monitoring field visit
conducted on October 18, 2012 The baseline bankfull design maximum depth range for
reach M1 is 1 0 feet (mm) to 13 feet (max), therefore, the crest gauge reading indicates
that a bankfull event had occurred recently onsite Refer to photograph SP 1 within
Appendix B of this report
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 `OF! agAsaad ft

Methodology
The following methods were utilized during the Year 5 monitoring for data collection and post -
processing
■ The CVS Level 2 methodology was utilized for the vegetation plot data collection
■ Geomorphic topographic data collections were performed in the field using total station,
survey grade GPS, or equivalent such that each survey point has three - dimensional
coordinates, and is georeferenced (NAD83 -State Plane Feet — FIPS3200)
■ Longitudinal stationing was developed using the as -built survey thalweg as a baseline
■ The particle size distribution protocol used was the Modified- Wolman pebble count
Conclusion
Summary information/data related to performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures contained in appendices within this report Narrative
background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the
Baseline Monitoring Reports (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the
Restoration Plan) documents available on EEP's website All raw data supporting the tables and
figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon request
References
Rosgen, David L 1996 Applied River Morphology, Second Edition, Wildland Hydrology,
Pagosa Springs, Colorado
Lee, Michael T, Peet, Robert K, Roberts, Steven D, Wentworth, Thomas R 2006 CVS -EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, All Levels of Sampling, Version 4 0,
Environmental Laboratory 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual Technical
Report Y -87 -1 United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi LeGrand, H E and S P Hall
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 Curl :=an

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDIX A - PROJECT VICINITY AND BACKGROUND TABLES
FIGURE l
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
TABLE 1
PROJECT COMPONENTS AND MITIGATION CREDITS
TABLE 2
PROJECT ACTIVITY AND REPORTING HISTORY
TABLE 3
PROJECT CONTACTS TABLE
TABLE 4
PROJECT ATTRIBUTE TABLE
APPENDIX B
- VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
FIGURE 2
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW UT 1 A AND UT 1 B
FIGURE 3
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW UT2A AND UT213
FIGURE 4
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW M1 AND SC 1
FIGURE 5
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW UT3A, UT3B, AND UT4
FIGURE 6
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW UT5
FIGURE 7
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW SC2 AND SC3
TABLE 5 1 -5 4
VISUAL STREAM MORPHOLOGY STABILITY ASSESSMENT
TABLE 6
VEGETATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT
SP 1 -SP6
STREAM ASSESSMENT PHOTO PAGES
VQ1 -VQ12
VEGETATION QUAD PHOTO PAGES
- APPENDIX C - VEGETATION PLOT DATA
TABLE 7
VEGETATION PLOT CRITERIA ATTAINMENT
TABLE 8
CVS VEGETATION PLOT METADATA
TABLE 9
PLANTED AND TOTAL STEM COUNTS (SPECIES BY PLOT WITH ANNUAL
MEANS)
APPENDIX D - STREAM SURVEY DATA
STREAM GEOMORPHIC CROSS - SECTION AND LONGITUDINAL PROFILE DATA
TABLE 10A 1 -10A 2 BASELINE STREAM DATA SUMMARY
TABLE lOB 1 -1013 2 BASELINE STREAM DATA SUMMARY
TABLE 11 A DIMENSIONAL MORPHOLOGY SUMMARY
TABLE 1113 1-1113 2 STREAM REACH DATA SUMMARY
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 EW := [M

APPENDIX E - HYDROLOGIC DATA
TABLE 12 VERIFICATION OF BANKFULL EVENTS
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 Cm" := Ira

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND
BACKGROUND TABLES

LEGENDS AND SYMBOLS Directions to the site: Take US -64 West towards Asheboro.
Turn right onto US -421 North. Take the Old Liberty Rd exit,
- - Easement Boundary turn left. Turn right on Ramseur Julian Rd, the site will be
on the left in 0.8 miles.
As -Built Centerline
NCDOT Roads (2011)
Site Access
'title I Project Vicinity Map
Prepared For: Project
c�
L;coSy�tem
N 0 500 1,000
A Feet
1 in= 1,000ft
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 5 - 2012
Randolph County, North Carolina
Date I Project Number
11/13/12 I 247
Figure
1
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 - Year 5 of 5 �„ Kimley -Horn
[� and Associates Irr�

Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 - Year 5 of 5 C all", a= —
.a w.«ur.a sc
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non - riparian WetlanO
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous Nutrient
Onset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
5785.5
5134
570000
Project Components
Project Component -or -Reach
ID
Stationing/Location
Ezisiing Footage/Acreage
Approach
(PI. Pit etc.)
Rest pratipn -or-
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
Ut 1.
10.00 -21+00
1050
Ell
1100
2.5:1
Ut 1b
21 +00 -28 +80
571
R
780
1:1
Ut 2a
10 +00 -18+00
800
El
Boo
Ut 21,
18 +00 -20+94
206
R
194
1:1
M7
10+00 -32 +54
2103
101
R
2254
1:1
Ut 3.
10+00 -16 +50
!10
Ell
250
2.5:1
Ut 3b
16 +50 -20 +79
836
R
429
1:1
Ut4
10+00 -19 +13
913
Ell
913
2.51
Ut5
10 +00 -20 +75
1075
Ell
1075
2.5:1
M2
NA
1398
P
1398
5:1
Sandy CmekI
NA
1033
P
1033
5:1
Sandy Creak
NA
801
P
801
5:1
Sandy Creek
NA
1902
P
1902
r 51
Component Summation
vel
Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non - riparian Welland
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverne
Non- Riverine
JEnhanmment
3757
322,000
496.000
800
I
3738
Preservation
5134
Pres ervation
BMP Elements
Purpose/Fimction
rdotes
rLocation
on Cell; SF = Sand Filter, SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip, S = Grassed Swale. LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FS = Forested Buffer
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 - Year 5 of 5 C all", a= —
.a w.«ur.a sc

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site/247
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 4 yrs 7 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 4 yrs 6 Months
Number of Reporting Years': 5
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
Sept -04
Final Design - Construction Plans
Mar -06
Construction
NA
Mar -08
Containerized, bare root and B&B plantings
NA
Apr -08
As -built Mapping
Nov -07
Apr -08
Mitigation Plan (Year 0 Monitoring - basline)`
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov -08
Jun -09
Year 2 Monitoring
Sep -09
Jun -10
Year 3 Monitoring
Oct -10
Mar -11
Year 4 Monitoring
Oct -11
Jan -12
Year 5 Monitoring
Oct -12
Feb -13
'AS -built plan view survey performed by Level Cross surveying, PLLC. (No As -built mondonng data was collected or reported).
Bolded items are examples of those items that are not standard, but may come up and should be included
Non - bolded items represent events that are standard components over the course of a typical project.
The above are obviously not the extent of potential relevant project activities, but are just provided as example as part of this exhibit.
If planting and morphology are on split monitoring schedules that should be made clear in the table
1 = Equals the number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
CMF1;".
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 -Year 5 of 5 "'�

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site/247
Designer
Buck Engineering, PC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27511
Pnmary project design POC
Kevin Tweedy, P.E. 919) 463 -5488
Construction Contractor
RiverWorks, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27511
Construction contractor POC
919 459 -9001
Survey Contractor
Survey contractor POC
Planting Contractor
Planting contractor POC
Seeding Contractor
Contractor point of contact
Seed Mix Sources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Monitoring Performers
Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc.
3001 Westen Parkway, Cary, NC 27513
Stream Monitoring POC
Daren Pait, P.E., CFM
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Daren Fait, P.E., CFM
Welland Monitonng POC
Daren Fait, P.E., CFM
CEI1: x
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 -Year 5 of 5 � re °r

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247
Project County
Randolph
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
03030003020010
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03 -06 -09
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
no
WRC Hab Class (Warm, Cool, Cold)
warm
of project easement fenced or demarcated
100
Beaver activity observed during design phase?
No
Restoration Component Attribute Table
M1
M2
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
UT5
Drainage area (acres)
168
265
64
67
148
56
59
Stream order
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Restored length (feet)
2254
1398
1880
1095
1351
913
1075
Perennial or Intermittent
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Watershed type (Rural, Urban, Developing etc.)
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Watershed LULC Distribution (e.g.)
Residential
Ag -Row Crop
Ag- Livestock
Forested
Etc.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Watershed impervious cover ( %)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
NCDWQ AU /Index number
NCDWQ classification
WS -III
WS -III
WS -III
WS -III
WS -III
WS -III
WS -III
303d listed?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total acreage of easement
49.8
Total vegetated acreage within the easement
49.8
Total planted acreage as part of the restoration
8.3
0
6.2
3
2.2
0
0
Rosgen classification of pre- existing
G4c
U
G4
B5- 1/E5 -1
84c
G5
E5
Rosgen classification of As -built
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Valley type
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Valley slope
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Valley side slope range (e.g. 2 -3.%)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Valley toe slope range (e.g. 2 -3.%)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Cowardin classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Trout waters designation
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Species of concern, endangered etc.? (Y /N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Series
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Depth
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Clay%
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
K
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
T
U
I U
U
U
1 U
U
U
Use N/A for items that may not apph. Use — for items that are unavailable and 'U -- for items that are unknown
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 – Year 5 of 5 ��' ' " ^° ��'^ ".

FAI ,
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA

li Vic',
s:
— � 4
2
XS2
- v X
U110
f / • yi
Ll —
.�
LEGENDS AND SYMBOLS
Easement Boundary Channel Structures Structures Condition Vegetation Condition
Thalwe •
g - MY2012 � Not Assessed /Missing Good Growth
Existing Stream • Constructed Riffle ®Failing Bare Area
Channel As -Built Centerline I Log Vane O Stressed Low Stem Density Area
Cross Sections U Fair Area of Poor Growth Rate or Vigor
0000 E�17_ Invasive Area of Concern
0000 Boulder Toe Protection • Stable
® Headcut Rock Vane ®geaverdam Location � Easement Encroachment
\ %i i t Concentrated Overland Flow V Rock Cross Vane Crest Gauge
I Sediment Plume Rock A Vane 0 100 200
1 Split Channel Flow
Rootwad Feet
Veg Plots S
Title Current Conditions Plan View UTIa and UTIb
Prepared For:
Project Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 5 — 2012
Randolph County, North Carolina
r�
�
'�'(ri�'St( I11 Date Project Number Figure
11/15/12 247 2
Z„ Kimley-Horn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 \ and Associates, Inc.

Title I Current Conditions Plan View U "1'2a and U12b
Prepared For:
Project Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 5 — 2012
Randolph County, North Carolina
LLY)SySt(111 Date Project Number
11/15/12 247
C�I� and Associates. Inc. KimleyHorn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 —Year 5 of 5

%
1900 ti 1 �® •�' �•.
Split
Channel Flow 4 Rootwad
veg Plots
g, E5
•......•.•
%
1900 ti 1 �® •�' �•.

r Z„ Kimley -Horn
\ and Associates, Inc.
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 —Year 5 of 5
UT3b
r �
UT3a
UT4
LEGENDS AND SYMBOLS
Easement Boundary Channel Structures
Structures Condition
Vegetation Condition
Thalwe •
g - MY2012 �
Not Assessed /Missing
Good Growth
Existing Stream • Constructed Riffle
•Failing
Bare Area
Channel As -Built Centerline I
0 Stressed
- Low Stem Density Area
Log Vane
— - Cross Sections
0 Fair
Area of Poor Growth Rate or Vigor
0000
000o Boulder Toe Protection
0 Stable
� Invasive Area of Concern
® Headcut Rock Vane
®geaverdam Location
� Easement Encroachment
r, t t Concentrated Overland Flow V Rock Cross Vane
16) Crest Gauge
I- � / Sediment Plume Rock A Vane
N
0 150 300
1. , Split Channel Flow I
Rootwad
��' - q q
( 1
I Feet
0 Veg Plots
Title
Current Conditions Plan View UT3a UT3b, and UT4
Prepared For:
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 5 —
2012
Project
Randolph County, North Carolina
1 "C:osystell)
Date
Project Number
Figure
11/15/12
247
5
r Z„ Kimley -Horn
\ and Associates, Inc.
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 —Year 5 of 5

PP' 2„ Kimley -Horn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 \ and Associates, tnc.
r
r: y04.�..f,
f�
t
UT5
LEGENDS AND SYMBOLS
•
Easement Boundary
Channel Structures
Structures Condition
Vegetation Condition
Thalweg - MY2o;t2
�
Q Not Assessed /Missing
� Good Growth
Existing Stream
• Constructed Riffle
®Failing
Bare Area
.� Channel As -Built Centerline
I
� Stressed
r •. Low Stem Density Area
r -Cross Sections
Log Vane
t
� Fair
Area of Poor Growth Rate or Vigor
0000
000o Boulder Toe Protection
i
Stable
� Invasive Area of Concern �
® Headcut
Rock Vane
®Beaverdam Location
� Easement Encroachment
��i � 1 Concentrated Overland Flow
V Rock Cross Vane
Crest Gauge
t -mot � Sediment Plume
"� Rock A Vane
�' w 0 200 400
wr� Split Channel Flow
� Rootwad
I 1 I
Feet
0 Veg Plots
��
�
Title
Current Conditions Plan View UT5
Prepared For:
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 5
— 2012
Project
Randolph County, North Carolina
Date
Project Number
Figure
11/15/12
247
6
PP' 2„ Kimley -Horn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 \ and Associates, tnc.

P ZIJ Kimley -Horn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 \ �/ 1 and Associates, Inc.
_ t
N.
•'r
I '
� 1
'
SANDY CREEK 3
vol-
LEGENDS AND SYMBOLS
Easement Boundary
Channel Structures
Structures Condition
Vegetation Condition
Thalweg - MY2oi2
�
0 Not Assessed /Missing
� Good Growth
Existing Stream
• � Constructed Riffle
® Failing
Bare Area
�.— Channel As -Built Centerline
(
� Stressed
Low Stem Density Area
— -Cross Sections
Log Vane
�
� Fair
Area of Poor Growth Rate or Vigor
SANDY CREEK 2
0000
000o Boulder Toe Protection
� Stable
I Invasive Area of Concern
® Headcut
Rock Vane
®Beaverdam Location
� Easement Encroachment
.�i t i Concentrated Overland Flow
V Rock Cross Vane
Crest Gauge
- Sediment Plume
Rock A Vane
U 250 500
.! � Split Channel Flow
� Rootwad
��' �
I Feet
Veg Plots
,.;:;w
Title Current Conditions Plan View SC2 and SO
Prepared For:
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 5 —
2012
Project
r�
Randolph County, North Carolina
l'
Date
Project Number
Figure
k OSYSM l I
11/15/12
247
7
P ZIJ Kimley -Horn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 \ �/ 1 and Associates, Inc.

Table 5.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT1
Assessed Length 640
Fans Mommnq RL porn (2 4 71 20 1 2 — Yc 5 of 5 PC mr, v - +: i �• -
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcuttmg
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
5
5
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
5
5
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centedine distance between tail of
upstream raffle and head of downstrem riffle)
5
5
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5
5
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
5
5
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
25
25
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
25
25
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
24
25
96%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
25
25
100%
document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth I Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio 11.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow
25
25
100 o
Fans Mommnq RL porn (2 4 71 20 1 2 — Yc 5 of 5 PC mr, v - +: i �• -

Table 5.2 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT2
Assessed Length 350
M­&11 farm Mim 1-ng Ryon (247) 2012 - Yc°r 5,A 5 �/, L � "- - •�-
Adjusted
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
:Footage
tabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub -Cat o
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
e etation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aearadation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
1
23
93%
2. Dearadation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Textureisubstrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
5
5
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
4
4
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem nffie)
4
4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3
3
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
3
3
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
15
15
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
15
15
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
15
15
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
15
15
100%
document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1,6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
15
15
100%
M­&11 farm Mim 1-ng Ryon (247) 2012 - Yc°r 5,A 5 �/, L � "- - •�-

Table 5.3 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID M1
Assessed Length 3200
M—del I Farm Monn°nng Report (247) 2012 - Y-r 5 of 5 E = F I "°•'- - - - "11 ,-
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
EFootage
bilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
oody
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
etation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcumng
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
25
25
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
23
23
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centedine distance between tail of
upstream raffle and head of downstrem riffle)
23
23
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
26
26
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
26
26
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
48
48
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
48
48
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or anus.
45
48
94%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
48
48
100%
document)
r4.abitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
48
48
100%
M—del I Farm Monn°nng Report (247) 2012 - Y-r 5 of 5 E = F I "°•'- - - - "11 ,-

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 33.7
Easement Acreage` 55.6
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Ve elation Cate o
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
. Invasive Areas of Concern"
Areas or points (it too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Pattern and
14
2.28
4.1%
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
Color
10
13.52
40.1%
Color
Total
10
13.52
40.1%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
10
13.52
40.1%
Easement Acreage` 55.6
I = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
= The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concernlinterest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shorny thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree /shrub stands over
timeframes that are slightty longer (e.g. 1 -2 decades). The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with
regular ty, but can be mapped, rf in the udgemenl of the observer their coverage, density or dlstnbution is supppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remedlatlon w ll be needed are
ba s ed on the integration 0 n 5 factors �y EEP such as species present, their coverage, dlstnbutlon relative to native biomass, and the practicality of Vestment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed
early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer w ll not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers w thin the timeframes discussed
and the potent al impacts of treating eMensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list' designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in
cc 'e; : s are of particular mte'est Seven their extreme risk /threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, pa ticularly ealry in a projects moni odng history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches w ll of
course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be he pfTuflor symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated
spec mens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygoNarea feature can be symbolized to descr be things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species
are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.
a = / \K
M«ddl F Mo tmng Rcpon (247) 2012 - Year 5,,15
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vecietation Cateqory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
. Invasive Areas of Concern"
Areas or points (it too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Pattern and
14
2.28
4.1%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
I = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
= The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concernlinterest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shorny thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree /shrub stands over
timeframes that are slightty longer (e.g. 1 -2 decades). The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with
regular ty, but can be mapped, rf in the udgemenl of the observer their coverage, density or dlstnbution is supppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remedlatlon w ll be needed are
ba s ed on the integration 0 n 5 factors �y EEP such as species present, their coverage, dlstnbutlon relative to native biomass, and the practicality of Vestment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed
early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer w ll not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers w thin the timeframes discussed
and the potent al impacts of treating eMensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list' designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in
cc 'e; : s are of particular mte'est Seven their extreme risk /threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, pa ticularly ealry in a projects moni odng history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches w ll of
course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be he pfTuflor symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated
spec mens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygoNarea feature can be symbolized to descr be things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species
are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.
a = / \K
M«ddl F Mo tmng Rcpon (247) 2012 - Year 5,,15

SP 1: Crest Gage reading = 1.17'
Taken: 10 -18 -2012
SP2: Bankfull indicator on UTIb (STA 22 +25)
Taken: 3 -26 -2012
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 PPr Z„ K4mley -Horn
f\ and Associates, Inc,

- �•�!. t it a f
, a�
f
�
�.i ;r,�i,W h� ,• .h T
�z � .•
ZIP
r4
;u Y
�- �. 1 �•y
t' •
;� .�. µr r•, , r ,
f 'eg
f�.r {T '•fJ�� ' f s f •Y' M'
is ���
♦ / /
1 � 1
1
if
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 —Year 5 of 5 / Z„ Kiley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.

Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 I Z„ Kimley -Hon
and Assooialea Irx.

FAA ,
VEGETATION PLOT DATA

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site/247
Vegetation Plot ID
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
Reach Mean
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
Reach Mean
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
Reach Mean
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
Reach Mean
Stream Riparian Zone
Vegetation Survival
Threshold (260
stems /acre) Met?
Reach Mean
Buffer Mitigation
Vegetation Survival
Threshold (320
stemstacre) Met?
Reach Mean
247 -01.0001
Y
100 %
Y
50%
Y
50 %
Y
100 %
N
50 %
N
0
247 -01 -0002
y
N
N
Y
y
N
247 -01-0003
Y
100%
Y
100 %
V
100 %
Y
100 %
N
50 %
N
50
247 -01 -0004
Y
y
y
Y
y
y
247 -01 -0005
Y
50%
Y
50%
N
38%
N
38 %
N
13 °1
N
13
L—I
247 -01-0006
N
N
N
N
N
N
247 -01-0007
N
N
N
N
N
N
247 -01.0006
V
Y
Y
Y
N
N
247 -01 -0009
N
N
N
N
N
N
247 -01 -0010
N
N
N
N
N
N
247 -01.0011
y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
247 -01 -0012
y
Y
Y
Y
Y
I Y
Morodcll Farm Monitonng Report (247) 2012 - Year 5 or 5 _ IGmtayNOm
aal I, and Ay H -ateu Inc

pPP' M„ Kimley -Horn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 - Year 5 of 5 kh- and Associates, Inc.
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247
Report Prepared By
Jason Hartshorn
Date Prepared
2/7/2013 10:08
database name
Meredell cvs- eep- entrytool- v2.3.1.mdb
database location
K: \RAL_Environmental \011795 Meredell Farm Monitoring MDELL \MDELL VEGETATION
computer name
DD83305
file size
46075904
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------- - - - --
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems,
Proj, total stems
and all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by
Damage
each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
247
project Name
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration
Description
stream restoation, enhancement, and preservation
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
9601
stream -to -edge width (ft)
100
area (sq m)
201,533
Required Plots (calculated)
12
Sampled Plots
12
pPP' M„ Kimley -Horn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 - Year 5 of 5 kh- and Associates, Inc.

For prot.ea us:.q cvs, flea ra��. w�l ee proa�.a atreniy to Itp perforrrer. For p.ojecl: not namq cvs ttds spreaaarreel can ne useaw. upon to provide the a.sr.a lore
Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
alt. (ACRES
I=I- .14 iLY KI�Li 1llil
M...1 Farm Mond R.pod (237) 2012 - Y.ar 5 of 5 b � and AS-Hom
and Assooiates. Inc.
000000000000
®
®
®
®®
I=I- .14 iLY KI�Li 1llil
M...1 Farm Mond R.pod (237) 2012 - Y.ar 5 of 5 b � and AS-Hom
and Assooiates. Inc.

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA

602
600
598
596
0
W 594
592
590
588
11200
- '- - -
- -- — - --
- - - MEREDELL UTI STREAM THALWEG PROFILE 2012 _ -
- -
Water Surface Slope
y = - 0.0119x + 733.24
Bankfull Slope
_a
y=- 0.0116x +730.47
i
—
C3 —
i
— — —
_ \S -2 XS -3 — -- —
XS 1
- - - —
(S`I -A 11 +271.918)
_ -_ - (S TA 11 +585.757) (STA 11 +628.444)
11300 11400 11500 11600 11700 11800 11900
Station (ft)
° 2012 BANKFULL - - - - 2012 WATER SURFACE
2012 BED ELEVATION 2011 BED ELEVATION
- - - - - -- 2010 BED ELEVATION - - - 2009 BED ELEVATION
— - - — 2008 BED ELEVATION
P� o,
Krriley-N «,�
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 —Years of 5 �� aiMAs.",wud1w-

608
Water Surface Elevation X51
i
607
—t— Bankfull Elevation XS1
- -
- --
--
--
Bed Elevation XS1 -2012
- --
--
--
606
i
Bed Elevation XS1 -2011
—�
Bed Elevation XS1 -2010
605
�`;
--
--
--
- •
- Bed Elevation XS1 -2009
604
- - --
- Bed Elevation XS1 -2008
--
- --
--
603
— -- --
--
--
c
0
m
a.
u, 602
--
-- --
--
—
--
10o
loo
90
�i—� 90
601
�
80
�
i
n roil
80
UX
A
,
X51 2010
70 -
- - _�
--
Xsz ro22
70
600 --
i
— • • — Xs2 ro22
--
--
C60
�
� ;
- - - - - -- Xv zoio
•X51 XA9
60
0
U
I �
'
50
50
599
-- —
—
--
--
ao
ao
£
— - —
-
30 i
30
V
598
-- —
20 1
20
—
--
--
to 10
i
0 O
597
N �orvu
w w
V
ti oV
0
20 40
60
80
100
120
0 XO .ti n o
o n
e �ti N NN N J v Ol N w vn i tnD �
V
Station
(ft)
�
o
Particle Size (mm)
XS - 1 (STA 11 +271.918)
ID
YEAR
PHASE FACET TYPE
Wbkf
Abkf
Dbkf
ID
YEAR
PHASE d50 (mm) d84 (mm)
XS1
2008
DESIGN POOL
12.0
11.5
1.0
XS1
2009
MY2 <0.062 0.25
XS1
2008
MYl POOL
24.0
11.4
0.5
XS1
2010
MY3 0.8 18.5
XS1
2009
MY2 POOL
22.8
11.0
0.5
XS1
2011
MY4 0.11 9.63
XS1
2010
MY3 POOL
17.2
8.1
0.5
XS1
2011
MY4 POOL
10.4
6.1
0.6
XS1
2012
MY5 0.03 0.06
XS1
2012
MY5 POOL
25.5
8.37
0.33
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 -Years of 5 &�. Z "acaoc,m"I-

599
xs mii
Bed Elevation X52 -2009
- - -- - Bed Elevation X52 -2008
xs moo
-----' xs mio
i
,
i
i
i
` 1J_
•- Water Surface Elevation X52
t Bankfull Elevation X52
Bed Elevation X52 -2012
5981
Bed Elevation XS2 -2011
Bed Elevation XS2 -2010
_o­
597
c
o
-
a
�
r .
W
100
100
596
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
0
595
o
u
50
50
as
'-
�
OE
t 40
40
E
�
a
30
30
20
20
10
10
°
594
y°
0.00
20.00 40.00
60.00
80.00
O
V N N
O
N O
Q O tb N n
01 OJ t0 N Q
Station
(ft)
tD '-I
O
� N M N N
N O
Particle Size (mm)
XS - 2 (STA 11
+585.757)
ID
YEAR
PHASE FACET TYPE
Wbkf
Abkf
Dbkf
ID
YEAR
PHASE
d50 (mm) d84 (mm)
XS2
2008
DESIGN RIFFLE
7.3
4.5
0.6
XS2
2009
MY2
8 22.6
XS2
2008
MY1 RIFFLE
10.6
4.2
0.4
XS2
2010
MY3
22.05 67.3
XS2
2009
MY2 RIFFLE
11.7
4.3
0.4
XS2
2011
MY4
0.23 59.45
XS2
2010
MY3 RIFFLE
9.5
4.0
0.4
XS2
2011
MY4 RIFFLE
10.1
5.1
0.5
XS2
2012
MY5
0.04 16
XS2
2012
MY5 RIFFLE
13.6
4.84
0.36
' i
xs mii
Bed Elevation X52 -2009
- - -- - Bed Elevation X52 -2008
xs moo
-----' xs mio
i
,
' i
xs mii
xs moo
-----' xs mio
i
,
i
i
i
` 1J_
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 -Years of 5 ���, �g,�m.

601
Water Surface Elevation XS3
o
�-
Bankfull Elevation XS3_
600
--
--
t
-
Bed Elevation XS3 -2012
Bed Elevation XS3 -2011
599
}
--
--
-�
Bed Elevation XS3 -2010
-
+ - Bed Elevation XS3 -2009
598
-
- Bed Elevation XS3 -2008
A'
--
--
/t cq
x S97
/
--
--
--
--
c
0
M
i
d
"' S96
-
100
100
- -
-
- -
c -
90
-- -- -
90
i
595
-
so
,
%p12
so
--
--
- -�_
70 - /
- .. _ -
2030
%m
70
�/
f
13 20D9
%S3 XI12
60
7
60
/
-1 /
50
- - - - - -- xv zmo
- - %: 9
d
594
--
%
--
--
-- -
r''
�
S0
1
t
E
40
40
a
u
p
30
/
30
593
-
- - --
-i -
--
20
20
10
10
-
o
o
"
S92
40.00
60.00
0.00 20.00
80.00 100.00
0 o
V N N N O
N N N Q N M n o 0 0
Station (ft)
XS - 3 (STA 11 +628.444)
Particle Size (mm)
ID
YEAR
PHASE
FACET TYPE Wbkf
Abkf Dbkf
ID
YEAR
PHASE d50 (mm) d84 (mm)
XS3
2008
DESIGN
POOL
12.0
11.5 1.0
XS3
2009
MY2 0.5 1.0
XS3
2008
MY1
POOL
12.5
10.1 0.8
XS3
2010
MY3 0.08 0.45
XS3
2009
MY2
POOL
11.4
8.5 0.7
XS3
2014
MY4 0.11 2.38
XS3
2010
MY3
POOL
11.4
7.3 0.6
XS3
2011
MY4
POOL
10.1
7.4 0.7
XS3
2012
MY5 0.04 0.35
XS3
2012
MY5
POOL
18.3
9.19 0.5
KIml".Morn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 - Years of 5 6 ,v, AS ale i

597
MEREDELL UT2 STREAM THALWEG PROFILE 2012
Water Surface slope
596
y = - 0.0081 x + 764.22
Bankfull Slope
595
y - 0.0112x + 828.16
594
i
(STA 20 +950.902) (STA 21 +008.135
- -- -
-- _— —
— . — —
593
0
C4
t 592
W
591
590
589
588
20800 20850 20900 20950 21000 21050 21100
21150 21200
Station (ft)
2012 BANKFULL - - - - 2012 WATER SURFACE
2012 BED ELEVATION 2011 BED ELEVATION
- --- --- 2010 BED ELEVATION - - - 2009 BED ELEVATION
— — 2008 BED ELEVATION
uye�d
e
Sony TheMe9 - MV 207 2
cronna Aa swig cenm,rne
coeso�eone
canceuwa Rmw
,:
\ Sao van.
Rock Vane
XSQ
Rock Cror Vane
Ro kAVane
ROOnvaC ,
,
'T
Feet
��
P1 � 14'nlyi -Nall
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 —Year 5 of 5 a- and anoAwocw
es ix
i
(STA 20 +950.902) (STA 21 +008.135
- -- -
-- _— —
— . — —
es ix

599
- . - -.
°- Water Surface Elevation XS4
t Bankfull Elevation XS4
598
-
--
--
--
Bed Elevation XS4 -2012
Bed Elevation XS4 -2011
i
i
597
-�
Bed Elevation XS4 -2010
1
--
-- --
- - -• - -- Bed Elevation XS4 -2009
-
Bed Elevation XS4 -2008
596
-
-- --
r
- )
-
--
--
I
o
Y
!
I
R
Q)
I
W_
595
-
--
100
- • - 100
90
90
Q`
_ --
80
80
11
•,
%5430]3
594
- - --
70
%X3011
%X 2010
70
--
--
--
60
%X 009
%X 3012
60
C
�•- %X3011
GI
u
�
50
- - - - - -- %592010
s0
'
�
r
X2009
=
40
40
593
-
- --
A
v
o
v
--
-
--
30
30
20
20
10
10
592
0
0
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
N /1 N O O N C
I� 00 M lD N A O 00 O 10 N N O 00 00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00
Station
(ft)
O
N M
N O
Particle Size (mm)
XS - 4 (STA
20 +950.902)
ID
YEAR
PHASE FACET TYPE
Wbkf
Abkf
Dbkf
ID
YEAR
PHASE d50 (mm) d84 (mm)
XS4
2008
DESIGN RIFFLE
7.3
4.5
0.6
XS4
2009
MY2 0.5 0.125
XS4
2008
MY1 RIFFLE
10.0
8.4
0.8
XS4
2010
MY3 0.08 0.15
XS4
2009
MY2 RIFFLE
7.7
5.4
0.7
XS4
2011
MY4 0.05 0.1158
XS4
2010
MY3 RIFFLE
9.3
7.3
0.8
XS4
2011
MY4 RIFFLE
9.0
7.1
0.8
XS4
2012
MY5 0.45 45
XS4
2012
MY5 RIFFLE
9.84
8.06
0.82
P- Kn1" -hw1ll
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 - Year 5 of 5 h�� Ow a6fimwU Im

597
— — — I— --
- -- —
-
1'
1— Water Surface Elevation XS5
�— Bankfull Elevation X55
Bed Elevation XS5 -2012
596
— --
--
—
Bed Elevation XS5 -2011
�—
Bed Elevation XS5 -2010
--o.-
Bed Elevation XS5 -2009
595
--
--
-
Be, Elevation XS5 -2008
c
���zF'.•
r
o
}'
;
m 594
- --
— —
—
W
—
-
�`
100 _
�-
_ _ _ _ _
100
90
80
— -
� xss zolo
90
80
593
—
--
—
--
70
i
%ss zaov
sszmz
70
t
—
'
60
% Olo
— xss—
60
i
o
m
>
Q 50
50
592
--
--
--
— '
--
--
r 40
'4
40
a
E
�
'
30
30
20
20
10
—
10
591
0
0
120.00
N V1 tl1 O O N Q
ON ^�o�
1� 00 T 10 N V1 Q O 00 O r 00 00
N T N� N N Q
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
to V1 O H
V N N N VI
Q V1 N
Op H� N m Q� O 00 O lD N n
m N D
Station (ft)
1a
C?
ti N W ry +1
N Q
N N
�o
Particle Size (mm)
XS - 5 (STA
21 +008.1351
ID
YEAR
PHASE FACET TYPE Wbkf
Abkf
Dbkf
ID
YEAR
PHASE d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
XS5
2008
DESIGN POOL
12.0
11.5
1.0
XS5
2009
MY2 <0.062
0.125
XS5
2008
MYl POOL
24.2
22.8
0.9
XS5
2010
MY3 <0.062
0.125
XS5
2009
MY2 POOL
17.9
18.2
1.0
XS5
2011
MY3 0.09
0.19
XS5
2010
MY3 POOL
16.5
15.9
1.0
XS5
2011
MY4 POOL
17.3
19.0
1.1
XS5
2012
MY5 0.06
52.6
XS5
2012
MY5 POOL
20.0
17.7
0.89
i Kmwy-Hw
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012- Year 5 of 5 IN.. Z anonaowai a ft

P1 � KiNgll
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 —Years of 5 ���, !flby sronwocolaau�
592
MEREDELL M1 UPPPER STREAM THALWEG PROFILE 2012
Water Surface Slope
-
�
—'
- --
-
- -
--
y = - 0.014x + 1010.4
590
Bankfull Slope
— --
.. •
a
• � o
_ _
-
- - - -
-- --
--
y = - 0.0129x + 978.57
-
588
o
586
30 +311.932) (STA 30 +358.993) -
- - — -
- -- —
— -- - -- -
- -- -
Q
T
584
W
582
7
580
a
578
XS-6 XS-7
-
L_1r-A
576
30000
30100
30200 30300 30400 30500 30600 30700
30800 30900 31000
Station (ft)
0 2012 BANKFULL - - - - 2012 WATER SURFACE
—2012 BED ELEVATION 2011 BED ELEVATION
-- ----- 2010 BED ELEVATION - - - 2009 BED ELEVATION
- - 2008 BED ELEVATION
u�aM,
OL0
Survey Thalwap - MV 2012
crennei A��n Cenu,rline
cis saaona
Construga0 R�1b
. .
Z7100
\ Lop W ne
/
�+g Rock Vane
,
Cross Wne
• 00
.�Cj6
y��Rock
v RockA Yana
Rootwa0
0 75 1 10
Feet
P1 � KiNgll
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 —Years of 5 ���, !flby sronwocolaau�
30 +311.932) (STA 30 +358.993) -
- - — -
- -- —
— -- - -- -
- -- -

x
C
0
�o
a
W
590
589
588
587
586
585
0.00
20.00 40.00 60.00
Station (ft)
XS - 6 (STA 30 +311.932
80.00
ID
YEAR
PHASE
FACET TYPE
Wbkf
Abkf
Dbkf
XS6
2008
DESIGN
RIFFLE
10.2
8.0
0.8
XS6
2008
MY1
RIFFLE
19.1
11.9
0.6
XS6
2009
MY2
RIFFLE
17.7
10.7
0.6
XS6
2010
MY3
RIFFLE
16.4
10.3
0.6
XS6
2011
MY4
RIFFLE
16.3
10.6
0.7
XS6
2012
MY5
RIFFLE
16.9
11.3
0.67
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 -Year 5 of 5
100
90
80
70
c 60
0
U
� 50 -
u
40
`m
CL
30
20
10
0
N N �/1 O O N Q I� OD M SD N V1 p O o0 O lD N N Q w W
l0 N u1 'y O N �A I� N M Q �O Ot 00 Vl M A N Q Q
V N N O •+ Q w O o6 6 6
1p N N rl N GIl � 00 Vl lD N Q
N O
Particle Size (mm)
100
90
80
70
60 0
- 50 •-
m
40 £
7
30
20
10
0
ID
YEAR
PHASE
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
XS6
2009
MY2
<0.062
11.3
XS6
2010
MY3
0.15
9.1
XS6
2011
MY4
7.23
1,051.78
XS6
2012
MY5
0.23
20.9
I T- 2
zs6MS
zs6 Mo
� x56I➢09
�
� '
M M2
.. x56 M1
• xs6 zmv
N N �/1 O O N Q I� OD M SD N V1 p O o0 O lD N N Q w W
l0 N u1 'y O N �A I� N M Q �O Ot 00 Vl M A N Q Q
V N N O •+ Q w O o6 6 6
1p N N rl N GIl � 00 Vl lD N Q
N O
Particle Size (mm)
100
90
80
70
60 0
- 50 •-
m
40 £
7
30
20
10
0
ID
YEAR
PHASE
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
XS6
2009
MY2
<0.062
11.3
XS6
2010
MY3
0.15
9.1
XS6
2011
MY4
7.23
1,051.78
XS6
2012
MY5
0.23
20.9
i Z f,"*�-Ho5n
W4 A66 010 Inc

594
593
592
591
590
c
589
0
m
W 588
587
586
585
584
583
lA 111 O O N O n 00 M H l N V O 00 O 50 N N C 00 00
O N n Ln r4 N M V O1
O N M N 1D N V1
o
. J
0.00
Particle Size (mm)
20.00
40.00 60.00 80.00
100.00 120.00
140.00
2009
MY2 <0.062 0.5
XS7
Station (ft)
MY3 <0.062 0.2143
XS7
2011
MY4 1.17 37.54
XS7
XS - 7 (STA 30 +358.993)
MY5 0.04 0.15
ID
YEAR
PHASE
FACET TYPE Wbkf
Abkf
Dbkf
XS7
2008
DESIGN
POOL 15.0
18.5
1.2
XS7
2008
MY1
POOL 15.9
13.9
0.9
XS7
2009
MY2
POOL 15.6
12.3
0.8
XS7
2010
MY3
POOL 12.0
11.5
1.0
XS7
2011
MY4
POOL 13.1
14.4
1.1
XS7
2012
MY5
POOL 21
17.1
0.82
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 - Year 5 of 5
1VV
90
80
70
60
O
v 50
v
u
t 40
CL
30
20
10
0
MIN
. - .__... %522012
%5] 2011
� %522010
� %52 2009
� %52 EOlE
. . � x522011
X52 2009
lA 111 O O N O n 00 M H l N V O 00 O 50 N N C 00 00
O N n Ln r4 N M V O1
O N M N 1D N V1
o
. J
Particle Size (mm)
ID
YEAR
PHASE dS0 (mm) d84 (mm)
XS7
2009
MY2 <0.062 0.5
90
80
70
60 �?
Ol
50
40 �E
30
20
10
0
� „14'i11C/-NINf1
\� al,unswcelsuvtc
lA 111 O O N O n 00 M H l N V O 00 O 50 N N C 00 00
O N n Ln r4 N M V O1
O N M N 1D N V1
o
^' 1n o
Particle Size (mm)
ID
YEAR
PHASE dS0 (mm) d84 (mm)
XS7
2009
MY2 <0.062 0.5
XS7
2010
MY3 <0.062 0.2143
XS7
2011
MY4 1.17 37.54
XS7
2012
MY5 0.04 0.15
� „14'i11C/-NINf1
\� al,unswcelsuvtc

P_ wTwy -Man
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 -Year 5 of 5 �� and Aati0loftInc
580
-
- — — - -
- -
MEREDELL M1 LOWER STREAM THALWEG PROFILE 2012
_
Water Surface Slope
578
-
y = - 0.0104x + 899.44
Bankfull Slope
576
y=- 0.0101x +890.18
- - --
—' —
-
-- o-
- -- -
-- - -
-- -
--
- -
574
_
o
572
_
-- - - - --
-
-
'1 - -
- - - - -- --
- --
--
--
- -- -
--
-
C
�
- - -
- -
•� 570
+�
- - --
- --
W
!
568
-
-
- -_ - -- --
566
_
- -
i
564
- - - - -
562 -- - - - -
XS-8 al)-XS - 9
xS - 10
(STA 31 +356.3 - - _ _ (STA 32 +217.949)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
S'TA 32 +174.027)
r
560
3100 0 31200
31400 31600 31800 32000
32200
Station (ft)
2012 BANKFULL - - - - 2012 WATER SURFACE
2012 BED ELEVATION 2011 BED ELEVATION
- ------ 2010 BED ELEVATION - - - 2009 BED ELEVATION
- - 2008 BED ELEVATION
Lspend
.
SutwY Thalx+a - MY 201 Z
eeeer. Channel As -9u�lt cenfer�,ne
J,
Cnm SeWOns
corn;o-�crea Rfik
:�,
0
•�
X
�oavane
w�d.�Rock Vana
r
�(11�
�ROCk Grose Vane
v RockA Vane
Rootwad
0
�N
75 150 1
Feet
P_ wTwy -Man
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 -Year 5 of 5 �� and Aati0loftInc

577
-
- Water Surface Elevation XS8
+ Bankfull Elevation XS8
Bed Elevation XS8 -2012
Bed Elevation XS8 -2011
576
Bed Elevation XS8 -2010 - = - - --
-
-
- Bed Elevation XS8 -2009
Bed Elevation XS8 -2008
v
r
. i
c
o
-
--
- ,
-
Z 575
--
-
- - -
CU
1
100
100
90
90
-
SO
%se rolo SO
�/ � %LI 3009
�/J SB 3011
70
70
- %58 3010
574
--
-
--
--
--
i 60
60
7
o
50
>
d
50 -
- - --
�
Y
'q
=
ao
,
ao
E
C
30
30
/
20
20
10
}. �
10
573
J
0
0
o v o o N a n 00 n m y m ry oo n e N a v
O .- •+ O ry VI I� rl f31 N tD N VI V rl r-1 N M t!1 O O O
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
100.00 120.00
Station (ft)
V N N V 0 +
� ,-
O
V N N p O a0 O D N N n
ti N nt N
vl O
Particle Size (mm)
XS - 8 (STA 31 +356.371)
ID
YEAR
PHASE FACET TYPE
Wbkf
Abkf
Dbkf
ID
YEAR
PHASE dS0 (mm) d84 (mm)
XS8
2008
DESIGN RIFFLE
10.2
8.0
0.8
XS8
2009
MY2 16 90
XS8
2008
MY1 RIFFLE
11.9
8.7
0.7
XS8
2010
MY3 20.95 90
XS8
2009
MY2 RIFFLE
11.7
9.0
0.8
XS8
2011
MY4 29.31 81.41
XS8
2010
MY3 RIFFLE
13.9
7.9
0.6
XS8
2012
MY5 6.99 22.49
XS8
2011
MY4 RIFFLE
20.9
8.8
0.4
XS8
2012
MY5 RIFFLE
10.3
6.54
0.64
P, Z wm*y -horn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 -Year 5 of 5 �� No AS o Q,.w Inc

i Km" 9,orn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 -Year 5 of 5 lh � ■ dAs0 .218 1116
571
—1k-- Water Surface Elevation
XS9
+ Bankfull Elevation XS9
Bed Elevation XS9 -2012
570
Bed Elevation XS9 -2011
t'
Bed Elevation XS9 -2010
- •
- Bed Elevation XS9 -2009
v
569 J
`-
A
Bed Elevation XS9 -2008
'a
i
0
568
- — --
W
100
100
90
i
90
^/' ,
567
—
--
80
80
— --
�
70
XS9 3011
70
60
� e�
60 0
o
I
, XS 2012
y
v
y
50
— .. — X%M,
- ��� - -� X.3010
50 >
,
ao
r - , .
�.
ao Z
566 —
30
-
30
--------
20
20
10
10
0
-
-- 0
565
N o o N a n oo
0
20
40
60
q qN� ^�",N
�� u9 � o
� N N Vl
~
ONa°c0000��000
Station (ft)
O
�
°
Particle Size (mm)
XS - 9 (STA 32 +217.949)
ID
YEAR
PHASE
FACET TYPE Wbkf
Abkf
Dbkf
ID
YEAR
PHASE d50 (mm) d84 (mm)
XS9
2008
DESIGN
RIFFLE
10.2
8.0
0.8
XS9
2009
MY2 8 64
XS9
2008
MY1
RIFFLE
12.9
7.9
0.6
XS9
2010
MY3 41.75 164.94
XS9
2009
MY2
RIFFLE
13.1
9.3
0.7
XS9
2011
MY4 28.86 55.18
XS9
2010
MY3
RIFFLE
14.5
9.3
0.6
XS9
2012
MY5 73.1 255.99
XS9
2011
MY4
RIFFLE
14.1
6.9
0.5
XS9
2012
MY5
RIFFLE
12.4
8.33
0.67
i Km" 9,orn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 -Year 5 of 5 lh � ■ dAs0 .218 1116

571.00
gym- =- -Water Surface Elevation XS10
R ��.• y ., ��fy .
f
t
.t,
+ Bankfull Elevation XS10�
570.00
Bed Elevation XS10 -2012
r
-
Bed Elevation XS10 -2011
+•• ' g
�g«
--�-
Bed Elevation XS10 -2010
569.00
-
- + - Bed Elevation XS10 -2009
-
Bed Elevation XS10 -2008
568.00
s
X67.00
M
or
LU
100
- /
100
90
566.00
90
80
80
70
�om
70
565.00
� xuomm
c 60
uiomre
xuomss
60 0
� . _ .
y
LJ 50
w T
__- _- zsiom�o
i _ _ . xsiomm
50
10
"
564.00 -- -
40 4 --
40 E
30
i
30
-
20
20
563.00
10 -}
10
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
0 �
..... o
Station (ft)
N u O O N O 00 M p N V O 00 O O N V 00 00
lO N Vl M O �O V O1 Op V1 l0 N d V
N
.V M N N V1 V
O ui
V .' N N 6 .y M O O O OW O D N n
iD .i .y N Ol N o0 Vf O � Q
O e-1 N M
N O
XS - 10
(STA 32 +174.027)
Particle Size (mm)
ID
YEAR
PHASE FACET TYPE Wbkf
Abkf
Dbkf
ID
YEAR PHASE dS0 (mm) d84 (mm)
XS10
2008
DESIGN POOL
15.0
18.5
1.2
XS10
2009 MY2 <0.062 16
XS10
2008
MY1 POOL
11.9
12.7
1.1
XS10
2010 MY3 20.4 74.4
XS10
2009
MY2 POOL
11.0
13.2
1.2
XS10
2010
MY3 POOL
9.9
14.2
1.4
XS10
2011 MY4 4.0 59.08
XS10
2011
MY4 POOL
10.1
12.4
1.2
XS10
2012 MY5 0.04 0.06
XS10
2012
MY5 POOL
13.6
16
1.18
K4m1ey -Horn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 -Year 5 of 5 &� "AS WCmieaiM

�mm0
®�mmma
®�mmma
®mm
®�mmmo
FERR

Meredell Farm
Table 10a.2 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Stream Restoration Site247 - Reach: UT2b 294 feet
Parameter
Gauger
Regional Curve
Pre
{xistin Condition
Raferance Reach as Data
Design
Monitoring Dasaline
01 -sloop and SUtlrltrata - R AGWf.
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Metl
I Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mad
Max
Min
Mean
Metl
Max
SD'
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.9
6.6
6.8
8.1
1.3
4
7.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
10.0
12.3
11.0
17.0
3.2
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0,4
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.2
4
0.6
' Bankfull Max Depth R
01
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.2
4
0.1
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft")
2.4
3.7
3.1
6.2
1,8
4
4.5
Wchh/Depth Ratio
91
12.8
11.6
18.4
3.9
4
12
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
1.9
1.9
2.3
0.3
4
'Bank Hei ht Ratio
2.2
2.6
2.3
3.7
0.7
4
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft)
0.009
0225
0.016
0.021
0.027
Pod Length (ft)
LEI
I
Pool Max depth (ft)
1
1.2
1.5
1.B
Pool Spacing (ft)
30
67
14.7
25.7
36.7
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 15 26 42.5 59
Radius of Cumawre (ft) 3 13 1 1 1 1 15 16.5 22
RoBankfull width (ft/h) 0.4 1.9 2 2.5 3
Meander Wavelength (ft)j 1 60 95 51 66 81
Meander Width Rabol I 1 1 8 6 139 7 9 11
ramps! PerarneWs
Reach Shear Stress com ten Ibrt=
0.565
0.439
Max pan size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
eantl
sand
Stream Power trans rt ca are W /.'
31.1
20.9
wrtp Pse --- S .
Rosgen Classification
B5, E5
C4
Baflklull Velocity (fps)
29
31
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
13
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.12
1.2
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0321
0.0134
BF elope (ftRt)
0.0188
"Bankfull Fl ain Area acres)
*% of Reach with Erodin Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metnc
Biological or Other
wi. mew m. w..,ml,yr,mr„e mawe.
ate. rnw wn �m,dma warm.mco,,.,, ,..i
Mm�ll Fnn M^.emn{ Pepnn(b'n 3013 - Ym 5 ar5

Table 1 Oa.3 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site/247 - Reach: M 1 (3200
�mmm
®�mmma
®�mm�a
®mm
®�mmma

Table 10b.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Sitel247 - Reach: UT1b (780 feet)
n wr,nlrypcaar nm Nebe.n
- w. sba. cam. abp savcbr. swa nnw. eoeeb. eouub. eeemcs eq = mu pse. eaP= mu.ugwm
3 • Entnnwmwt Clus NagmMn sM raves bobp inb lM aw.w indcebe ane erode rM prwn.p mrM taal raven Ioo4P.n N<n m— in IN i i. .11 m. s n crow lava uu ewmarw
). ASwplMn pw rNCn aq.prw tN e4uw�Nx:bwuq VPxee me pnw.P alrM tabl mcn lapwern ww asw in pn rWb Thn Wnsup M1Om msrrxsuna uaateecsmns ss uallu[ bnpwnq polio
reMrraba t.] -is • eu a Rwpn cwamcetmn ane Ma. —w Means Me —.q.. sLpstly mue Mewbr uupnmenr to wmwsa -.—I mna MSw on 111. ma...nmeMn sucn..rroesunmwr awnry wprent b, ER U. .norMmwswry
tp pmun Mnabe<auulMrol balpiaN monnprq imamnem nwa poe pneraruus alma aaam Nnpurop wmenneuunme pe�amnp wa tM m,aeawbaawauwpuwmpu,wiu rotM nManw eesnM,Nna
E0. eN BNR Nw Nen eeenwwin pwr wenwwMw•aupunyalawsuawuu wn of ma Nxp sumYl.npswr uuambn ns.4 Mw rocuaatl en.ny on.cswonp bs�p nnsow PmvAnpstMn�pn pncpnamm� mstriwuan of tneeepwmabrs. lea. r uanr asampe rMt�s eegmw neaurymme stew ae<oonsa
s rww T,n �anstNSWasggbwnsMmew ppwnbn elwWeincWb aw MmEanMCmssmsoonwmryeM tM prgaW�w PwW wen the <awaER, nsual uumuea Fm mmpe. rnerypcal lPnpncBMlpmW prm.ssawnnpama BlW Urwsa Nypepow wp <u <rwzcxeans antltnarebn canwnaeuY m.paswantl pmxb
• mpn camelna urrpa enmMnwn ror tnw wnr,wen. mwtry pan p me eignbnnm nP ewu ry. erwma rmnnglul eamprnons
.]ten F>m uw.wrs Rmen tan col: - re. s ars ..

Table 10b.2 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site1247 - Reach: UT2b (294 feet)
sn.aw F.l, nn�m Inal IMw,wl nawenr nM M mbp m.
= RM. Pun Nol, Gb. 9bp. SAIL Su4 GeW. Cantle. Baubu, BYnrcY, d - = u wppsw
3= EntnwnmMl Cbas PsspNbnlM rwM VmbP imo tM Cbsaw m4ubp u4 eanpY ma pammvpWMlwal,ewn mobw.n wcn cbumtM btla ine . m e n aw elemm�lw
3= PlYp1 /bnlM iwcn mobP inlclM Cbww �Mmuw aM pamea mY Pmwbw oltM tau nwn mMaw inuMCbu inlM lsMe rnn wanwn Mm ma mwsune ooaenwlwne ae wuume onpiunnei poAk�
w i eRaepm clYUlM1aepn Ynenamranbro awns. tlrtr. naqusbB npnny to make mrauor uspnrrentmwnrawnn cae,ssr bns MSw an.muu wvmbamma Mb wM lMl mwwnmemMwwry wpwm b, ER.wum nmMMCwsary
.n a aa.,aewpa.M awMOaro �nmaMMa wm. was wnbelwMebm..mm olnrammpw wMmnn.m �nmYa.a�nmp watM,.neblwbe net.a wamuwwmw�wnamlM,w.,enM pamwnana
FR.M BHa n.wM.n.mnwee an macwMwaww w.Faw.mw �nw.wnww ae wn tlme waw, a�w.rl. noemm,. p,« M..pwn..n Mw meMw.m.erw bwwMO Saw wlwn Rm..pmo.mwwm m<aanmMn 0.elntl5,w arlMw wnm.mm b. nam.a . wmw marts wpm.p awwrMm. ales. :.cowatl
v a a was lorlMw wnnebn sMUlO inclum EaY lmm porn tna cmwcwnm aunrye YnE tM bnpwbinelpMU wpmmaww NER. xzaL wumabe FaremnW. mY rypwal0.npm4nYl pmFe wmxb eurolnpnme Best et Mlles Mywo low wban m<rmsawnww walM,alon ew Mnwnv inbprateo aM plo.N
• men camaMe wmW ammtlnwa M mre wnmtlen meceer pw+nlp me 0.una5wmm�npa newssW m ba+�ne mwmrvpwampa„sws
Maehll iam Mmvnug Repm(2<]I MI:- Yec5tl5 ��' `tea• + -��ss•-
----------------------------
sn.aw F.l, nn�m Inal IMw,wl nawenr nM M mbp m.
= RM. Pun Nol, Gb. 9bp. SAIL Su4 GeW. Cantle. Baubu, BYnrcY, d - = u wppsw
3= EntnwnmMl Cbas PsspNbnlM rwM VmbP imo tM Cbsaw m4ubp u4 eanpY ma pammvpWMlwal,ewn mobw.n wcn cbumtM btla ine . m e n aw elemm�lw
3= PlYp1 /bnlM iwcn mobP inlclM Cbww �Mmuw aM pamea mY Pmwbw oltM tau nwn mMaw inuMCbu inlM lsMe rnn wanwn Mm ma mwsune ooaenwlwne ae wuume onpiunnei poAk�
w i eRaepm clYUlM1aepn Ynenamranbro awns. tlrtr. naqusbB npnny to make mrauor uspnrrentmwnrawnn cae,ssr bns MSw an.muu wvmbamma Mb wM lMl mwwnmemMwwry wpwm b, ER.wum nmMMCwsary
.n a aa.,aewpa.M awMOaro �nmaMMa wm. was wnbelwMebm..mm olnrammpw wMmnn.m �nmYa.a�nmp watM,.neblwbe net.a wamuwwmw�wnamlM,w.,enM pamwnana
FR.M BHa n.wM.n.mnwee an macwMwaww w.Faw.mw �nw.wnww ae wn tlme waw, a�w.rl. noemm,. p,« M..pwn..n Mw meMw.m.erw bwwMO Saw wlwn Rm..pmo.mwwm m<aanmMn 0.elntl5,w arlMw wnm.mm b. nam.a . wmw marts wpm.p awwrMm. ales. :.cowatl
v a a was lorlMw wnnebn sMUlO inclum EaY lmm porn tna cmwcwnm aunrye YnE tM bnpwbinelpMU wpmmaww NER. xzaL wumabe FaremnW. mY rypwal0.npm4nYl pmFe wmxb eurolnpnme Best et Mlles Mywo low wban m<rmsawnww walM,alon ew Mnwnv inbprateo aM plo.N
• men camaMe wmW ammtlnwa M mre wnmtlen meceer pw+nlp me 0.una5wmm�npa newssW m ba+�ne mwmrvpwampa„sws
Maehll iam Mmvnug Repm(2<]I MI:- Yec5tl5 ��' `tea• + -��ss•-

Table 10b.3 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site/247 - Reach: M1 (3200 feet)
$nMM wib nJUn tnvt m.r wiI rypcary na w Nied.n
= RdM. Run, PoW. G•M1, Bbp. aNGby. 9antl. Gns 1, Cenea. Bpnm•r, B.pecq tlm = ma pwe. aup • mm I—-
x= EmnnwmmlCUae- .WpNbn
] =P.•qh /tin N. rrcn beep snm vlM nwdnanI— 'Iwl0I-- rhlwbM' — ...
InM d. ==. . i w,asu m n cma•w s n vi.sn,wn
et tM taw nwh bnvw,n rw c.w,n lM wW inn nd nwn nen be mrwnduwsaectdn•.•.r u- npnua ar— w
fsabar.fA- YMa.cmwsmmRa Mie •rwM lM Rwpr cWd — and horn r•nmMdntl.. bn naq,nbaagnrynm•ne brays�r rupnrrnt•wrrw.•l msrrrbn bu•don.natl r.msm•npe bm suan ne,.wwnmmlMew,y e•pwm br ER naeM MlMwrrwry
n pmnhn,.mn Yem. —dwwry 11. .1 .n m. p.®enp and 1M,wwiwba n.uaw -11 aamwnwne b m.r.r w,p. d.mmearc
ER and BHR nvro ra,•dtlnvrdm prm suwr•mMrawermp•(pwvwdwnvr p•n pm•wyrsuwy�.nw..w. ra•wrmp•s naro Mrlansatl.meary on bcenenp ar,pr xdnem pnndnp•Inpvupn MCm rulnn sn ,.ono rcm urrerw wmbatMlnvwgmw nrn�y on lnv anb. swnona of
n•rrcn n • Ih. • wns u n. n ,rc cmware•naw.•ys aw lM bpvWmm poM1l•ana nlM wwGEA awr.l.num.a rw evmps m•rypa w,pnirwolpM,l•p.m„usampmOat lNn a.:•nrMS aymalntow•uEpttmcro•saxoom and lMrabn canes n•wY m Wane pm.aa
•Imo coop amps aumWnn brtnr�rnmeten. nwMy prnnnplM tl�wnbrldNwwnP nwvrvry to Pwm. mrn,npNi cerrpnnwns
UR.s]I r.m ramwma,r Rwwtz,n xolx- rnm s m ]
r
---------------------------�
$nMM wib nJUn tnvt m.r wiI rypcary na w Nied.n
= RdM. Run, PoW. G•M1, Bbp. aNGby. 9antl. Gns 1, Cenea. Bpnm•r, B.pecq tlm = ma pwe. aup • mm I—-
x= EmnnwmmlCUae- .WpNbn
] =P.•qh /tin N. rrcn beep snm vlM nwdnanI— 'Iwl0I-- rhlwbM' — ...
InM d. ==. . i w,asu m n cma•w s n vi.sn,wn
et tM taw nwh bnvw,n rw c.w,n lM wW inn nd nwn nen be mrwnduwsaectdn•.•.r u- npnua ar— w
fsabar.fA- YMa.cmwsmmRa Mie •rwM lM Rwpr cWd — and horn r•nmMdntl.. bn naq,nbaagnrynm•ne brays�r rupnrrnt•wrrw.•l msrrrbn bu•don.natl r.msm•npe bm suan ne,.wwnmmlMew,y e•pwm br ER naeM MlMwrrwry
n pmnhn,.mn Yem. —dwwry 11. .1 .n m. p.®enp and 1M,wwiwba n.uaw -11 aamwnwne b m.r.r w,p. d.mmearc
ER and BHR nvro ra,•dtlnvrdm prm suwr•mMrawermp•(pwvwdwnvr p•n pm•wyrsuwy�.nw..w. ra•wrmp•s naro Mrlansatl.meary on bcenenp ar,pr xdnem pnndnp•Inpvupn MCm rulnn sn ,.ono rcm urrerw wmbatMlnvwgmw nrn�y on lnv anb. swnona of
n•rrcn n • Ih. • wns u n. n ,rc cmware•naw.•ys aw lM bpvWmm poM1l•ana nlM wwGEA awr.l.num.a rw evmps m•rypa w,pnirwolpM,l•p.m„usampmOat lNn a.:•nrMS aymalntow•uEpttmcro•saxoom and lMrabn canes n•wY m Wane pm.aa
•Imo coop amps aumWnn brtnr�rnmeten. nwMy prnnnplM tl�wnbrldNwwnP nwvrvry to Pwm. mrn,npNi cerrpnnwns
UR.s]I r.m ramwma,r Rwwtz,n xolx- rnm s m ]

Table 11a.1 Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Sections)
Imo
©m
©memo
©m
©momo
©m
©m�mD
©mmmmmo
©m
©ml
1 • Nsans .na asgns ror monrtoanp ranurvey vall a E.a.O on Ins Wdn• Eana/uY anum ropvd.as o16m.nsbnWlpo•IaonW awakpm•nt. Inlad tlw sl•vwon ue•a .s ew aaum, nnich .noud b. comeba.nOlwM on In• b.xllm tl•am •.bdmhatl. N In. P.rt•enr lua kh•a.a Ma proMa .M nnna ecgnn d,a dam usw
for poor years this must be discussed —EEP. MMis nrcat ES resolved In time bra pi.nysars report submiearon• botrnb ntNS Chouk be ireiuded tha[e,9es'Itis uncerdin0 the montonnp d,b-1 sheen oo—i rrt overt, mortorinp history.v.MChmaylnlWencecakuleted.1-
Pddiaor,al rota from a p r performer is beep ac —d b prow, oonnrmaeon. Valuers wtl be renkJatetl n a fiats submaaon based on a coeds,. daban d demrmined to be necessary '
.—< ,V Nuvim.a aepwt(.1).a 2 -Yew S aI

Table 11a.2 Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Sections)
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site/247 - Reach: UT2b (294 feet)
•
mm
©mm
©mmmo
©m
©memo
©m
©memo
©m
©mmmo
©m
©m
slrjwm
10111m�
®mom
®
®�
®�m�����������������
=����
1 � NeMa elq MATS for rrlenilorna reauMywia b bsesE en ne Xeaebra beridul mwn �.praess aI dnlmabwXdepostorW Gvelopnent. Input nw eleveeon used oa tM dWm, Wrka aM1wdd b consabM end fosse on Ne Wxem mbm oadtlbM1ad. X on padomrr M1es iMeMed Ne propel eM cennd oogwra tlH NNm used
for prior y,,m iha moat be diseueaad xith EEP. X else —t be msoMd In time for a prven yeah sport sutlmission a footrom in fie show Ee included that states :'it m urcerbin X do m—nnp datum Ins been consismnt over do m nlonnp hstory, whch may bdluerlce nkWated values
Addt —I data from a prkr performer Is being acqu i,id to provide — 11— allon. Values wit be rarakWantl'n a kM,, w1om— based on a conai tnt datum X de—ned fo be necessary .'
sl—a I'm M—r,,, Ilepvnryn roll --de C =F,

Table I Ia.3 Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Sections)
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site/247 - Reach: MI (3200 feet)
�m
©
©m
©memo
©mmm�mo
©m
©memo
©m
©memo
©mmm
• •
�m
®
®
®
®m��m��m��mm�
®mm�mm
®®
®mom
®
®mmm�
1- iWoia am daplha for rtbnft hN raurwyx I a based on Me baelha barldW did— reaartlleas of d— isia- padbnal dasio —t Irp.l alevebon. —es sra- .m...—U. bas. -IsIsM and Magid On the basallra— estedehed. d Me isrf— hea inh,mad Ne Wjed eW anrrot x r.fM —used
for prior years this must Ix tlirwuseed with EEP. If Uvs. —t be roaoN d In b— for a given yaro ropod.Wm, —n a footrnte m this ahoutl be Indudetl that stet "it Is uncermin d fhe moMorirp datum t s been wrisgteM aver the m— lo,inq Nstory, whM may rifl-r os oa Watsd values.
AddiE I dab from a prior performer is being aequ d W provide confirmabon. Values will be mmIc labd in a kM,, submoswn based on a eon sWe datum d debnnined b be necessary.'
Mvedea t.m Mmnonry aePm (L'/I EplE - Teu 5 d 5 � �n • +•�•�

vnu rypiniry not oe nuea m.
1 =The d— bubons for these parameters nn irrJUtle irrtormabon from both fie cross - section surveys antl— bN dmal profib
2 = Proportion of reach edxbMN banks that an erodirp based on the visual survey from wtsual assessment table
3 = ROM, Run. Pool, Glide, Slap, SWClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Balder. Bedrock; dip = max pave, dap = max subpaw
4 = Of value /needed only f the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b.1 Monitoring Data Data
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration SiteI247 - Reach: UTIb t
mmm®
mmm®
mmm
©m
®
®mmmmmm
®m
©m.m.mm.mo
®m,m
®m©
..... - ..
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm©m.m.mm
.
m
©mtm,
®m.mm
mmmmmmmmmmm
©mmmmmmmmmmm
©mmmmmmmmmmmm
,m®
mmmmm
®mmm
©m
®mmmmm
®m
®mmmm■mmm
©mtm
®mm©
mm
®
®mmmmmmm
©mmmmm
©mmmmm
©mmmm,mmmt
®mm.mm
-
m®®®
mmm®®®
m
©mmmmmm
®�m�mmm,
®mm.mmmtmtmm,m©
-
mmmmmmmmmmm
©m
®mmmmm�mmm
©mmmmmmmtmmm.m©
-..
mmmmmmvoomm
©omm
®m
©mmm
®m
©m,
®
®
®mo
®m,mm,m©
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
®m•mm.mmmt
®mmmmm
..'
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�mom�mmm��m�mm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
®m.mm.mmo�mmsmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
®mtm
®mm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
,m■mm.mmomtmm�mm
mmmmmmmmmmmm�m■m�mm��m�mm
_ .
mmmmmmm�mmm��mm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm'
mm��m�mm
- . mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm����mm��m�mm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
■m■mm■mm��mm■m�
=
��m�������mmmmmmmmmmmmmm�m
■mm■mm��m�mm
mmmmmmmmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmm�m
■�m�m���mm■mm
vnu rypiniry not oe nuea m.
1 =The d— bubons for these parameters nn irrJUtle irrtormabon from both fie cross - section surveys antl— bN dmal profib
2 = Proportion of reach edxbMN banks that an erodirp based on the visual survey from wtsual assessment table
3 = ROM, Run. Pool, Glide, Slap, SWClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Balder. Bedrock; dip = max pave, dap = max subpaw
4 = Of value /needed only f the n exceeds 3

vnu ryP—Y roc oe nnea m.
1 =The tlismbubons lar these parameters nn i We iMOrm —n hom Wo the uoss -seNOn wrwys aM fhe bNMdnal profib
2 = Pmporbon of roac .�btN banks that are eroding based on the ve:ual survey fmm Nsual assessment tabb
3 = RilAe, Run, Pool, Glide. Sbp, SIIVCIay, Sand. Gravel, Cobbb, Boulder, Bedrock, dp =max pave. disp =max subp-
Exhibit Table 11b.2 Monitoring Data Data
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Sfte/247 - Reach.,_UT2 (294 feet)
®
MMMMo
®CMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMM
®MM
MMMM
- •
������vovom
©vvov�
©���
®moo
®m
®
®�
©�®
®gym©
vnu ryP—Y roc oe nnea m.
1 =The tlismbubons lar these parameters nn i We iMOrm —n hom Wo the uoss -seNOn wrwys aM fhe bNMdnal profib
2 = Pmporbon of roac .�btN banks that are eroding based on the ve:ual survey fmm Nsual assessment tabb
3 = RilAe, Run, Pool, Glide. Sbp, SIIVCIay, Sand. Gravel, Cobbb, Boulder, Bedrock, dp =max pave. disp =max subp-

e r)yrary nw w mw in
1 =The tlatribNiau fa Ihese parmetxs can irxJUde iMama[gn fran bath the cross- sedian surveys antl the IagA W ifal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach e N mrp EarJls MY are erodirg basetl on the visual survey Iran rlsual asseSemcN tabk
3 = RMIe, Run, Pod. Glxfe. Step, &`VCby. SaM, Grand, Cabbk, B.W. . Betlra:k, tl4 =max pave. Lisp =max wbpave
<. = Of vduefreetletl ordy N the n exceetls 3
Exhibit Table 11 b.3 Monitoring Data Data
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site/247- Reach: MI (3200 feet)
m®
mmm©
mmmmm
©mm
®
®m
©m
®mmm
©m,m,mm,m
©m,�
®gym©
mmmmm®
mmmm
©mmmm
®o
®mmmmo
®m,mmi
®
©��m,mv
®©
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
©mmmmm
©mmmmmmm,m�mtm•mm
mmmmm
©mmmmm
©mmmmm
©mmmmm
©mmmmmmm.�
®m,mm
m
®mmmm
mmmmm
©mmm
®m
©mmmmm
©mm,mm.mmm,m�
®
®mm
- •
m
®m
®mm
®mmmm
©mmmmmmmm
®mmmmm,
®m,mm
®�ma
®mm
- •
mmmmmmmmmmm
©mmmmm
©mmmmm
©mmmmmmmt�mtm�mm
-- •
mmmmmmmmm
®m
©mmm
®m
©mmm
®m
©m,m,m
®m
©o�m,mam©
-
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
,m.mm,mmmms��mm
- ..
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
,�m�mm����mm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
,m�mmm,m��msmm,
mmm�mmm�m��mm�m�mmmm��mmmmmmmmmm�
mmm
•
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
,mmimmm,m.�m�mm
e r)yrary nw w mw in
1 =The tlatribNiau fa Ihese parmetxs can irxJUde iMama[gn fran bath the cross- sedian surveys antl the IagA W ifal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach e N mrp EarJls MY are erodirg basetl on the visual survey Iran rlsual asseSemcN tabk
3 = RMIe, Run, Pod. Glxfe. Step, &`VCby. SaM, Grand, Cabbk, B.W. . Betlra:k, tl4 =max pave. Lisp =max wbpave
<. = Of vduefreetletl ordy N the n exceetls 3

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGIC DATA

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method
Photo #
(if available)
8/4/2010
N/A
*Crest Gage Reading: 1.96'
10/20/2011
N/A
Crest Gage indicates BKF event
3/26/2012
N/A
Wracklines indicate BKF event on UT1b
SP2
10/18/2012
N/A
*Crest Gage Reading: 1.17'
SP1
*Design bankfull depth range for reach M1 is 1.0' to 1.3'. Crest gage readings occuring at, above, or
within this range are recorded as bankfull indicators
i =f, KmnIey-Horn
Meredell Farm Monitoring Report (247) 2012 — Year 5 of 5 k and Associates. Inc.