20180919 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2021_20220105

ID#* 20180919
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/05/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/5/2022
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
ID#:* 20180919
Existing ID#
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Meadow Brook
County: Yadkin
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Meadowbrook_100024_MY2_2021.pdf 22.41MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature: *
/y ta"m;�

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
r r RESTORATION
Mr. Harry Tsomides
NCDEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravencroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
December 21, 2021
RE:
Dear Mr. Tsomides,
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
Raleigh, NC 27511
Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR) has reviewed the comments on the Draft MY2
Monitoring Report provided December 7, 2021. The comments have been addressed as described
below and the Final MY2 Report and electronic deliverables have been revised in response to this
review.
• A vegetation plot success summary table would be helpful to add to the report (plot/criteria
met(Y/N)/ Tract mean %)
o Vegetation plot success is summarized in Table 7. Cells that are shaded orange are
not meeting the interim performance criteria and cells that are green are meeting
the interim performance criteria. In MY2, 100% of the vegetation plots are
meeting the performance criteria.
• The Adaptive Management Plan was noted in the write up however it is not indicated whether
or not the planting itself met the plan specifics (quantities, species, locations, etc). Please
indicate accordingly and detail/explain any deviations if they occurred.
o This has been clarified in the report document. The supplemental planting
was conducted according to the submitted AMP and no deviations from the
plan specifics (quantities, species, locations, etc.) were reported.
• Table 11 Activities — Completion/delivery dates should be blank if the milestone has not
occurred yet.
o Completion/delivery dates for milestones that have not been completed have been
removed from Table 11.
• Thank you for EPR-s wetland reporting, and providing wetland data despite the project being
stream -only for credit. This will help determine the no net loss of wetland function as you note.
o Noted. Groundwater data from MB GW1 will continue to be collected in MY3.
""`�—j Providing ecosystem planning and restoration services to support a sustainable environment �—

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
ECOSYSTEM 1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
Raleigh, NC 27511
- PLANNING &
r r RESTORATION Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
• Note: Additional photos of the stream crossing located near Sta. 33+00 have been added to
the photolog per the IRT comments and requests from 2021. An additional Photo Point will
be added in MY3 to show this crossing.
Digital Support Files
• Please submit point features representing where beaver dams had existed.
o A shapefile showing the locations of the two beaver dams that were removed in
2021 has been added to the electronic submittal. The points have been added to
the CCPV.
• Please submit a feature depicting the 20ft of Toe Erosion along Meadow Brook Reach land
display this feature in the CCPV.
o A shapefile showing the 20 ft. of to erosion along Meadow Brook Reach 1 has been
added to the electronic submittal. The polyline feature has been added to the
CCPV.
• Please include polygon features characterizing the MY2 random veg plots.
o The polygon features for the MY2 random vegetation plots are included in the
MB_ASB_VegMonitoringPlots shapefile along with the fixed plots.
• Please include all historic monitoring data in the veg tool input, including dead stems.
o All historic vegetation monitoring data has been added to the vegetation tool
input file, including dead stems. This information will be included in the input file
moving forward.
• Please include the data for MB2 STR.
o A spreadsheet containing the data for MB2 STR has been added to the electronic
deliverable files.
If you have any questions regarding the Final MY2 Monitoring Report, please contact me at
919-388-0787 or via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Cidney Jones, PE & CFM
""`�—j Providing ecosystem planning and restoration services to support a sustainable environment �—

Monitoring Year 2 Report
Final
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Yadkin River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101
Data Collection Period: Submission Date:
August 2021— November 2021 December 2021
NCDEQ Contract No. 7184
DIMS ID No. 100024
RFP No. 16-006993
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01509
NCDWR ID: 2018-0919
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
NC Department of Environmental Quality Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
Division of Mitigation Services 1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
217 West Jones Street; 3rd Floor Cary, NC 27511
M,rpoorconsery«e5 Raleigh, NC 27603

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY..........................................................................................................1
1.1 Goals and Objectives...........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Performance Criteria...........................................................................................................................1
2.0 MONITORING DATA ASSESSMENT....................................................................................7
2.1 Stream Monitoring..............................................................................................................................7
2.1.1 Stream Dimension......................................................................................................................7
2.1.2 Stream Profile.............................................................................................................................8
2.1.3 Channel Stability.........................................................................................................................8
2.1.4 Stream Hydrology.......................................................................................................................9
2.2 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring..........................................................................................................9
2.2.1 Vegetation Monitoring Data.....................................................................................................10
2.3 Wetland Hydrology............................................................................................................................10
3.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................17
TABLES
TABLE 1. PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES AND CREDITS..
TABLE 2. GOALS, PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ...................
TABLE 3: PROJECT ATTRIBUTES TABLE ..................................
FIGURES
........................................................ 2
........................................................ 4
.................................................... 6
FIGURE 1. PROJECT VICINITY MAP........................................................................................................................12
FIGURE 2. CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW(CCPV)........................................................................................13
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
IraMonitoring Year 2 Report - FINAL
Yadkin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID #100024

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data
Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vegetation Photo Log
Photo Log
Appendix B: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Appendix D: Hydrologic Data
Table 10. Bankfull Event Verification
Figure 3. Monthly Rainfall Data
Precipitation and Water Level Hydrographs
Appendix E: Project Timeline and Contact Information
Table 11. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 12. Project Contacts Table
Appendix F: IRT Correspondence
Meadow Brook Adaptive Management Plan February 2021
Email: MB GW#2, March 9,2021
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
IraMonitoring Year 2 Report - FINAL
Yadkin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID #100024

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC (EPR) implemented the Meadow Brook Stream Restoration
Project (Project; Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) to provide 3,409 stream mitigation credits (SMCs) in the Yadkin River Basin,
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101. The Project restored and enhanced 3,437 linear feet (LF) of two
perennial unnamed tributaries (UT) to South Deep Creek within a 11.2-acre conservation easement.
Mitigation assets are listed in Table 1.
The Site is located in DMS Targeted Local Watershed 03040101130020. Project location is shown in
Figure 1. The Site was historically utilized for agricultural use. As such, streams and existing wetlands in
the Project area were adversely impacted by direct cattle access, farming activities, and stream
channelization. The Site is situated on once active pastureland in a WS-III Watershed that is 57%
agricultural land, 33% forest, 6% developed open space, and 3% herbaceous land. Prior to construction
activities, both Project streams were incised, straightened, and suffered from significant cattle damage.
The adjacent wetlands were similarly trampled, heavily grazed, routinely mowed, and drained by
multiple ditches and the channelization of the Project streams. Pre -construction, or pre-existing, Site
conditions are provided in Table 3 and the Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables in Appendix C. Photos
and a more detailed description of Site conditions before restoration are available in the Mitigation Plan
(Final version submitted September 2018).
1.1 Goals and Objectives
The Project goals were established based on an assessment of Site conditions and restoration potential
with careful consideration of the stressors identified in the Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP) Report (NCEEP, 2009) and Yadkin Pee -Dee Basinwide Water Quality Plan
(NCDWQ, 2008). These goals and objectives are presented in Table 2.
Site construction was completed in June 2019, and the as -built survey was completed in August 2019.
Planting and baseline vegetation data collection was completed in January 2020. A detailed timeline of
the Project activity and reporting history is provided in Appendix E.
1.2 Performance Criteria
Project success criteria were established in accordance with the NCDEQ DMS Mitigation Plan Template
(ver. 06/2017), and US Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District Public Notice: Notification of
Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington
District (October 24, 2016). The monitoring plan for the Site will follow the same guidance as the NCDEQ
DMSAnnual Monitoring Report Format, Data, and Content Requirement (October 2020). Table 2 details
the success criteria that evaluate whether Project goals have been met throughout the monitoring
period. For more detailed success criteria refer to the Final Mitigation Plan or the As -built Baseline
Monitoring Report.
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Report - FINAL
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Ir DMS Project ID #100024

Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
Original
Original
Project
As-
Mitigation
Original
Original
Component
Mitigation
built
Thermal
Restoration
Priority
Mitigation
Mitigation
Notes/Comments
Plan
Level
Credits
(reach ID, etc.)
(ft/ac)
Regime
Level
Ratio (X:1)
(ft/ac)
Category
Full Channel
Restoration, Planted
Meadow Brook
Buffer, Exclusion of
1304
1917
Warm
R
1
1.00000
1,917.000
Reach 1
Livestock, and
Permanent
Conservation Easement.
Full Channel
Restoration, Planted
Meadow Brook
Buffer, Exclusion of
327
353
Warm
R
11
1.00000
353.000
Reach 2
Livestock, and
Permanent
Conservation Easement.
Full Channel
Restoration, Planted
Meadow Brook
Buffer, Exclusion of
289
273
Warm
R
11
1.00000
273.000
Reach 3
Livestock, and
Permanent
Conservation Easement.
Habitat Structures,
Meadow Brook
Planted Buffer,
283
218
Warm
El
1.50000
218.000
Exclusion of Livestock,
Reach 4
Permanent
Conservation Easement
Full Channel
Restoration, Planted
UT to Meadow
Buffer, Exclusion of
396
676
Warm
R
1
1.00000
676.000
Brook
Livestock, and
Permanent
Conservation Easement.
Planted, excluded
livestock, plugged
Wetland A*
2.930
2.630
RR
N/A
0.00000
0.00000
ditches, and
encompasses section of
Priority Level II
Restoration reach.
Planted, excluded
livestock, plugged
Wetland B*
2.230
2.000
RR
N/A
0.00000
0.00000
ditches, and
encompasses section of
Priority Level II
Restoration reach.
Planted, excluded
livestock, plugged
Wetland C*
0.820
0.740
RR
N/A
0.00000
0.00000
ditches, and
encompasses section of
Priority Level II
Restoration reach.
Planted, excluded
livestock, and
Wetland D*
0.100
0.090
RR
N/A
0.00000
0.00000
encompasses section of
Priority Level II
Restoration reach.
*Note: Wetlands are not currently part of the Project assets and are not generating mitigation credits
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Report- FINAL
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Ir DMS Project ID #100024

Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits (continued)
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration
Level
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Rip
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riverine
Non-
Riverine
Restoration
3219.000
Re-
establishment
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
145.333
Enhancement 11
Rehabilitation
Preservation
Creation
Totals
3364.333
Total Base SMCs
3364.333
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-142.600
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
187.600
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
45.000
Total Adjusted SMCs*
3409.333
*Credit adjustment for Non-standard Buffer Width calculation using Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator (Updated 1/19/2019)
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Report- FINAL
Yadkin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID #100024

C
M m
M
(1).
o•�>—
�o-0
VI
a� f6
L L > U
n '
C U
3
a+ ra c
O k.0
h
cu
_
-a ao cuN
w U
Ca
} 0 01+'
ap >. 'n
E E
_6
O
•C +' T
C N
C
pto N> N
}' � N}
O
C> N cu
O 'o
cuE cu
E
C
N
au O
-
7
w C
0 Q N cu O
l U
E to
m
C 3
3
£
C cu U
a) to
M w
O
-0
C > CU
3
U
cuv
> N
r6
fCa •t
M },
l0
N N
Q n a+
E
cu U
F L w
Q
N
C N�
O
C 0 Q^ O cu
d
'
Q � �
-6 -a
U
N
>-
V �
.� ' N C�
Q
C
C _M C
N cu •N
to
0
_E
.0 cu 0 CU
cu
cu
cu°
_ cu uL
E 3 M
� m�
0
t
�;
N
w N to U c
E o U UM > N �°
a,
7
> •Fn C^ cu-°6
dl N �--I -j
C L
ra
++
C 'O O �n >
C N O N i T p
cu(U
a1 -0tCa 'O cu
N
C
ra U-0 w-0 >
E N E} C
Mn
Ma� i-a
f6 O O a�
E
cuo > `» •c c
c n 3
d
Q N C fa
D
C�
Q
�+
�o N m n
1.0 E -
ra
cu
C L M
a1 a+ C
N
N
rrj U > I�
Lr�C w
C O N O
^
L U o Q O
0
N
CL
O E
td
L° O tn
a+ w
`� o
O
cu ,� i
,� a ra
N
> to ra
v
on ra
(J
rn }'
'a
chi
c
OJi
2 +' s Lu a- c •E
� Q �
to
a� °
v
U
M ra a� �O.+ u .Q- C
O C U N i O
E 3 O�
N N
cu �>
,f6, c N N O au cu O �d.+
>M •— L a+ -O Q E a+ fa U
3 s cu
i Q
C
•° Z Q
C
._ N N ._
N -� i1
t
N
N U
3' M Q
N
C 7 6p
E
C Vi ;°
g c f6 -0
o •°
o
•M CM
° '� '_
r6 0 '� c
0 c
i an cu
an
O
a� O
O
au CU 'a+ a� ra a� v
c
'�
v�i
•� .N
Y
N •Ocu
N
wo
6an
61E
O
"a a
c
v
p aE
°E1
; ,v
a
au a t O
�O
E>co
OO
E
Q- ap w a) �n
C
n
cQE
c
N
C t E O
cuc
O O
O
A
n
U+
O
cu
pc
u
cu
cu 0
cu
O O.
X N > aw �n �n
a� =
-0
O >.
w .'^ a� U c c
M
= ra CU
n p +'
a=
`��°
°T° 3
a�i ' c
c m
rn o°
--a `° w E -a ° c
�
n v -0
Y
OCU
'a O N 3
°
C a� =
oc 3 3
C p a� C x 0 �n t c ra
O O
Q t c
J
ate+
H
■
U U ._
■
ra a� ra U ra
a rat ra
ra a ra
C
C
C
C L
C L
E
-a
E
+�
0 `� +� E
3 _0
0 a+ E
3
o
ra
o
ra
ra
o
o
0
a
M
v
a
cui
a i
Y bo
++
a0
Y
M �a
ap v W a+ f6 Y
M v w Y
E
>
>
>
>
>
N o �
3 �
N
o
-
-
CU 3 � o
aE, o
°1 -
°o
°o
w p
aU'
u mu
N u
cu
c w
a,
w c
a�i
CU _o cu
cu
E
ra .> w
— c> w
3 ra
.>
: —
c
� .ra c >_
3 r° c >
an c
a� t
E
n c t
�
E�
t
a�
-0 rn O n a�
'+�
rn O a�
'p -0
a�
y
C
CU +�
c
C a�
E
C n a� 0
•
C n
E
ra D O ra
,� E p
ra ra
2
ra p
—
ra w O
ra r6 �
�+ a+
c
x rn
° r"a
rn `�
x
ra
v
ra o a`, ° x E
ra o
>
'n a, E n
to 2 E
n 0
cu
n E
-
n o c CU an E a' a,
n p 0 W
� �,
v
-0 an E
•�
an
E
ra
o0 v an cu
an
E ra
O '� 'n 'n °O
N
O O�
'�
O 'n
N 0 •—
O
°O '�
i
a' 3
'6
o
3 a'
c
v
3 o
a"i
3
.� v -o O
3 0
.� v
3
� a"i
a'i o
a, cu a'i
N w
E C v w a�i
f6
E
N w c w U
3 c w
N
w
v c w
ra
v a� c w w
v a� E w
ra U ra
O
O
0
O
cu cu
O ��
,.�, v
�
cu
�
aca
a
o
n
o
. .
.
o
a o
. . . . .
.
.f6
.fc6
.O
?
_0
N
M
M _0
a, ° +�
a, c
CU CU
lu I
E .�
u E -6
E ra
U a1 N
c°i Ncu
0
i
r�6
o r6
in
°'
n
Q
3
n
raw
a� n
_' a
2
Y
a
a� v
au
C .E
a� O
OC U
a� c
OC W O OC m
a4
Q co
oA
Q
t."
C
Q
Z ra
LL E
i 0
Q U N
cu � O
N Z 7x
cu
cu � O
a0 j cu
U O
C a
E Y rn
O -0
2 > o

r o
°�° t
C:
5
O
c
ra a)
ti
cu
an
u
s D C ra p
+� O cu
N •E C an
ra a
C
cu
Ul U U
Q
N M ra
3
O ra •� '� s
', ra
Ul
N
Ul
- a) C a) Y
cu
an
+'
c
7
v i U Vi
u a+ C -6 -6 N Y
_� ra
N ap
'a
p
u=° 0° O
U N O
Cw
O
.° p
ti ti
ti a+ '� np c ate+ a
r6
M E
-a
c O N m
•i
} -a
r6
ti '6 O C-
Ot
'> '6 E
�O
N
C T
N cu ra C 3
i'o
a+ Q
OC
•p v •� E
-a N
E
p N
} N p N O O
'6
c
7 U cu
O N
N
ap Q =M
C: 0N
U
-0
t N
cO
>
'n N
c ._ � '�
'^ Q
O
'a run
E-
C
C
N
O N N 0
C -6
O N
0 N? ��,, N w
,�
c°
bo
c ' o 5
Q is a
f6
�
3n
c�a
a°
p
Z O aCp
>U
O at+ U V1 •ul
c
O m p
3
`° °
a H
f6 E O M c
•ate_+
3
'a+ ._
O
O
- =
>.
�+
-bb
'6
E
0
0 O
N a) n v -a a)
= CU B
a) v w 0> O
CU
U
=
O pf6`p c
O
ra u O c
'6 E a1 i
U p
N-
U
b
a+ N
_T
}E
U
ap w Y
cu
bo °
°o
0 2V
C
H C
V)
Z
C
LL Q Q CO
-
E -a
m ry
bo
LA C:
�
C
d cu
O
C
v
cu o
8
°
cu O
(U cno
>
O
+Cn� s+�
� O 3
a+
a)
>
O a'37
12
a) a 12
cu
o
c
`�
O Lri r 3 O
E a Lei
`�
c
�=
w
a t 3 0 ° ->
E
ra f6 �
a)
m'CL °4-5 O O
�n ra
N
ap
o U O a ra rn
_
3
CU
tv
Ccu 0
T
y3j
N 3
--I N Y N\
C"U
N _6
_U
N
Q
m 2 Y °U fa 0 N 0 C C
CO
al
w
C O
UU1,
O O i� w
F, -0
to
N 'a
'O
CU
N p v �O to Y
c i p
f6 �i Q
-6
O
U a�i a�i m
U
N o
-6
O
ate+
C
2
O m= ', 0
-a -6 C
C
N ap
c C
ul}
3 H
> c O
.a+
ti a)
V� 3 3, 0 3
O
C-
N �+ C
° N
U
-6
%
m
N O w r6 C C L
OU
s 'a
-O f6 O
v
Q
C=
v-
2 m= O on
LL
N U
v m
O
N
N � E
is c o� 0
E w
on
•O
= O a)
OL M p O
O
O
Gl
a+
m '� i O>ui
U CUra
'2
m
u O O� o O-°
`� '� Q°
•-
o°F '� o
p m 0b0
0 M
C:
Q � O m c O- v V" •� > m Q
•� c
n •9 N s
c
L0
> Up t U U N N
O C x N
cu
N �--I E f6 U N ra N N a+ ra C 3 U
>
3 -o 00 °
c
M
v a) s
c
�O
v c - ,t
C a, O � a)
�M
O
s pCU
c
a C ra N E Q' c -0O
E�
E O a)
•O
aL'i
a"i ° ra a c c
CU O O T `� °
O ra w
s° O v v
a
(7 ti
ti m L) o w
>�-
is ti a, w 0 s 3
O a+ O -a ti T
CU
-0
an w
a,
'j
'a
O
+-'
ra =
>- cu '^
p ap O c Vi
-0 O :E6 -Cu
'O
+,
a) ra
ul
C
N
a) -0
bo
u'
-�
ap C .0
p
Q N N
C a,, N p .+' E
c O c 'o M
O
f6 .j T>
>. a+ U U Vi
>'
a
'a u 'a
a O a a)
'a v +-' cu ran
� �-
f6 -0 > s cu
0
T N T L L ra L a+
s s � � Q >
C t -O O L C
ra ra 3 H
, N L
s
- G N C m p Q
3 `an � -a a) ra
J
�
U a+ a+ �
a,
�
� L)
� w �
C L
O +'
•3
cu
>O c c
lu
v cu'-
V -
E > M
CU -
v
.O w C v _o U
E
++
>. -T C—
.+_' Vi p N N
H
\
> '� a+ > m
i
-p O ti p
N
C a) 2- p u,'C
d
w Ln m
cu 0 3 •E c 0 3
CU
E
O O p
O Q
w ra w a) p c
m t m acu m
C
M � O
mu
0
O
E 3Ln
U
cu N Ln w
fa
u r6 C
d = > : 2 ra U
t."
C
Ln
Q
Z ra
LL �
i 0
Q U N
cu 0
= O
N Z 0
CU >. O
to j
C:
U cu
O
C a
Y V)
O -
21 } 0
Q'_
LCL

Table 3. Project Attributes Table
Project Background Information
Project Name
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
County
Yadkin
Project Area (acres)
11.2
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.14139 / 80.81889
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
11.2
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Northern Inner Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit
8-digit
03040101
USGS Hydrologic
Unit 14 digit
3040101130020
DWR Sub -basin
03-07-02
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Sq. Mi.)
1088 acres / 1.7 Sq. Mi.
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Pasture (57%) and Deciduous Forest (26%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Meadow Brook
UT to Meadow Brook
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Length of reach (linear feet)
1304
327
289
283
396
Valley confinement (Confined,
moderately confined, unconfined)
Unconfined
Unconfined
Confined
Confined
Unconfined
Drainage area (Acres and Square
Miles)
.93 sq mi /
595 ac
1.51 sq mi /
966 ac
1.73 sq mi. /
1107 ac
1.73 sq mi /
1107 ac
.56 sq mi / 358 ac
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-III
Stream Classification (existing)
Incised E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
Stream Classification (proposed)
C4
C4
B4c
B4c
C4
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
IV
FEMA classification
AE
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetland C
Wetland D
Size of Wetland (acres)
2.93
2.23
0.82
0.10
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian
riverine or riparian non-riverine)
Riparian Riverine
Riparian Riverine
Riparian Riverine
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Dan River Sandy
Loam
Dan River Sandy
Loam
Dan River Sandy
Loam / Clifford sandy
clay loam
Dan River Sandy
Loam
Drainage Class
Well -drained
Well -drained
Well -drained
Well -drained
Soil Hydric Status
Non-Hydric'
Non-Hydric'
Non-Hydric'
Non-Hydric'
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater,
precipitation, runoff,
overbank flooding
Groundwater,
precipitation, runoff,
overbankflooding
Groundwater,
precipitation, runoff,
over bankflooding
Groundwater,
precipitation, runoff,
overbank flooding
Restoration or enhancement method
(hydrologic, vegetative etc.)
Vegetative*
Vegetative*
Vegetative*
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Report -FINAL
Yadkin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID #100024

Table 3. Project Attributes Table (continued)
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE NWP 27 - ID# SAW-2017-01509
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR 401 WQC No. 4134 -- ID # 2180919
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and
Sediment Control)
Yes
Yes
General Permit NCG010000 -
ID # YADKI-2019-004
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion Document; Appendix 7 in
Mitigation Plan
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or
CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yadkin County Floodplain Development Permit— ID
# 2018-1
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
*Wetlands are not being restored or enhanced for mitigation credit, but functional uplift is expected and there will be no net loss of wetland
functions
+Jurisdictional wetlands were identified on soils mapped as non-hydric
2.0 MONITORING DATA ASSESSMENT
Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) data was collected in August, October, and November of 2021. Current Site
conditions and monitoring data are described in the following sections to evaluate whether the Project
is meeting the success criteria established in the Mitigation Plan. The monitoring plan for the Site will
follow this guidance and the NCDEQ DMSAnnual Monitoring Report Format, Data, and Content
Requirements (October 2020).
2.1 Stream Monitoring
Stream monitoring involved field data collection to assess the hydrologic, hydraulic, and geomorphic
functions of Meadow Brook and the UT. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and
extent are summarized in Table 2. These monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance but will also
allow for monitoring of other parameters to document Site performance related to the Project goals
listed in Table 2. The locations of the established monitoring cross sections are shown in Figure 2
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV).
2.1.1 Stream Dimension
Permanent cross sections were installed to monitor stream stability through dimension change. 13
permanent cross sections were installed across the Site; 10 on Meadow Brook and 3 on UT to Meadow
Brook. 7 cross sections were installed in riffles and 6 were installed in pools. Each cross-section was
monumented using a length of rebar and PVC pipe on both streambanks. The location and elevation of
each pin was located and recorded to facilitate data comparison from year to year. Cross -sections were
surveyed using a Topcon RL-H5A Self Leveling Laser Level. Reported data includes measurements of
Bankfull Elevation (consistent with the Baseline As -Built Report), Bank Height Ratio (BHR), Low Top of
Bank (LTOB) elevation, Thalweg Elevation, LTOB Max Depth, LTOB Cross Sectional Area, and
Entrenchment Ratio (ER). BHR measurements were made by holding the bankfull area recorded in the
Baseline As -built report constant and adjusting the bankfull elevation. All other geomorphic
measurements were made by maintaining a constant benchmark bankfull elevation as recorded in the
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Report- FINAL
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Ir DMS Project ID #100024

Baseline As -built report. Reference photos were taken of both streambanks every year to provide a
visual assessment of any changes that may occur.
The Year 2 monitoring cross-section survey indicates that the Project streams are geomorphologically
stable. Due to continued herbaceous growth along the floodplain and streambanks, some cross sections
appear to be aggrading slightly, but there is no concern of wide -spread channel instability. The channel
vegetation that was noted in the MY1 report was not as prevalent in MY2, as shown in the cross-section
photos provided in Appendix C. The channel vegetation is expected to become less of a problem in
future monitoring years as the channels get more shade cover. Notes on specific cross -sections and
actions to be taken in the next monitoring year are listed below.
• Cross section 11 shows signs of aggradation primarily due to herbaceous vegetation laying in the
stream channel. As stream shading continues to improve EPR expects a decrease in the amount
of vegetation in channels site wide.
• Cross sections 7 and 8 were impacted by downstream beaver dams where the water level had
risen considerably. The beavers were trapped and both dams were removed in August 2021. At
the time of the survey the water level had returned to normal, and the cross sections appeared
stable.
• Cross section 1 showed signs of aggradation from Baseline to MY1 but stabilized from MY1 to
MY2. The changes shown in the cross section from MY1 to MY2 show the channel adjusted to be
slightly deeper and narrower, which indicates adjustments toward stability rather than instability.
• Cross sections 2, 8, and 13 showed minor geomorphological changes from Baseline to MY1 but
stabilized from MY1 to MY2; while pool cross section 3 and 4 showed signs of adjustment from
Baseline to MY1 the thalweg elevation remained consistent while the point bar continued to
adjust from MY1 to MY2.
All restored streams meet the success criteria as established in the Mitigation Plan and shown in Table 2.
The cross-section plots, photos, and data summary (Table 9) are included in Appendix C.
2.1.2 Stream Profile
A full longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of the restored streams in August 2019 to
document as -built conditions (EPR, 2020). This survey was tied to a permanent benchmark and includes
thalweg, right bank, and left bank features. Profile measurements were taken at the head of each
feature (e.g. riffle, pool) and at the max depth of pools and data are provided in the Baseline Stream
Data Summary tables in Appendix C. As noted in the baseline report, there were some pools that had
filled with some sediment that are expected to scour and flush throughout the monitoring period.
The longitudinal profile will not be surveyed during annual monitoring unless vertical channel instability
has been observed during monitoring and remedial actions or repairs are needed.
2.1.3 Channel Stabilitv
Channel stability is assessed on a yearly basis using photographs to visually document the condition of
the restored Project streams. Visual assessments of channel stability and in -stream structure condition
were made throughout Monitoring Year 2, primarily after storm events. Visual assessments of bank
stability and in -stream structures for each reach are provided in Appendix A. 16 photo points were
established during baseline monitoring at which photographs are taken from the same location in the
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Report - FINAL
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Ir DMS Project ID #100024

same direction each year. The location of the photo points are shown in the CCPV (Figure 2) and the
photographs, which were taken on November 3, 2021, are provided in Appendix A.
There is a short reach of bank erosion noted in Table 4, Appendix A. The point bar has scoured and there
is localized bank erosion. This area was first noticed after a storm event in April 2020 but appeared to be
healing during MY1 monitoring. This area is visible in Photo Point 1 and will be observed during the next
monitoring year. This area is shown in the CCPV.
With the exception of the area noted above, stream photo points and visual assessment indicate that all
restored channels and in -stream structures are in good condition and performing as intended. No
significant stream problem areas were observed. No channel manipulation, including vegetation or
sediment removal, has been performed in this monitoring year.
2.1.4 Stream Hydrology
Two (2) pressure transducers were installed, 1 each in Meadow Brook and the UT to Meadow Brook, to
document stream flow and the occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period. The
locations of these gauges are shown in the CCPV (Figure 2). Both gauges were installed in the
downstream end of pools. The constructed bankfull elevation at each gauge was located and recorded,
as well as the elevation of the downstream controlling grade. Each year, these elevations are compared
with the gauge readings to determine whether the stream is flowing and if a bankfull event has
occurred. Stream gauge, controlling grade, and bankfull elevations were re -surveyed in MY2 to address
2 concerns noted in MY1: a period of no flowing water in Meadow Brook (MB2 STIR) and to document
any adjustments experienced due to numerous bankfull events recorded in 2020. This Project utilizes a
tipping bucket rain gauge installed to accurately document rainfall at the Site. The rainfall data can be
compared to the flow gauge data to verify that high flows at the Site are correlated with rainfall events.
The monitoring gauges were downloaded regularly throughout Monitoring Year 2 and rainfall data is
presented in the flow gauge plots in Appendix D.
Rain gauge data from September 2, 2021 to the time of data collection is unavailable because the
batteries in the data logger had expired. The batteries were replaced in November 2021 and the
instrument is fully functioning.
Flow gauge data from MY2 indicates that both Project streams met the established success criteria of 30
days or more of consecutive flow throughout the year. According to the gauge for Meadow Brook (MB2
STIR), the stream had constant flow throughout the year (at least 307 consecutive days) and the gauge
documented 6 separate bankfull events. Gauge MB UT1 STIR, located in the UT to Meadow Brook,
documented constant flow throughout the year (at least 307 consecutive days) and 4 separate bankfull
events. The date and timing of these bankfull events generally correlated with significant rainfall events
recorded by the tipping bucket rain gauge.
2.2 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring
Riparian vegetation monitoring evaluates the growth and development of planted and volunteer
vegetation across the Site. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and extent are
summarized in Table 2. These monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance but will also allow for
monitoring of other parameters to document Site performance related to the Project goals listed in
Section 1.
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Report - FINAL
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Ir DMS Project ID #100024

2.2.1 Vegetation Monitoring Data
Six (6) permanent vegetation monitoring plots were established across the Site. The corners of the
permanent vegetation plots were marked using steel t-posts and the location of each plot was surveyed
during the as -built survey. The individual trees within each permanent plot were tagged and identified
to facilitate repeat monitoring each year. In addition to the 6 permanent plots, 6 randomly placed
vegetation plots are established each year and the location of these plots is recorded using GPS. All
vegetation plots for MY2 are shown in the CCPV (Figure 2). Table 5 in Appendix A summarizes the results
of a visual review of the conservation easement, mapping any bare areas, areas of low stem density,
invasive species, or easement encroachments.
Supplemental planting occurred March 2021 in response to low stem counts throughout much of the
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Site as observed during MY1. Supplemental planting procedures,
locations, and species were detailed in the Adaptive Management Report submitted by EPR February
2021. The AMP is included in Appendix F. The supplemental planting was conducted according to the
submitted AMP and no deviations from the plan specifics (quantities, species, locations, etc.) were
reported.
Year 2 vegetation monitoring occurred in August 2021 before leaf drop. Annual vegetation data was
compiled and summarized using the DMS Vegetation Data Entry Tool in Appendix B. Planted stem
counts for each plot ranged from 9 trees per plot (364 trees per acre) in Random VP-8, to 34 trees per
plot (1376 trees per acre) in Fixed VP-4. The average density of planted stems from all 12 vegetation
plots (permanent and random) was 19 trees per plot (762 trees per acre). As indicated by the high stem
counts found in many vegetation plots, supplemental planting has succeeded in bringing the site back
into compliance, exceeding the interim performance criteria of 320 stems/acre in MY3.
Riparian herbaceous vegetation appears to be flourishing throughout the Site. In addition, no invasive
vegetation was found.
2.3 Wetland Hydrology
While no wetland mitigation credit was proposed as a part of this Project, efforts were taken to ensure
that there was no net loss of existing riparian wetland function after construction. A preliminary
jurisdictional wetland determination (PJD) and NCWAM assessment was completed prior to completion
of construction to document the extent and functionality of the existing wetlands at the Site. The same
assessments will be made after the monitoring period ends to document that there was no net loss of
wetland functionality over the life of the Project.
In addition, hydrophytic vegetation has been documented within vegetation plots that are located in
planting Zone 2 (Riparian Wetlands). Fixed VP-1, Fixed VP-2, and Random VP-12 are split between
riparian planting and upland planting, but the rest of the permanent and random vegetation plots are
within the riparian wetland planting zone (Zone 2). Fixed VP-6 and Random VP-8 are located within the
wetland treatment cell and planted with hydrophytic herbaceous and woody vegetation.
Finally, as required by the 401/404 Permit, two groundwater gauges were installed in the existing
wetlands at the Site. These data are provided in Appendix D but are not associated with success criteria
for mitigation. The locations of the 2 wetland groundwater gauges are shown in the CCPV (Figure 2). The
wetland gauges were downloaded regularly throughout the monitoring year. Groundwater Gauge 2 (MB
GW2) was destroyed by high flows during a storm event and lacks data from January 21, 2021 through
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Report - FINAL 10
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Ir DMS Project ID #100024

the time of data collection. Per a conversation with USACE on March 9, 2021 (documented in Appendix
F), there are no plans to reinstall MB GW2 at this time. The original purpose of the well was to
demonstrate no net loss of wetland hydrology as a result of the stream restoration and the last two
years of data have clearly shown that the riparian wetlands along Meadow Brook still have functioning
wetland hydrology. MB GW1 will be left in place and the data from this well will continue to be included
in annual monitoring reports.
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Report - FINAL 11
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Ir DMS Project ID #100024

,4"f LP
Pm s�—H
5
x
x
N
8
4 PL 49,ng7 Main 4pi
4ry
O�
44
Ya7
ti
2 0
LU O
z
o
} z 0
_Qwdn Rd
[J} z
0 <
W CL I
N
O
'
N
Ld
Py wr
_3yl
h a
P7:j % Jpuy
p'jr
qA
n we
ti
l�r 4)
V
W
0
n .
IS.
0
VI
N
_
a�
n�
o4b++u"O
F
O
O
O
�
O
I—
z
U
U
U
w
O
P%, =mo45 2r9ng
<
0
U
W
U
2
z
Ldco
o
j
0
C
s
o
IL
a
0N
a
N
U
0
g
U
Q
4r
(�I
LL.
oZ
M radow
3
'°dr
M
w
r
v
ay
�%
ti�
0
a
s°r
C)
Wy�
4b
z
W
n
�j
W
4
A
Ld
Z
0
0
LL
_
a
4
N
W
N
W
U)
O
Ur
�� r�411C1�j
0 4
C
O
O
r
LL
J❑
3
Ld
TWM
Ld
J

z—TmmmlQ
Wo
o
0)O
o
O
CL
m
a�
U d r
Ld N N
DO O
XO N
a..� U
Co W
p
p
��so
W ,Q
z
Nz°
°QW
way
E U)O
(U �
U
> N'
m
m O9
d
N
O �
E m
IY U
¢'
C)
Ld
1
0
�
aNi
U
n�n
6
N
Z W
G-�
N_
0
Z:) LL
®®
� O
W
U
o
z
IL
o
}
>-
a
z N
z
o
Q 0
7
O
N
rn>
U
N
U
> E
u
[� z N
O
z
x
N
O
1®IU
u
0 Z
o
E
O W
m
U
m Ir
w
U
E
U (6
m N
E
(6
N
O
Of U)
U)
0
• I
"
W
O
L
O
N �
m
(7 E C
N �
�
W
O LL a'
O
N
N
E
m N N
70 m
o
N
W
z
i� m w
II
L
O W C N
O �
N N
w U
O
_
CD
J

> t ao
U
d N N
O ° o
0 O Q (A
>�e!i Q 0 U-w
0—
le,op
"a
.Vf* > V
� rn C7 W
x d N
LL LL LL
CL
I I
a z
.� oW
LO
E
LL
;r" N Z
W O z
o 19 (Y
U) ZO
o o
/O
LL Q' LL O z
M
1 ® ® ® W
M M
MLLM
O I-�--1 J
2 U
{ >
i o E O
{ U C O N Q
c LU
> t .. m c c Q
> r CL
N - _ _ .8 .� W
t;T a - S N , o
N
> \ ..; N � o o
V •-
I x
o
{,. a,. , I
a
r 0 Q z�Q
iW
•� E O LL-
a� U O W
• _1! � m m U :� u �
b> U m LU U
LL

U t r
w N N
._ 0)O 0
E 0 00 N Wdso
~ • LL o 0- U
CO } Z > _., N o 0 0Zo
p a u{
•_- F+ N 0 U J W
Q
way
f� E m
z a Y
.,! d U N
- NLL
0
> L C Ld
p U LLJ
.N
� O N
�..
C: ^ (n LL LL LL
o
. E N a.''- • - -
7 �
w
o c I-- Z
> E m ✓�
1. W o z
o
EN o R U) U
�••., o rn> p.2 O Z
W
U)U)
Ld
w u
- 0
U 'V �
�O (6
R.. N (n d
N U) o
N U)
0 0
Ld
W
Ld
LL p LL.W m
a Y — �? N
O W
7 LY U_
p U o (6 C
_ V J

Ld
o,
0 0 0
N
z
ds o
O
Ld
w
m U
o
Z
�a
O
^
fA
� N
O
(6 O
0
2 }
U
- -
O
O >E.
IU
w
a_
''"
U)
o�
�
E N
(n Li Li
Li
z S
,.. >
�� ,
o Ld
W
0
Ln
LO
NE
Ld
�
Z
a
CL
W 02
z
r
�U
>o
Dz
Ld
Lt1h _
LL
LL
LL
U
a
1 ® ®®
z:.
W
11
c w U)
m
c
.o
-
(1)
(n
O N
d
O
N
N O O
u1 U
O
d
"
U
Z—TmmmlQ
IL
i 0
W
0 �
•
-
�
N
i•
U
o
W
N
u
m
w
o
LL
a� Q
of H
d

3.0 REFERENCES
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR). 2020. As -built Baseline Monitoring Report FINAL Meadow
Brook Stream Restoration Project.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). DMS
Vegetation Data Entry Tool, October 2020. https://ncdms.shinyapps.io/Veg Table Tool/
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). DMS Cross
Section Tool V.1.0 2020. https://ncdms.shinyapps.io/XS APP/
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). Annual
Monitoring Report Format, Data, and Content Requirements, October 2020.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2008. Yadkin Pee -Dee Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. October, 2016. Wilmington District Public Notice: Notification of Issuance
of Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington
District.
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Report - FINAL 17
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Ir DMS Project ID #100024

Appendix A
Visual Assessment Data
Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vegetation Plot Photo Log
Photo Log

■
®
o
k
k
§
d
2
§
m
2
�
�2
�
■
m
�
o
�
2
�
2
CL
o
■
©
0
w
E
§
§
\
2
�
@
2
§
■
■
>
co
o
@
■
m
3
2
■
■
o
04
�/
E�
_ §
§\
co
g22
m m
m k k
J22
co2 \
\
$
CD
\
\
I
§
0 0 @
0k0
\
\
J \ uo-
§
m
0
2
?
�
� k
CD
E k@
IL
k
§
/
og
o-
j
/f
cu
0
E/
°
e 2
6
§
=
u
\ §
\
2 0 %
/%2
_
/
±2
cu
C
CU
2 E
cu
E
E
S
m
u
0)=
§ o
)
\�%
2
)fE
. @
o
%
\
= 'e =
e
\ §
\\/
7
\
\/2
/ f \
\
\
7 g §
a)§
2:o
£f%
\f
f%
2 g e
=
# 7
= n e
c
0
7 £
2
\
zi
\
\
cm
)
k
\ 2
E
@ x
$ 7
o c
a) a) S
o 2 m
7%
CU E
£ o
§/
2\§
\ 0
\ /
$ \
\ U
\ k 2
ƒ%
m\
m\/
ok
m\R
k
@
%
L
k
2
7
%
°
?
v
0
LL
P
?
r
k
m
/
3 m
�
m
0
0
7
�
\
k
In
@
2q(
2
.
_
/
\
J
E
/
> \
\ /
< CO 5
\ \ k
\ @ /
< > c

2 _
k #
® CD
0
§ o
U) Z■
■ m
2
« �
: 2
m �
0 2
2
■
o ©
E
J q
( \
� g
2 § ■
2 cof
o m
# 2 ■
k � \
k/
E�
_ §
§\
co
g22
m m
\ k k
@ m m
■««
k \
\
\
\
\
\
\
2
I
§
0 0 @
o
0
0
0
J\ uo
§
2
\
2
0
w
�
z k
= c
@
IL §
%
c
2
k
§ )
\
E
�§
g
2
§
\
2%
s
/
0
f 3
»
@ E .
2 0 7
6
§
2
cu
\
• §
\
/%£
§
0
/
7
U\cu
2 E
f
u
E
E
m
cu
\
\ �
0
§ cu
��
£2&
o =
f e
/
x
tGo
$
\ \
a) a)
® j
\
s
m
f
= �
2:o
£f%
\
_
£\f
f%
a s e
=
#
= n e
/\
>
f\\cm
=
f
» .
4 ) E
0 7
\ fi/
k
\\
� E o
$ 7
° § §
7 %
£ °
@ x
aoa
/ /_
/
� �
° \
\ \ E
± %
%
± 5 k
e —
> \
o m
§ ®
ƒ
\ e
=
R
m\
m\/
o
o§
m\
k
§
L
k
2
\
7
§
@
?
v
0
LL
wc a
�
r
k
m
ƒ
3
m
0
m
0
0
7
2
�
\
/
m
@
Im§

■
k#
® o
0
§ o
U) Z
■
■ m
U) �
�2
� ■
m �
c
2
� 2
CL ■
o ©
E
§ §
2
�
§
■ co
>
� k
2 §
�
�k
E�
_ §
§\
co
g22
m m
\ k k
@ m m
■««
�E2
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
CO 2
� I
§
0 0 @
\�
o
0
0
0
J\ uo
§
I
2
®
0
n
w
�
k
zCD
9 f
n
w
2 @ c
IL §
§
cn
e.
§
Em
/\
7
§
\
\/
cu
2 0 7
§
�
\ n
• §
0
/
7
U\cu
2 E
f
u
Ecu
E
m
el,
\
\ �
0
§ cu
(
\ /
0
\
/ / \
§ )
\ f
\
\
7 ƒ /
\
f
=
�o
£f%
.0
_�
£\f
f%
0ge
=
§
#g
=ne
/\
m\\
f
2
/
�\
\f�\
k
0
�E\
$ 7
° §
£ o
@ x
o c
§
o 2 m
7 %
CU E
§/
\\\
\
\ /
$ \
\ k
\ k
ƒ%
m\R
m\
m\/
ok
k
L
§
k
2
\
7
§
@
v
u
k
�
w
�
r
k
ƒ
3 com
0
m
0
0
7
2
�
\
/
m
@
3«j

■
k #
® o
0
§ o
U) Z■
■ m
2
:
2
m �
c
0
2
�0
■
o ©
E
§ §
�2
§
T §
m
co
2
>
� 2
§
�
2 §
2 no
�
\CD le
E�
_ §
§\
co
g22
m m
\ k k
@ m m
■««
k \
\
\
\
\
\
\
2
I
§
0 2 @
o
0
0
0
J \ U-
§
2
0 \
2
®
_
\
�
z k
co
%
=9cf
@
IL §
§
cn
E
§
g/
2
2%
/
§
\
fu
»
@ E .
6
2
\ )
2 0 7
§
c
' §
\
/%£
)
±/
7
U\cu
\
2 m E
cu
E
/
)
\
/
§ u E
o
\
x
\ /
® j
m
>o
\�
0 cu
f%
a= o
=
#
= n e
/\
E\\
§
/
f
7/2
�\
\fi\
k
\2
�E\
$ 7
° § §
7 %
£ o
@ x
aoa
o c
o 2 m
E
§/
e f o
\
\ /
cu
$
k
\
5
0
\
k
m\
m\/
ƒ%
ok
m\R
k
§
L
k
2
\
7
§
@
v
u
�k
�
r
k
a
m
ƒ
3
m
0
m
0
0
7
2
�
\
/
m
@
Im§
Q
.
�
/
§
ƒ
E
\
z \
\ 0
< CO5
c 0 k
\ CU
@ /
< > c

a
�
§
«
=
J
J
y
J
y
0
g
g
g
g
g
2
a
0
a
\
§
ko
0
0
0
0
=
g
g
g
g
g
2
0
0
0
0
0
�
E
0
=
2
�
0
0
0
§
$
$
)
.
�
\
\
%
E
\
k
2
0
}
>
\
%
2
E
r_
\
/¥
\
\\
U\
_0
\«
ƒf
0
=
�\
%E
\ /
§ %
-0
Cl) m
n =
§
E?
\\
o
°
= [
e
q I
\
\ §
\ /
o
.
-E\»°
72
\\
o
cu
\ /
ƒ \
> E
7
7
�
0
0
[
a
\ m
/
k
0 §
§ k
>
m
-i «
«
04
�
�
§
«
k
/
E
w
\
\
\
�
«
o
=
g
2
C)
�
E
0
2
2
cn
)
0
17
z
E
.&
a
2
7 $ .g
= m
_
.0 a n
2 /
E/
�\%
E
\
$
e»(
0 0$
E $
=
n e
\
g
o e 0
0 0
0
m\\
7 e
« b
7- E
a mo
® =
2
e= o=
£ 3 » e
n
a E 2
0
b.m
¥
_ E z
U �
§
_
&
- 2
3 E
7\/ 7
$ e
= \ m
= \
y 7
\ § % ±
/
\ \
\
[ M
k /
W §) ®
§
E
m
)
} (7
%mo\)\§k
° 2/ƒ)\
E/
3 E\ 7
E
% q
E ma
° ¥ E
�
) \
\
a
°°
-
5
E E
/
$ ±
0
= \ �
1 .g E
e = ¥
/ /
t e a
= E S \
m
$
.0
§
\ /
/ £ /
\ \ \
E E
\ 2 \ /
•-
%o
n
a4
o=
2-
m
# o
n
7»
o t
4=»
'n o=
m
o
7
0
«
�
�
k
«
�
k 2
m �
$ S
coo
m
>
k\
LULU

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 — Vegetation Plot Photo Log
Veg Plot 1 Fixed — SE Corner (08/23/2021)
Veg Plot 3 Fixed — SE Corner (08/06/2021)
Veg Plot 5 Fixed — NW Corner (08/06/2021)
Appendix A
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS No. 100024
Veg Plot 2 Fixed — SW Corner (08/23/2021)
Veg Plot 4 Fixed — NW Corner (08/06/2021)
Veg Plot 6 Fixed — N Corner (07/22/2021)
ECOSYSTEM
. PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Random Veg Plot 7 R— (08/06/2021)
Random Veg Plot 9 R — (08/06/2021)
Random Veg Plot 11 R — (08/06/2021)
Appendix A
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS No. 100024
�t, ��v�
$ � � ➢�ygr4 1 � � � f � d'
tr N
Random Veg Plot 8 R — (08/06/2021)
Random Veg Plot 10 R — (08/06/2021)
Random Veg Plot 12 R — NE Corner (08/23/2021)
ECOSYSTEM
. PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
MY2 - Photo Log
Photo Point 1 — Reach 1, Sta. 0+00
Facing Downstream (11/3/2021)
Photo Point 3 — Reach 1, Sta. 15+35
Facing Downstream (11/3/2021)
Photo Point 5 — Reach 1, Sta. 21+50
Facing Downstream (11/3/2021)
Appendix A
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Photo Point 2 — Reach 1, Sta. 11+90
Facing Downstream (11/3/2021)
Photo Point 4 — Reach 1, Sta. 19+10
Facing Downstream (11/3/2021)
Photo Point 6 — Reach 1, Sta. 24+50
Facing Downstream (11/3/2021)
ECOSYSTEM
. PLANNING &
' RESTORATION

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
MY2 - Photo Log
Photo Point 7 — Reach 1, Sta. 28+20
Facing Downstream (11/3/2021)
Photo Point 9 — Reach 2, Sta. 31+60
Facing Downstream (11/3/2021)
Photo Point 11 — Reach 3, Sta. 34+80
Facing Downstream (10/21/2021)
Appendix A
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Photo Point 8 — Reach 2, Sta. 29+70
Facing Upstream (11/3/2021)
Photo Point 10 — Reach 3, Sta. 33+55
Facing Upstream (10/21/2021)
Photo Point 12 — Reach 4, Sta. 36+90
Facing Downstream (10/21/2021)
ECOSYSTEM
. PLANNING &
' RESTORATION

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
MY2 - Photo Log
Photo Point 13 — UT, Sta. 10+90
Facing Upstream (11/3/2021)
Photo Point 15 — UT, Sta. 13+20
Facing Downstream (11/3/2021)
Stream crossing fence repairs near Sta. 38+00 facing
downstream (3/11/2021)
Appendix A
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Photo Point 14 — UT, Sta. 10+90
Facing Downstream (11/3/2021)
Photo Point 16 — UT, Sta. 14+90
Facing Downstream (11/3/2021)
Stream crossing fence repairs near Sta. 33+00 facing
upstream (3/11/2021)
ECOSYSTEM
. PLANNING &
' RESTORATION

l .:�; e
•fir -�N. - J• r
Stream crossing on Meadow brooK Keacn L, near 5ta. JJ+UU Lacing downstream (1 U/21/2U21)
Stream crossing on Meadow Brook Reach 2, near Sta. 33+00 facing upstream (10/21/2021)
Appendix A
ECOSYSTEM
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project PLANNING &
DMS # 100024 A RESTORATION

Site Overview
Facing West (October 2021)
Site Overview
Facing East (October 2021)
Appendix A
ECOSYSTEM
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project PLANNING &
DMS # 100024 A RESTORATION

Appendix B
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table

O0.
N m ¢ o
Z � o
ry x
U ry ry ry
,�■on■�
n
n
n■
�0■on■�
n
n
vi■
�■m■�
n
n
n■
�iemse
�emse
n
n
n■
n
n
n■
1
■
n E
soo
N20
0

§
S
$ 2
2 ƒ
\
S k
cc 0
k k
o �
} k
/ /
a �
"0
> CO
w ■
I k
§
o
0
0
§
o
0
0
§
o
o
§
0
0
/
/
/
/
\
»
»
\
m
»
co
w
%
7
\
\
2
�
2
U
2
-
U
t
U
E
E
\
\
\
\
\
to
>
I
-
r4m
I
m
�
I
m
)
r4
r4
\
\
\
\
§
j
§
\
§
j
\
§
\
}
u
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
/
/
/
/
J
a
a
a
a
m
/
(
\
)
Q
\
=
W
_
E
&
-
+
�
J
2
0
2
{
3t
-
-
_
_
§
\
\
\
a)\
\
w
2
«
«
9
>I
9
I
_
I
m
mr4
I
r
m
§
\
\
\
\
§
§
/
§
2
§
$
3
\
\
G
0
[
[
_
[
m
[
-
a
a
a
a
±
§
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
/
/
/
/
R
>
»
m
»
o
»
»
}
)
\
Ln
2
-
t
E
E
CL
\
\
\
\
\tw
>
>)
I
m
r4
I
r4
r4r4
m
m
\
\
\
\
w
�
_
»
w
_
3
0
\
_
E
G
m=
m
G
S
w
G)
\
_
\
Ln
Ln
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
$
,Ǥ

Appendix C
Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross -Sections With Annual Overlays
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross -Section Morphology Monitoring Summary

Cross Section Plots - MY2
XS1 - Reach 1
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 10+87 - Riffle
XS2 looking upstream
XS2 looking downstream
MYO
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1042.89
1043.43
1043.72
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.84
0.84
Thalweg Elevation
1041.08
1041.41
1041.29
LTOB Elevation
1042.89
1043.11
1043.32
LTOB Max Depth
1.81
1.70
2.03
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
19.79
14.06
15.02
Entrenchment Ratio
>3.5
>4.52
>6.14
XS1 Riffle 10+87
1047
—As-Built - Dec 2019
1046
— MY1 - Sep 2020
MY2 - 2021
1045
—
— —
1044
1043
Y
1042
>
v
Lu 1041
1040
1039
1038
1037
0 10 20
30
40 50 60
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Irajjj )))jj}��� ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Cross Section Plot - MY2
XS2 - Reach 1
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 16+08- Riffle
XS2 looking upstream
XS2 looking downstream
MYO
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1040.55
1040.98
1040.94
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.78
0.99
Thalweg Elevation
1038.76
1038.94
1038.98
LTOB Elevation
1040.55
1040.52
1040.91
LTOB Max Depth
1.79
1.58
1.93
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
16.40
10.80
16.01
Entrenchment Ratio
>3.31
>3.46
>3.75
XS2 Riffle 16+08
1045
-As-Built - Dec 2019
1044
-MY1 - Sep 2020
-MY2 - 2021
1043
1042
1041
1040
v
Lu 1039
1038
1037
1036
1035
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
4„J.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Cross Section Plot - MY2
XS3 - Reach 1
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 16+48- Pool
XS3 looking upstream XS3 looking downstream
MYO
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1040.37
1040.90
1041.16
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.85
0.87
Thalweg Elevation
1038.05
1038.55
1038.59
LTOB Elevation
1040.37
1040.55
1040.82
LTOB Max Depth
2.32
2.00
2.23
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
18.32
14.08
13.89
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
XS3 Pool 16+48
1046
-As-Built - Dec 2019
1045
-MY1 - Sep 2020
-MY2 - 2021
1044
1043
1042
1041
c�
v
Lu 1040
1039
1038
1037
1036
0 5 10 15
20 25
30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Irajjj )))jj}��� ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Cross Section Plot - MY2
XS4 - Reach 1
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 17+38- Pool
XS4 looking upstream
XS4 looking downstream
MYO
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1040.25
1040.78
1041.11
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.80
0.71
Thalweg Elevation
1036.83
1038.08
1038.09
LTOB Elevation
1040.25
1040.25
1040.25
LTOB Max Depth
3.42
2.17
2.16
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
27.86
18.48
15.31
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
XS4 Pool 17+38
1045
-As-Built - Dec 2019
1044
- MY1- Sep 2020
- MY2 - 2021
1043
�
1042
1041
1040
ZZ
c�
v
"' 1039
1038
1037
1036
1035
0 5 10 15
20 25
30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Irajjj )))jj}��� ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Cross Section Plot - MY2
XS5 - Reach 1
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 21+77 - Riffle
XS5 looking upstream XS5 looking downstream
MYO
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1039.55
1039.65
1039.63
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.94
1.02
Thalweg Elevation
1037.61
1037.74
1037.76
LTOB Elevation
1039.55
1039.53
1039.68
LTOB Max Depth
1.94
1.79
1.92
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
20.68
18.54
21.67
Entrenchment Ratio
>3.06
>2.90
>2.93
XS5 Riffle 21+77
1045
1044
-As-Built - Dec 2019
- MY1- Sep 2020
- MY2 - 2021
1043
1042
1041
1040
v
"' 1039
1038
1037
1036
1035
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Irajjj )))jj}��� ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Cross Section Plot - MY2
XS6 - Reach 1
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 25+74 - Pool
XS6 looking upstream
XS6 looking downstream
MYO
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1037.06
1037.03
1037.10
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
1.11
1.11
Thalweg Elevation
1034.33
1034.21
1034.17
LTOB Elevation
1037.06
1037.34
1037.41
LTOB Max Depth
2.73
3.13
3.24
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
21.82
26.18
26.27
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
XS6 Pool 25+74
1042
1041
-As-Built - Dec 2019
-MY1 - Sep 2020
-MY2 - 2021
1040
1039
1038
1037
v
Lu 1036
1035
1034
1033
1032
0 10 20 30
40 50 60
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Irajjj )))jj}��� ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Cross Section Plot - MY2
XS7 - Reach 2
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 29+50 - Pool
XS7 looking upstream
XS7 looking downstream
MYO
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1035.65
1035.48
1035.56
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
1.09
1.01
Thalweg Elevation
1032.51
1031.82
1031.90
LTOB Elevation
1035.65
1035.80
1035.59
LTOB Max Depth
3.14
3.98
3.69
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
32.43
38.84
32.98
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
XS7 Pool 29+50
1040
-As-Built - Dec 2019
1039
- MY1- 2020
- MY2 - 2021
1038
1037
1036
1035
c�
v
/
Lu 1034
1033
/
1032
L _
1031
1030
0 10
20
30 40 50
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Irajjj )))jj}��� ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Cross Section Plot - MY2
XS8 - Reach 2
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 32+28 - Riffle
XS8 looking upstream
XS8 looking downstream
MYO
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1034.63
1034.62
1034.61
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
1.09
0.97
Thalweg Elevation
1032.59
1032.01
1032.08
LTOB Elevation
1034.63
1034.85
1034.54
LTOB Max Depth
2.04
2.84
2.46
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
26.44
30.76
25.20
Entrenchment Ratio
>3.23
>3.55
>3.43
XS8 Riffle 32+28
1040
-As-Built - Dec 2019
1039
- MY1- 2020
- MY2 - 2021
1038
1037
1036
1035
c�
v
"' 1034
1033
1032
1031
1030
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Irajjj )))jj}��� ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Cross Section Plot - MY2
XS9 - Reach 3
Rosgen Stream Type - 134c
Station 35+28 - Riffle
XS9 looking upstream
XS9 looking downstream
MYO
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1032.62
1032.98
1032.72
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.85
0.99
Thalweg Elevation
1030.53
1030.65
1030.56
LTOB Elevation
1032.62
1032.62
1032.70
LTOB Max Depth
2.09
1.97
2.14
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
23.96
19.22
23.58
Entrenchment Ratio
>3.87
>4.94
>4.22
XS9 Riffle 35+28
1039
1038
1037
1036
1035
•° 1034
c�
"' 1033
1032
1031
1030
1029
—As-Built - Dec 2019
— MY1- 2020
— MY2 - 2021
—
1
\
0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Irajjj )))jj}��� ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Cross Section Plot - MY2
XS10 - Reach 3
Rosgen Stream Type - 134c
Station 36+11- Pool
XS10 looking upstream
XS10 looking downstream
MYO
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1032.85
1032.77
1032.70
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
1.07
1.05
Thalweg Elevation
1030.46
1030.19
1030.03
LTOB Elevation
1032.85
1032.95
1032.84
LTOB Max Depth
2.39
2.76
2.81
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
32.75
36.72
35.67
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
XS10 Pool 36+11
1039
-As-Built - Dec 2019
1038 - MY1- 2020
- MY2 - 2021
1037
1036
1035
1034
v -
"' 1033
1032
1031
1030
1029
0 10 20
30
40 50 60 70
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Irajjj )))jj}��� ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Cross Section Plot - MY2
XS11- UT
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 11+25 - Riffle
XS11 looking upstream
XS11 looking downstream
MYO
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1038.48
1038.87
1039.06
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.99
1.01
Thalweg Elevation
1036.60
1036.84
1036.99
LTOB Elevation
1038.48
1038.86
1039.07
LTOB Max Depth
1.88
2.02
2.08
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
15.54
15.40
15.69
Entrenchment Ratio
>3.8
>5.23
>5.37
XS11 Riffle 11+25
1044
—As-Built - Dec 2019 — MY1- 2020
— MY2 - 2021
1043
—
1042
—
1041
—
1040
•° 1039
—
c�
v
Lu 1038
1037
1036
1035
1034
0 5 10 15
20
25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Irajjj )))jj}��� ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Cross Section Plot - MY2
XS12 - UT
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 14+93 - Riffle
XS12 looking upstream
XS12 looking downstream
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
I MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1037.08
1037.49
1037.39
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.86
1.03
Thalweg Elevation
1035.54
1035.67
1035.47
LTOB Elevation
1037.08
1037.23
1037.44
LTOB Max Depth
1.54
1.56
1.97
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
10.89
8.47
11.41
Entrenchment Ratio
>4.4
>5.64
>6.53
XS12 Riffle 14+93
1043
-As-Built - Dec 2019
1042
-MY1 - 2020
-MY2 - 2021
1041
1040
1039
1038
a)
"' 1037
1036
1035
1034
1033
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project �) ECOSYSTEM
DMS # 100024 ja PLANNING &
l RESTORATION

XS13 looking upstream
Cross Section Plot - MY2
XS13 - UT
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 15+72 - Pool
�:
V
rr
f
w
vz..
a
XS13 looking downstream
MYO
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1036.46
1037.27
1037.10
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.94
1.04
Thalweg Elevation
1033.32
1034.52
1034.62
LTOB Elevation
1036.46
1037.09
1037.21
LTOB Max Depth
3.14
2.57
2.59
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
19.55
17.77
22.91
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
XS13 Pool 15+72
1041
—As-Built - Dec 2019
— MY1- 2020
1040
-
- MY2 - 2021
1039
—
1038
1037
1036
c�
v
"' 1035
1034
1033
1032
1031
0 10 20 30
40 50 60
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024
Irajjj )))jj}��� ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

�!0
)2)2 \|\|®
■

co
:........
.
MO
..
.....
cl
wl
co
6
o
co
2
\\\�k
t
t
\\\\\\\\
---
ttttt
��5
-
`2
--
-
_
_:
__
-
-
_;!
e2!
f®
({m
_
_l
-
-
---o
_
=_e:�
uo
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
{:\
-
-
,
\
MO
5
Im
tm7
]
`
`\
\
\
k
§
}
)
�!0
U)
°)\
)�\
< n

co
co
co
4
co
2t[t;
\\��k
\\\\\\\\
---
-
-
-
-
-
�2
>?
_
2ttt;«2!
`2
_
=_e:�
_:
-
-
_
-
_;!
e2!
f®
({}
_
_---
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
/2f/
-
{:\
-
-
-
--
,
-
2:1-
a
Im
_
2{{
\R
om
-9
mm
tm7
]
`
`\
\
\
k
§
}
)
�!0
U)
°10
)�\
< n

m
CO
m
co
16
2
co
:........
.
..
.....
co
75
\\\\
---
ttttt
2t[t;
>?
_
2]F
t]F
2!
\`2
--
-
_
_:
__
-
-
_;!
e2!
f®
E
_
_---
-
-
---
_
=_e:�
J-)
_
-
{:\
-
-
-
_
-
a
-o
-
-
,
_
2E
3
\
i}!
tm7
]
`
k
§
}
1.2
|
�!0
U)
°10
)�\
< n

O■■■■■■i
O■■■■■■k
al
01111111
81111111
HIIIIIII
81111111
01111111
;HIIIIIII
:GIIIIIII
81111111
01111111
(a
JIM
01111111
11111111
MINE
111111111
11111111`
Bill
11
11111111
111111111
\����■■■�\���■■■■■\�����■���\���■■■��

Appendix D
Hydrologic Data
Table 10. Bankfull Event Verification
Figure 3. Monthly Rainfall Data
Precipitation and Water Level Hydrographs

2
ti
N
O
CM
I-
to
N
CM
to
LO
N
CM
LO
M
N
CM
N
CM
M
M
G1
W
CM
>
>
i
N
O
� N N N N N N
� N N N N
0)
O O O O O O
0000
>
CM
� N N N N N
a)N N N N
O
....
N
+-. � � � N � �
m M CO CO N 00 N
+-.
cu M CO CO N
(B N N
M-- N N
Q N N M~ 00 O)
Q N N M O)
a)
N
a)
N
CO
�
N
N
C
C
O
N
> 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
a) N N N N N O N N N N N
> 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 000000
N N N N N N O N N N N N N N
O
N
O O O O O N O O O O O
O N N
- O O O O O O N O O O O O O O
O N N
N N N N N N N N
(B N Lo
N N N N N N N N N N N
(Q — — — — — — N — — — — — Lo
T-
L M f— O) L O) N
L (N M O f— 00 �t I LO I— I— O) N
M N N N N(D, N N
— — — — — — — —
M CO N N N L N N
— — — — — — — — — — —
Q 00 O O
LO LO LO LO 00 00 c
Q 00 O O
a)r � LO LO I-00 00 00 m m r r
r
H
N
m
p
H
O
w
C�
m
~
3
m
O
r
c�
G
Z
200
0
Z_
r Z 0
0 J W
Q)
O
L
a
c
O
O
Q)
cc
E
ro
Q)
O N
0 O- O
m O
3 CD
C: ztt
0 N
c�
Q c 0

N
V
U/
N
O
Z
I
N
I
o
s
v
N N
—
a o
v
w
U
:
N
w
3
m
L L
/}[
co
Y
O
i•+
O0
+-
D Y
a
rl
�
m'
co
N
O
c
aa
O
N P
of
cc
N
Y
m
c
O
C
E
-E}
Y
O o
M
om
N m
L
i
O
C O
D
(n
G
c
L
O
N
C
�
O
M
u
u
m
N
L
O
C
�
cI w
N O
�
Cp
G
—'
fu a`
2 N
O
L.L
N
0
O
rl
co
g
N
O
' U
N
O_ Z
a w
N
N y
C
O
m
ci
N Ln
W
U/
LL E
O
N
N O
N
C w
f0 C
O
O
u
O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
Ol
CO Il W Ln �T m N ci O
W
(uI) Ile;uieb A14luoW o
Z
lO
0
N
Ln
0
N
0
N
M
N
O
N
i
N
f6
N
E
E
N
3
N
�
C
r-I
N
N
m0
rl
Ol
N
N
a?
Ln
}
O
N
O
N
cI
00
Ol
pj
N
N
crj
Ln
_
N
N
�
0
~
C
N
U
C
N
U
(
("D
N
l6
E
a
O
l6
O
m
O
r,
z
C
W
W
a

i
O
o0�l�0
Aep/sayjul
00 0 -Zt N
O N
O
C O
I' O
N �
\ N
N 01
c-I N
00
C
C'4
`" 3
O 0
N
rz
N
v
c E
1 1
�,�_ 1 1
N I
I
> •
Y
__
0
ONO
0 C
0) M> 0)
I I
O
N N
4
v
I { 1 1
to
00
o0
1 1
C4 3
1 1
m
n3
o
I 1 1
0 m
I 1 1
N I
I 1 1
00 I
I
I 1 1
I 1 1
C4
O
'
N 3
m
I 1 1
0 o m
1 1
�
I I 1
N
I r 1
O
4
1
Ln
I i I I
1
N
O c
I I
� o
1 1
n >
Lf1 >
I 1 1
w
_ L _1
T
0 0
1 1
\
� 1
I
1 I
r I
1 1
O
►� 1
N
► 1
n
I ► 1
► 1
N
-
► 1
4 >
M �
1 1
�
N
O
N
0
m
m
c
m�
m
m m
O
O O
O O O
O
(11) UOIJeA@13
v
21
L
O
N
O
N
U
N
.O
d
O
0
0
0
0
00
N
o
>=
CJ
V
\
^O
CD
lD
M
Qt
lD
lD
CD
N
V
ONO
N
(O
.--I
N
Ql
V
.--I
C.
C.
0
o
c
0
m
0
O
O
N
'O
a
O
c
0
o=co
Q
Q
Q
c
to
c
v
v
m
o
0
3
to
c
o
d
N
N
N
>
C7
N
N
T
�.
00
tln
Q
fn
Q
3
o
v
o
o
C7
(D
T
O
v
c
m
mo
ovc
v
o
a>i
v
C
C.7
Z
U
c0
'-'-'
U
U
30
O
t0
v]
v]
>
v]
C7
0
>
m
O
0
o
U
00
E
u1
.N-I
o
Q
+
C
�
O
U
(U
p
a
U
3 E
U
N
O
u o
o
no -o
c Y
LO
'Q V
O_
o
C)
O
N
O
V
N
\D
N
M
0 M
O
iJ
ry
\
no
m
N
4;1
y
0
O
O N
_0
to
2
O
v
Y
m
01
0
3
N
2!
c
0
v O
_
-0
L c
Vf
C N
rl 01
-r_, L
0
O
N O
N \ u
v
v
N C O
o
N
m
Q
(�
-0
L N N
n
C
O
-0
m
CU N N
Q
bA
O > Q
Z oi
0
bm
A N

N
V
Cm
G
i
/pep/sagDul
O W l0 00 l0 -Zt N O 71
O
N
n
N
N
c-I
N
O
N
00
N
N
O
N
N
00
N
• 00
m
r,
Zt � � � m
O O O O O O
(11) uOIJena13
N
O +..,
N M
O
m
0
m
Ln
0
Ln
c-I
O
c-I
O
N
N
O
m
c\-I
N
O
c
00 �
m
0
z
m -0
W
V
N
O
d
0
m
O
0
O
O
a
N
N
co
N
CD
u
vCD^O
o
0
0
o
a
O
v
N
ON
V
CD
>
0
O
c
O
m
0
N
3
CDO
N
O
m
N
i
m
ar
cu
r
c
o
c
O
>
0
$
c0
m
E
?
?
N
p
0
0
�
O
N
N
c
v
v
"D
c
3
cv
cv
O
N
.c
O
`0
cu
cn
cn
>
3
L7
H
ono
N
tw
tw�_���_
c
cu
Npp
+N-'
oN
D
. a
O
ON
in
cn
v
cn
cu
.3
cNon
N
.3
M
i
�+
on
tw
O
�
v
c
o
>
ai
CIOc
C7
>
cn
c�
>
°w°
.3
cu
v
>
m
c
o
N
O
v
E
u
o
=
mu
O
>
p
m
V
N
o
a
O
�
O
� w
o
e4 a
v
O
Q V
Q N
a
ry
+ O
K
�
�
�
O n
0
m
3
N
Y
3 m
o
O
c
0
a1 `
c
o
v c
v
v \
m
m
o
0
Q
V
O
m
Y
0
01
o
v
c
>
E
cu 01
76
Z m v
O
H
to (n

4-1
cu
.O
L
a M
s= m
O
3
m
O 0
-W I*-
N E
cu
m 1n
i
" i -j
N N
Y O
O
O N
m �
3 cu
a,
O
^m
W
i
(/pep/ui)
uoi;elid!Daad
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
zT
N
O O O O O
O
ci
-1
-1 00 to �t N
O
-i
N
O
,
N
1
n
1
N
\
j
1
N
�
1
1
1
�
1
N
1
1
1
p
N
_
\
,
N
1 I
O
II 1r4
U
1 1 1
' I
r
_v
W
1
0
a
bD
L
O
0
1
N
1
1 1 1 I
N
1
1
1
1 1
0
,
1 1 11 1
r,
0
1 ,
\
1 1
i
o
1 l i 1
N
v
1
0
�
>
1 I 1
1 1
°�'
v
d
1 I I I
1
O
N
1 1 I
O
ra
0
O
\
CO
m
N
0
1
N
1 1 1 1
N
+�
m
0
C
1rn—
c
1 1 1 1
N
•�,
oc
1 1 1
O
la
T
1
w
c
rn
v
o
1 1 I
In
1
1
)
0
0
1 1 I 1 I
N
fV
1 i I�
O
N
1
1
1 1 j
1 1
c-I
1
\
"'
1
1
1 1
1
1 1 1
N
0
1
+'
1
r4
O
J
1 1 1
1
N
1\n
�
1
o
1 \ I
I
i j 1
oN
\
1 I 1
1
1 1
,Y
I I
1 1 l i 1
`11
1 1
O
N
fV
ci
O
Ol 00 In 1.0
Ln
cI
\
MO MO MO
rn
O
O
O
O
(11) u01jena13
z
ti
N
O
N
O
M
I
I
o
V1
N
t%
N
N
O
a
6
m
M
r,
m
M
M
m
^
O
^
O
00
lD
N
}
5
ti
O
O
O
M
M
O
m
G
3
0
w
m
3
i
Vf
_
O
LL
Y
ti
C
O
i
0
D�0
rq
3
a,
ai
ry
Q
0
Q
N
w
O
N
O
4
N
u
N
—
N
bIJ
la
p
la
la
d
la
N
-6
j
w
N
>
O
a
>
w
N
}
la
la
Y
bIJ
w
.�
?
la
>
=
7
�,
U
V'
>_
w
`;Ln
3
LO
a
bD
.-
Y
a
a
°°
a
o
LL
a",
C
JO
p
m
u�
ai
C
u
O
t
b
2
U
0
d
Y
ro._�
ti
�a 0
Y w N
YO
U
N
Q
cyLn
a
bD Y
E
N
O�
m
a
c
M In O
N
\
N
O
C O N
N
O
N
Y v
0
O
6
o
N N E
O
w
C
O
o0
ai
Y
3 O
CL
co w
+(U
�
N
O
bD i N
0
p
Qaj
O
_N
E
0 N N
v N
0
2 v, c>b
Y Y
aj
aJ
O p C
U
7
m N
N
v
M
c
Z
m p m
N
N
a
N
N
`^
t
* Fl M

4-1
cu
.O
L
a M
m
O
m
3
o c
N
cu E
W
m Ln
cu
N N
Y O
O
O N
ML
W �
3 cu
a,
O
m
cu
i
(/pep/ui)
uoi;elid!Daad
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
zT
N
O O O O
O
O
ci
-1
-1 00 to �t
N
O
-i
N
O
1
N
1
n
1
N
\
j
N
�
1
1
1
�
1
N
1
1
1
p
N
1
_
\
1
>r1i
O
1
1
a500
a
W
1
O
O
1 1
(
O
1
I
\
1 1
I
I
00
l
i
j II
I
o\i
0
1 1
1 1
I
\
O
1 1
Ol
1 I
I 1
I
00
1 1
I 1
W
U
1 1
i
—
I
I
0
1
m
O
j
O
rn
CO
rn
rV
0J
1
1 I I 1
ON
1
ru
1 11
0
1
1•
1
O
.Z
z
i
\
ra
T
1
1 I I 1
I
ran
01
LU
I I
I
Ln
O
1 1
1 1
1
1
I
I
w
N
1
N
O
OrV
1 1 1
I
N
Lr)
�
1
j 1 1
I
N
1 1 j
0
1 1
1
'
1
NO
v
1�
N
O1
m
N
>
C
�\
1
rn
J
—
ra
O
I
I
1 1
rn
1
I
N
m
m
mmmm
cI
vm
O
O
0
0 O O
O
O
(11) u01jena13
C
�
Ln
%
N
O
N
O
n
in
M
N\
O
M
a
N
4
in
O
O
w
a
v
m
O
O
O
M
M
O
}
m
G
w
E
m
3
v
N
c
_
o
c
rqrq
C
O
$
W
0
3
m
a
O
a,
ry
0
0
`..,
Q
N
w
O
N
0
N
U
N
—
io
w
io
N
O
Q
>
w
�n
pip
O
O
>
N
�
N
>
vi
N
y
i
7
to
6
W
U
-O
W
L
W
0
>
J
7
y
U
N
3:
bb.0
Y
LL
C
p
m
U
U
a
2
x
v
.o
d
@ c
C
6 114
= O
a0+ u N
V
a
n
o��
aj
��
vv
m
@L°
EI--��
M
_
dJ
(D r, D
l0
LJ
cy
NO
C O (0
In
N
d
N N
Y n
0
Oi
Y t
0
O
C
m
CL
ate+
O
m `
bD O
N
�a�i
O
Q O
H E _v
O @ @
Cc,
O ; >
2 In m
y- Y
O OO C
O
a
a
fl
n
@ m 0
m 3 3
O Y
v
C
C I
In
p N
C co
bA

Appendix E
Project Timeline and Contact Information
Table 11. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 12. Project Contacts Table

Table 11. Project Activity and Reporting History
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project - DMS ID 100024
Elapsed time since grading complete: 2 yrs 5 months
Elapsed time since planting complete: 1 yr 11 months
Number of reporting years: 2
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Delivery
Institution Date
Aug-17
404 permit date
Oct-18
Final Mitigation Plan
2017 to 2018
Sep-18
Final Design — Construction Plans
Dec-18
Site Earthwork
Jan to June 2019
Jun-19
As -Built Survey Performed
Aug-19
Aug-19
Bare root plantings
-
Jan-20
As -built Baseline Monitoring Report (Monitoring Year 0)
2019
Feb-20
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov-20
Dec-20
Vegetation Replanting
Mar-21
Mar-21
Beaver trapping and dam removal
Aug-21
Aug-21
Year 2 Monitoring
Oct-21
Dec-21
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
1 = The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
Appendix E
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
• RESTORATION
DMS # 100024

Table 12. Project Contacts Table
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project - DMS ID 100024
Designer
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC
1150 SE Maynard Rd. Ste 140 Cary, NC 27511
Primary project design POC
Kevin Tweedy, PE [phone]
Construction Contractor
Yadkin Valley Construction, Inc
2961 Old 60 Hwy Ronda, NC 28670
Construction contractor POC
Brad Benton
Survey Contractor
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
PO Box 148, Swannanoa, NC 28778
Survey contractor POC
Lissa Turner [phone]
Planting Contractor
Foggy Mountain Nursery
797 Helton Creek Road Lansing, NC 28643
Planting contractor POC
Glenn Sullivan
Seeding Contractor
Yadkin Valley Construction, Inc
Contractor point of contact
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource (Sourced through Swan Creek Farm Supply)
5204 Highgreen Court Colfax, NC 27235
Foggy Mountain Nursery
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC
Monitoring Performers
Stream Monitoring POC
Russell Myers, EPR [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Russell Myers, EPR [phone]
Appendix E
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
DIMS # 100024 j� r r
l RESTORATION

Appendix F
IRT Correspondence
Meadow Brook Adaptive Management Plan February 2021
Email: MB GW#2, March 9, 2021

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
February 16, 2021
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Department of the Army
CORPS of Engineers
Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1343
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
1150 S.E. Maynard Road, Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
Subject: Response to NCDMS Meadow Brook Mitigation Site — NCIRT Comments
during 15 — day Adaptive Management Plan Review
Dear Ms. Browning,
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR) has reviewed the comments on the Adaptive
Management Plan for Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project received on 2/12/2021. The
comments have been addressed as described below to create the Final Adaptive Management
Plan for Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning
1. Based on submitted monitoring data, it appears that vegetation growth has been
negatively affected by excessive site hydrology. The proposed adaptive management
plan includes replanting portions of the site with additional species that are more
adapted to the hydrologic conditions but does not include any modifications to address
the underlying issue. Was the increased hydrology due solely to a few storm events? I
agree that replanting the site should be included as part of the adaptive management
plan. Further, given how extensive the planting is, about 80% of the site, vegetation
monitoring should be extended an additional year, and the resulting data will be
important in assessing the success of the performance of replanted vegetation. If the site
appears to be demonstrating a trajectory for success later in monitoring (MY4 or MY5),
we may eliminate the extra year of monitoring at that time. It would have been beneficial
to include hydrology gauge data and rain gauge data to document the excessive
inundation on site, and to include species mortality rates. Additionally, please indicate
the percentage of each species to be planted. The Corps supports moving forward with
the supplemental planting.
o In the pre -construction site conditions, the site contained 6 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands with several more acres of drained hydric soils.
Restoration activities included raising the existing stream bed to connect to the
historic floodplain, restoring a meandering riffle pool morphology, and filling
existing drainage ditches. All these activities improved the site wetland hydrology.
The improved site hydrology is also likely due to higher than average rainfall.

Most of the riparian floodplain area is now functioning as a wetland, which is a
positive ecological development.
o EPR hopes to avoid additional vegetation monitoring since these efforts
were initiated so early in the project's post -construction monitoring phase.
However, if required, EPR can conduct vegetation monitoring surveys in
MY8 if the previous year's data do not indicate a trend towards success.
No additional monitoring efforts are proposed.
o Wetland and rain gauge data graphs from MY1 have been included in the
Final AMP.
o The maximum percentage of each species that will be planted is included
in the Revised Vegetation Selection table attached to the Final AMP.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis
DWR appreciates the additional adaptive management plan information provided,
particularly the Revised Vegetation Selection. We are ok with the proposed additional
species and percentages. DWR is glad to see that random plots were incorporated into
the initial monitoring plan, however, we would still like to request 2-3 random transects to
demonstrate survival and diversity in MY3.
o Per a phone conversation with Erin Davis on 2/16/21, the 2-3 random
transects may be omitted from MY3 efforts as the spatial distribution of
fixed and changing random plots are sufficient.
2. DWR understands that it was a wetter than normal year. However, regarding the "very
thick herbaceous vegetation competition", have you identified which species are
competing most with the planted woody stems? Are the species part of your seed mix or
volunteers? Is this a situation that will influence selection/percentages of seed mix
species on future sites?
o EPR has not identified any single species which competed the most with
the woody planted stems and whether these species were planted or
volunteer. It is clear that soft rush Ouncus effusus), which was included in
the original planting plan at 4%, has grown very thick in places. This
species was already present on the site, however, and much of what is
present on the site is likely volunteer growth.
EPA Comments, Todd Bowers
*Note: These comments were addressed in the Revised AMP submitted on 2/11/2021
I have reviewed the Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) for the proposed supplemental
planting of the NCDMS Meadowbrook mitigation site to address the poor sitewide
vegetation performance following the Monitoring Year 1 report of December 2020. In the
MY1 Report, EPR was forthcoming in providing the data pertaining to unexpectedly high
water table levels and vegetation mortality across much of the site following a year of
higher than normal precipitation that produced an abnormally high number of bankfull
events. I understand that sitewide supplemental planting needs to occur and that this
- PRO UIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORAT/ON SER"CES TO SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE ENWRONMENT -

needs to happen as soon as possible to take advantage of the rapidly closing window of
plant dormancy.
With that in mind / offer the following suggestions to facilitate a better understanding of
the corrective action to be undertaken. I recommend adding the wetland indicator status
to the desired 8 species listed on page 2 of the AMP along with a clearer understanding
of where these species will be planted. Since there are two distinct vegetation zones
there should be some delineation between the two in species distribution. Poor
performance was illustrated (vegetation problem area) for the upland areas too, so some
consideration of wet condition tolerances needs to be considered for those areas as
well. I also understand the urgency to address this problem, however the /RT should
have been altered to this back in December so that we could have been a bit more
proactive in addressing EPR's AMP and need to take immediate corrective action. I did
not see the MY1 Report until the AMP was sent out for review so that may have caused
some delay in turnaround for IRT approval. I understand that mortality was not just
linked to wetter than expected conditions but rather that herbaceous vegetation
competition was a contributing factor. If possible, I would like to know species mortality
rates (diff between planted stems and those that survived) so that species with high
mortality can be avoided or likewise those that have done well can be promoted.
o Noted. These comments were addressed in the Revised AMP submitted on
2/11 /2021.
WRC Comments, Olivia Munzer
Comments on the additional species:
1. -Witch hazel is a FACU species. Make sure this species isn't planted in the consistently
wet area. They state that the upland areas did mostly well, so where will they plant this
species, as well as those listed as FAC.
o The upland planting areas account for only around 0.9 acres throughout
the site. In general, these areas did perform better than the riparian wetland
areas but they will still be supplementally planted using the revised upland
planting mix presented in the attachments.
2. - I'd prefer to see something other than tulip poplar on the list since it was originally
planted (10%) and it will volunteer.
o Tulip poplar is a successful native species that will likely thrive in the
difficult site conditions. It is preferred that Tulip poplar will remain as part
of the AMP.
Comments on the 2018 planting plan — I realize / am late to comment on this, but for next
time and to note on other projects:
1. - Remove cereal rye from temporary seeding. It is allelopathic.
2. - Add more pollinator species to the seed mix
3. - Riverbank wild -rye only occurs in mountains
4. - Switchgrass not commonly found in that part of the state
(https://auth1.dpr.ncparks.gov/flora/species account.php)
5. - Festuca ovina var. duriuscala — it is an introduced species
- PROWDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORAT/ON SER"CES TO SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE ENWRONMENT -

6. - Tall Fescue and Kentucky bluegrass as they can be invasive
(https://www. invasive. org/species/grasses. cfm).
7. - Although persimmon can be found in a variety of habitats, it doesn't seem appropriate
for riparian wetland. It is most commonly found in dry to mesic forests and edges.
o Thank you for the comments on the 2018 planting plan. These will be taken
into consideration on future projects. Note that there are several reasons
that these species are included, and these can be discussed at a later date
as needed.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 925-337-1470 or via email at cjonesp_eprusa.net.
Sincerely,
Cidney Jones, PE & CFM
- PRO UIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORAT/ON SER"CES TO SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE ENWRONMENT -

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
ECOSYSTEM 1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
PLANNING & Cary, NC 27511
RESTORATION Phone: [phone]
Ira www.eprusa.net
Adaptive Management Plan for Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Revised February 16, 2021
The Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project (Project, Site) is a DMS Full -Delivery located in Yadkin
County, NC. The site is currently in MY2 (2021). Riparian herbaceous vegetation that was established
after construction appears to be flourishing throughout the Site. Additionally, no invasive species were
noted within the conservation easement. All restored streams meet the success criteria as established in
the Final approved Mitigation Plan (2018). The site has withstood multiple storm events in MY1 and has
held up extremely well. EPR is proposing to conduct supplemental planting across a portion of the site
in early 2021 during dormant season.
Riparian vegetation monitoring evaluates the growth and development of planted and volunteer
vegetation across the Site. Six (6) permanent vegetation monitoring plots were established across the
Site. The individual trees within each permanent plot were flagged and identified to facilitate repeat
monitoring each year. In addition to the 6 permanent plots, 6 randomly placed vegetation plots are
established each year and the location of these plots is recorded using a GPS. All vegetation plot
locations for MY1 are shown in the current conditions plan view (CCPV; Attached).
The vegetation performance criteria, as established in the Final approved Mitigation Plan (2018), are
listed below:
• Vegetation success criteria of 320 native stems/acre in Year 3, 260 native stems/acre in Year 4
and 210 native stems/acre in Year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at Year 5, and 10 feet in height at Year 7.
• Any single species can only account for 50% of the required stems per monitoring plot.
Data from MY1 is summarized in the table on the following page, Tables 6 and 7 from the MY1 Report
are also provided in the attachments.
1IPage

Ira. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
Veg Plot ID
MY1 Stem
Count
MY1
Stems/AC
Dominant Species
Composition (%)
VPF-1
8
324
25
VPF-2
21
850
18
VPF-3
5
202
29
VPF-4
9
364
22
VPF-5
13
526
31
VPF-6
3
121
67
VPR-7
1
40
100
VPR-8
6
243
33
VPR-9
8
324
25
VPR-10
3
121
67
VPR-11
4
162
50
VPR-12
11
445
36
Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
As indicated by the low planted stem count numbers found in many vegetation plots, much of the
planted areas are not meeting the performance criteria. Six out of twelve of the riparian plots are
already below the interim success criteria for density in year 3 and three more plots (shown in yellow)
are not expected to meet the interim success criteria. Table 5 in Appendix A of the MY1 Report indicates
that 8.80 acres of the 11.2-acre easement (78.6%) can be described as low stem density areas. The CCPV
provided in the attachments shows the vegetation problem areas.
The high woody species mortality documented in the MY1 Report is likely due to 2 reasons:
Very thick herbaceous vegetation competition
Very wet conditions (refer to site groundwater monitoring attachment)
Supplemental planting efforts are currently being planned to re -plant certain areas of the site where
mortality is high so that the site will meet the interim success criteria. This will include re -planting the
available species included in the Final approved Mitigation Plan (2018) which were generally based on
species suggested by Schafale and Weakly (1990) for Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and
Schafale (2012) for Piedmont Alluvial Forest. The planting plan and planting zones from the plan set are
provided in the attachments. Also, as part of these efforts, the planting contractor has
suggested/requested using some additional native species that were not originally proposed in the Final
approved Mitigation Plan (2018). The contractor is confident that these species will improve
success. The additional species are listed in the table on the following page and revised vegetation plan
tables are provided in the attachments.
2 1 P a g e

Ira. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
Cephalanthus occidentalis
OBL
Buttonbush
Physocarpus opulifolius
FACW
Nine Bark
Alnus serrulate
OBL
Tag Alder
Hamamelis virginiana
FACU
Witch hazel
Quercus michauxii
FACW
Swamp chestnut oak
Liriodendron tulipirera
FACU
Tulip poplar
Lindera benzoin
FAC
Spicebush
Carpinus caroliniana
FAC
American Hornbeam
Planting zones will loosely follow the zones shown in the Plans (Zone 1 along the streambanks, Zone 2 in
the riparian wetlands, and Zone 3 in the Uplands). However within Zone 2, the FACW and OBL species
listed in the table above will also be planted within areas of consistent standing water identified in the
field. Also, approved species included in Zone 1 will be planted in these areas. The upland zone shown
in the original planting plan generally did well and only accounts for 0.9 acres of planting. Individual
species will be selected and planted per specific site conditions under the supervision of a qualified
planting contractor. The maximum percent any species will encompass is provided in the revised
vegetation plan in the Attachments. Green Ash will continue to be limited to 5% and the proposed
diverse list will help ensure that no species is dominant.
EPR is making every effort to address the vegetation issues reported above in MY2 (2021) with more wet
tolerant species. As it is very early in the monitoring, EPR does not believe that additional monitoring is
warranted at this time.
3 1 P a g e

Ira. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
Attachments
for the
Adaptive Management Plan for Meadow Stream Restoration Project
1. Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) — Figures 2, 2A — 2C from Final Monitoring Year 1 Report
(Dec 2020)
2. Vegetation Plot Data —Table 6 from Final Monitoring Year 1 Report (Dec 2020)
3. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table — Table 7 from Final Monitoring Year 1
Report (Dec 2020)
4. Groundwater and Rain Data from MY1—from Final Monitoring Year 1 Report (Dec 2020)
5. Annual Rain Data Summary from MY1—from Final Monitoring Year 1 Report (Dec 2020)
6. Revised Vegetation Plan — Created for this AMP
7. Vegetation Selection Plan Sheet — Sealed construction plan set, identical content to Appendix 9
from Final approved Mitigation Plan (2018)
8. Vegetation Plan Sheets — Sealed construction plan set, identical content to Appendix 9 from
Final approved Mitigation Plan (2018)
4 1 P a g e

-
U d' p
y'
hi
rn
W N N
) O O
z
-.
-
o
X o N
a
W o
zQ
CO W
6zo
z
N
2
N
N
N
N
�x
• - ��
i
LLLd
O
-,
- - -
-
LL
LL LL
O
W
7
T
< O
z
a
Q
0
E
U)
z
Wog
U
z_
_
D
U)
O
O
M O N
;
;
z
O
O
O W
-
X
X
LMJ•
? _
::)
`4U
O
t
U
0
LL
r � . ti - � d � � � �, � ,,� • -
C
�
LLI N
O C
(n
a
W
5
G,
y .•
rya-
N rn
0
O
LU
U U
0-40
Z
Q
W
W
O °�
N
• \
Q
� U)
o
W
f --
O
w
O
U
t
O-
N 6
i
W
ak
rt
�i
�a re

J
w
N
.t
000 N
Woo
U
z�
�0 0
0�
m
p
Ill IL 0�
g
M
U
�
LL
a.
O U
`L
U
W
L
L
s
.J
z
W
E
W
m
N
U)>
~ } O
z
zN
d 0
F�
Z
N
z
W o�
U
z
o o
U) O
L
t
— —
�` ..
z
E E
�0 0
w
0NOD
u
E
Y
in v°ri
c u1 U)
m
Ld
♦e�
C:
>ar O °
U
C
`\ •
(6
� -
-
> m
U)
d
in c N
O
o
w U U
d
Z�Q
.i
W
LL�
_
_ E
O Li.
a
�
m c m
O ar
�
N
f•' . �
)
Q � �
� N �
to
o
W
. _ _
. , - r
.N
W
to J
Q N
U
2
U
cLL
I
0

fl N
O
w
LL
a.
m0)
N N
O
0 O 0
`
L
.E
O
O
U
W C7 F
Q
ZLd
- .� •�-
M
N
Q
U J W
LL
to
_ O
to
C
�
N
(6
W
.. N
(n ILL ILL
ILL
O
I
I
J L
co
co
z
"
♦
Rul ICU
ICULLd
m
UI
�\
Cu
Ld
>
♦
Ld
o
U
_
'ram
'Q O
z
t.
J
O
N v DU)
cn
lU) z
}
o
o
0
ILL ILL 02 02
L.i-d
u
LL \ `�
a.
},y
CO J
-6 (6
c W N
O
V
! \' �.-
rn (n
_ N
fOA
d
O
•
N C
O
w U U
O
d
Z�Q
Ld
W
o �
W
N
W
E Lx
3
t
Li
O (6 W
Q N
U
2
U
=
_
LL
i

)\(
rl—
OK
oc
ca
uo
o
ca
\\\\}
}}\E
It
o
\\�\
\
#f

§
S
e /
L.L
E §
§ E
m 2
$ 2
r ƒ
§ a
2
S k
k k
2 �
I E
/ /
a �
"0
> CO
w ■
I k
/
/
/
/
-
-
r
w
0.
0.
0,
\
it\
^
3
^
{
^
CL
>
\
/
\
/
\
t
\
\Ln
\
\
[
j
/
[
§
)
[
}
[
/
Ln
-
-
-
-
2
/
/
/
/
F-
�
E
-
-
-
u
=
k
E
{
2
CL
J
t
t
0
§
to
_
\
_
/
2
CL
2
9
9
2«
«
)
w
/
w
/
k
\
\
\
\
/
j
j
/
\
\
k
(
[
[
[
f
>
>
>
>
2
-
-
-
-
§
}
}
}
/
R
tw
]
_
\
>
k
/
\
^
3
^
3
^
{
^
CL
>
\
>
\
\
\
\
[
}
§
[
In
ID[
9
[
§
Ln
Ln
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
,Ǥ

i
/pep/s@gDul
O 0�0 l�0
00 to zt N
O O
N
O
N
<D
O
I
N
O
�
c-I
�
O
N
N
to
1 '
O
1 I
\
1O
O
N
(�
1
r'
1 ,
LL'
1 1
I
O
N
I
--
----
-- --L1—
\
1 1
0
I
O
1 1
oN
•
a0
1 I
\
to a
1 1
•�
I
N
m
c
1
o
I
I 1
a
1
rIj
o
oo
1 1
1 I
1
0000
I I
I
I I
O
1
O
v
�
i I• 1
� 0
m a
'
Y
om
1 I 1
0
1 1
!
� I
o
m
I
Lr)
' I 1
O
I I
O
O
•
N
1 1
o
f0 —>
rn
1 I
Lu 0
1 1
ON
� O
-------—:—�—�—
O
O N
C7 ON
ubn p
' 1 1
m
I •
0
b w N
1 1
1
bD 0
+
o
I
1 1
m
c
u o
o
1
1 1
v —
c
+�
1 1
J
o
• I 1
\
cc
m
0
1
L
o
c\
� m
m
m m
m
m
O O
O
O O
O
O
(:g) u01jena13
U
aJ
.O
a
O
O
`
.—I
M
O
O
N
O
O
LJ
f
M
E
C7
\
�
C
O
to
O
m
�p
O
m
N
N
N
(6
ti
N
c-I
Ol
M
N
i
n
Y
ON
't
ti
N
>
K
O
O
O
m
C
Q
0
0
3
N
o
m
i
N
ai
o
Oo
m
O
>
m
^
�
o
o
p
^
o
^
m
o
m
m
lz
aj
c
c
v
aj
m
c
o
0
3
U
m
3
N
6
6
N
O
y
O
n
n
>
30
Ln
OD
O
a
_
�
?
O
L_
�
C7
t
o
O
N
"�
v
6
6
�-
U
>,
C7
o
O
aj
to
O
—
'3
O
�n
v
v
c
,�
w
—
w
no
°p
o00c
ai
o
v
v
C7
Z
U
(6
LJJ
U
O
Ot
�S
>
N
C7
o
>
m
v
3
o
v
o
n
3:
E
o f
cy
p
Qj
U
U
c
1
U
v
�O
cO
c
N
a
Q
~
�
�
a
—
w
1=
�
U
'QaJ
a
O
o
4
t0
K
O
N
s
O
000
\
U
f6
o
O
m
_
L
0
w
o
N
ccv
G
O
U
c
v
�
c
v
o
p
c
N
��
o
c
w
>
M
°J
.-
m
o
o=
�p
U
O
H
v
d

/pep/sayz)ul
O
0�0 l�0 00 to zt N
O O
N
O
N
N
O
O
�
N
�
N
c
hp
o
o
C
•3
0
1 I
�
c
W
1 I
O
I
1 1
O
I
—
— — — — —
— a — — — —
I 1 1 1
`V
\
I 1
1 I
O
to
I 1
I 1
O
N
to
I ' 1 1
N
•3
I 1
c
I 1
I I
N
I
'
I i
I 1
0000
0
1 1
No
o
a
p
m
rn
1
1 1
1
1 1
p
1
I
I 1
n
1
, ,
u1
1
0
o
1
O
p,
N
v E
I 1 1 1
\
Mrq
I
O 0
I
1 1
I
ao v 0
I
1 1
o
I
o
I
1
I
oN
!I
>
°
I
1 1
m
Q
u 0�
I
1 1
o
E 3 N
I
1 1
>
�p
1
m _0
v
Y
1 1
�
I I
O
I
N
�
m
�
c
oo
m c\-I
O
O
O O O O
O
(11) u011ena13
a!
a,
•
aJ
in
O
.,�
O
v
N
W
ON
O
o•� o
o
E
3
O
N
n
M
N
M\
W
O
cD
N
11'f
O
11'f
m
N
N
N
N
Ol
O
N
Y
O
\
\
O
j
OC
ti
0
OO
m
3
�
N
o
o
M
N
ei
N
f6
>
c
c
o
o
0
0
aj
c
tov
i
o
i
0
3
U
to
no'3
i
c
o
o
N
S
o
v
�n
vOi
3o
C7
v
�.
MO
MOL
to
p
O
U
C7
s
no
L°
o
v
O
O
_
c
'
3
O
N
M
a`i
C7
tD
>
o
ai
C7
+O+
m
t6
O
bn
a.-�
O
Z7it6
vO
N
n
3
N
n>
w
—
no
mO
=
o
oOc
v
U
o
ai
N
N
C7
Z
W
U
o
O
aj
o
n
E
N
ti
O
O
aJ
U
'o
U
�
1
o
a
o
a
v
a
.0
t0 '�
:-
K cl, O L_
ti N
E O O C
N ^ O
i M WN
U
N \
o O
O
y
}
L
m N
3 w
0
o
a,
N
aj o
v
2 v
U
v
v
o
v v
v
v o o c
O
w o
m C
aJ
o v
� a

O
N
V
U/
O
N
O
Z
O
N
Y
V
O
y
O
N
+O
N
u
a
(1)
o
Y
C:
N
4
U/
7
N
U/
C
a--+
U
C1A
LL
Y
O
N
m
7
0
L
0
0
a
Y
u
�+
I
m
�
c
0
a
O
a,
O
N
F
i +
Y
Co
Co
D
m
o
0
co
x
0
O
LL
o
Leif
O
N
o
m
E
C:
I
Co
co
r-I
w
L
r
L
Co
i
u
N
u
w
}
f
fo
0
0
c
W
a
0
0
of
C
O
rl
0
O
NN
m
L
N
ON
C
V
Z
Co
�
N
tLo
LL
C
'
G
L1
w
O
N
cLj
y
f0
}
C
O Ln
c
ai
N
F Ln
LU I
3: O
LL
N
0 0
w
N
if6-� W
D:
O
N
v E
�
_ �
w i
f0
C ++
m
i y
V O
O
O m
O
O O O O O
O O
2 p
ci
N O 00 to
ci ci
N O
Gl �
(U!) Ilejuie�j AlgluoW
0
z a
LO
0
N
Ln
0
N
0
N
M
0
N
i
N
LO
N
E
O
E
N
3
O
N
O
N
O
N
N
-1
rn
r,
Ln
1.
-1
00
1.
Ol
}
_
N
N
0
O
~
C
N
U
C
N
U
Q
a
N
N
a
l6
E
d
O
O
m
O
I�
Z
c
c
L
W
L
W
Q
O
Z

REVISED VEGETATION SELECTION
MEADOW BROOK ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FEB 2021
Zone 2 - Riparian Wetlands Vegetation
-Riparian vegetation species shall be planted in the areas designated. The planting density will depend on availability of larger stock
If bare -root stock are used then supplemental planting will be performed to reach 680 stems/acre. If larger stock are available, high
risk areas will be targeted and a lower density will be installed.
-All species will be planted according to the plans, details, and construction specifications. Not all of the species listed may be
planted. A minimum of 6 species will be planted. Commercial availability may dictate which species and size are actually planted.
Maximum
Wetland Indicator
Scientific Name
Common Name
% by Species
Status
Betula nigra
River Birch
10%
FACW
Celtis laev@ata
5-04
€SSW
Diospryos virginiana
Persimmon
10%
FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
5%
FACW
Wsocarpu
Ninebark
FA�
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
10%
FACW
Quercus nigra Water Oak 5% FAC
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 5% FAC
Ulmus americana American Elm 5% FACW
Total 100%
Zone 3 - Upland Vegetation
-Riparian vegetation species shall be planted in the areas designated. The planting density will depend on availability of larger stock
If bare -root stock are used then supplemental planting will be performed to reach 680 stems/acre. If larger stock are available, high
risk areas will be targeted and a lower density will be installed.
-All species will be planted according to the plans, details, and construction specifications. Not all of the species listed may be
planted. A minimum of 6 species will be planted. Commercial availability may dictate which species and size are actually planted.
wetiana maicator
Scientific Name Common Name Maximum Status
Carya glabra
Pignut Hickory
10%
FACU
Carya tomentosa
Mockernut Hickory
10%
NI
Geniis , ad n is
Redbud
5°{t
FACU
Corpus florida
Flowering Dogwood
15%
FACU
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
15%
FAC
!kx epaea
Arne"` '" He"
5-Ok
FACU
juniperus b4i�iana
Eastern Red Cedar
5-Ok
FACU
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
15%
FACU
Seuwweed
5%
U_RL
Prunus seretina
Black Cheer
5°Oe
FACU
Quercus alba
White Oak
5%
FACU
Quercus falcata
Southern Red Oak
5%
FACU
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
5%
FACU
NI = No indicator status
Total
100%

Z Z Z
m
w N w ?M,
LL O W
m° "> >>> >>>> i dS 0 0
o cL'iLLSS� E'� -a`Qa LLQLLLLQ �n cLLZLLLLLLULL�LLLLu¢ '0 LL(9 F�
z 0 Z"d
pOn/Q2.1
c�ynyiW
m D) bE ' Ee Ee E' SE 9de _ ^ O W W LL g W W
Ulm
m ga 5� m a Z
�1g$
m§a xagiN ;98mabv�33 ~ _ s onapa~m3� r
# `o 2
8��,
N p�
�z
LA w 4 W l$$& � �� 8 g ffi y � ��� a O O
7 z rc zm S � ffi z w ffi R '� .s �� �_� 2 5 W Y
�JJ E
yi' ' �' u m ' g c > m 1 t, }
Z'E `og a
3s N�y�y r982m Xmm�susoos N��'`E m 'o>>oaaoo
0
Q o z §
� E m ae ffi w LL u� u w LL LL u� E� ae m�i LL LL u LL� LL LL LL��� wa E w «
EMU
ffi
3R 1qW^
m 0 : ZZUm
m €a y 5�yy y a n ELL";z
E s ffi a c' c' 40W¢(9
wz��
'Hid
Z
s 2 T-11
"� W rn u YY YY
m E c Wiz.
UU
O_zi
Z Z z
i$rcozof5
X y 5 $ n a" a S m$ a $ a H w o y ti r9 E»$ aim a y rc FaU a p
w E
❑ a z °z z
oLL5°u
z^ama
H'�O'9E0 HEd 0W\suvb\OQtlO\4d�ooaB moavfW b3O>N Z900l1013\ 61�Z�9��1

®�►t4sOh4��� i I
�� Maly s1 rk -
dd
���-
i,�,3��jr, ��r1i91C�
�Ef1��v®®1•����'
i Rio ►Ie��P .
rr; ;,•y,
uj
in z
--pia s� �I E•E��� a
,ri �1•i�� .!� It
i
•►r� ���a4 • „
®E�oi••„ �r®,
,•ffil• ,1��► •
�oloir �i�•i�� � .
go1i, NAio111� •
11iin 1 �1 A
•jlrllh �11NA• ••����
Mi
WRAWO
1 '1�1•I4�fj•1NAE111f•j•NAE1�1�•�6®,�i 41NAMAE® �r,►•1e�rI1jr1�1AARM,1
11Pi�Sip�•o�e •1r1•II- �!•f1i•f���lNA®IrNA�IwNA•�
.•1ifr• � � �-�� Ere •E
��riEr1�� �# j�NAyw•�yw���rNAf�`aNAf' . • �.
� 1NA 11�1 ill►NA w11ia•E11 r1�11.
gNAelojD��r.1 uJlr�'1ir: �1r1•�1 11
jINA•11 j �1�11r•�11���`II•.•1��111�1•1
♦ a IA
r • n EyNAE•NA1/oi•11 �1 •NAI f1 f 11 •1,
�EjE1EE1•NAIEM� �1•'M11,�1� !, y1Ef1 •1E•11
�NANANA1NAf1NAf INAt 1 NA 11NA f�A_�E•111• ry
wz
/ ®� INANAIrNA1rNA1ENA a.$"1V•11••r/1.
1 • 11 11NA•NANA� li►NA11. 1= IljNA1f�INA ,��1 •11A�
�rooiNA®i®wv . • 1 Er. 1111111NENA b� , -.,� ENA oi110 NAoioNAf�u; �+iNA.
s®�i 'e•o1•�� �IwNAwrl�rEiNAh�� N�1!-
l.�yylrNANA1ENANA®ENA�1NANA1/E �r•a1•MrINAMrNAE11E��!•1l�tG
11��1��®9llj�fl••�►•1� 'ij11�r1•_1I
r1�• NA••NA••E�••r�
Iso- -�.,11 Ii �'1.- -Ef •w1 �NAINAIrNANA1�1
.11.11 •�1•111i r .
lfr �yNAE r-A pF, OWN
�•E%, 1 `�•NA1r' �®rig _ o1NAE1ofo1•i•• r r . , 5rr 1 • of
�I Er oNA, 11 rr -y rNA fr 1i.

From: Jake Byers
To: Brownina. Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Davis. Erin B
Cc: Cidnev Jones; Russell Myers; Tsomides. Harry; NCDENR NCEEP (Paul.wiesner(alncdenr.aov)
Subject: Meadow Brook groundwater gage
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 11:38:55 AM
Hi Kim,
Good to speak with you this morning.
Per our conversation, this email documents that USACE approves of not re -installing the washed out
groundwater gage (MB GW #2) at the Meadowbrook site since current data already shows
groundwater at or near the surface during 100% of the growing season. In -lieu of re -installing the
gage, EPR will re -delineate the wetland boundaries (as already provided for in the approved
mitigation plan) at the end of the monitoring period to document no loss of wetlands. Please let me
know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
-Jake
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING
s RESTORATION
Jake Byers, PE
Senior Water Resources Engineer
9 Old Weaver Farm Road
Weaverville, NC 28787
828-348-8580 (office)
828-989-5592 (cell)
919-388-0789 (fax)
www.eDrusa.net
f min.