20180919 Ver 1_Meadowbrook_100024_MY3_2022_20221214

ID#* 20180919 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 12/14/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/14/2022
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Harry Tsomides [e-mail]
Project Information
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20180919 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
County: Yadkin
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Meadowbrook_100024_MY3_2022.pdf 8.57MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name: * Harry Tsomides
Signature: *
/y ta"m;�

Monitoring Year 3 Report

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Yadkin River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101
Data Collection Period: Submission Date:
September 2022 November 2022 December 2022
NCDEQ Contract No. 7184
DMS 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
1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
Division of Mitigation Services
rd
Cary, NC 27511
217 West Jones Street; 3 Floor
Raleigh, NC 27603

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
Raleigh, NC 27511

Phone: [phone]

www.eprusa.net
Mr. Harry Tsomides
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
DEQ Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778-8211

December 8, 2022

RE: Response to the Draft Monitoring Year 3 Report for the Meadow Brook Site
Yadkin River Basin CU 03040101 Yadkin County
DMS Project # 100024
Contract # 007184

Dear Mr. Tsomides,
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR) has reviewed the comments on the Draft MY3
Monitoring Report provided December 8, 2022. The comments have been addressed as described
below and the Final MY3 Report and electronic deliverables have been revised in response to this
review.

The veg visual assessment table indicates that invasives were not found at the mapping
threshold of
invasive vegetation was found; can EPR provide more detail on the location(s) and types(s)
of invasives found and provide some context? Is EPR planning to treat these invasives or
wait and watch?
o This has been added to the report. Multiflora rose (wƚƭğ ƒǒƌƷźŅƌƚƩğ) was found in
small patches (1-2 bushes) scattered mainly around the UT. The total amount of
rose that was found and treated around the site was less than 0.1 acre. All rose
was cut and sprayed in June 2022. EPR will continue to treat all invasives found
within the easement in future monitoring years.

Pool cross sections 4 and 13 have shown some geomorphic changes since MY0, including some
infilling; can EPR summarize these changes and how they might or might not be a concern
moving forward?
o This has been clarified in the report document. EPR believes this accrual of
sediment is primarily due to channel vegetation, which should become less
of an issue in future years as the channel becomes more and more shaded.
Most of the infilling in these two pools occurred in the first year of
Providing ecosystem planning and restoration services to support a sustainable environment

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
Raleigh, NC 27511

Phone: [phone]

www.eprusa.net
monitoring but the pools appear to have stabilized since then. EPR will
monitor these cross-sections in future monitoring years to ensure that the
channels continue to clear and remain stable.

As a reminder, monitoring providers are responsible for checking the easement integrity
across the project site for encroachments, missing, bent or wobbly post markers, fence breaks,
etc. Please confirm that the site boundary and site compliance was checked and what the
results are.
o EPR walked the entire easement boundary in early June 2022. The boundary was
sprayed so that no vegetation could ground out the electric fence and allow cattle
to encroach on the easement. No ongoing issues were found with fencing or
signage, and no encroachments were noted in MY3

Photo point 13 shows the UT culvert crossing in the background; is there a clearer photo of
the culvert available? If not, could EPR provide this in the next monitoring report?
o Photo point 20 was added to show the culvert at the upstream end of the UT more
clearly. This photo will be replicated in future monitoring years.

Site overview / flyover photos are appreciated, thank you.
o EPR will continue to provide site overview photos in future monitoring reports.

Digital Support Files
.®­¤
If you have any questions regarding the Final MY3 Monitoring Report, please contact me at
304-661-9974 or via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,

Russell Myers

Providing ecosystem planning and restoration services to support a sustainable environment

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 ....................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Wetland Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 10
3.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 16

TABLES
TABLE 1. PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES AND CREDITS ........................................................... 2
TABLE 2. GOALS, PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ............................................................................ 4
TABLE 3: PROJECT ATTRIBUTES TABLE ............................................................................................ 6

FIGURES
11
FIGURE 2. CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW .12

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 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
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 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).
Њ͵Њ Dƚğƌƭ ğƓķ hĬƆĻĭƷźǝĻƭ
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.
Њ͵Ћ tĻƩŅƚƩƒğƓĭĻ /ƩźƷĻƩźğ
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
DMS Annual 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 3 Report - FINAL 1
Yadkin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID #100024

Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
Original
Original
Project As-Mitigation Original Original
Mitigation Priority Mitigation
Component built Thermal Restoration 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 I 1.00000 1,917.000
Livestock, and
Reach 1
Permanent
Conservation Easement.
Full Channel
Restoration, Planted
Meadow Brook
Buffer, Exclusion of
327 353 Warm R II 1.00000 353.000
Livestock, and
Reach 2
Permanent
Conservation Easement.
Full Channel
Restoration, Planted
Meadow Brook
Buffer, Exclusion of
289 273 Warm R II 1.00000 273.000
Livestock, and
Reach 3
Permanent
Conservation Easement.
Habitat Structures,
Planted Buffer,
Meadow Brook
Exclusion of Livestock,
283 218 Warm EI - 1.50000 145.333
Reach 4
Permanent
Conservation Easement
Full Channel
Restoration, Planted
UT to Meadow
Buffer, Exclusion of
396 676 Warm R I 1.00000 676.000
Livestock, and
Brook
Permanent
Conservation Easement.

Planted, excluded
livestock, plugged
ditches, and
Wetland A* 2.930 2.630 RR N/A 0.00000 0.00000
encompasses section of
Priority Level II
Restoration reach.
Planted, excluded
livestock, plugged
ditches, and
Wetland B* 2.230 2.000 RR N/A 0.00000 0.00000
encompasses section of
Priority Level II
Restoration reach.
Planted, excluded
livestock, plugged
ditches, and
Wetland C* 0.820 0.740 RR N/A 0.00000 0.00000
encompasses section of
Priority Level II
Restoration reach.
Planted, excluded
livestock, and
encompasses section of
Wetland D* 0.100 0.090 RR N/A 0.00000 0.00000
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 3 Report - FINAL 2
Yadkin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID #100024

Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits (continued)
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category

Restoration Non-Rip Coastal
Stream Riparian Wetland
Level Wetland Marsh

Non-

Warm Cool Cold Riverine
Riverine

Restoration 3219.000

Re-

establishment

Enhancement

Enhancement I 145.333

Enhancement II

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 3 Report - FINAL 3
Yadkin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID #100024

.

native

, the 6
in Year 3
4
3
native

418
29
7

.
the success criteria

3
s
for MY
native stems/acre

320
of
Cumulative Monitoring Results

average stem density of
stems/acre and have met the success
At the end of Monitoring Year
The 6 randomly selected vegetation plots
had an average stem density of
criteria
permanent riparian vegetation plots had an
stems/acre, which meet

-
st

built, Years
-
Vegetation

and leaf drop.

st
Plots
0.02 acre in size

and height.
Measurement
plots,
includes species, height,
built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Annual Random
Permanent Vegetation Plots
0.02 acre in size (minimum),
and leaf drop. Data collection
6 permanent vegetation plots,
between July 1
surveyed during Asplanted vs. volunteer, and age.
6 randomly selected vegetation Data collection includes species
1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between July 1
(minimum), surveyed during As

.

.

g

320 native

and 210 native

to ensure proper

4
Performance Criteria
Recordation and protection of a conservation easement meeting NCDMS guidelines.Visual inspection of fence installed to exclude cattle from the stream and riparian buffer, demonstrating
no encroachmentVegetation success criteria of stems/acre in Year 3, 260 native stems/acre in Year stems/acre in Year 7Trees 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.Visual documentation of installed watering system and regular checks on its operation
during annual monitoring.Visual inspection of BMPsfunction durinmonitoring period.

atic

ystem, as
Uplift
The exclusion of livestock has removed a direct source of nutrients, coliform, and sediment from the swell as a major contributor to channel instability.Restored riparian buffers will
provide woody debris and detritus for aquatic organisms, reduced water temperatures and increased dissolved oxygen concentrations, as well as shade and diverse aquand terrestrial habitats
that are appropriate for the ecoregion and setting.
Likely Functional

Project

banks.

riparian buffers with
FINAL

-

foot foot riparian buffers with
Restoration
--
24

Report

Objective/Treatment
3
Stream

Stabilize eroding stream banks.Install fencing to exclude livestock from project streams. Reconnect streams to the floodplain at lower flows.Restore woody riparian buffer vegetation.Decrease
drainage of riparian wetlands.Install wetland treatment cell.Reconnect streams to the floodplain at lower flows.Restore woody riparian buffer vegetation.Stabilize eroding stream Install
fencing to exclude livestock from project streams. Restore woody riparian buffer vegetation.Reconnect streams to the floodplain at lower flows.Install a wetland treatment cell.Restore
woody riparian buffer vegetation.Protect min. 50a permanent conservation easement.Decrease drainage of riparian wetlands.Reconnect streams to the floodplain at lower flows.Install fencing
to exclude livestock from conservation easement.Restore woody riparian buffer vegetation.Protect min. 50a permanent conservation easement.Install fencing to exclude livestock from project
streams.Install alternative watering system for livestock.Install a wetland treatment cell.

Meadow Brook Monitoring Year Yadkin County, North CarolinaDMS Project ID #1000
Goals, Performance and Results

.

2

Goal
Table Reduce sediment inputs and stream turbidityReduce nutrient inputsReduce Fecal Coliform InputsRestore / Enhance Degraded Riparian BuffersImplement Agricultural BMPs in Agricultural
Watersheds

3

9

3

built
-

5

rook.
B

indicates that all

3
documented during MY
surveyed. intended.

were surveyed.
bankfull events were recorded
that the project streams are

monitoring cross section survey
6

d
3
for UT to Meadow
longitudinal survey of the project

Cumulative Monitoring Results

monitoring so a new profile was not
degradation were noted during MY
stream was conducted during As
indicate
A full
indicate that all restored streams are in
flow throughout the year. In addition,
geomorphically stable and functioning as
criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive
monitoring, so no additional cross sections
monitoring. No signs of major instability or The Year
No instability was Brook and
Stream photo points and visual assessment
bankfull events were recorded for Meadow
Flow gauge data from MY
good condition and performing as intended. project streams met the established success

.

of
to

pool),

5
will be

and UT
riffle/

each) and a rain

built survey only
-

taken yearly.
riffle/1 pool).
Stream ProfileCross Sections
Measurement
Visual Assessment
water indicators
-
and streamflow data
Conducted yearly on all
pressure transducers (1 on
Additional Cross Sections
continuously through the
Meadow Brook
total cross sections, 10 on

restored stream channels.
during As
Cross sections are surveyed
(unless otherwise required).
high
Only surveyed if instability is 2
channels. Data was collected
3 on UT to Meadow Brook (2 monitoring period. Photos
Full longitudinal survey on all
Stream Hydrology Monitoring
during Years 1,2,3,5, and 7. 13
gauge will record precipitation
restored and enhanced stream
Meadow Brook (5
Meadow Brook
documented during monitoring
-

.
.

.
.

Performance Criteria
Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable sections over the monitoring period.Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 for all measured cross sections on a given reachEntrenchment ratio
(ER) must be 2.2 or above for all measured riffle crosssections for C/E stream types and 1.4 or above for B stream typesDocumentation of hydrophytic vegetation within vegetation monitoring
plotsDocumentation of four bankfull events in different years throughout the monitoring periodDocumentation of 30 days of consecutive stream flow in all reaches each monitoring year

Uplift
channel stream
--
Wetland hydrology and inhydraulics have been improved by restoring project channels to their historic valley, raising the streambeds, and connecting them to adjacent wetlands at lower
flows.The addition of instructures helps to ensure channel stability and will provide greater bedform diversity, enhancing aquatic habitat for native species.
Likely Functional

improve
Project

FINAL

-

foot riparian buffers with
Restoration
-
24
50

Report

Objective/Treatment
3
Stream

Restore bed form diversity to habitat for native species.Restore woody riparian buffer vegetation.Protect min. a permanent conservation easement.Reconnect streams to the floodplain at
lower flows.Install a wetland treatment cell.

Meadow Brook Monitoring Year Yadkin County, North CarolinaDMS Project ID #1000
Goals, Performance and Results

.
2
Goal
Table Protect High Resource Value Waters (including HQW, ORW, and WS classifications)

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 USGS Hydrologic
03040101 3040101130020
8-digit Unit 14-digit
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
Meadow Brook
Parameters 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,
Unconfined Unconfined Confined Confined Unconfined
moderately confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (Acres and Square .93 sq mi / 1.51 sq mi / 1.73 sq mi. / 1.73 sq mi /
.56 sq mi / 358 ac
Miles) 595 ac 966 ac 1107 ac 1107 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
Riparian Riverine Riparian Riverine Riparian Riverine Riparian Riverine
riverine or riparian non-riverine)
Dan River Sandy
Dan River Sandy Dan River Sandy Dan River Sandy
Mapped Soil Series Loam / Clifford sandy
Loam Loam Loam
clay loam
Drainage Class Well-drained Well-drained Well-drained Well-drained
++++
Soil Hydric Status Non-Hydric Non-Hydric Non-Hydric Non-Hydric
Groundwater, Groundwater, Groundwater, Groundwater,
Source of Hydrology precipitation, runoff, precipitation, runoff, precipitation, runoff, precipitation, runoff,
overbank flooding overbank flooding overbank flooding overbank flooding
Restoration or enhancement method
Vegetative* Vegetative* Vegetative* Vegetative*
(hydrologic, vegetative etc.)
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Report - FINAL 6
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 General Permit NCG010000 -
Yes Yes
Sediment Control) 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
No N/A N/A
CAMA)
Yadkin County Floodplain Development Permit ID
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes
# 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 3 (MY3) data was collected between September and November of 2022. 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 DMS Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data, and Content
Requirements (October 2020).
Ћ͵Њ {ƷƩĻğƒ aƚƓźƷƚƩźƓŭ
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. Reference photos were taken of
both streambanks every year to provide a visual assessment of any changes that may occur.
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Report - FINAL 7
Yadkin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID #100024

The Year 3 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 previous monitoring reports was not as prevalent in MY3, as shown in the
cross-section photos provided in Appendix C. EPR has noted that shading has limited vegetative growth
in sections of channel that are fully shaded. Channel shading is expected to continue improving as the
site matures. No significant changes in the year-to-year comparisons of cross-sections were found
during MY3.
Two pool cross-sections (XS4, XS13) show aggradation as compared to As-Built conditions. EPR believes
this accrual of sediment is primarily due to channel vegetation, which should become less of an issue in
future years as the channel becomes more and more shaded. Most of the infilling in these two pools
occurred in the first year of monitoring but the pools appear to have stabilized since then. EPR will
monitor these cross-sections in future monitoring years to ensure that the channels continue to clear
and remain stable.
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 Stability
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 3, 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
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, 2022, are provided in Appendix A.
Three beaver dams were found over the course of MY3. These dams backed up water and caused very
minor bank scour and channel widening in pools. One dam was found on Reach 1 and two dams were
found on Reach 3. These dams were removed and the beavers were trapped and removed from site.
Meadowbrook will be continued to be monitored for beaver activity to ensure that no new dams are
constructed. Exact locations of dams can be found in the CCPV (Figure 2).
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Report - FINAL 8
Yadkin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID #100024

A short reach of bank erosion on the upstream end of Reach 1 was previously noted in MY2 report.
During MY3 observation it was found that this bank had stabilized. EPR does not consider this area to be
a concern in MY3.
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. 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 3 and rainfall data is presented in the flow gauge plots in Appendix D.
Flow gauge data from MY3 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
STR), the stream had constant flow throughout the year (at least 312 consecutive days in 2022) and the
gauge documented 9 separate bankfull events. Gauge MB UT1 STR, located in the UT to Meadow Brook,
documented constant flow throughout the year (at least 312 consecutive days in 2022) and 6 separate
bankfull events. The date and timing of these bankfull events generally correlated with significant
rainfall events recorded by the tipping bucket rain gauge.
Ћ͵Ћ wźƦğƩźğƓ ĻŭĻƷğƷźƚƓ aƚƓźƷƚƩźƓŭ
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.
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 MY3 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.
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Report - FINAL 9
Yadkin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID #100024

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 supplemental planting was conducted according to the submitted AMP and no deviations
from the plan specifics (quantities, species, locations, etc.) were reported.
Year 3 vegetation monitoring occurred in September 2022 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 8 trees per plot (324 trees per acre) in Random VP-11, to 24 trees per
plot (972 trees per acre) in Fixed VP-2. The average density of planted stems from all 12 vegetation plots
(permanent and random) was 15 trees per plot (607 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, minimal
invasive vegetation was found. Multiflora rose was found in small patches (1-2 bushes) scattered mainly
around the UT. The total amount of rose that was found and treated around the site was less than 0.1
acre. All rose was cut and sprayed in June 2022. EPR will continue to treat all invasives found within the
easement in future monitoring years.
Ћ͵Ќ ‘ĻƷƌğƓķ IǤķƩƚƌƚŭǤ
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-7 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 is 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 not associated with success criteria for mitigation. The locations of
the 2 wetland groundwater gauges are shown in the CCPV (Figure 2). As of MY3, EPR is no longer
required to provide wetland well data.

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Report - FINAL 10
Yadkin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID #100024

M
a
r
el
r
R
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 3 Report - FINAL 16
Yadkin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID #100024

Appendix A
Table
Table

% of Planted Acreage
Combined Acreage
Total
Cumulative Total
Mapping Threshold
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Meadow Brook Restoration Project (DMS No.100024)
Project
11.2
Restoration
ge
Stream
A
Brook
100024
No.
s
AppendixMeadowDMS
Planted Acreage:11.2Assessment Dates:9/7/2022, 9/28/2022, and 11/3/2022Vegetation CategoryDefinitionsBare AreasLow Stem Density AreaAreas of Poor Growth RatesEasement AcreaVegetation
CategoryDefinitionsMapping ThresholdCombined Acreage% of Easement Acreage
Assessment Dates:9/7/2022, 9/28/2022, and 11/3/2022Invasive Areas of ConcernEasementEncroachment Areas

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 – Vegetation Plot Photo Log
AppendixA
MeadowBrookStreamRestorationProject
DMSNo.100024

AppendixA
MeadowBrookStreamRestorationProject
DMSNo.100024

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
MY3-Photo Log
Appendix A
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
MY3-Photo Log
Appendix A
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
MY3-Photo Log
Appendix A
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Appendix A
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Appendix A
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

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

311133670670
121212251225
486486
12 R
Total
Veg Plot
111238885608560
3838
324324
11 R
Total
Veg Plot
121329995509550
3333
364364
10 R
Total
Veg Plot
R4239993609360
2
3636
364364
Total
Veg Plot 9
41112112740840
R
111311311331
445526
Total
Veg Plot 8
R4423450450
131313311331
526526
Total
Veg Plot 7
486111440640
1
192119362136
769850
Total
Veg Plot 6 F
486111
1
1921
Planted
6611413740740
222222272227
891891
Total
Veg Plot 5 F
6611413
2222
Planted
2141611111414040
1924191025241225
769972
Total
Veg Plot 4 F
214161111141
1924
Planted
211321650650
31
101010211021
405405
Total
Veg Plot 3 F
211321
1010
Planted
32143141112123030
2426241215261315
972
Total1052
Veg Plot 2 F
3214314111212
2426
Planted
12111125850850
141414361436
567567
Total
Veg Plot 1 F
12111125
1414
Planted
FACFACFACFAC
OBLOBLOBLOBL
FAC
FACUFACUFACUFACUFACUFACUFACU
FACWFACWFACWFACWFACWFACWFACW
Status
FACW
Indicator
TreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTree
Tree
ShrubShrubShrub
Shrub
Tree/Shrub
11.2
#N/A
0.0247
tuliptree
green ash
white oak
river birch
red maple
sugarberrywillow oak
hazel alder
2020-01-202021-03-15
silky willow
10/22/2022
black willow
American elm
pignut hickorysilky dogwood
eastern redbud
Common Name
black elderberry
northern red oak
southern red oak
common ninebark
American sycamore
American hornbeamswamp chestnut oak
common persimmonAmerican witchhazel
common buttonbush
American black elderberry
% Invasives% Invasives
Stems/AcreStems/Acre
Species CountSpecies Count
Average Plot Height (ft.)Average Plot Height (ft.)
Current Year Stem CountCurrent Year Stem Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)Dominant Species Composition (%)
Salix nigra
Betula nigraSalix sericea
Carya glabra
Acer rubrum
Quercus alba
Quercus rubra
Celtis laevigataAlnus serrulata
Scientific NameQuercus falcata
Sambucus nigra
Quercus phellos
Cornus amomumUlmus americana
Cercis canadensis
Quercus michauxii
Proposed Standard
Diospyros virginiana
Carpinus caroliniana
Platanus occidentalis
Hamamelis virginiana
Sambucus canadensis
Liriodendron tulipiferaPerformance Standard
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Physocarpus opulifolius
Cephalanthus occidentalis
PlanSumSum
Species
StandardStandard
Performance Performance
Mitigation Plan
Species Included in
Post Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation Plan
Approved Mitigation
Planted AcreageDate of Initial PlantDate(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)Date(s) MowingDate of Current SurveyPlot size (ACRES)1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year,
italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those
species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum
for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved
(italicized).3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance
Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

00000000000000
% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives
67474524376686
# Species# Species# Species# Species
54124332643722
Veg Plot 3 FVeg Plot 6 F
Veg Plot Group 3 RVeg Plot Group 6 R
Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)
81
405567202688769931445364607324486486445
Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.
00000000000000
% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives
7868735553
12121011
# Species# Species# Species# Species
Does not Meet Interim Performance Criteria
Veg Plot 2 FVeg Plot 5 F
32124332442643
Veg Plot Group 2 RVeg Plot Group 5 R
Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)
972850891526729445364243324810162
117411741012
Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.
00000000000000
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives
87579977451542
# Species# Species# Species# Species
Meets interim Performance Criteria
Veg Plot 1 FVeg Plot 4 F
54324222542553
Veg Plot Group 1 RVeg Plot Group 4 R
Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)
4081
567526324769769364648526526364526
1133
Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.
Monitoring Year 7Monitoring Year 5Monitoring Year 3Monitoring Year 2Monitoring Year 1Monitoring Year 0Monitoring Year 7Monitoring Year 5Monitoring Year 3Monitoring Year 2Monitoring Year
1Monitoring Year 0Monitoring Year 7Monitoring Year 5Monitoring Year 3Monitoring Year 2Monitoring Year 1Monitoring Year 0Monitoring Year 7Monitoring Year 5Monitoring Year 3Monitoring
Year 2Monitoring Year 1Monitoring Year 0 Note: DMS Vegetation Tool is not correctly calculating previous monitoring years stem counts due to a bug in program. MY3 stem counts are correct

Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary TableMeadow Brook Stream Restoration Project (NCDMS Project No. 100024)*
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F.
Appendix BMeadow Brook Stream Restoration ProjectDMS # 100024

Bqqfoejy!D
Tusfbn!Hfpnpsqipmphz!Ebub!
Dsptt.Tfdujpot!Xjui!Boovbm!Pwfsmbzt!
Ubcmf!9/!Cbtfmjof!Tusfbn!Ebub!Tvnnbsz!
Ubcmf!:/!Dsptt.Tfdujpo!Npsqipmphz!Npojupsjoh!Tvnnbsz!

Cross Section Plots - MY3
XS1 - Reach 1
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 10+87 - Riffle
XS1 looking upstreamXS1 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1042.891043.431043.721043.79
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.840.840.82
Thalweg Elevation
1041.081041.411041.291041.28
LTOB Elevation
1042.891043.111043.321043.34
LTOB Max Depth
1.811.702.032.06
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
19.7914.0615.0214.33
Entrenchment Ratio
>3.5>4.52>6.14>6.36
XS1 Riffle 10+87
1047
1046
1045
1044
1043
1042
1041
As-Built - Dec 2019
1040
MY1 - Sep 2020
1039
MY2 - 2021
1038
MY3 - 2022
1037
0102030405060
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS2 - Reach 1
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 16+08- Riffle
XS2 looking upstreamXS2 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1040.551040.981040.941040.90
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.780.990.98
Thalweg Elevation
1038.761038.941038.981039.01
LTOB Elevation
1040.551040.521040.911040.87
LTOB Max Depth
1.791.581.931.86
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
16.4010.8016.0115.97
Entrenchment Ratio
>3.31>3.46>3.75>3.79
XS2 Riffle 16+08
1045
As-Built - Dec 2019
1044
MY1 - Sep 2020
MY2 - 2021
1043
MY3 - 2022
1042
1041
1040
1039
1038
1037
1036
1035
01020304050
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Cross Section Plot - MY2
XS3 - Reach 1
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 16+48- Pool
XS3 looking upstreamXS3 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1040.371040.901041.161041.08
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.850.870.89
Thalweg Elevation
1038.051038.551038.591038.53
LTOB Elevation
1040.371040.551040.821040.80
LTOB Max Depth
2.322.002.232.27
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
18.3214.0813.8914.69
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS3 Pool 16+48
1046
As-Built - Dec 2019
1045
MY1 - Sep 2020
MY2 - 2021
1044
MY3 - 2022
1043
1042
1041
1040
1039
1038
1037
1036
05101520253035404550
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS4 - Reach 1
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 17+38- Pool
XS4 looking upstreamXS4 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1040.251040.781041.111041.16
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.800.710.72
Thalweg Elevation
1036.831038.081038.091038.26
LTOB Elevation
1040.251040.251040.251040.35
LTOB Max Depth
3.422.172.162.09
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
27.8618.4815.3116.17
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS4 Pool 17+38
1045
As-Built - Dec 2019
1044
MY1 - Sep 2020
MY2 - 2021
1043
MY3 - 2022
1042
1041
1040
1039
1038
1037
1036
1035
05101520253035404550
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS5 - Reach 1
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 21+77 - Riffle
XS5 looking upstreamXS5 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1039.551039.651039.631039.64
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.941.021.03
Thalweg Elevation
1037.611037.741037.761037.68
LTOB Elevation
1039.551039.531039.681039.70
LTOB Max Depth
1.941.791.922.02
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
20.6818.5421.6721.71
Entrenchment Ratio
>3.06>2.90>2.93>3.27
XS5 Riffle 21+77
1045
As-Built - Dec 2019
1044
MY1 - Sep 2020
MY2 - 2021
1043
MY3 - 2022
1042
1041
1040
1039
1038
1037
1036
1035
0102030405060
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS6 - Reach 1
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 25+74 - Pool
XS6 looking upstreamXS6 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1037.061037.031037.101037.33
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.001.111.111.04
Thalweg Elevation
1034.331034.211034.171034.88
LTOB Elevation
1037.061037.341037.411037.43
LTOB Max Depth
2.733.133.242.55
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
21.8226.1826.2723.45
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS6 Pool 25+74
1042
As-Built - Dec 2019
MY1 - Sep 2020
1041
MY2 - 2021
1040
MY3 - 2022
1039
1038
1037
1036
1035
1034
1033
1032
0102030405060
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS7 - Reach 2
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 29+50 - Pool
XS7 looking upstreamXS7 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1035.651035.481035.561035.53
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.001.091.011.03
Thalweg Elevation
1032.511031.821031.901031.86
LTOB Elevation
1035.651035.801035.591035.65
LTOB Max Depth
3.143.983.693.79
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
32.4338.8432.9834.82
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS7 Pool 29+50
1040
As-Built - Dec 2019
MY1 - 2020
1039
MY2 - 2021
1038
MY3 - 2022
1037
1036
1035
1034
1033
1032
1031
1030
01020304050
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS8 - Reach 2
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 32+28 - Riffle
XS8 looking upstreamXS8 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1034.631034.621034.611034.61
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.001.090.970.94
Thalweg Elevation
1032.591032.011032.081032.02
LTOB Elevation
1034.631034.851034.541034.46
LTOB Max Depth
2.042.842.462.44
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
26.4430.7625.2023.95
Entrenchment Ratio
>3.23>3.55>3.43>3.46
XS8 Riffle 32+28
1040
As-Built - Dec 2019
MY1 - 2020
1039
MY2 - 2021
1038
MY3 - 2022
1037
1036
1035
1034
1033
1032
1031
1030
010203040506070
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS9 - Reach 3
Rosgen Stream Type - B4c
Station 35+28 - Riffle
XS9 looking upstreamXS9 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1032.621032.981032.721032.76
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.850.990.92
Thalweg Elevation
1030.531030.651030.561030.48
LTOB Elevation
1032.621032.621032.701032.57
LTOB Max Depth
2.091.972.142.09
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
23.9619.2223.5821.14
Entrenchment Ratio
>3.87>4.94>4.22>4.44
XS9 Riffle 35+28
1039
As-Built - Dec 2019
MY1 - 2020
1038
MY2 - 2021
1037
MY3 - 2022
1036
1035
1034
1033
1032
1031
1030
1029
01020304050607080
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS10 - Reach 3
Rosgen Stream Type - B4c
Station 36+11- Pool
XS10 looking upstreamXS10 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1032.851032.771032.701032.83
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.001.071.051.02
Thalweg Elevation
1030.461030.191030.031030.24
LTOB Elevation
1032.851032.951032.841032.87
LTOB Max Depth
2.392.762.812.63
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
32.7536.7235.6733.60
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS10 Pool 36+11
1039
As-Built - Dec 2019
1038
MY1 - 2020
MY2 - 2021
1037
MY3 - 2022
1036
1035
1034
1033
1032
1031
1030
1029
010203040506070
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS11 - UT
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 11+25 - Riffle
XS11 looking upstreamXS11 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1038.481038.871039.061039.15
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.991.010.96
Thalweg Elevation
1036.601036.841036.991036.92
LTOB Elevation
1038.481038.861039.071039.06
LTOB Max Depth
1.882.022.082.14
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
15.5415.4015.6914.60
Entrenchment Ratio
>3.8>5.23>5.37>5.8
XS11 Riffle 11+25
1044
As-Built - Dec 2019
1043
MY1 - 2020
MY2 - 2021
1042
MY3 - 2022
1041
1040
1039
1038
1037
1036
1035
1034
05101520253035404550
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS12 - UT
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 14+93 - Riffle
XS12 looking upstreamXS12 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1037.081037.491037.391037.32
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.861.030.98
Thalweg Elevation
1035.541035.671035.471035.43
LTOB Elevation
1037.081037.231037.441037.29
LTOB Max Depth
1.541.561.971.86
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
10.898.4711.4110.55
Entrenchment Ratio
>4.4>5.64>6.53>5.95
XS12 Riffle 14+93
1043
As-Built - Dec 2019
1042
MY1 - 2020
MY2 - 2021
1041
MY3-2022
1040
1039
1038
1037
1036
1035
1034
1033
05101520253035404550
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS13 - UT
Rosgen Stream Type - C4
Station 15+72 - Pool
XS13 looking upstreamXS13 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1036.461037.271037.101037.17
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.941.040.95
Thalweg Elevation
1033.321034.521034.621034.26
LTOB Elevation
1036.461037.091037.211037.02
LTOB Max Depth
3.142.572.592.76
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
19.5517.7722.9118.04
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS13 Pool 15+72
1041
As-Built - Dec 2019MY1 - 2020MY2 - 2021MY3-2022
1040
1039
1038
1037
1036
1035
1034
1033
1032
1031
0102030405060
Distance (ft)
Appendix C
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

AppendixD

Overbank Events
MY1 (2020)MY2 (2021)MY3 (2022)MY4 (2023)MY5 (2025)MY6 (2026)MY7 (2027)
Project
Restoration
Stream
Gage ID
D
Brook
100024
UT1 - MB1 STR UT1
#
Meadow Brook - MB2 STR
Table 10. Bankfull Event VerificationMeadow Brook Stream Restoration Project (DMS No. 100024)
AppendixMeadowDMS

Monthly Rainfall (in)

Precipitation (in/day)
Elevation (ft)

Precipitation (in/day)
Elevation (ft)

Bqqfoejy!F
Qspkfdu!Ujnfmjof!boe!Dpoubdu!Jogpsnbujpo!
Ubcmf!22/!Qspkfdu!Bdujwjuz!boe!Sfqpsujoh!Ijtupsz!
Ubcmf!23/!Qspkfdu!Dpoubdut!Ubcmf!

Table 11. Project Activity and Reporting History
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project - DMS ID 100024
Elapsed time since grading complete:3 yrs 5 months
Elapsed time since planting complete:2 yr 11 months
1
Number of reporting years:
3
Activity or DeliverableData Collection CompleteCompletion or Delivery
Appendix E
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024

Table 12. Project Contacts Table
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project - DMS ID 100024
Designer
Construction Contractor
Survey Contractor
Planting Contractor
Seeding Contractor
Seed Mix Sources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Monitoring Performers
Appendix E
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Project
DMS # 100024