20041612 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20150414

MEREDELL FARM
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 7 OF 7
EEP Project #247
Randolph County, North Carolina
Completed Construction: 2008
Submitted November 2014
Submitted to:
"4,-
rA�J
U�A�m I lal rrtcao 1
ix.
NCDENR -EEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652

Monitoring Firm:
Q SEPI
C E N G I N E E R I N G &
C O N S T R U C T I O N
1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Phone [phone]
Project Manager:
Philip Beach
pbeach @sepiengineering.com

EXECUTIVESUMMARY .......................................................................................... ..............................1
VEGETATIONASSESSMENT .................................................................................. ..............................1
STREAMASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ ..............................2
SITEHYDROLOGY .................................................................................................... ..............................3
METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................... ..............................3
REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ............................... 4
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND FILES
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map
Table 1 - Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 - Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 - Project Contacts Table
Table 4 - Project Attribute Table
APPENDIX B - VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figures 2 -9 - Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5.1 - Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (UT I)
Table 5.2 - Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (UT2)
Table 5.3 - Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (M1)
Table 6 - Vegetation Condition Assessment
APPENDIX C - VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7 - Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 - CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 - Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Invasives Treatment Plan Map
Supplemental Planting Plan Map
Supplemental Planting Plan List
APPENDIX D - STREAM SURVEY DATA
Longitudinal Profile (UT1)
Longitudinal Profile (UT2)
Longitudinal Profile (M1 Upper)
Longitudinal Profile (M1 Lower)
Table 10a.1 - Baseline Stream Data Summary (UT 1b)
Table 10a.2 - Baseline Stream Data Summary (UT2b)
Table 10a.3 - Baseline Stream Data Summary (M1)
Table I Ob. I - Baseline Stream Data Summary (UT Ib)
Table lOb.2 - Baseline Stream Data Summary (UT2b)
Table lOb.l - Baseline Stream Data Summary (M1)
APPENDIX E - HYDROLOGIC DATA
Table 11 - Verification of Bankfull Events

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Meredell Farm Stream Restoration project falls within USGS hydrologic unit 03030003. The project
lies within a rural setting that includes agricultural, forested, and low- density residential areas. The
project is located on Koopman Dairies (formerly Meredell Farm), a small farm operation that includes
dairy and row crop production. Prior to restoration work, the project stream had been historically
destabilized through channelization and hoof - shear.
Baker Engineering designed the restoration plans and restoration was completed in 2008. SEPI
Engineering & Construction (SEPI) began the stream and riparian monitoring for Meredell Farms in
October 2013.
The goal of the project is to restore and improve the stream channel and riparian buffer form and function
on -site through the following objectives:
• Restore 3,865 LF of channel dimension, pattern and profile.
• Enhance 4,704 LF of channel dimension, and /or profile.
• Preserve 5,136 LF of stream channel and riparian buffer.
• Improve floodplain functionality by matching floodplain elevation with bankfull stage.
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation in the permanent conservation easement.
• Improve the water quality in the Upper Cape Fear River watershed by fencing cattle out of the
stream and reducing bank erosion.
SEPI performed stream and riparian monitoring in the fall of 2014 for this Year 7 Annual Monitoring
Report.
VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
Vegetation monitoring in Year 7 included visual assessment of the riparian zone and buffer mitigation
areas to update the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) and Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
assessment of 12 vegetation plots. SEPI observed areas of concern that based on visual assessment did not
appear to be meeting riparian zone success criteria of 260 stems per acre after 7 years. These observed
conditions are reflected in the CCPV figures (Figures 2 -9) within this report and briefly discussed below.
• The conservation easement area surrounding stream reaches UT I, UT2, M1, and UT5 continue to
have large areas that lack significant counts of visible planted woody stems. Treatments applied
to areas where the easement was replanted seemed to have little effect on herbaceous cover. It
was visually observed that the vegetation established within the buffer and outside of the bankfull
bench area primarily consists of grasses and herbaceous species. Good vegetation growth was
primarily observed within the bankfull bench area for each of these reaches.
• The lower M1 area (downstream of the stream crossing) continues to have a significant invasive
species population consisting of Chinese privet and cattails.
• UT3 and UT4 also had instances of tree -of- heaven and Chinese privet throughout the reaches.
• The site continues to be free of encroachments to the easement, although a portion of the fence at
the stream crossing of UT5 has been damaged.
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering & Construction
EEP Project #247 1 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Detailed data collected from the CVS assessment of the 12 vegetation plots can be found in Appendix C
of this report. Ten of the 12 veg plots exceeded the riparian zone success criteria of 260 stems /acre after 7
years, and 4 of the 11 buffer vegetation plots exceeded the buffer mitigation success criteria of 320
stems /acre after 7 years. The total average planted stem density for all twelve veg plots is 425 stems /acre
for Year 7 Monitoring.
Invasive species continue to be treated on reaches UT I, UT2, UT3, UT4, and M1. The target species of
concern includes Ailanthus altissima and Ligustrum sinense. Detailed maps on invasive species control
efforts can be found in Appendix C.
STREAM ASSESSMENT
Year 7 stream channel monitoring included a visual assessment of the stream channel and in- stream
structures to update the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) and collection of geomorphic profile data.
Visual observations of the stream channel conditions were conducted to determine if the project is
establishing toward the stream success criteria outlined in the approved Restoration Plan (2004). These
goals are outlined below:
• Longitudinal Profile:
o "The longitudinal profile data should show that the bedform features are remaining stable
and are not aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain deep with flat water surface
slopes and the riffles should remain steep and shallow."
The visual assessment and geomorphic data collection completed for the site indicated that approximately
95% of the project reaches were performing within established success criteria ranges. The remaining 5%
were exhibiting impacts such as headcuts and stream structure instabilities. The observed stream channel
conditions are reflected in the CCPV figures (Figures 2 -9) within this report and briefly discussed below.
• Two instream structures (Stations M1: 303 +25 and 305 +00) had flow going between the sill and
arm boulders, but no further instability was observed as a result of the conditions
• Two log vanes and one rootwad (Stations M1: 303 +75, 314 +50, and 321 +00) had approximately
15% bank erosion
• Six instances of headcut were observed on UT3, UT4, and UT5
• There continues to be a small area of concentrated overland runoff through the buffer on the
UT3a near Station 10 +50, and on UT4 at Station 10 +00 that is causing erosion to the stream bank
• Two areas of split channel flow were identified along the existing stream at the upstream and
downstream section of UT5
Geomorphic monitoring included collection of 4 longitudinal profile segments. Channel profile stability
assessment includes the entire restored length of the project. Survey monuments were not present in the
field. Due to this and differences in surveying methodologies between monitoring year 5 and monitoring
years 6 and 7, the longitudinal profile data may differ in some areas. It should also be noted that sections
of reaches UT1 and Ml Lower indicate a one foot difference in thalweg elevations between MY06 and
MY07. These areas were noted as stable during the field review. Therefore, it was concluded that these
differences arose from difficulty obtaining accurate GPS signal under heavy canopy which resulted in
greater distances between collected points along the thalweg. Refer to Appendix D contained herein for
detailed results of the longitudinal profile data collection.
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering & Construction
EEP Project #247 2 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

SITE HYDROLOGY
Year 7 hydrologic bankfull indicators were collected during monitoring field visits. These indicators
include collection of visually observed wracklines at, or above, the bankfull elevation and recordation of
the crest gauge height located at Station 307 +000 on reach M1.
• Wracklines were noted above the bankfull bench and within the floodplain during the site
assessment field visit conducted on October 1, 2014.
A crest gauge reading of 1.08 feet was recorded during the annual monitoring field visit
conducted on October 1, 2014. The baseline bankfull design maximum depth range for reach M1
is 1.0 foot (min) to 1.3 feet (max); therefore, the crest gauge reading indicates that a bankfull
event had occurred onsite. Refer to photograph SP within Appendix E of this report.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of such things as beaver or encroachment, and
statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and
figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in
these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the
Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan) documents available on EEP's website. All raw data
supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from EEP upon request.
METHODOLOGY
The following methods were utilized during the Year 7 monitoring for data collection and post -
processing:
• Geomorphic topographic data collections were performed in the field using a survey -
grade GPS such that each survey point has three- dimensional coordinates, and is
georeferenced (NAD83 -State Plane Feet — FIPS 3200).
• Longitudinal stationing was developed using the as -built survey thalweg as a baseline.
• The CVS Level 2 methodology was utilized for the vegetation plot data collection.
• Permanent cross - sectional data was not required for this monitoring year.
• Particle size distribution was not required for this monitoring year.
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering & Construction
EEP Project #247 3 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

REFERENCES
Buck Engineering, PC. 2004. Meredell Farms Stream Restoration Plan.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. November 2006. Content, Format and Data
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 166 -169.
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 2009. Meredell Farm Monitoring Report, Year 2 of 5.
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 2010. Meredell Farm Monitoring Report, Year 3 of 5.
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 2011. Meredell Farm Monitoring Report, Year 4 of 5.
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 2012. Meredell Farm Monitoring Report, Year 5 of 5.
SEPI Engineering & Construction. 2013. Meredell Farm Monitoring Report, Year 6 of 7.
U.S. Department of Army, Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
http: / /www.saw.usace. army .mil /wetlands /Mitigation/stream mitigation.html
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering & Construction
EEP Project #247 4 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Files

Legends and Symbols
`.. Easement Boundary
As -Built Centerline
y�
NCDOT Roads (2011)
� I�. d�it„•����, -`�_T Art x' t
Site Access �'�
S� �+Yyj�d r= u • , �,
b A.a
Directions to site: Take US -64 West towards Asheboro. N 0 500 1,000
Turn right onto US -421 North. Take the Old Liberty Road Feet
exit, turn left. Turn right on Ramseur Julian Road, the site 1 in - 1,000 feet
will be on the left in 0.8 miles at Meredell Farm Road.
Title Project Vicinity Map
Prepared for: Project Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 7 -- 2014 Randolph County, North Caroline
r_�I� Date Project Number Figure
I' I I II 1�r4 10/28/2014 247 1

SEPI Engineering and Construction
Meredell Farm Annual Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #247 Monitoring Year 7 of 7
November 2014
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian Wetland
Boffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous Nutrient
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
5785.5
5134
570000
Project Components
Project Component -ox- Reach ID
Stationing/Location
Existing Footage /Acreage
Approach
(pI, PH etc.)
Restoration -or-
Restoration
E uivalent
Restoration Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Ut la
10 +00 -21 +00
1050
El
1100
1.5:1
Ut lb
21+00— 28 +80
571
R
780
1:1
Ut 2a
10 +00 — 18 +00
800
El
800
1.5:1
Ut 2b
18+00— 20 +94
206
R
294
1:1
Ml
10 +00 -32 +54
2103
1/11
R
2254
1:1
Ut 3a
10 +00 — 16 +50
400
Ell
650
2.5:1
Ut 3b
16 +50 - 20 +79
836
R
429
1:1
Ut 4
10 +00 —19 +13
913
Ell
913
2.5:1
Ut 5
10+00— 20 +75
1075
EII
1075
2.5:1
M2
NA
1398
P
1398
5:1
Sandy Creek t
NA
1033
P
1033
5:1
Sandy Creek 2
NA
801
P
801
5:1
Sandy Creek 3
NA
1902
P
1902
5:1
Component Summation
Restoration
Level
Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non - riparian Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riecrinc
Non- Riverine
Restoration
3757
373,950
Enhancement
8,750
Enhancement I
800
Enhancement II
3738
Creation
Preservation
5134
High Quality
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose /Function
Notes
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spreader;
Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
NI = Natural
SEPI Engineering and Construction
Meredell Farm Annual Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #247 Monitoring Year 7 of 7
November 2014

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 6 yrs 8 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 6 yrs 9 months
Number of Reporting Years: 7
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
Sept -04
Final Design — Construction Plans
Jan -07
Construction
NA
Mar -08
Containerized, bare root and B &B plantings
NA
Feb -08
As -built Mapping
Nov -07
Apr -08
Year 1 Monitoring (baseline)*
Nov -08
Jun -09
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -09
Apr -10
Year 3 Monitoring
Oct -10
Mar -I I
Year 4 Monitoring
Oct -11
Jan -12
Year 5 Monitoring
Oct -12
Feb -13
Supplemental Planting
NA
Aug -13
Year 6 Monitoring
Nov -13
Jan -14
Year 7 Monitoring
Sep -13
Nov -14
*As -built plan view survey performed by Level Cross Surveying, PLLC. (No As -built monitoring data was collected or reported).
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering and Construction
EEP Project #247 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247
Designer
Buck Engineering, PC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27511
Primary project design POC
Kevin Tweedy, P.E. (919) 463 -5488
Construction Contractor
RiverWorks, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27511
Construction contractor POC
(919) 459 -9001
Survey Contractor
Level Cross Survey, PLLC
668 Marsh Country Lane, Randleman, NC 27317
Survey contractor POC
(336) 495 -1713
Planting Contractor
Planting contractor POC
Seeding Contractor
Contractor point of contact
Seed Mix Sources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Monitoring Performers
SEPI Engineering & Construction, Inc.
1025 Wade Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27605
Stream Monitoring POC
Philip Beach, PWS
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Kim Hamlin, Project Scientist
Meredell Farm
EEP Project #247
November 2014
SERI Engineering and Construction
Annual Final Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247
Project County
Randolph
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
03030003020010
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03 -06 -09
Within extent of EEP Watershed Pan?
no
WRC Hab Class (Warm, Cool, Cold)
warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcateU
100
Beaver activity observed unng design phase?
No
Restoration Component Attribute Table
M1
M2
UTI
UT2
UT3
UT4
UT5
Drainage area (acres)
168
265
64
67
148
56
59
Stream order
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Restore length (feet)
2254
1398
1880
1095
1351
913
1075
Perennial or Intermittent
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Watershed type (Rural, Urban, Developing etc.)
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Watershed LULC Distribution (e.g.)
Residential
Ag -Row Crop
Ag- Livestock
Forested
Etc.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Watershed impervious cover ( %)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
NCDWQ AU/Index number
NCDWQ classification
WS -III
WS -III
WS -III
WS -III
WS -III
WS -III
WS -III
303d listed?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total acreage of easement
49.8
Total vegetated acreage within the easement
49.8
Total planted acreage as part of the restoration
8.3
0
6.2
3
2.2
0
0
Rosgen c asst ication of pre - existing
G4c
U
G4
B5-17E5-1
B4c
G5
E5
Rosgen classification o As- ui t
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Valley type
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Valley slope
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Valley side slope range (e.g. 2 -3.% )
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Valley toeslope range (e.g. 2 -3.% )
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Cowar in c asst ication
N A
N A
N/A
N A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Trout waters designation
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Species of concern, endangered etc.? (Y /N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Dominant soil series and c aractenshcs
Series
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Depth
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
C ay%
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
K
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
T1
U
U
I U
I U
U
U
U
Use N/A for items that may not apply. Use " -" for items that are unavailable and "U" for items that are unknown
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering and Construction
EEP Project #247 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Title I Current Conditions Plan View UT1a, UT1b, and UT2b
r-.�J Project Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 7 -- 2014 Randolph County, North Carolina
ITOS Stem Date Project Number Figure
ell, `
11/17/2014 1 247 1 2

Title Current Conditions Plan View UT1a, UT1b, UT2b, and M1
,r , Project Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 7 -- 2014 Randolph County, North Carolina
1'�'� n�';�r��it1 ' Date Project Number Figure
11/17/2014 247 3

Title Current Conditions Plan View M1 and Sandy Creek 1
,r , Project Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 7 -- 2014 Randolph County, North Carolina
1'�'� n�';�r��it1 ' Date Project Number Figure
11/17/2014 247 4

.4. _ .
UT4
Legends and Symbols
Easement Boundary
Channel Structures
Structures Condition
Vegetation Condition
Thalweg - MY2014
Constructed Riffle
O Not Assessed /Missing
- Good Growth
'� - -- °- Existing Stream
Bare Area
Channel As -Built Centerline
^ Log Vane
• Failing
-Low Stem Density Area
-O Cross Sections
Rock A Vane
O Stressed
Area of Poor Growth Rate or Vigor
' • Headcut
C Rock Cross Vane
O Fair
- Invasive Area of Concern
- O Crest Gage
,,..
Rock Vane
0 Stable
-
Easement Encroachment
- _ Erosion
- Sediment in Channel
i
Rootwad
Split Channel Flow
O O Boulder Toe Protection
N
0,-MConcentrated Overland Flow
-- /AM Damaged Fence
W C 0 50
100 200 Feet
Vag Plots
S
Title Current Conditions Plan View UT3a, UT3b, and UT4
Project Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 7 -- 2014 Randolph County, North Carolina
clil Date Project Number Figure
11/17/2014 247 5

Legends and Symbols
Easement Boundary
Channel Structures
Thalweg - MY2014
44 Constructed Riffle
- Existing Stream
�•�
Channel As -Built Centerline
Log Vane
-O Cross Sections
RockAVane
® Headcut
C Rock Cross Vane
OCrest Gage
"" Rock Vane
Erosion
Rootwad
Sediment in Channel
Area of Poor Growth Rate or Vigor
OFair
O O Boulder Toe Protection
Zlx9N Split Channel Flow
RZMConcentrated Overland Flow
Easement Encroachment
AW Damaged Fence
Veg Plots
UT5
-*a "0 50 100 200 Feet
Title I Current Conditions Plan View UT5
r_.�J Project Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 7 -- 2014 Randolph County, North Carolina
ITOS ICIII Date Project Number Figure
ell �`: 11/17/2014 247 6
Structures Condition
Vegetation Condition
ONot
Assessed /Missing
Good Growth
Bare Area
•
Failing
Low Stem Density Area
O
Stressed
Area of Poor Growth Rate or Vigor
OFair
Invasive Area of Concern
Easement Encroachment
O
90dak-
-*a "0 50 100 200 Feet
Title I Current Conditions Plan View UT5
r_.�J Project Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 7 -- 2014 Randolph County, North Carolina
ITOS ICIII Date Project Number Figure
ell �`: 11/17/2014 247 6

Title I Current Conditions Plan View UT3b and UT5
r-.�J Project Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 7 -- 2014 Randolph County, North Carolina
ITOS Stem Date Project Number Figure
e;il, `: 11/17/2014 1 247 1 7

Title Current Conditions Plan View UT3b and Sandy Creek 2
,r , Project Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 7 -- 2014 Randolph County, North Carolina
1'�'� n�';�r��it1 ' Date Project Number Figure
11/17/2014 247 8

Title I Current Conditions Plan View Sandy Creek 3
r-.�J Project Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 7 -- 2014 Randolph County, North Carolina
ITOS Stem Date I Project Number I Figure
�:1��`
11/17/2014 1 247 1 9

Table 5.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID UT1
Assessed Length 640
Meredell Farm
EEP Project #247
November 2014
SEPI Engineering and Construction
Annual Final Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 7 of 7
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
5
5
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
5
5
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
5
5
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5
5
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
5
5
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
25
25
o
100 /o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
25
25
100%
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
25
25
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
25
25
100%
document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
25
25
100%
Meredell Farm
EEP Project #247
November 2014
SEPI Engineering and Construction
Annual Final Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Table 5.2 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID UT2
Assessed Length 350
Meredell Farm
EEP Project #247
November 2014
SEPI Engineering and Construction
Annual Final Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 7 of 7
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable, Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
5
5
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
4
4
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4
4
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3
3
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
3 3
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0 0
100% 0 0 100%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0 0
100% 0
0 100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100% 0
0 100%
Totals
0 0
100% 0
0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
15
15
o
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
15
15
100%
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
15
15
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
15
15
100%
document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
15
15
100%
Meredell Farm
EEP Project #247
November 2014
SEPI Engineering and Construction
Annual Final Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Table 5.3 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID M1
Assessed Length 3200
Meredell Farm
EEP Project #247
November 2014
SEPI Engineering and Construction
Annual Final Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 7 of 7
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
25
25
10000
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
23
23
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
23
23
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
26
26
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
26
26
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
48
48
o
100 /o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
48
48
100%
96%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
46
48
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
45
48
94%
document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
48
48
100%
Meredell Farm
EEP Project #247
November 2014
SEPI Engineering and Construction
Annual Final Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Table 6
Planted Acreage'
Vegetation Condition Assessment
33.7
Easement Acreaae2 55.6
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Vegetation Cateclory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
PolVqons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern"
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Pattern and
6
2.56
4.6
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas3
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
Pattern and
0
0.00
Pattern and
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
7
10.57
31.4%
Color
Total
7
10.57
31.4%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
1
0.26
0.8%
Color
Cumulative Totall
8
1 10.83
32.1%
Easement Acreaae2 55.6
Meredell Farm
EEP Project #247
November 2014
SEPI Engineering and Construction
Annual Final Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 7 of 7
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern"
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Pattern and
6
2.56
4.6
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas3
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0
Color
Meredell Farm
EEP Project #247
November 2014
SEPI Engineering and Construction
Annual Final Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
MY 1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Stream Riparian
Stream Riparian
Stream Riparian
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
Buffer Mitigation
Buffer Mitigation
Buffer Mitigation
Vegetation Plot ID
g
Survival
Reach
Survival
Reach
Survival
Reach
Survival
Reach
Zone Vegetation
Reach
Vegetation Survival
Reach
Zone Vegetation
Reach
Vegetation Survival
Reach
Zone Vegetation
Reach
Vegetation Survival
Reach
Survival Threshold
Survival Threshold
Survival Threshold
Threshold
Mean
Threshold
Mean
Threshold
Mean
Threshold
Mean
Mean
Threshold (320
Mean
Mean
Threshold (320
Mean
Mean
Threshold (320
Mean
(260 stems /acre)
(260 stems /acre)
(260 stems /acre)
Met?
Met?
Met?
Met?
stems /acre) Met?
stems /acre) Met?
stems /acre) Met?
Met?
Met?
Met?
247 -01 -0001
Y
100%
Y
50%
50%
Y
100%
N
50%
N
0%
Y
100%
N
50%
Y
100%
N
50%
247 -01 -0002
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
247 -01 -0003
Y
100%
Y
100%
100%
Y
100%
N
50%
N
50 °/�
Y
100%
N
0%
Y
100%
N
0%
247 -01 -0004
Y
Y
LN
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
247 -01 -0005
Y
50'4
Y
5004
38%
N
38%
N
13%
N
0%
Y
75%
Y
57%
Y
75%
Y
43%
247 -01 -0006
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
247 -01 -0007
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
247 -01 -0008
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
247 -01 -0009
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
247 -01 -0010
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
247 -01 -0011
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
I Y
Y
Y
247 -01 -0012
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N/A
Y
I N/A
Y
N/A
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering and Construction
EEP Project #247 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering and Construction
EEP Project #247 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247
Report Prepared By
Kim Hamlin
Date Prepared
10/27/2014 16:17
database name
MDELL_247_W07 2014_cvs -eep- entrytool- v2.3.1.mdb
G:\Environmental\NCEEP Meredell Farms SMS\ MY07\ AnnualMonitoringReport\MDELL_247_MY07_ 2014 _AnnualMonitoringReport _DRAFT \3 -
database location
Vegetation Plot Data
computer name
W93
Me size
46829568
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
247
project Name
Meredell Farm
Description
Riparian Buffer Restoration
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
9601
stream -to -edge width (ft)
100
area (sq m)
201,533
Required Plots (calculated)
12
Sampled Plots
12
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering and Construction
EEP Project #247 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

EEP Project Code 247. Project Name: Merede0 Farm
Table 9 Planted and Total Stem counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Current Plot Data (MY7 2014)
Annual Me-
Acernegundo
Ainusserrulata
PER" Ifflu.,
Corvlusamericana
Diospyrosvirginiana
Oxydendrumarboreum
Populusdeltoides
Quercusalba
Quercusfaicata
le -111
Sambucuscanadensis
-
000000
©00000
®
®��
®®

Meredell Farm ( #247)
Year 7 (29- Sep -2014 to 08- Oct -2014)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Plot #
Riparian
Buffer
Stems
Stream/
Wetland
Stems
Live
Stakes
Invasives
Volunteers'
Tota14
Unknown
Growth
Form
0001
6
12
9
0
13
34
0
0002
8
9
0
0
8
17
0
0003
6
13
0
0
19
32
0
0004
7
11
0
0
6
17
0
0005
8
9
0
0
14
23
0
0006
7
8
0
0
27
35
0
0007
11
11
0
0
6
17
0
0008
7
10
1
0
20
31
0
0009
1
1
1
0
1
3
0
0010
4
4
0
0
1
5
0
0011 14 16 2 0 13 31 0
0012 n/a 22 1 25 55 53 0
Wetland /Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Stream/ Success
Wetland Volunteers Criteria
Plot # Stems2 3 Tota14 Met?
0001
486
526
1376
Yes
0002
364
324
688
Yes
0003
526
769
1295
Yes
0004
445
243
688
Yes
0005
364
567
931
Yes
0006
324
1093
1416
Yes
0007
445
243
688
Yes
0008
405
809
1255
Yes
0009
40
40
121
No
0010
162
40
202
No
0011
647
526
1255
Yes
0012
890
2226
2145
Yes
Project Avg
425
617
1005
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Riparian Success
Buffer Criteria
Plot # Stems Met?
0001
243
No
0002
324
Yes
0003
243
No
0004
283
No
0005
324
Yes
0006
283
No
0007
445
Yes
0008
283
No
0009
40
No
0010
162
No
0011
567
Yes
0012
n/a
n/a
Project Avg
291
Stem Class characteristics
Buffer
Stems Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
2Stream/
Wetland
Stems Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
3Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
4Total Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering and Construction
EEP Project #247 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Meredell Farm
EEP Project #247
November 2014
SEPI Engineering & Construction
Annual Final Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Meredell Farm
EEP Project #247
November 2014
SEPI Engineering & Construction
Annual Final Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 7 of 7

"�AA IF t
HABITAT AND RESTORATION PLANTS
.5dentrf)cna ene
Comnion nanie
Size
EEP
Merredell
niax9@0
Acerbarbotarm
Southern Sugar hrlaple
Igallon
70
6etua a nigra7
River Birch
1 gallon
445
ceitis laevigato
Sugar berry
1 gallon
385
Dfas,pyras virginiaana
?ers-immon
1 gallon
422
fraxinuspenrrsytvonica
Green ash
1 gallon
40D
Liriodend'ron tarlipifera
Tulip poplar
1 gallon.
261
Nyssa b fora
Swamp Elackgum
1 gallon
370
Nysso sv,-vat ca
Black Gum
1 gallon.
248
P etona,s occrdentalrs
Sycamore
1 gallon
81
Populus dekoities
Cottonwood
1 gallor
4
Qarerrus rnrrhOUM0
Swamp Chestnut Oak
1 gallon
200
Querrus nigro
Water Oak
1 gallon
175
Querrus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
lgallon
217
Querrus palustris
Pin Oak
_ gallon
343
Querrus phellos
Willow Oak
_ gallon
450
Querrus rubro
Northern Red Oak
_ gallon
262
Querrusshaimordii
51-umard Oak
1 gallon
123
4500
4500
Meredell Farm
EEP Project #247
November 2014
SEPI Engineering & Construction
Annual Final Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

NOTE: No areas of significant stream instability were observed during the field survey. Survey
monuments were not present in the field. Due to this and differences in surveying methodologies
between monitoring year 5 and monitoring years 6 and 7, the longitudinal profile data may differ in
some areas.

603
602
601
600
61Q
v 598
w
v 597
596
e�
y 595
W 594
593
592
591
590
589
588
11200
MEREDELL UT1 STREAM THALWEG PROFILE 2014
11300 11400 11500 11600 11700 11800 11900
Station (feet)
— Baseline Thalweg —2012 Thalweg (MY05) —2013 Thalweg (MY06) —2014 Thalweg (MY07) ...... Water Surface ❑ 2014 Bankfull (MY07) L Cross Section

596
595
594
593
w
v
C
592
W
591
590
589
20850
MEREDELL UT2 STREAM THALWEG PROFILE 2014
20900
20950
21000
21050
21100
21150
Station (feet)
— Baseline Thalweg —2012 Thalweg (MY05) —2013 Thalweg (MY06) —2014 Thalweg (MY07) •••••• Water Surface ° 2014 Bankfull (MY07) Cross Section
o
°
°
-14�� .
..........
...........
20900
20950
21000
21050
21100
21150
Station (feet)
— Baseline Thalweg —2012 Thalweg (MY05) —2013 Thalweg (MY06) —2014 Thalweg (MY07) •••••• Water Surface ° 2014 Bankfull (MY07) Cross Section

MEREDELL M1 UPPPER STREAM THALWEG PROFILE 2014
592
590
-
p
E3
588
„
p
' p
p
586
a
584
p
p
c 582
ED
E3
p
a�
W 580
p
p p
578
576
574
30000 30100 30200 30300 30400 30500 30600 30700 30800 30900 31000
Station (feet)
Baseline (As- Built) 2012 Thalweg (MY05) 2013 Thalweg (MY06) 2014 Thalweg (MY07) ...... Water Surface p 2014 Bankfull (MY07) Cross Sections

580
0
578
0
576
574
572
I
d
w 570
a
d
W 568
566
564
562
560
31000
MEREDELL M1 LOWER STREAM THALWEG PROFILE 2014
13 O
O O
_ O
^O
tY•••••1....
■
■ ■
31100 31200 31300 31400 31500 31600 31700 31800 31900 32000 32100 32200
Station feet
Baseline Thalweg —2012 Thalweg (MY05) —2013 Thalweg (MY06) —2014 Thalweg (W07) •••••• Water Surface O 2014 Bankfull (MY07) 0 Cross Sections

Table 10a.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247 - Reach: UT1 b 780 feet
Parameter
Gauge2
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing
Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SDs
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.1
8.0
6.4
14.7
4.0
6
7.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
6.0
25.5
17.0
59.0
20.0
6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.1
6
0.6
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.1
6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
2.6
4.6
3.8
8.3
2.2
6
4.5
Width /Depth Ratio
5.7
1 14.0
11.8
1 26.2
1 7.4
6
12
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
1 3.3
2.5
1 6.9
1 2.3
6
'Bank Height Ratio
I
I
I
1 1.1
1 3.0
1 3.4
1 4.6
1 1.5
1 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.093
0.022
0.013
0.018
0.022
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.4
1.2
1.5
1.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
18
171
14.7
25.7
36.7
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
140
26 42.5 59
Radius of Curvature (ft)
13
45
15 18.5 22
Rc,Bankfull width (ft /ft)
1.6
5.6
2 2.5 3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
80
400
51 66 81
Meander Width Ratio
10
50.2
7 9 11
Transport parameters f
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f21
0.81
0.26
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfulli
50
50
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G4, F4b, E4b C4b
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.4
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0258
0.011
BE slope (fUft)
0.0159
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
° of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indiame drat these win lypleally ram he rued in.
1 -Th d'. ibut ors fork. p "meter can include intomtation (cool bah lhee .. td deh �ti d'wl pn fle. 2 =F p leers wlM1 al mx'nal l:SGS gauge -t line wlh th l- uch [add dHeldill ��if . .tion
3. Urlizine survey data produce ao esfimate of the bankfi,Il floodplain area in acros, which should be the area 6om the lop of bank io the toe of the icrrace riser /sloVe.
4 =Proportion,fre hexhi biting banks thac are eroding braced on the visunl.curveyf canperison to monimring date; 5.Ofvalue/needed only it I,, exeeeds3
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering and Construction
EEP Project #247 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Table 10a.2 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247 - Reach: UT2b 294 feet
Parameter
Gauge2
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing
Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mad
Max
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SDs
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.9
6.6
6.8
8.1
1.3
4
7.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
10.0
12.3
11.0
17.0
3.2
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.2
4
0.6
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.2
4
0.7
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
2.4
3.7
3.1
6.2
1.8
4
4.5
Width /Depth Ratio
9.8
1 12.8
11.6
1 18.4
1 3.9
4
12
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
1 1.9
1.9
1 2.3
1 0.3
4
'Bank Height Ratio
I
I
1
1 2.2
1 2.6
1 2.3
1 3.7
1 0.7
1 4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.009
0.225
0.016
0.021
0.027
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
1
1.2
1.5
1.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
30
67
14.7
25.7
36.7
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
15
26 42.5
59
Radius of Curvature (ft)
3
13
15 18.5
22
Rc,Bankfull width (ft /ft)
0.4
1.9
2 2.5
3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
60
95
51 66
81
Meander Width Ratio
8.8
13.9
7 9
11
Transport parameters f
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f21
0.565
0.439
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfulli
sand
sand
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/M21
1
1 31.1
20.9
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
35, E5
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.9
3.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
13
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.12
1.2
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0321
0.0134
BE slope (fUft)
0.0166
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
° of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indiame drat these win lypleally no, he rued in.
1 -Th d'. ibut ors fork. p "meter can include intom,ation (cool bah lhee .. ,d deh mot, d'wl pn fle. 2 =F p leers wlM1 al mx'nal l:SGS gauge -, line wlh th l- uch [add dHeldill ,�i f,..tion
3. Urlizine survey data produce ao esfimate of the bankfiill floodplain area in acros, which should be the area 6om the lop of bank io the toe of the icrrace riser /sloVe.
4 =Proportion,fre hexhi biting banks thec are eroding braced on the visunl.curveyf canperison to monimring date; 5.Ofvalue/needed only it I,, exeeeds3
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering and Construction
EEP Project #247 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Table 10a.3 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247 - Reach: M1 3200 feet
Parameter
Gauge'
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SDb
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SDs
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.6
6.4
6.7
7.6
1.3
4
10.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
6.0
10.0
10.5
13.0
2.9
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
4
0.8
' Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.1
4
1
1.15
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft'
3.7
7.0
7.4
9.4
2.5
4
8.6
Width /Depth Ratio
5.8
1 6.8
6.7
7.9
0.9
4
1
1 12
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.9
0.3
4
'Bank Height Ratio
I
I
1
1 2.8
3.0
2.9
3.4
0.3
4
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.016
0.021
0.026
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.7
2.1
2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
20.3
35.55
50.8
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
20 30
36 58.5 81
Radius of Curvature (ft)
16 25
20 25 30
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2.5 3.9
2 2.5 3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
70 170
71 91.5 112
Meander Width Ratio
11 26.6
7 9 11
EMINE
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress com etenc lb/f21
0.61
0.54
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfulli
52
52
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m'
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G4c
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.08
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft)
0.013
BF slope (ft/ft)
'Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =The dwribmious for these parameters can include information from boN the cross - section .wrveys and the IongiNdinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification -rare).
3. Util¢ing survry daNproduce m estimate of We bankfisU aoodplain area m acres, which should be the area from the [op ofbaok N the roe of We tertece riser /slope:
4= Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding bas d on the visual survey for comparison N monitoring data; S.Ofvalue /needed only ifthe n exceeds 3
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering and Construction
EEP Project #247 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Table 10b.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247 - Reach: UT1 b (780 feet)
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As- built/Baseline
Ri% /Ru% /P% /G% /S%
SC% /Sa %I G% /C% /B% /Be%
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / di" (mm)
0.8
11.2
38.4
63.2
50
'Entrenchment Class <1.5 /1.5-1.99 / 2.0 -4.9 / 5.0 -9.9 I >10
Incision Class 11.2 / 1.2 -1.49 / 1.5 -1.99 I >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filed in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Gilds, Step; Sill/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, dep = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross- sections as welt as visual estimates
3 = AssigNbin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class In the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are Mosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the readerlconsumer of resign and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the preexisting and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross - sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre- construtum distribution of these parameters, leaving the readenconsumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the —section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling ofthe BHR at riffles beyond those subject to uoss- sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the dlstributlond —rage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering and Construction
EEP Project #247 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Table 10b.2 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247 - Reach: UT2b (294 feet)
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As- built/Baseline
Ri% /Ru% /P% /G% /S%
SC % /Sa %IG% /C % /B % /Be%
d16 / d35 / d50 I d84 I d95 / dip I di" (mm)
0.035
0.05
0.13
0.22
0.5
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5 -1.99 12.0-4.9 / 5.0 -9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 11.2-1.49 11.5-1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filed in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Gilds, Step: Sill/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock: dip = max pave, dep = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross- sections as welt as visual estimates
3 = AssigNbin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class In the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are Mosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the readerlconsumer of resign and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the preexisting and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross - sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre- construtum distribution of these parameters, leaving the readenconsumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the —section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling ofthe BHR at riffles beyond those subject to uoss- sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the dlstributlond —rage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering and Construction
EEP Project #247 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Table 10b.3 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247 - Reach: M1 (3200 feet)
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As- built/Baseline
Ri% /Ru% /P% /G% /S%
SC % /Sa %IG% /C % /B % /Be%
d16 / d35 / d50 I d84 I d95 / dip I di" (mm)
0.3
16.5
60.4
128
52
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 /1.5-1.99 12.0-4.9 / 5.0 -9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 11.2-1.49 11.5-1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filed in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Gilds, Step: Sill/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock: dip = max pave, dep = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross- sections as welt as visual estimates
3 = AssigNbin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class In the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are Mosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the readerlconsumer of resign and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the preexisting and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross - sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre- construtum distribution of these parameters, leaving the readenconsumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the —section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling ofthe BHR at riffles beyond those subject to uoss- sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the dlstributlond —rage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Meredell Farm SEPI Engineering and Construction
EEP Project #247 Annual Final Monitoring Report
November 2014 Monitoring Year 7 of 7

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Site /247
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method
Photo # (if available)
8/24/2010
N/A
*Crest Gauge Reading: 1.96'
10/20/2011
N/A
Crest Gauge indicates BKF event
3/26/2012
N/A
Wracklines indicate BKF event on UTIb
SP2 (MY5 report)
10/18/2012
N/A
*Crest Gauge Reading: 1.17'
SP1 (MY5 report)
10/30/2013
N/A
*Crest Gauge Reading: 3.6'
SP1 (MY6 report)
10/30/2013
N/A
I Wracklines indicate BKF event on Ml
SP2 (MY6 report)
10/l/2014
N/A
I *Crest Gauge Reading: 1.17'
SP (below)
*Design bankfull depth range for reach M1 is 1.0' to 1.3'. Crest gauge readings occuring at,
above, or within this range are recorded as bankfull indicators
SP I: Crest Gauge Reading
Meredell Farm
EEP Project #247
November 2014
SEPI Engineering and Construction
Annual Final Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 7 of 7