HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140338 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report Final_20191203ID#* 20140338 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 12/04/2019
Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/3/2019
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
............................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140338
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Maney Farm Mitigation Project
County: Chatham
Document Information
Email Address:*
jeremiah.dow@ncdenr.gov
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: ManeyFarm_96314_MY4_Final_2019.pdf 31.49MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*
MONITORING YEAR 4
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
MANEY FARM MITIGATION PROJECT
Chatham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 005793
DMS Project Number 96314
USACE Action ID Number 2014-01825
NCDWR Project Number 2014-0338
Data Collection Period: January - October 2019
Draft Submission Date: October 21, 2019
Final Submission Date: November 19, 2019
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
PREPARED BY:
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
jlorch@wildlandseng.com
Phone: 919.851.9986
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Maney Farm Mitigation
Project (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS) to restore and enhance a total of 6,092 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams in
Chatham County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 4,922 stream mitigation units (SMUs) by closeout.
The Site is located northwest of Pittsboro, NC and north of Silk Hope, NC in the Cape Fear River Basin 8-
Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002 (Figure 1). The Site is also within the Cane Creek Targeted
Local Watershed (HUC 03030002050050), which flows into Cane Creek and eventually into the Haw
River. The streams are all unnamed tributaries (UT) to South Fork Cane Creek (SF) and are referred to
herein as UTSF, UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5.
The Site is located within the Cane Creek Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) which is discussed in DMS’s
2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP). The RBRP identifies the need to improve
aquatic conditions and habitats as well as promoting good riparian conditions in the Cane Creek
watershed. Prior to the restoration activities, the Site was maintained as cattle pasture and is one of the
51 animal operations referenced in the RBRP. The Site drains to the Haw River, which flows to B. Everett
Jordan Lake (Jordan Lake). The 2005 NCDWR Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan indicates
that Jordan Lake is a drinking water supply (WS-IV), a primary area for recreation, and a designated
Nutrient Sensitive Water which calls for reduction of non-point source pollution. The water supply
watershed boundary for Jordan Lake is just six miles downstream from the Site. The Cape Fear
watershed is also discussed in the 2005 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission’s Wildlife Action
Plan where sedimentation is noted as a major issue in the basin. Maps within the Wildlife Action Plan
indicate that Priority Species are present along Cane Creek. Restoration activities at the Site directly
addressed non-point source stressors by removing cattle from the streams, creating stable stream
banks, restoring a riparian corridor, and placing 16.69 acres of land under permanent conservation
easement.
The project goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2015) were developed with careful
consideration of goals and objectives described in the Cape Fear RBRP plan. The project goals included:
• Exclude cattle from project streams resulting in reduced pollutant inputs including fecal
coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous;
• Stabilize eroding stream banks resulting in reduced inputs of sediment into streams;
• Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable resulting in a network of
streams capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water quality functions;
• Improve instream habitat resulting in improved aquatic communities within the streams;
• Reconnect channels with floodplains so that floodplains are inundated relatively frequently
resulting in groundwater recharge, floodplain wetland and vernal pool inundation, and reduced
shear stress on channels during larger flow events;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain forest resulting in stream shading, reduced thermal
loads, woody input sources, and reduced flood flow velocities allowing for pollutants and
sediments to settle; and
• Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses therefore ensuring that development
and agricultural damage is prevented.
The project is helping meet the goals for the watershed and providing numerous ecological benefits
within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area; others,
such as pollutant removal and reduced sediment loading have farther-reaching effects. In addition,
protected parcels downstream of the Site promote cumulative project benefits within the watershed.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL ii
The Site construction and as-built surveys were completed between October 2015 and February 2016. A
conservation easement is in place on 16.69 acres of the riparian corridors to protect them in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) site visits and assessments were completed between the months of March and
October 2019 to visually assess the conditions of the project and collect stream hydrology data. Per
Interagency Review Team (IRT) guidelines, detailed monitoring and analysis of vegetation, substrate,
and channel cross-sectional dimensions were not required during MY4. Visual observations, hydrology
data, and management practices are included in this report. To preserve the clarity and continuity of
reporting structure, this report maintains section and appendix numbering from previous monitoring
reports. Omitted sections are denoted in the table of contents.
Overall, Site performance for vegetation, stream geomorphology, and hydrology meet success criteria
for MY4. Vegetation appears to be healthy based on visual assessment and densities will be evaluated in
MY5. Invasive species will be treated throughout the Site in the fall of 2019. Visual observation indicated
that stream channels have remained geomorphically stable during MY4. Beaver activity occurred
downstream of the Site but impounded water on the lower portion of the Site. Persistent flow and
multiple bankfull events were recorded on all streams during MY4.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL iii
MANEY FARM MITIGATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment .......................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment ...................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern ............................................................................................. 1-3
1.2.3 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................ 1-3
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern ................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment ....................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.6 Maintenance Plan .............................................................................................................. 1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 1-4
Section 2: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a-g Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3* Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7a-c Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a-b Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4* Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a-d Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a-b Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Section)
Table 12a-g Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Table 13 Bank Pin Table
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data
Recorded In-Stream Flow Events
*Content omitted from Monitoring Year 4 Report
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Maney Farm Mitigation Project (Site) is located in northwestern Chatham County within the Cape
Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002). The Site is located off Center Church Road northwest
of Pittsboro, and north of Silk Hope, North Carolina. The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the
Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The project watershed consists primarily of agricultural
and wooded land. The drainage area for the project site is 211 acres (0.33 square miles).
The project streams consist of six unnamed tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek. Stream restoration
reaches include UTSF (Reach 1 and 2) and UT5. Stream enhancement I (EI) and enhancement II (EII)
reaches included UT1 (Reach A and B), EII; UT1 (Reach C), EI; UT2 (Reach A), EII; U2 (Reach B), EI; UT3
(Reach A), EII; UT3 (Reach B), EI; and UT4 (Reach A), EII; UT4 (Reach B), EI. Mitigation work within the
Site included restoration and enhancement of 6,092 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream
channels. The riparian areas were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water
quality. Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in January 2016. Planting
and seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in February 2016. A conservation
easement (16.69 ac; Deed Book 1537, Page 876) has been recorded and is in place along the stream and
riparian corridors to protect them in perpetuity within a tract owned by the M. Darryl Lindley Revocable
Trust. The project is expected to provide 4,922 stream mitigation units (SMU’s) by closeout.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the streams and vegetative communities on the Site had been severely
impacted due to livestock having direct access to the streams and riparian zones. Table 4 in Appendix 1
and Tables 10a through 10d in Appendix 4 of MY3 Report present the pre-restoration conditions in
detail.
This Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While
many of these benefits are limited to the Maney Farm Mitigation Project area, others such as pollutant
removal and reduced sediment loading have more far-reaching effects. Expected improvements to
water quality and ecological processes are outlined below as project goals and objectives. These project
goals were established and completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were
described in the RBRP and to meet the DMS mitigation needs while maximizing the ecological and water
quality uplift within the watershed.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2
The following project goals and related objectives established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015)
include:
Goal Objective Expected Outcomes
Exclude cattle from
project streams
Install fencing around conservation
easements adjacent to cattle pastures.
Reduce pollutant inputs including
fecal coliform, nitrogen, and
phosphorous.
Stabilize eroding stream
banks
Reconstruct stream channels with stable
dimensions. Add bank revetments and in-
stream structures to protect
restored/enhanced streams.
Reduce inputs of sediment into
streams.
Construct stream
channels that are laterally
and vertical stable
Construct stream channels that will
maintain a stable pattern and profile
considering the hydrologic and sediment
inputs to the system, the landscape
setting, and the watershed conditions.
Return a network of streams to a
stable form that is capable of
supporting hydrologic, biologic,
and water quality functions.
Improve instream habitat
Install habitat features such as
constructed riffles and brush toes into
restored/enhanced streams. Add woody
materials to channel beds. Construct pools
of varying depth.
Improve aquatic communities in
project streams.
Reconnect channels with
floodplains so that
floodplains are inundated
relatively frequently
Reconstructing stream channels with
appropriate bankfull dimensions and
depth relative to the existing floodplain.
Raise local groundwater
elevations. Inundate floodplain
wetlands and vernal pools.
Reduce shear stress on channels
during larger flow events.
Restore and enhance
native floodplain forest
Plant native tree and understory species in
riparian zone.
Create and improve forested
riparian habitats. Provide a
canopy to shade streams and
reduce thermal loadings. Create a
source of woody inputs for
streams. Reduce flood flow
velocities on floodplain and allow
pollutants and sediment to settle.
Permanently protect the
project site from harmful
uses
Establish a conservation easement on the
site.
Ensure that development and
agricultural uses that would
damage the site or reduce the
benefits of the project are
prevented.
The design streams were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding landscape, climate,
and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing watershed conditions
and trajectory. The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by the DMS in August 2015.
Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in January 2016. Planting and
seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in February 2016. Baseline monitoring
(MY0) was conducted between January 2016 and February 2016. Annual monitoring will be conducted
for seven years with the close-out anticipated to commence in 2023 given the success criteria are met.
Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site
background information for the Site.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-3
1.2 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY4 to assess the condition of the
project. The stream and vegetation success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria
presented in the Maney Farm Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2015).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Detailed vegetation inventory and analysis is not required during MY4. Visual assessment during MY4
indicated that vegetation is healthy and performing adequately to attain interim success criteria of 260
planted stems per acre and the end of MY5 and terminal success criteria of 210 planted stems per acre
and averaging ten feet in height.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) is located immediately adjacent to the project; however, this farm is
certified organic and the landowner will not allow Wildlands to treat or remove this privet from his
property. As a result, scattered populations of Chinese privet have become established along the
perimeter of the conservation easement. Scattered populations of Chinese privet along UTSF Reach 1
(Figure 3.0) will be retreated during the fall of MY4. Privet will continue to be monitored and treated in
subsequent monitoring years.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Detailed dimensional survey and analysis is not required for MY4. Visual monitoring indicated that the
stream channel is performing as desired. No deposition or erosion exceeding approximate natural levels
was observed. See Appendix 2 for stream photographs and visual assessment data.
During a site visit on September 26, 2019 dry channel conditions were observed at the Site. This is not
unexpected for a small Slate Belt stream during drought conditions. Chatham County was experiencing
moderate drought conditions at that time according to the United States Drought Monitor (2019).
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
During the summer of 2019 beaver activity occurred downstream of the project but impounded water
onto the Site. The property owner of the parcel downstream was reluctant to allow beaver to be
removed from his property. Since then the beaver have moved farther downstream from the Site as
water levels in the channel have dropped below normal. The stream and vegetation were not damaged
while inundated for a short period but will be monitored to assure no long-lasting damage occurred.
This area will continue to be monitored for beaver activity.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in
separate years within the restoration reaches. Restoration reaches UTSF Reach 1 and 2 along with UT5
had multiple bankfull events throughout MY4. The crest gauge on UTSF Reach 1 malfunctioned and data
from the flow gauge on UTSF Reach 1 was used in lieu of the malfunctioned device. The crest gauge on
UTSF Reach 1 will be replaced. Bankfull events were also recorded on all restoration reaches during
MY1, MY2, and MY3 resulting in attainment of the stream hydrology assessment criteria. In addition, the
presence of baseflow must be documented within the intermittent reach of UTSF Reach 1 for a
minimum of 30 consecutive days during a normal precipitation year. Results from the flow gage
established on UTSF Reach 1 indicate the stream is maintaining baseflow as expected for an intermittent
stream. Baseflow was recorded for 75% of the monitoring period (268 consecutive and total days). Refer
to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-4
1.2.6 Maintenance Plan
The privet population described in Section 1.2.2 will be treated in the fall of 2019.
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary
Visual assessment indicated that all project streams are geomorphically stable and functioning as
designed. Beaver activity occurred downstream of the project and impounded water on the Site. No
significant damage occurred, but the area will continue to be monitored for beaver activity. Survival and
growth of planted trees appear to meet interim success criteria. Invasive patches of Chinese privet will
be treated in MY4. Hydrology criteria have been attained for the duration of the project and multiple
bankfull events and persistent flow were recorded again during MY4.
Summary information and data related to the 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 mitigation plan documents available on
DMS’s website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS
upon request.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 2-1
Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Crest gages and pressure transducers were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored
throughout the year. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in
accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation
monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 3-1
Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Division of Water Quality
(NCDWR). Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Accessed online at:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2eddbd59-b382-4b58-97ed-
c4049bf4e8e4&groupId=38364
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities. Accessed online at:
http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/cape_fear/RBRP%20Cape%20Fear%202008.pdf
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. Wildlife Action Plan. Accessed online at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/portals/0/Conserving/documents/ActionPlan/WAP_complete.pdf
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Drought Monitor. 2019.
http://www.droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2015. Maney Farm Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures
03030002050050
03030002050070
03030003070020
03030002050090
03030003070010
03030002050020
Figure 1 Project Vicinity MapManey Farm Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96314Monitoring Year 4 - 2 019
Chatham County, NC
0 10.5 Miles ¹
Project Location
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NC Department of Environmental QualityDivision of Mitigation Services and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is notpermitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight, and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
Directons to Site:From Raleigh, NC, take I-40 West towards Durham. Take exit 293Afor US-1 / US-64 / West toward Sanford/Asheboro. Travelapproximately three miles and take exit 98B for US-64 West. Travelapproximately 25 miles, take exit 381 for NC-87 towards Burlington.Travel approximately 1.8 miles on N C-87 North and turn left ontoSilk Hope Gum Springs Road. Continue for 8.1 miles to Silk HopeLindley Mill Road. Take Silk Hope-Lindley Mill Road north 3.6 miles.Turn right on C enter Church Road and travel 0.9 miles. The Site islocated north of Center Church Road.
Figure 2 Project Com ponent/A sset MapManey Farm Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96314Monitoring Year 4 - 2 019
Chatham County, NC
0 350175 Feet ¹
Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Non-Project Streams
Reach B reaks
UT1A UT1B
UTSFReach 1
UT2A
UT3A
UT4A
UT5
UTSFReach 2
UT1C
UT3B
UT2B
UT4B
UTSFReach 1
CenterChurch R o a d
2018 Aerial Photography
DMS Project No. 96314
Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient
Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 4,922 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
As-Built Stationing
/ Location
Existing Footage /
Acreage Approach Mitigation Ratio Credits
(SMU / WMU)
100+00 - 108+39
108+80 - 121+63 2,298 P1 1:1 2,122
121+63 - 132+24 1,209 P1 1:1 1,061
250+00 - 253+90 390 EII 2.5:1 156
199+08 - 200+00 101 EII 2.5:1 37
200+00 - 202+60 166 EI 1.5:1 173
295+15 - 300+00 485 EII 2.5:1 194
300+00 - 300+74 44 EI 1.5:1 49
395+79 - 400+00 418 EII 2.5:1 168
400+00 - 401+63 84 EI 1.5:1 108
497+87 - 500+00 217 EII 2.5:1 85
500+00 - 501+38 40 EI 1.5:1 92
602+00 - 608+77 778 P1 1:1 677
Buffer Upland
(square feet)(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
- -- -
- -- -
- -
- --
- --
* Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as-built thalweg and updated to be calculated along stream centerlines for Monitoring Year 2 after discusions with NC IRT.
Component Summation
Restoration
Restoration 1,061
STREAMS
UT5 Restoration 677
UTSF - Reach 1 2,122
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
(acres)(acres)Restoration Level Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland
Restoration 3,860
Enhancement
-
-
Enhancement I 633
Enhancement II 1,599
High Quality Preservation --
Creation -
Preservation --
Restoration 390
Restoration
N/A
Mitigation Credits
Restoration Footage / AcreageReach ID Restoration or Restoration Equivalent
Project Components
UTSF - Reach 2
UT1A
UT1B
UT1C
UT2A
UT2B
UT3A
UT3B
UT4A
UT4B
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
92
260
484
73
421
162
212
138
DMS Project No.96314
DMS Project No. 96314
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
Stream Survey
Year 6 Monitoring
Raleigh, NC 27609
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
2021
December 2021
2021
December 2022
2022
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
October 2018
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
December 2020
2020
Not Required
Year 7 Monitoring
Willow Spring, NC 27592
126 Circle G Lane
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Site
2022
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
December 2018
August 2018
August 2017
September 2016
Not Required
December 2019
April 2018
Final Design - Construction Plans July 2014 August 2015
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments February 2016
December 2017
July 2014
February 2016
April 2016
December 2016
September 2016
February 2016
October 2015 - January 2016
February 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments 1 October 2015 - January 2016 January 2016
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
August 2015
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
126 Circle G Lane
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
P.O. Box 1197
Seeding Contractor
January 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area 1
Willow Spring, NC 27592
January 2016
Construction October 2015 - January 2016
919-851-9986
Jason Lorch
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC
March 2017
Seed Mix Sources
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
919.851.9986
Designer
Jeff Keaton, PE
Green Resource, LLC
Fremont, NC 27830
Construction Contractor
Planting Contractor
Vegetation Survey
Vegetation Survey
Vegetation Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Stream Survey
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
Year 4 Monitoring
2020
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Year 3 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Year 2 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
DMS Project No. 96314
UTSF-R1 UTSF-R2 UT1A UT1B UT1C UT2A/B UT3A/B UT4A/B UT5
2,122 1,061 390 92 260 557 583 350 677
115 211 16 4 19 11 10 20 76
27/37 37 21 25.5 28 26/30 20.75 22.5 32.5
I/P P I I I I/P I I P
II/IV II/IV III V II/IV II/V V/VI II/V II/III
0.0131 0.0086 0.0187 0.0396 0.0187 0.0366 0.0377 0.0232 0.0139
X
N/A
X
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
X
Applicable?Resolved?
X
X
X X
Cid-Lignum Complex 2 to 6 percent slopes - Hydric
Well Drained - Moderately Well Drained
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation - Post-Restoration
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
Drainage Area (acres)
Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre-Restoration
Slope
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
DWR Sub-basin
Reach Summary Information
69% – Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous; 28% – Forested/Scrubland; 3% - DevelopedCGIA Land Use Classification
3%
Morphological Desription (stream type)
Underlying Mapped Soils
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post-Restoration
N/A
Cid Silt Loam, Cid-Lignum Complex, Nanford-Badin Complex, Georgeville Silty Clay Loam
211
03-06-04
03030002050050
Carolina Slate Belt
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
Project Name
Project Area (acres)
Parameters
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
River Basin
Physiographic Province
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
County
Correspondence from SHPO on
March 24, 2014 indicating they
were not aware of any historic
resources that would be affected
by the project.
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Waters of the United States - Section 404
N/A N/A
X
X
X
Soil Hydric Status
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27
and DWR 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 3885.
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A
Correspondence from Chatham
County Public Works Director on
January 12, 2015 stated that a
floodplain development permit is
not required since work is not
located in a Special Flood Hazard
Area.
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Historic Preservation Act
Chatham County
Maney Farm Mitigation Site
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
2%
Regulatory Considerations
Supporting Documentation
Drainage Class
Regulation
FEMA Classification
Native Vegetation Community
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
03030002
Cape Fear
Maney Farm Mitigation Plan;
Wildlands determined "no effect"
on Chatham County listed
endangered species. The USFWS
responded on April 4, 2014 and
concurred with NCWRC stating
that “the proposed action is not
likely to adversely affect any
federally-listed endangered or
threatened species, their formally
designated critical habitat, or
species currently proposed for
listing under the Act.”
N/A
Project Information
Project Watershed Summary Information
35°50’18.00” N, 79° 20’38.00” W
16.69
APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
Figure 3.0 Integrated C urrent Condition Plan View (Key)Maney Farm Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96319Monitoring Year 4 - 2 019
Chatham County, NC
0 350175 Feet ¹
Conservation Easement
Cu lvert Crossing
Sup plemental Planting Mon ito ring Plot
Vegetation Plot
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Reach Breaks
Cross Section
#*Ph oto Point
!?Barometric Gage
!?Flow Gage
!?Stream Gage
Stream Problem Area - MY4
Beaver Dam
Vegetation Problem Areas - MY4
Chinese Privet
UT1A UT1B
UTSFReach 1
UT2A
UT3A
UT4A
UT5
UTSFReach 2
UT1C
UT3B
UT2B
UT4B
UTSFReach 1
CenterChurch R o a d
Sheet 1 of 2
Sheet 2 of 2
2018 Aerial Photography
!?
!?
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
12
13
6
1
2
3
5 4
Figure 3.1 Integrated C urrent Condition Plan ViewManey Farm Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96314Monitoring Year 4 - 2 019
Chatham County, NC
0 18090 Feet ¹
Co nservation Easement
Cu lvert Crossing
Sup plemental Planting Monitoring Plot
Vegetation Plot
Stream Resto ration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Reach Breaks
Statio ning
Cross Section
!?Barometric Gage
#*Ph oto Point
!?Flow Gage
!?Stream Gage
Vegetation Problem Areas - MY4
Chinese Privet
UT2A
UT3B
UTSFReach 1
11
22
UT2B
2410 23
27
6
5
26
12
1 3
820
19
18
17
219
1
221
3
4
UT3A
25
7
8
UT1C
UT1A
UT1B 100+00105+00199+08200+00
250+00
252+00 202+56110+00295+15297+00299+00300+70395+79398+00400+00401+56114+002018 Aerial Photography
9
!?
!?
!?
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
14
6
8
9
7
11
10
Figure 3.2 Integrated C urrent Condition Plan ViewManey Farm Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96314Monitoring Year 4 - 2 019
Chatham County, NC
0 17085 Feet ¹
Conservation Easement
Sup plemental Planting Mon ito ring Plot
Vegetation Plot
Bank Pins
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Reach Breaks
Stationing
Cross Section
#*Ph oto Point
!?Stream Gage
Vegetation Problem Areas - MY4
Chinese Privet
UT4A
UT5
UTSFReach 2
UT4B
UTSFReach 1
167
65
15
31
161730
32
14
13
29
141
54328
12
11
10
9
8 602+00604+00608+00608+80497+88500+00501+33 606+00114+00120+00125+001 30+00132+622018 Aerial Photography
Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
DMS Project No. 96314
UTSF Reach 1 (2,122 LF)
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 38 38 100%
Depth Sufficient 38 38 100%
Length Appropriate 38 38 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)37 37 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)38 38 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.30 30 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.16 16 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.16 16 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. 14 14 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
14 14 100%
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
DMS Project No. 96314
UTSF Reach 2 (1,061 LF)
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 17 17 100%
Depth Sufficient 16 16 100%
Length Appropriate 16 16 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)16 16 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)16 16 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.10 10 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.7 7 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.7 7 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. 3 3 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
3 3 100%
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
DMS Project No. 96314
UT1C (260 LF)
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 9 9 100%
Depth Sufficient 8 8 100%
Length Appropriate 8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)8 8 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.n/a n/a n/a
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.n/a n/a n/a
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.n/a n/a n/a
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. n/a n/a n/a
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
n/a n/a n/a
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
DMS Project No. 96314
UT2B (73 LF)
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 3 3 100%
Depth Sufficient 2 2 100%
Length Appropriate 2 2 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)2 2 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)2 2 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.n/a n/a n/a
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.n/a n/a n/a
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.n/a n/a n/a
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. n/a n/a n/a
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
n/a n/a n/a
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
DMS Project No. 96314
UT3B (162 LF)
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 5 5 100%
Depth Sufficient 4 4 100%
Length Appropriate 4 4 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)4 4 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)4 4 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.n/a n/a n/a
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.n/a n/a n/a
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.n/a n/a n/a
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. n/a n/a n/a
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
n/a n/a n/a
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
DMS Project No. 96314
UT4B (138 LF)
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 5 5 100%
Depth Sufficient 4 4 100%
Length Appropriate 4 4 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)4 4 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)4 4 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.n/a n/a n/a
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.n/a n/a n/a
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.n/a n/a n/a
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. n/a n/a n/a
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
n/a n/a n/a
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
DMS Project No. 96314
UT5 (677 LF)
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 17 17 100%
Depth Sufficient 16 16 100%
Length Appropriate 16 16 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)16 16 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)16 16 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.9 9 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.9 9 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.9 9 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. n/a n/a n/a
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
n/a n/a n/a
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment TableManey Farm Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96314Monitoring Year 4 - 2019Planted Acreage 16Vegetation CategoryDefinitionsMapping Threshold (Ac)Number of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Planted AcreageBare AreasVery limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0 0.0%Low Stem Density AreasWoody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 0 0.0 0.0%0 0.0 0.0%Areas of Poor Growth Rates or VigorAreas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 Ac 0 0 0%0 0.0 0.0%Easement Acreage 17Vegetation CategoryDefinitionsMapping Threshold (SF)Number of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Easement AcreageInvasive Areas of ConcernAreas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1,000 2 0.4 2.4%Easement Encroachment AreasAreas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none 0 0 0%TotalCumulative Total
STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 1 UTSF R1 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 1 UTSF R1 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 2 UTSF R1 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 2 UTSF R1 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 3 UTSF R1 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 3 UTSF R1 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 4 UTSF R1 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 4 UTSF R1 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 5 UTSF R1 – looking upstream (07/02/2019) PHOTO POINT 5 UTSF R1 – looking downstream (07/02/2019)
PHOTO POINT 6 UTSF R1 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 6 UTSF R1 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 7 UTSF R1 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 7 UTSF R1 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 8 UTSF R1 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 8 UTSF R1 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 9 UTSF R1 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 9 UTSF R1 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 10 UTSF R1 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 10 UTSF R1 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 11 UTSF R1 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 11 UTSF R1 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 12 UTSF R1 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 12 UTSF R1 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 13 UTSF R2 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 13 UTSF R2 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 14 UTSF R2 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 14 UTSF R2 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 15 UTSF R2 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 15 UTSF R2 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 16 UTSF R2 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 16 UTSF R2 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 17 UT1C – looking upstream (06/13/2018) PHOTO POINT 17 UT1C – looking downstream (06/13/2018)
PHOTO POINT 18 UT1C – looking upstream (06/13/2019) PHOTO POINT 18 UT1C – looking downstream (06/13/2019)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 19 UT1C – looking upstream (06/13/2019) PHOTO POINT 19 UT1C – looking downstream (06/13/2019)
PHOTO POINT 20 UT1C – looking upstream (06/13/2019) PHOTO POINT 20 UT1C – looking downstream (06/13/2019)
PHOTO POINT 21 UT1C – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 21 UT1C – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 22 UT2 – looking upstream (06/13/2019) PHOTO POINT 22 UT2 – looking downstream (06/13/2019)
PHOTO POINT 23 UT2 – looking upstream (06/13/2019) PHOTO POINT 23 UT2 – looking downstream (06/13/2019)
PHOTO POINT 24 UT2 – looking upstream (06/13/2019) PHOTO POINT 24 UT2 – looking downstream (06/13/2019)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 25 UT3 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 25 UT3 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 26 UT3 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 26 UT3 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 27 UT3 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 27 UT3 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 28 UT4 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 28 UT4 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 29 UT4 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 29 UT4 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 30 UT5 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 30 UT5 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 31 UT5 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 31 UT5 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
PHOTO POINT 32 UT5 – looking upstream (05/21/2019) PHOTO POINT 32 UT5 – looking downstream (05/21/2019)
Vegetation Photographs
Vegetation Plot 1 – (08/07/2019) Vegetation Plot 2 – (08/07/2019)
Vegetation Plot 3 – (08/07/2019) Vegetation Plot 4 – (08/07/2019)
Vegetation Plot 5 – (08/07/2019)
Vegetation Plot 6 – (08/07/2019)
Vegetation Plot 7 – (08/07/2019) Vegetation Plot 8 – (08/07/2019)
Vegetation Plot 9 – (08/07/2019) Vegetation Plot 10 – (08/07/2019)
Vegetation Plot 11 – (08/07/2019) Vegetation Plot 12 – (08/07/2019)
Vegetation Plot 13 – (08/07/2019) Vegetation Plot 14 – (08/07/2019)
APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation inventory and analysis not required during MY4
APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Morphological survey and analysis not required during MY4
APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data
DMS Project No. 96314ReachDate of Data CollectionDate of OccurrenceDate of Data CollectionDate of OccurrenceDate of Data CollectionDate of OccurrenceDate of Data CollectionDate of OccurrenceMethod3/9/2017 1/9/2017 4/10/2018 5/16/2018 3/21/201910/17/2017 7/23/2017 10/22/2018 9/17/2018* 4/19/20193/9/2017 1/9/20173/21/201910/17/2017 7/23/20174/19/20193/9/2017 1/9/20174/10/20185/16/2018 3/21/201910/17/2017 7/23/201710/22/20189/17/2018* 4/19/2019*Hurricane Florence**Crest gauge data malfunctioned***Flow gauge data from UTSF Reach 1 was used in place of the crest gague due to equipment malfunction. DMS Project No. 963141 2019 monthly rainfall from USDA Station SILER CITY (317924)2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 S, NC7924 (USDA, 2019).MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4**2/16/20162/17/20162/18/2016Table 14. Verification of Bankfull EventsManey Farm Mitigation ProjectMonitoring Year 4 - 2019Monthly Rainfall DataCrest Gage/ Pressure TransducerUT5UTSF Reach 29/26/20198/8/20168/9/20168/10/201610/22/20189/26/2019 ***9/26/2019UTSF Reach 1Monitoring Year 4 - 2019Maney Farm Mitigation Project012345678Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19Precipitation (in)DateManey Farm 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2019 Siler City, NC2019 Rainfall Data30th Percentile70th Percentile
Recorded In-Stream Flow EventsMonitoring Year 4 - 2019Maney Farm Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 9631430 daysJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0571.0571.5572.0572.5573.0Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 4 - 2019RainfallUTSF Reach 1 Water DepthThalweg ElevationBankfullManey Farm: In-Stream Flow Gage for UTSF Reach 1