20160366 Ver 1_Year 2 Stream Monitoring Report_20191230

ID#* 20160366 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 12/30/2019
Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/30/2019
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands W Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20160366
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
County: Orange
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Martin Dairy_97087_MY2_2019-12-18.pdf 4.38MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

MONITORING YEAR 2
ANNUAL REPORT
Final

MARTIN DAIRY MITIGATION SITE
Orange County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 006831
DMS Project Number 97087
USACE Action ID Number 2016-00874
NCDWR Project Number 2016-0366

Data Collection Period: March - October 2019
Draft Submission Date: October 21, 2019
Final Submission Date: December 17, 2019

PREPARED FOR:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609
December 17, 2019

Jeremiah Dow
N.C. Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

RE: Monitoring Year 2 Report Martin Dairy Mitigation Site, DMS ID# 97087
Neuse River Basin – CU# 03020201
Orange County, North Carolina
Contract No. 6831

Dear Mr. Dow,
We have reviewed the comments on the Monitoring Year 2 Report for the above referenced project
dated December 12, 2019 and have revised the report based on these comments. The revised
documents are submitted with this letter. Below are responses to each of your comments. For your
convenience, the comments are reprinted with our response in italics.
MY2 Report – Stream Mitigation
1. Section 1, 2nd paragraph: In the 8th sentence the date should be changed from “January 2017”
to “January 2018.”

The date had now been changed to January 2018.

2. Section 1.2.2 – Concern regarding stem survival along parts of UT1 was discussed during the site
visit on 11/21. We recommend a sentence briefly detailing vegetation observations on UT1, and
what action was taken in MY2 or may be considered in the future.

A few sentences have been added discussing the stem survival along UT1.

3. Appendix 3, Table 9 – Vegetation Plot 7 planted stem density should be colored red as it is not on
track to meet the interim success criteria for MY3 of 320 planted stems per acre.

Vegetation Plot 7 has now been updated to red in Table 9.

MY2 Report – Riparian Buffer Mitigation

1. See comment 2 above. Please consider adding a brief discussion where appropriate.

A section has been added discussing the stem survival along UT1.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609
Overall

1. As required by contract, specifically RFP#16-006477, Wildlands must submit an updated
Monitoring Phase Performance Bond (MPPB) for Monitoring Year 3 (Task 9) to Jeff Jurek for his
approval before DMS approves this deliverable and the associated payment.

A draft Monitoring Phase Performance Bond will be submitted.
If you have any questions, please contact me by phone [phone], or by email
([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator

PREPARED BY:

312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Martin Dairy
Mitigation Project (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore a total of 2,135 linear feet (LF) of perennial streams in Orange
County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 2,135 stream mitigation units (SMUs). All stream lengths
were measured along the stream centerline for SMU calculations. The Site is located approximately
eight miles northeast of Hillsborough, NC and eight miles south of Caldwell, NC (Figure 1) in the Neuse
River Basin 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201. The project is located within a DMS targeted
watershed for the Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201030030 and NC Division of
Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-04-01. There are two unnamed tributaries on the Site, Martin Dairy
Creek and UT1. The downstream drainage area of the Site is 526 acres. The Site drains to the Eno River
which flows to Falls Lake and is classified as water supply waters (WS-IV). The 11.155-acre site is
protected with a permanent conservation easement.
The Site is located within the Neuse River Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) as presented in the 2010
Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) (Breeding, 2010), which highlights the importance of
riparian buffers for stream restoration projects. The Site was an active dairy farm until 2014 when
livestock were removed, and the Site land use became hay cultivation.
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2017) were developed considering the
goals and objectives listed in the Neuse River RBRP plan. The project goals include:
• Reconnect channels with floodplains and riparian wetlands to allow a natural flooding regime;
• Improve the stability of stream channels;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain and streambank vegetation;
• Improve instream habitat; and
• Permanently protect the Site from harmful land uses.
The project will contribute to achieving the goals for the watershed listed in the Neuse River RBRP and
provide ecological benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While benefits such as habitat improvement
and geomorphic stability are limited to the Site, reduced nutrient and sediment loading have farther
reaching effects. In addition, planned projects in the same watershed and basin as this Site will realize
cumulative benefits.
The Site construction and as-built surveys were completed between July 2017 and January 2018.
Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) assessments and site visits were completed between May and September 2019
to assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required vegetation and stream
success criteria for MY2. The overall average stem density for the Site is 405 stems per acre and is
therefore on track to meet the MY3 interim requirement of 320 stems per acre. A significant die-off
occurred in Vegetation Plot 7 causing the plot to not meet the MY3 interim requirement of 320 stems
per acre; however, it is still above the MY7 final success criteria of 210 stems per acre. All restored
streams are stable and functioning as designed. Hydrologic monitoring stations with crest gages and
pressure transducers were installed on the Site to document bankfull events on the restoration reaches.
Bankfull and geomorphically significant events were recorded on each restoration reach during the 2019
annual monitoring period. Since the Site also achieved these events during the 2018 annual monitoring
period, the stream hydrology success criteria for bankfull events have been met.

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final ii
MARTIN DAIRY MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment .......................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment ...................................................................................................... 1-2
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 .............................................................................................................. 1-3
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary ...................................................................................................... 1-4
Section 2: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................3-1

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
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 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a-c Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a-b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross-Section)
Table 12a-c Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 1-1
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Martin Dairy Mitigation Site (Site) is located in central Orange County, approximately eight miles
northeast of Hillsborough, NC and eight miles south of Caldwell, NC off of Schley Rd (Figure 1). The Site
is located in the Neuse River Basin and within the Falls Lake Water Supply Watershed, which has been
designated a Nutrient Sensitive Water. The project streams drain to the Eno River and eventually to the
Falls Lake Reservoir. The Site is within Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201030030, which is a Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) (Figure 1) as identified in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP) (Breeding, 2010). The Site is in in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
(USGS, 1998). The project watershed consists primarily of agricultural and wooded land and the
drainage area for project site is 526 acres (0.82 square miles).
The project streams consist of Martin Dairy Creek and one unnamed tributary. Stream restoration
reaches included Reaches 1 and 2 of Martin Dairy Creek and UT1. Mitigation work within the Site
included restoration of 2,135 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream channels. The riparian areas were
planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality. The final mitigation plan
(Wildlands, 2017) was submitted to and accepted by the DMS in March 2017. Construction activities
were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in July 2017. Planting and seeding activities were
completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in December 2017. Baseline monitoring (MY0) was
conducted between August 2017 and January 2018. Monitoring Year 1 was conducted in 2018. Annual
monitoring will occur for seven years with the close-out anticipated to occur in 2025 given the success
criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides additional details on project activity, history, contact information,
and watershed/background information for the Site.
The Site is located on two tracts under the ownership of Ted H. Martin (PIN 9896-83-0483 & 9896-83-
9111). A conservation easement was recorded on 11.155 acres (Deed Book 6218, Pages 270 - 289). The
project is expected to provide 2,135 stream mitigation units (SMUs) by closeout.
A project vicinity map and directions are provided in Figure 1 and project components/assets are
illustrated in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the primary degradation at the Site was the clearing of vegetation and
channelization of Martin Dairy Creek and UT1. Channelization, as indicated by dredge spoil in the
floodplain, involved straightening and deepening of the stream. Livestock grazing on the Site further
contributed to degradation of the riparian corridor and stream channel. Table 4 in Appendix 1 and
Tables 10a and 10b in Appendix 4 present the pre-restoration conditions in detail.
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While
benefits such as habitat improvement and geomorphic stability are limited to the project site, reduced
nutrient and sediment loading have farther reaching effects. The table below, describes expected
outcomes to water quality and ecological processes are provided with project goals and objectives. The
project goals and objectives were developed as part of the mitigation plan considering the goals and
objectives listed in the Neuse River RBRP plan and strive to maximize ecological and water quality uplift
within the watershed.
The following project goals and related objectives established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2017)
include:

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 1-2
Goal Objective Expected Outcomes
Reconnect channels with
floodplains and riparian
wetlands to allow a natural
flooding regime.
Reconstruct stream channels with
designed bankfull dimensions and
depth based on reference reach
data. Remove existing dredge
spoil to reconnect channel with
adjacent wetlands.
Raise water table and hydrate riparian
wetlands. Allow more frequent flood
flows to disperse on the floodplain.
Support geomorphology and higher level
functions.
Improve the stability of
stream channels.
Construct stream channels that
will maintain stable cross-
sections, patterns, and profiles
over time.
Reduce sediment inputs from bank
erosion. Reduce shear stress on channel
boundary. Support all stream functions
above hydrology.
Restore and enhance native
floodplain and streambank
vegetation.
Plant native tree and understory
species in riparian zones and
plant native shrub and
herbaceous species on
streambanks.
Reduce sediment inputs from bank
erosion and runoff. Increase nutrient
cycling and storage in floodplain. Provide
riparian habitat. Add a source of LWD
and organic material to stream. Support
all stream functions.
Improve instream habitat.
Install habitat features such as
constructed riffles, lunker logs,
and brush toes into restored
streams. Add woody materials to
channel beds. Construct pools of
varying depth.
Increase and diversify available habitats
for macroinvertebrates, fish, and
amphibians leading to colonization and
increase in biodiversity over time. Add
complexity including LWD to the streams.
Permanently protect the Site
from harmful uses.
Establish a conservation
easement on the Site.
Protect the Site from encroachment on
the riparian corridor and direct impact to
streams and wetlands. Support all stream
functions.

1.2 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during MY2 to assess the condition of the project. The
vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the
mitigation plan.
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of eight
standard 10-meter by 10-meter vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring within
the project easement area.
The final vegetative success criteria is the survival of 210 planted stems per acre at the end of the seven-
year monitoring period (MY7). The interim measure of vegetative success is the survival of at least 320
planted stems per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period (MY3) and at least 260 stems
per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring (MY5). Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in
height at the end of MY7.

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 1-3
The MY2 vegetative survey was completed in September 2019. The 2019 vegetation monitoring resulted
in an average stem density of 405 stems per acre, which is well above the interim requirement of 320
stems per acre required at MY3 and 32% less than the baseline density recorded (597 stems per acre).
There is an average of 10 stems per plot in MY2 compared to 14 stems per plot in MY0. With 283
planted stems per acre, Vegetation Plot 7 is not on track to meet the interim requirement of 320 stems
per acre but it is still above the final vegetative success criteria of 210 planted stems per acre. The
reason for Vegetation Plot 7’s tree mortality is that Alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) has
formed a thick herbaceous understory that has out competed the planted trees. However, several
volunteer species including green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis) were recorded in the plot, increasing the total stems per acre to 405. Thus, all eight of the
plots are on track to meet the success criteria required for MY7. Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot
photographs and the vegetation condition assessment table and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Vegetation Plot 7 had a higher planted tree mortality rate than the rest of the vegetation plots on Site
due to competition from Alligator weed. Even with a dense herbaceous layer, volunteers are surviving,
increasing the stems per acres to 405. Due to the success of the volunteer trees, remedial action will not
be taken in MY3 but monitoring will continue to assess tree mortality rates.
Tree vigor along UT1 was good but is not performing as well as the rest of the Site. This is likely due to
floodplain grading during construction. Approximately 100 pounds of biochar, rock phosphate, azomite,
and humic acid was added to the floodplain to promote tree growth during MY2. Remedial action will be
taken as necessary in subsequent monitoring years to promote tree growth.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY2 were conducted in May 2019. All streams within the Site are stable and
functioning as designed. In general, cross-sections at the Site show little to no change in the bankfull
area, maximum depth ratio, or width-to-depth ratio. Bank height ratios are less than 1.1. Substrate
materials indicate the maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle reaches and finer particles in the
pools. Longitudinal profile surveys are not required on the project unless visual inspection indicates
reach wide vertical instability. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, Current
Condition Plan View (CCPV) map, and stream photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological
data and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
No stream areas of concern were identified during MY2.
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. Also, two geomorphically significant events must be
documented during the monitoring period. Bankfull events and multiple geomorphically significant
events were recorded on all restoration reaches during MY1 and MY2, resulting in attainment of the
stream hydrology success criteria. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
1.2.6 Maintenance Plan
No maintenance plan is necessary at this time.

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
Seven of the eight vegetation plots are on track to meet the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted
stems per acre. Vegetation Plot 7 had significant tree mortality due to competition from alligator weed
but is still above the final success requirement of 210 planted stems per acre. When counting volunteer
trees, vegetation plot 7 is above the MY3 interim requirement. All streams within the Site are stable and
functioning as designed. Bankfull and geomorphically significant events during two separate years have
been documented on all stream reaches, resulting in fulfillment of the stream hydrology success criteria.
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 available on DMS’s
website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS upon
request.

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 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 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 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 standards (USACE, 2003). Vegetation monitoring protocols
followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 3-1
Section 3: REFERENCES
Breeding, R. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities 2010. NCEEP, NC
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.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For
Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages
12-22.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2018. Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and As-
Built Baseline Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2017. Martin Diary Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

03020201030030
03020201020020
03020201030040
03020201020010
03020201020030
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
Project Area
DMS Targeted Local Watersheds
Figure 1. Project Vicinity MapMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019
Orange County, NC
¹0 10.5 Miles
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of theNCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site mayrequire traversing areas near or along the easement boundary andtherefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access byauthorized personnel of state and federal agencies or theirdesignees/contractors involved in the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the termsand timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation oractivity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned rolesand activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
Directions:From Raleigh, NC, take I-40 West towards Durham. Take exit 279B for NC-147 N towards Durham/Downtown. Travel approximately 13 miles and merge onto I-85 S. Travelapproximately 2 miles, take exit 170 for US-70 W.In 0.2 miles turn right onto Pleasant Green Road. Travel 5.8 miles and stay straight through the intersection with St. Mary Road onto Schley Rd. In 0.7 miles, the parking area is on the left in a powerline R/W 200 feetsouth of Lipscomb Grove Church Road.
Martin Hills Lane
Schley RaodFigure 2. Project Component/Asset MapMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Orange County, NC¹0 200100 Feet
ParcelsConservation EasementInternal EasementPowerline EasementsPowerlinesProject StreamsReach Break
2017 Aerial Photography Martin Dairy Creek R2Martin Dairy Creek R1UT1
DMS Project No. 97087
Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient
Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 2,135 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Centerline
Stationing Existing Footage Approach
Restoration
Footage (LF)*
As-Built Thalweg
Footage (LF)Mitigation Ratio Credits
(SMU / WMU)
100+13 - 101+38,
101+78 - 107+61 503 P1 708 721 1 708
107+61 - 119+71 1,173 P1 1,210 1,258 1 1,210
200+33 - 202+50 138 PII 217 214 1 217
Buffer (acres) Upland (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
- -- -
- -- -
- -
- --
- --
N/A: not applicable
High Quality Preservation -
*Linear footage calculated along stream centerline.
-
-
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 - 2019
Martin Dairy R2
Riparian Wetland (acres) Non-Riparian Wetland (acres)Restoration Level
COMPONENT SUMMATION
Preservation --
Enhancement II -
Creation -
Restoration 2,135
MITIGATION CREDITS
-
Stream (LF)
Enhancement I
Restoration or Restoration Equivalent
-
Restoration
STREAMS
Martin Dairy R1
Restoration
Reach ID
PROJECT COMPONENTS
Enhancement
Restoration
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
N/A
UT1
DMS Project No. 97087
DMS Project No. 97087
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Monitoring Year 2 - 2019
Willow Spring, NC 27592
126 Circle G Lane
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
2024
2023
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
2024
December 2020
December 2021
2022
2021
December 2022
December 2023
2023
September 2018
January 2018
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
2020
September 2019
June 2018
Final Design - Construction Plans March 2017 March 2017
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments December 2017 December 2017
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments 1 June 2017 - July 2017 July 2017
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan March 2017 March 2017
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 - 2019
126 Circle G Lane
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
P.O. Box 1197
Seeding Contractor
July 2017
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area 1 June 2017 - July 2017 July 2017
Construction June 2017 - July 2017
919.851.9986
Jason Lorch
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Dykes and Sons Nursery and Greenhouse
Seed Mix Sources
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
919.851.9986
Designer
Angela Allen, PE
Green Resource, LLC
Fremont, NC 27830
Construction Contractor
Planting Contractor
Willow Spring, NC 27592
December 2018
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
2022
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
December 2024
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
August 2017
January 2018
December 2019
May 2019
2020
2021
DMS Project No. 97087
Applicable?Resolved?
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
N/A N/A
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Historic Preservation Act
Chewacla loam, Herndon silt loam, Tatum silt loam
Perennial
Underlying Mapped Soils
Morphological Desription (stream type)
FEMA Classification
Native Vegetation Community
N/A
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation - Post-Restoration
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post-Restoration
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
03-04-01
Drainage Area (acres)
Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre-Restoration
Parameters
DWR Sub-basin
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
59.0% forested, 40.6% cultivated, 0.4% impervious
County
0.4%
526
03020201030030
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
36° 7’ 25.76” N, 79° 0’ 14.26” W
11.155
Essential Fisheries Habitat
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
Project Name
Project Area (acres)
River Basin
Physiographic Province
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
CGIA Land Use Classification
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
0%
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Drainage Class
Regulation
Slope
-
-Soil Hydric Status
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 - 2019
03020201
Neuse River
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
-
-
UT1Martin Dairy
1,918
526
36.75
Perennial
-
Orange County
30.75
141
217
WS-IV
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
N/A
Supporting Documentation
IV: Degradation and Widening
USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification
No. 4087.
N/A
Martin Diary Mitigation Plan; Wildlands determined "no effect" on Orange
County listed endangered species. The USFWS responded on June 3, 2016 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.”
Correspondence from SHPO on June 3, 2016 indicating they were not aware
of any historic resources that would be affected by the project.
N/A
N/A
-

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
!A
!A
!A
Martin Hills Lane
Schley RaodPP 8
PP 7
PP 6
PP 5
PP 4
PP 9
PP 2
PP 3
PP 1
PP 10
XS 4XS

1
XS 2
XS 3 XS
5
XS
6
116+00
1
1
2+
0
0
110+0
0
114
+
0
0
118+00120+
0
0 200+001
0
8
+
0
0
100+
0
0
102+00104+00
106+0
0
1
3
8
5
7
6
4
2
Figure 3. Intergrated Current Condition Plan ViewMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Orange County, NC¹0 200100 Feet
Conservation EasementInternal EasementPowerline EasementsPowerlinesAs-Built AlignmentReach Break
As-Built BankfullStructuresStationing
^_Photo Point (PP)Cross-Section (XS)
!A Barotroll
!A Crest Gauge
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY2Criteria MetCriteria Not Met
2017 Aerial Photography Martin Dairy Creek R2Martin Dairy Creek R1UT1
DMS Project No. 97087
Martin Dairy Reach 1
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 8 8 100%
Depth Sufficient 9 9 100%
Length Appropriate 9 9 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)9 9 100%
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.5 5 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.5 5 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.5 5 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
5 5 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
6 6 100%
Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Martin Dairy Mitigation Project
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Monitoring Year 2 - 2019
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
DMS Project No. 97087
Martin Dairy Reach 2
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 13 13 100%
Depth Sufficient 13 13 100%
Length Appropriate 13 13 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)13 13 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)13 13 100%
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.8 8 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.8 8 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.8 8 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
8 8 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
4 4 100%
Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Martin Dairy Mitigation Project
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Monitoring Year 2 - 2019
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
DMS Project No. 97087
UT1
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 4 4 100%
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.1 1 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.1 1 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.1 1 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
1 1 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
2 2 100%
Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Martin Dairy Mitigation Project
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Monitoring Year 2 - 2019
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Martin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Planted Acreage 10.139Vegetation CategoryDefinitionsMapping Threshold (Ac)Number of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Planted AcreageBare AreasVery limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material0.1 00 0%Low Stem Density AreasWoody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 00 0%00 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 00 0%0 0.0 0%Easement Acreage11.155Vegetation 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 00 0%Easement Encroachment AreasAreas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none 00 0%Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment TableTotalCumulative Total

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTO POINT 1 Martin Dairy R1 – upstream (5/8/2019) PHOTO POINT 1 Martin Dairy R1 – downstream (5/8/2019)

PHOTO POINT 2 Martin Dairy R1 – upstream (5/8/2019) PHOTO POINT 2 Martin Dairy R1 – downstream (5/8/2019)

PHOTO POINT 3 Martin Dairy R1 – upstream (5/8/2019) PHOTO POINT 3 Martin Dairy R1 – downstream (5/8/2019)

PHOTO POINT 4 Martin Dairy R2 – upstream (5/8/2019) PHOTO POINT 4 Martin Dairy R2 – downstream (5/8/2019)

PHOTO POINT 5 Martin Dairy R2 – upstream (5/8/2019) PHOTO POINT 5 Martin Dairy R2 – downstream (5/8/2019)

PHOTO POINT 6 Martin Dairy R2 – upstream (5/8/2019) PHOTO POINT 6 Martin Dairy R2 – downstream (5/8/2019)

PHOTO POINT 7 Martin Dairy R2 – upstream (5/8/2019) PHOTO POINT 7 Martin Dairy R2 – downstream (5/8/2019)

PHOTO POINT 8 Martin Dairy R2 – upstream (5/8/2019) PHOTO POINT 8 Martin Dairy R2 – downstream (5/8/2019)

PHOTO POINT 9 UT1 – upstream (5/8/2019) PHOTO POINT 9 UT1 – downstream (5/8/2019)

PHOTO POINT 10 UT1 – upstream (5/8/2019) PHOTO POINT 10 UT1 – downstream (5/8/2019)

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

VEG PLOT 1 (09/18/2019) VEG PLOT 2 (09/18/2019)

VEG PLOT 3 (09/18/2019) VEG PLOT 4 (09/18/2019)

VEG PLOT 5 (09/18/2019) VEG PLOT 6 (09/18/2019)

VEG PLOT 7 (09/18/2019) VEG PLOT 8 (09/18/2019)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97087
Monitoring Year 2 - 2019
Plot
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
*Vegetation Plot 7 is not going to meet interim success criteria for MY3 of 310 planted stems per acre. However, when including voluntees
Vegetation Plot 7 is on track to meet interim success criteria for MY3 and is on track to meet interim success criteria for MY5 of 260 planted stems
per acre.
88%
MY2 Success Criteria Met Tract Mean
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No*
Yes
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables - MetadataMartin Dairy Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Report Prepared ByJason LorchDate Prepared9/20/2019 14:12Database NameMartin Dairy- cvs-v2.5.0.- MY2.mdbDatabase LocationF:\Projects\005-02158 Martin Dairy\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 2\Vegetation AssessmentComputer NameCARLYNN-PCFile Size51679232MetadataDescription of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.Project PlantedEach project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.Project Total StemsEach project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.PlotsList of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).VigorFrequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.Vigor by SppFrequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.DamageList of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.Damage by SppDamage values tallied by type for each species.Damage by PlotDamage values tallied by type for each plot.Planted Stems by Plot and SppA 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 SppA 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 Code97087Project NameMartin Dairy DescriptionStream Restoration ProjectSampled Plots8DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Martin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all TBetula nigraRiver Birch Tree1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3Cephalanthus occidentalisButtonbushShrub TreeCercis canadensisRed BudShrub TreeCornus floridaFlowering DogwoodShrub TreeFraxinus pennsylvanicaGreen AshTree2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1Liquidambar styracifluaSweet GumTree41Liriodendron tulipiferaTulip PoplarTree3 3 31 1 1Platanus occidentalisSycamoreTree2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4Pyrus calleryanaBradford PearTree12Quercus palustrisPin OakTree2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3Quercus phellosWillow OakTree3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2UlmusElmTree111 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 14 12 12 14 10 10 105 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 8 4 4 4445 445 445 445 445 445 405 405 567 486 486 567 405 405 405Color for DensityExceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteers PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakesP-all: Number of planted stems including live stakesT: Total Stems10.0210.02Stem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACRE10.02VP 3 VP 4 VP 510.0210.02Table 9. Planted and Total Stem CountsCurrent Plot Data (MY2 2019)Scientific Name Common Name Species TypeVP 1 VP 2
Martin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Betula nigraRiver Birch TreeCephalanthus occidentalisButtonbushShrub TreeCercis canadensisRed BudShrub TreeCornus floridaFlowering DogwoodShrub TreeFraxinus pennsylvanicaGreen AshTreeLiquidambar styracifluaSweet GumTreeLiriodendron tulipiferaTulip PoplarTreePlatanus occidentalisSycamoreTreePyrus calleryanaBradford PearTreeQuercus palustrisPin OakTreeQuercus phellosWillow OakTreeUlmusElmTreeColor for DensityExceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteers PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakesP-all: Number of planted stems including live stakesT: Total StemsStem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACRETable 9. Planted and Total Stem CountsScientific Name Common Name Species TypePnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 14 14 16 16 16 17 17 1711 112 81 1 1 3 3 32 2 2 2 2 21 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 30 15 15 45 17 17 29 18 18 184 9 21 1 3 5 5 7 7 7 7 19 19 194 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 7 22 22 27 24 24 25 25 25 2532 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 12 12 12 16 16 16 20 20 201 1 1 1 1 1 12 12 12 14 14 14 14 14 141 2 110 10 21 7 7 10 9 9 49 80 80 140 97 97 121 118 118 1185 5 6 4 4 5 6 6 8 6 6 9 8 8 11 8 8 8405 405 850 283 283 405 364 364 1983 405 405 708 491 491 612 597 597 59710.0280.2010.0280.2080.2010.02VP 7 VP 8Annual MeansMY2 (2019) MY1 (2018) MY0 (2018)VP 6Current Plot Data (MY2 2019)

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data SummaryMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Martin DairyParameterGageMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxBankfull Width (ft)14.8 18.6 10.7 11.2 18.5 19.4Floodprone Width (ft)60 114 49 63 33 75 36 81Bankfull Mean Depth1.3 2.1 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.4Bankfull Max Depth1.9 2.9 2.1 2.6 1.8 2.1 1.3 1.7 1.4 1.8Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)25.0 34.6 17.8 19.7 23.9 24.1Width/Depth Ratio7.9 13.8 5.8 7.1 13.9 14.2Entrenchment Ratio5.5 10.2 2.6 3.4Bank Height Ratio D50 (mm)Riffle Length (ft)12.0 35.9 16.7 51.0Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0130 0.0120 0.0150 0.0350 0.0060 0.0180 0.0060 0.0190 0.0039 0.0193 0.0166 0.0266Pool Length (ft)38.2 77.4 36.1 83.1Pool Max Depth (ft)2.5 2.9 1.3 3.3 1.4 3.6 1.4 2.5 1.1 1.9Pool Spacing (ft) 16 91 22 108 50 10549 91 60 105 65 113 41 101 55 111Pool Volume (ft3)Channel Beltwidth (ft) 15 20 17 2838 4136 75 39 81 36 75 39 81Radius of Curvature (ft)11 32 7 46 16 87 11 1527 75 29 81 27 75 29 81Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.3 3.7 0.5 3.3 1.1 4.7 1.3 1.41.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0Meander Length (ft)46 74 46 114 66.0 191 46.0 48.060 225 65 243 60 225 65 243Meander Width Ratio1.7 2.3 1.2 2.0 3.2 4.1 3.4 3.62.4 5.0 2.4 5.0 2.4 5.0 2.4 5.0Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfullStream Power (Capacity) W/m2Drainage Area (SM)Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)Rosgen ClassificationBankfull Velocity (fps)Bankfull Discharge (cfs)Q-NFF regressionQ-USGS extrapolationQ-ManningsValley Length (ft)Channel Thalweg Length (ft)SinuosityWater Surface Slope (ft/ft)2Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)(---): Data was not providedN/A: Not Applicable12.82001.11.814.21.40.90.0090.0050.332.6------0.231.0---0.25---------SC/0.45/2.8/21.8/45.0/128.0<0.063/3/8.8/42/ 90/-N/AN/AN/AN/A121---N/A------71N/A0.418.6Martin DairyReach 22002.11.214.01.22.4Martin DairyReach 1REFERENCE REACH DATAMartin DairyReach 12.80.4%N/A1.49 0.96 1.38Martin DairyReach 1N/A15.0Long Branch Spencer Creek 2 Foust Creek10.014.21.57.31.30---88.0--- ---2.9 - 3.70.005--- --- ---1.05---------47.097.0---607--- --- --- --- 776607C4/E40.820.4%0.54C4/E40.00462.30 1.10 1.25 1.28------0.0130------3.3---------0.13/1.3/2.6/4.6/7.7/77/-/-3---14.31.411.0Profile1.0 1.0---2.260PatternN/A------5.0---0.54C4/E40.4%C4/E40.8216.716.112.214.815013.216.813.41.1Martin DairyReach 2Martin DairyReach 2AS-BUILT/BASELINEDESIGNPRE-RESTORATION CONDITION1.010.1Dimension and Substrate - Riffle15.613.2------C4/E4E4 C4 C4/E4Additional Reach Parameters0.0070.4%3.8---1.09---0.380.11/1.10/5.0/27.6/64.0/512.03.6 - 4.0 4.9 - 5.4101-1240.540.0043.20.4%63.01,043---0.0090.00721.221,2580.491.27---C4/E41,0430.4%0.822.2-516.21.2501.01.2-1.51.0------2.2-5---10.610.6------N/A0.0073.356.020.0---13.110.211.6---Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters2.4/8.1/11/15/33/54/-/-2.241.0
DMS Project No. 97087
UT1
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)9.1 10.4 5.3 10.9 9.3 10.5
Floodprone Width (ft)25 65 20 64 21 47
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2
Bankfull Max Depth 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.8 1.3
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft 2)10.7 11.3
5.4 12.4 10.3 12.3
Width/Depth Ratio 7.3 10.1 5.2 9.6 8.1 9.3
Entrenchment Ratio 3.2 8.3 1.9 6.1 2.2 5.0
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)4 28
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.004 0.047 0.024 0.057 0.006 0.024 0.009 0.016
Pool Length (ft)4.2 34.9
Pool Max Depth (ft)2.5 2.6 0.8 2.2 0.4 1.3
Pool Spacing (ft)34 52 8 82 38 56 30 73
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 9 19 21 93 28 50 15 45 23 66 23 66
Radius of Curvature (ft) 4 13 14 60 19 50 8 47 17 52 17 52
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 0.7 2.3 14.0 60.0 2.0 5.3 0.6 3.2 1.8 5.5 1.8 5.5
Meander Length (ft) 35 47 121 171 -- -- -- -- 56 155 56 155
Meander Width Ratio 1.6 3.3 2.3 8.9 3.0 5.3 1.0 3.0 2.4 7.0 2.4 7.0
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 2.2 2.4 2.2 3.5 4.4 5.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)0.0039 0.0280
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
0.4%
0.0160
0.048/3/5.1/6.7/
8.9/13/-/-
---
213
1.4
------
N/A
0.6 0.3
0.07/0.28/7.3/20.1/
37.9/64.0
---
N/A
5.7
1.0
---
---
2.1
---
186---186---
0.0120 0.0170
1.1
---
0.0103
0.0072
---
1.4 1.2 1.1
213--- ---
------
--- --- ---
1.1
E4
--- 25.0 20.3 54.0 24.0
0.4%
21.0
0.22
C4/E4
4.7 3.6 2.5
C4/E4 E4 E4
0.41
Additional Reach Parameters
N/A
0.22
C4/E4
0.4%---------
0.22 0.30 0.41
---------0.2
---------
---
---
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
N/A
------
3.92.2
Pattern
N/A
2.0
------
---
---------
2.5 1.8
12.7
Profile
5.1
5.7
1.0
1.8
------7.4
1.4
1.0
9.4
13.3
9.2
0.70.7
6.7
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 - 2019
PRE-
RESTORATION
UT to Polecat
Creek
UT to Varnals
Creek
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
UT1 Agony Acres UT1-
Reach 3
---
REFERENCE REACH DATA DESIGN AS-BUILT/BASELINE
UT1 UT1
13.2
---
7.1
65
1.4
6.3
36
---
5.7
DMS Project No. 97087
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 505.8 505.9 506.1 505.7 505.9 505.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 505.8 506.1 506.1 505.7 505.8 505.8
Bankfull Width (ft) 14.8 15.0 14.5 20.0 22.5 19.5
Floodprone Width (ft) 150 150 150 N/A N/A N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.5 1.3 1.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.4 1.6 1.7 3.0 2.7 3.0
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)13.2 13.2 13.8 29.4 29.4 28.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.7 16.9 15.2 13.6 17.2 13.3
Entrenchment Ratio1 10.1 10.0 10.4 N/A N/A N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 1.1 1.0 N/A N/A N/A
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 501.8 501.8 501.8 501.5 501.4 501.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 501.8 501.8 501.8 501.5 501.4 501.5
Bankfull Width (ft) 20.8 21.3 21.0 12.8 12.4 13.0
Floodprone Width (ft) N/A N/A N/A 200 200 200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 3.5 3.5 3.8 1.8 1.9 2.1
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)34.9 34.9 39.2 14.2 14.2 15.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.4 13.1 11.2 11.6 10.9 10.8
Entrenchment Ratio1 N/A N/A N/A 15.6 16.1 15.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 N/A N/A N/A 1.0 1.0 1.1
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 504.0 503.9 503.9 504.1 504.1 504.1
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 504.0 504.0 503.9 504.1 504.1 504.1
Bankfull Width (ft) 9.2 9.5 9.7 11.5 11.9 12.3
Floodprone Width (ft) 65 65 65 N/A N/A N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.4 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.2 2.2
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)6.3 6.3 5.8 11.8 11.8 12.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.3 14.3 16.1 11.3 12.1 12.1
Entrenchment Ratio1 7.1 6.8 6.7 N/A N/A N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 1.1 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A
1Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Cross-Section 1 (Riffle)Cross-Section 2 (Pool)
Cross-Section 3 (Pool)
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Martin Dairy Reach 1
*Mophological survey and analysis not required for MY4 and MY6
Cross-Section 5 (Riffle)Cross-Section 6 (Pool)
Cross-Section 4 (Riffle)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2019
UT1
Martin Dairy Reach 2
Martin Dairy Reach 1ParameterMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxDimension and Substrate - RiffleBankfull Width (ft)Floodprone Width (ft)Bankfull Mean DepthBankfull Max DepthBankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)Width/Depth RatioEntrenchment RatioBank Height Ratio D50 (mm)ProfileRiffle Length (ft)12.0 35.9Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0039 0.0193Pool Length (ft)38.2 77.4Pool Max Depth (ft)1.4 2.5Pool Spacing (ft)41 101Pool Volume (ft3)PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)36 75Radius of Curvature (ft)27 75Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.8 5.0Meander Wave Length (ft)60 225Meander Width Ratio2.4 5.0Additional Reach ParametersRosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg Length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100% of Reach with Eroding Banks(---): Data was not provided*Morphological survey and analysis not required during MY4 and MY6Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data SummaryMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019As-Built/BaselineMY1MY2MY31.01.114.51501.01.713.815.210.41.015.013.216.910.010.114.8MY5MY720.632.01.613.10.913.216.71.41501500.90%C4/E47761.270.00460.005SC/0.45/2.8/21.8/45.0/128.0SC/0.18/14.6/45.0 68.5/128.00%0%SC/1.0/6.8/37.9/69.7/ 180
Martin Dairy Reach 2ParameterMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxDimension and Substrate - RiffleBankfull Width (ft)Floodprone Width (ft)Bankfull Mean DepthBankfull Max DepthBankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)Width/Depth RatioEntrenchment RatioBank Height Ratio D50 (mm)ProfileRiffle Length (ft)16.7 51.0Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0166 0.0266Pool Length (ft)36.1 83.1Pool Max Depth (ft)1.1 1.9Pool Spacing (ft)55 111Pool Volume (ft3)PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)39 81Radius of Curvature (ft)29 81Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.8 5.0Meander Wave Length (ft)65 243Meander Width Ratio2.4 5.0Additional Reach ParametersRosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg Length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100% of Reach with Eroding Banks(---): Data was not provided*Morphological survey and analysis not required during MY4 and MY60.16/4.58/10.5/84.1/ 160.7/51213.02001.22.115.710.8Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data SummaryMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019As-Built/BaselineMY1MY2MY3MY5MY71.01.010.238.715.616.112.41.11.914.210.912.81.11.814.211.620020015.31.140.80%C4/E41,2581.220.00720.0070.11/1.10/5.0/27.6/64.0/512.00.55/13.27/24.7/68.5/ 104.7/180.00%0%
UT1 ParameterMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxDimension and Substrate - RiffleBankfull Width (ft)Floodprone Width (ft)Bankfull Mean DepthBankfull Max DepthBankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)Width/Depth RatioEntrenchment RatioBank Height Ratio D50 (mm)ProfileRiffle Length (ft)4 28Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.009 0.016Pool Length (ft)4.2 34.9Pool Max Depth (ft)0.4 1.3Pool Spacing (ft)30 73Pool Volume (ft3)PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)23 66Radius of Curvature (ft)17 52Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.8 5.5Meander Wave Length (ft)56 155Meander Width Ratio2.4 7.0Additional Reach ParametersRosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg Length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100% of Reach with Eroding Banks(---): Data was not provided*Morphological survey and analysis not required during MY4 and MY6SC/0.09/4.3/21.1/50.6/ 90.014.616.15.81.40.6659.7Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data SummaryMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019As-Built/BaselineMY1MY2MY3MY5MY79.29.565650.70.71.41.46.36.313.314.37.16.81.01.17.472.16.7<1.00%C4/E42131.10.07/0.28/7.3/20.1/37.9/64.0SC/9.38/21.5/75.9/ 128.0/256.00%0%0.00720.0103
Bankfull Dimensions13.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)14.5 width (ft)1.0 mean depth (ft)1.7 max depth (ft) 14.9 wetted perimeter (ft)0.9hydraulic radius (ft)15.2 width-depth ratio150.0 W flood prone area (ft)10.4 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 5/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringMartin Dairy Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 97087Cross-Section PlotsCross-Section 1 Martin Dairy Reach 1Monitoring Year 2 - 2019View Downstream5035045055065075085090 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Elevation (ft)Width (ft)102+75 RiffleMY0 (8/2017)MY1 (6/2018)MY2 (5/2019)BankfullBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions28.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)19.5 width (ft)1.5 mean depth (ft)3.0 max depth (ft) 20.6 wetted perimeter (ft)1.4hydraulic radius (ft)13.3 width-depth ratioSurvey Date: 5/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamCross-Section 2 Martin Dairy Reach 1Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Martin Dairy Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 97087Cross-Section Plots5025035045055065075080 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Elevation (ft)Width (ft)103+01 PoolMY0 (8/2017)MY1 (6/2018)MY2 (5/2019)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions39.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)21.0 width (ft)1.9 mean depth (ft)3.8 max depth (ft) 22.7 wetted perimeter (ft)1.7hydraulic radius (ft)11.2 width-depth ratioSurvey Date: 5/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringMartin Dairy Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 97087Cross-Section PlotsCross-Section 3 Martin Dairy Reach 2Monitoring Year 2 - 2019View Downstream4984995005015025035040 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Elevation (ft)Width (ft)110+46 PoolMY0 (8/2017)MY1 (6/2018)MY2 (5/2019)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions15.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)13.0 width (ft)1.2 mean depth (ft)2.1 max depth (ft) 13.9 wetted perimeter (ft)1.1hydraulic radius (ft)10.8 width-depth ratio200.0 W flood prone area (ft)15.3 entrenchment ratio1.1 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 5/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamCross-Section 4 Martin Dairy Reach 2Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Martin Dairy Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 97087Cross-Section Plots4995005015025035045050 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Elevation (ft)Width (ft)110+77 RiffleMY0 (8/2017)MY1 (6/2018)MY2 (5/2019)BankfullBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions5.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)9.7 width (ft)0.6 mean depth (ft)1.4 max depth (ft) 10.4 wetted perimeter (ft)0.6hydraulic radius (ft)16.1 width-depth ratio65.0 W flood prone area (ft)6.7 entrenchment ratio< 1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 5/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamCross-Section PlotsMartin Dairy Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Cross-Section 5 UT15015025035045055065070 10203040506070Elevation (ft)Width (ft)201+04 RiffleMY0 (8/2017)MY1 (6/2018)MY2 (5/2019)BankfullBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions12.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)12.3 width (ft)1.0 mean depth (ft)2.2 max depth (ft) 13.4 wetted perimeter (ft)0.9hydraulic radius (ft)12.1 width-depth ratioSurvey Date: 5/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringCross-Section 6 UT1Cross-Section PlotsMartin Dairy Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019View Downstream5015025035045055065070 10 20 3040506070Elevation (ft)Width (ft)201+22 PoolMY0 (8/2017)MY1 (6/2018)MY2 (5/2019)Bankfull
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plotsmin maxRifflePoolTotalClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay0.000 0.06218 18 1818Reach SummaryParticle CountMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Martin Dairy Reach 1, ReachwideParticle ClassDiameter (mm)Very fine0.062 0.1251 1 119Fine0.125 0.2509 9 928Medium0.25 0.501 1 129Coarse0.5 1.06 6 635Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 11 136SANDVery Fine2.0 2.836Very Fine2.8 4.02 2 238Fine4.0 5.6 5 1 6 644Fine5.6 8.0 7 4 11 1155Medium8.0 11.0 99 964Medium11.0 16.0 7 1 8 872Coarse16.0 22.6 3 1 4 476Coarse22.6 32 3 2 5 581Very Coarse 32 45 66 687Very Coarse 45 64 5 2 7 794GRAVELSmall64 90 3 1 4 498Small90 1281 1 199Large128 180 11 1100Large180 256100COBBLESmall256 362100Small362 512100Medium512 1024100Large/Very Large 1024 2048100BEDROCKBedrock2048 >204810050 50 100 100100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 180.0Channel materials (mm)Silt/Clay1.006.837.969.7ReachwideBOULDERTotal 0102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0-01/2018MY1-06/2018MY2-07/201901020304050607080901000.010.1110100100010000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-01/2018MY1-06/2018MY2-07/2019Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockMartin Dairy Reach 1, ReachwideMartin Dairy Reach 1, Reachwide
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plotsmin maxClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay0.000 0.0620SummaryRiffle 100-CountMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Martin Dairy Reach 1, Cross-Section 1Particle ClassDiameter (mm)Very fine0.062 0.1250Fine0.125 0.2500Medium0.25 0.500Coarse0.5 1.00Very Coarse 1.0 2.0333SANDVery Fine2.0 2.8114Very Fine2.8 4.04Fine4.0 5.6559Fine5.6 8.06615Medium8.0 11.0 121227Medium11.0 16.0 7734Coarse16.0 22.6 121246Coarse22.6 324450Very Coarse 32 45 111161Very Coarse 45 64 181879GRAVELSmall64 906685Small90 128 6691Large128 180 6697Large180 256 2299COBBLESmall256 36299Small362 512 11100Medium512 1024100Large/Very Large 1024 2048100BEDROCKBedrock2048 >2048100100100100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 512.0Channel materials (mm)8.2216.4732.085.0160.7Cross-Section 1BOULDERTotal 0102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0-01/2018MY1-06/2018MY2-07/201901020304050607080901000.010.1110100100010000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-01/2018MY1-06/2018MY2-07/2019Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockMartin Dairy Reach 1, Cross-Section 1Martin Dairy Reach 1, Cross-Section 1
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plotsmin maxRifflePoolTotalClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay0.000 0.062 1 14 15 1515Reach SummaryParticle CountMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Martin Dairy Reach 2, ReachwideParticle ClassDiameter (mm)Very fine0.062 0.12515Fine0.125 0.2503 3 318Medium0.25 0.50 1 1 2 220Coarse0.5 1.02 2 222Very Coarse 1.0 2.02 2 224SANDVery Fine2.0 2.8 2 4 6 630Very Fine2.8 4.03 3 333Fine4.0 5.6 1 4 5 538Fine5.6 8.0 3 3 6 644Medium8.0 11.0 2 5 7 751Medium11.0 16.0 5 2 7 758Coarse16.0 22.6 4 1 5 563Coarse22.6 32 3 4 7 770Very Coarse 32 45 2 1 3 373Very Coarse 45 64 77 780GRAVELSmall64 90 55 585Small90 128 5 1 6 691Large128 180 66 697Large180 256 22 299COBBLESmall256 36299Small362 512 11 1100Medium512 1024100Large/Very Large 1024 2048100BEDROCKBedrock2048 >204810050 50 100 100100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 512.0Channel materials (mm)0.164.5810.584.1160.7ReachwideBOULDERTotal 0102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0-01/2018MY1-06/2018MY2-07/201901020304050607080901000.010.1110100100010000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-01/2018MY1-06/2018MY2-07/2019Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockMartin Dairy Reach 2, ReachwideMartin Dairy Reach 2, Reachwide
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plotsmin maxClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay0.000 0.062 444SummaryRiffle 100-CountMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Martin Dairy Reach 2, Cross-Section 4Particle ClassDiameter (mm)Very fine0.062 0.1254Fine0.125 0.2504Medium0.25 0.504Coarse0.5 1.04Very Coarse 1.0 2.04SANDVery Fine2.0 2.8226Very Fine2.8 4.0117Fine4.0 5.63310Fine5.6 8.07717Medium8.0 11.0 6623Medium11.0 16.0 5528Coarse16.0 22.6 7735Coarse22.6 32 101045Very Coarse 32 457752Very Coarse 45 64 121264GRAVELSmall64 90 161680Small90 128 7787Large128 180 4491Large180 256 8899COBBLESmall256 36299Small362 512 11100Medium512 1024100Large/Very Large 1024 2048100BEDROCKBedrock2048 >2048100100100100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 512.0Channel materials (mm)7.6022.6040.8110.1214.7Cross-Section 4BOULDERTotal 0102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0-01/2018MY1-06/2018MY2-07/201901020304050607080901000.010.1110100100010000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-01/2018MY1-06/2018MY2-07/2019Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockMartin Dairy Reach 2, Cross-Section 4Martin Dairy Reach 2, Cross-Section 4
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plotsmin maxRifflePoolTotalClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay0.000 0.062 1 31 32 3232Reach SummaryParticle CountMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019UT1, ReachwideParticle ClassDiameter (mm)Very fine0.062 0.1255 5 537Fine0.125 0.250 2 4 6 643Medium0.25 0.5043Coarse0.5 1.0 1 4 5 548Very Coarse 1.0 2.048SANDVery Fine2.0 2.848Very Fine2.8 4.01 1 149Fine4.0 5.6 3 2 5 554Fine5.6 8.0 10 3 13 1367Medium8.0 11.0 44 471Medium11.0 16.0 99 980Coarse16.0 22.6 55 585Coarse22.6 32 77 792Very Coarse 32 45 22 294Very Coarse 45 64 33 397GRAVELSmall64 90 33 3100Small90 128100Large128 180100Large180 256100COBBLESmall256 362100Small362 512100Medium512 1024100Large/Very Large 1024 2048100BEDROCKBedrock2048 >204810050 50 100 100100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 90.0Channel materials (mm)Silt/Clay0.094.321.150.6ReachwideBOULDERTotal 0102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0-01/2018MY1-06/2018MY2-07/201901020304050607080901000.010.1110100100010000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-01/2018MY1-06/2018MY2-07/2019Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockUT1, ReachwideUT1, Reachwide
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plotsmin maxClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay0.000 0.062 111010SummaryRiffle 100-CountMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97087Monitoring Year 2 - 2019UT1, Cross-Section 5Particle ClassDiameter (mm)Very fine0.062 0.12510Fine0.125 0.250 1111Medium0.25 0.5011Coarse0.5 1.02213Very Coarse 1.0 2.013SANDVery Fine2.0 2.813Very Fine2.8 4.01114Fine4.0 5.63317Fine5.6 8.0 111027Medium8.0 11.0 161542Medium11.0 16.0 121153Coarse16.0 22.6 121164Coarse22.6 32 121175Very Coarse 32 454479Very Coarse 45 645583GRAVELSmall64 909892Small90 128 7698Large128 180 22100Large180 256100COBBLESmall256 362100Small362 512100Medium512 1024100Large/Very Large 1024 2048100BEDROCKBedrock2048 >2048100108100100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 180.0Channel materials (mm)5.179.5314.665.8107.9Cross-Section 5BOULDERTotal 0102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0-01/2018MY1-06/2018MY2-07/201901020304050607080901000.010.1110100100010000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-01/2018MY1-06/2018MY2-07/2019Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockUT1, Cross-Section 5UT1, Cross-Section 5
APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data
ReachDate of Data CollectionDate of OccurrenceDate of Data CollectionDate of OccurrenceMethod6/6/20184/15/20184/13/201910/17/20189/17/2018*6/19/20196/6/20184/15/20183/24/20197/6/20184/12/20199/17/2018*6/19/2019*Hurricane Florence 1 2019 monthly rainfall from USDA Station Durham 11 W 2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Chapel Hill 2 W, NC (USDA, 2019).Monitoring Year 2 - 2019Table 13. Verification of Bankfull EventsMartin Dairy Mitigation SiteMonitoring Year 2 - 2019Monthly Rainfall DataDMS Project No. 97087Martin DiaryUT1DMS Project No. 97087Martin Dairy Mitigation Site7/18/20197/18/2019Crest Gage/ Pressure Transducer10/17/2018MY1 MY20123456789Jan-19 Feb-19Mar-19Apr-19May-19Jun-19Jul-19Aug-19Sep-19Precipitation (in)DateMartin Dairy 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2019 Durham, NC2019 Rainfall Data30th Percentile70th Percentile