20140338 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2020_20201109

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20140338 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 11/09/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 11/9/2020
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
17. Stream r Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Jeremiah Dow [e-mail]
Project Information
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140338 Version:*1
Existing ID## Existing Version
Project Type: C' DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Maney Farm Mitigation Project
County: Chatham
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: ManeyFarm_96314_MY5_2020.pdf 11.25MB
Rease upload only one R7Fof the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*
('AM ( 41

Seminole Bat(Lasiurus seminolus)
'_ R �-- • '1 .
•
-44 . _ 7,4*
•
•
L • b y f �51
OttrOl
MONITORING YEAR 5 MANEY FARM MITIGATION PROJECT
Chatham County, NC
ANNUAL REPORT NCDEQ Contract 005793
DMS ID No. 96314
USACE Action ID Number 2014-01825
FINAL NCDWR Project Number 2014-0338
Data Collection Period: January- October 2020
Draft Submission Date: October 15, 2020
Final Submission Date: November 4, 2020
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
1°14
WILDLANDS
ENGINEER1NG
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

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 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) (HUC 03030002050050)
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.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.
The Site construction and as-built surveys were completed between October 2015 and February 2016.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
141 Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL

Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) assessments and site visits were completed between January and October
2020 to assess the conditions of the project. Several areas of concern were addressed during MY5.A 0.7
acre area of low vegetative growth was replanted, and soil amendments were added. A dense area of
invasive vegetation was noted and removed along UT3.The beaver dam located downstream of the
conservation easement was removed and caused no damage to the stream bank.
Overall,the Site has met the required vegetation and stream success criteria for MY5.The overall
average stem density for the standard planting zones at the Site is 427 stems per acre, exceeding the
MY5 interim requirement of 260 stems per acre. All restored and enhanced streams are stable and
functioning as designed. Persistent flow and multiple bankfull events were recorded on all streams
during MYS.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL ii

MANEY FARM MITIGATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 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 1-4
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern 1-4
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment 1-4
1.2.6 Maintenance Plan 1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 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 3.0-3.2 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 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment (Standard Planting Zones)
Table 7b Percent Survival by Plot Table (Supplemental Planting Zones)
Table 7c Percent Survival by Species Table (Supplemental Planting Zones)
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
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL iii

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data
30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data
Recorded In-Stream Flow Events
Table 15 Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Attainment Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL iv

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 (El) and enhancement II (Ell)
reaches included UT1 (Reach A and B), ElI; UT1 (Reach C), El; UT2 (Reach A), ElI; U2 (Reach B), El; UT3
(Reach A), ElI; UT3 (Reach B), El; and UT4 (Reach A), ElI; UT4 (Reach B), El. 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 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 Site, 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 5 Annual Report-FINAL 1-1

The following project goals and related objectives established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2015)
included:
Goal Objective Expected Outcomes
Exclude cattle from project Install fencing around conservation Reduce pollutant inputs including
fecal coliform, nitrogen, and
streams. easements adjacent to cattle pastures. phosphorous.
Reconstruct stream channels with stable
Stabilize eroding stream dimensions.Add bank revetments and Reduce inputs of sediment into
banks. in-stream structures to protect streams.
restored/enhanced streams.
Construct stream channels that will
Construct stream channels maintain a stable pattern and profile Return a network of streams to a
that are laterally and considering the hydrologic and stable form that is capable of
vertical stable. sediment inputs to the system,the supporting hydrologic, biologic,
landscape setting, and the watershed and water quality functions.
conditions.
Install habitat features such as
constructed riffles and brush toes into
Improve instream habitat. restored/enhanced streams.Add woody Improve aquatic communities in
materials to channel beds.Construct project streams.
pools of varying depth.
Reconnect channels with Raise local groundwater
floodplains so that Reconstructing stream channels with elevations. Inundate floodplain
floodplains are inundated appropriate bankfull dimensions and wetlands and vernal pools.
relatively frequently. depth relative to the existing floodplain. Reduce shear stress on channels
during larger flow events.
Create and improve forested
riparian habitats. Provide a
canopy to shade streams and
Restore and enhance native Plant native tree and understory species reduce thermal loadings.Create a
floodplain forest. in riparian zone. source of woody inputs for
streams. Reduce flood flow
velocities on floodplain and allow
pollutants and sediment to settle.
Ensure that development and
Permanently protect the agricultural uses that would
project site from harmful Establish a conservation easement on damage the site or reduce the
the site.
uses. 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.
Baseline monitoring(MVO)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 5 Annual Report-FINAL 1-2

1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY5 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
A total of 13 standard 10-meter by 10-meter vegetation plots and one non-standard 5-meter by 20-
meter plot were established during the baseline monitoring within the project easement area. Plots
were established to monitor both the standard planting zones (11 plots) as well as the supplemental
planting zones (3 plots).The final vegetative success criteria for the standard plots will be the survival of
210 planted stems per acre averaging 10 feet in height within the conservation easement at the end of
the seven-year monitoring period (MY7).The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be
the survival of 260 planted stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring (MY5).
While there are no performance criteria for the stems established within the supplemental planting
zones,these areas are monitored to document survival rates of these species.
The MY5 vegetative survey was completed in August 2020.The 2020 vegetation monitoring resulted in
an average stem density of 427 planted stems per acre within the standard planting zones, which is
greater than the interim requirement of 260 stems per acre required at MY5, but approximately 38%
less than the baseline density recorded (688 planted stems per acre).There was an average of 11 stems
per plot as compared to an average of 16 stems per plot in MYO.All 11 of the plots are on track to meet
the success criteria required for MY7 (Table 9a,Appendix 3).
Stem densities were monitored in the three supplemental planting zone plots to document annual
survival rates within these zones.The MY5 survival rates within the supplemental plots ranged from 0%
to 50%with an overall average of 19%, indicating a significant mortality rate since MYO(Table 7b,
Appendix 3). Survival rates of the individual species selected for these supplemental planting zones
ranged from 0% (Arrow-wood (Viburnum prunifolium)), (Spice bush (Calycanthus floridus)), and
(American beautyberry(Callicarpa americana))to 35% (Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)) in MY5 (Table
7c,Appendix 3).These three supplemental planting plots were experimental to see how well understory
planting would work on the site, and results have not been favorable.
Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition assessment table and
Appendix 3 for vegetation plot data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
A 0.7 acre area of low vegetative growth was noted along UTSF Reach 2 (Figure 3.0).This area was
replanted and soil amendments were added during MY5. Eighty, one gallon container trees were
planted in February 2020 which included a mixture of willow oak(Quercus phellos), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), and river birch (Betula nigra). Soil amendments including a mixture of dolomitic lime,
fertilizer, humic acid, and a seed mix of herbaceous vegetation was applied to the low growth area in
July 2020.Trees in the area look healthy with signs of new growth, and herbaceous vegetation has fully
covered the ground.
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) is located immediately adjacent to the project boundary; however,
this farm is certified organic and prevents chemical treatments outside the easement boundary. As a
result, scattered populations of Chinese privet have become established along the perimeter of the
conservation easement. A 0.34 acre dense population of privet along UT3 (Figure 3.0) was treated in
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
141 Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL 1-3

September 2020, along with sporadic plants that occurred throughout the Site. Invasive species will
continue to be monitored and treated as needed in subsequent monitoring years.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY5 were conducted in March 2020. All streams within the Site are stable.
Overall, cross-sections at the Site show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or
width-to-depth ratio.The deposition noted in MY1 for the pools on UT1C, UT2B, UT3B, and UT4B have
stabilized and cross-sectional areas fall within the range of the design parameters. Slight increases in
bank height ratios for some cross-sections are likely the result of the established vegetation causing
increased deposition along the bankfull benches. Bank height ratios fall within the success range stated
in the Mitigation Plan.
A bank pin array was established on UTSF Reach 1 to monitor potential meander bend bank erosion at
cross-section 4. No changes in exposed length of bank pins were observed during the MY5 assessments
indicating bank stability.
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, CCPV map, and
reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
Overall, substrate materials in the restoration and enhancement reaches indicate maintenance of
coarser materials in the riffle reaches and finer particles in the pools.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
Beaver on the parcel downstream of the Site were removed in the fall of 2019. More beaver activity was
noted in the Spring of 2020, impounding water onto the Site. Beaver and the dam were immediately
removed, and subsequent site visits have not documented any new beaver activity. Stream impacts
associated with the impounded waters were temporary and beaver activity will continue to be
monitored during subsequent monitoring years.
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, UTSF Reach 2, and
UT5 had multiple bankfull events throughout the year. Bankfull events were also recorded on all
restoration reaches during all prior monitoring years, 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.As of September 23, 2020, baseflow was recorded for 134 consecutive days
and 264 total days out of 266 days so far this year. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
1.2.6 Maintenance Plan
The low vegetative growth area mentioned in Section 1.2.2 will continued to be assessed for further
supplemental needs, and invasive species will continue to be monitored throughout the Site.
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary
All standard vegetation plots met the MY5 requirement of 260 stems per acre as noted in CCPV.
Replanting and soil amendments occurred in one low vegetative growth area along UTSF Reach 2.
Invasive vegetation was treated throughout the Site.All streams within the Site are stable and
functioning as designed. Beaver activity occurred downstream of the project and impounded water onto
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL 1-4

the Site but no long-term damage resulted.The Site will continue to be monitored for beaver activity
and remedial actions will be implemented if needed. Multiple bankfull events have been documented
within the restored stream reaches at the Site during all monitoring years resulting in attainment of
hydrology success criteria.Additionally,the flow gage on UTSF Reach 1 recorded baseflow for 134
consecutive days during the MY5 monitoring period and has met the established annual hydrological
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 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 5 Annual Report-FINAL 1-5

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 5 Annual Report-FINAL 2-1

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&grou pld=38364
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities.Accessed online at:
http://www.nceep.net/services/Iwps/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 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.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

.,ti' 03030012050020 '
Project Location
'-te ),- n
DMS Targeted Local Watershed S'
'a4
4
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
- [ iP
5
0
cn
<]u]kenbLh Rr! I i� r,i.
A
".te p ..rr+.or
1-1 s 03030002050050 �6. n,
s
• c
" cp
i ' Russell Bc
Ciatk Rd' el
I� vjck Creek —
- - — -- — — — —, ALAMANCE — _ _
Il
u, ‘ CHATHAM
rs� C�) ` �� Ohs Jahn n
07
.indiey+V aSxG so
03030003 10 ry Fd
5aU` - /�40° c5
s.
I „oft.i
owil
`°I', � r f� arty r'01'% � $[k hock Fir
J, tinny t 0t �a 03030002050070 Carr +o-
O ,letrey t'F
/ Opet eek
i
1/44Q iN,,-Wr - )7 72 ff -52
12
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the NC Department of Environmental Quality fa■
Division of Mitigation Services and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement,but is bordered 'ffI?
by land under private ownership.Accessing the site Directons to Site:
may require traversing areas near or along the easement From Raleigh,NC,take 1-40 West towards Durham.Take exit 293A
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not for US-1/US-64/West toward Sanford/Asheboro.Travel
permitted.Access by authorized personnel of state and approximately three miles and take exit 98B for US-64 West.Travel
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in approximately 25 miles,take exit 381 for NC-87 towards Burlington.
the development,oversight,and stewardship of the restoration Travel approximately 1.8 miles on NC-87 North and turn left onto
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their . Silk Hope Gum Springs Road.Continue for 8.1 miles to Silk Hope
defined roles.Any intended site visitation or activity by ` Lindley Mill Road.Take Silk Hope-Lindley Mill Road north 3.6 miles.
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles Turn right on Center Church Road and travel 0.9 miles.The Site is '
and activities requires prior coordination with DMS. located north of Center Church Road.
i
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
ELT I L D L A N D 5 Maney Farm Mitigation Project
ENGINEERING r
0 I Oi5 l I Miles N DMS Project No.96314
ik 1 Monitoring Year 5-2020
Chatham County, NC

„ }'„• y, -'.;L! . . 'ram ill 1 ” '
^� ` J1• - I Conservation Easement
i - - ►+;i,r 1.1 it..+• . }`i « //, Existing Wetlands
y ; • • r
{ Stream Restoration
1.
r Stream Enhancement I
i
Stream Enhancement II .
1 _ 4. • Non Project Streams
l -•-.� Reach Breaks
I
�
r
-
-Isi."-'`
UT48 _ ;� .
•rye
%, -1 • f,W'0 ►) 4+ UTSF
a - y/Reach I
17•F' iv
i., f h y� T 2ldi
,
QM - ‘„0--, t•),..- AiiirVvr, ,,
0,. ? • 9.. - .. ,. ti
's _ „'� Wit,.« .M
°
UT3A ♦ ► , ��
i .i., A 41 \
4..;401''V* l".7•4, •••• ."''' ''' • ' , 4.' le"' ' ' - -
, i
. .., 0.141.0. -
i
iv .,. ef E' lill
2018 Aerial Photography q
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
deP WILD
L A N]7 n S 0 175 350 Feet Maney Farm Mitigation Project
ENGINEERING
4! I I I 1 I N DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Chatham County, NC

Table 1.Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 4,922 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project Components
As-Built Stationing Existing Footage/ Credits
Reach ID Approach Restoration or Restoration Equivalent Restoration Footage/Acreage Mitigation Ratio
/Location Acreage (SMU/WMU)
STREAMS
UTSF-Reach 1 100+00-108+39 2,298 Pl Restoration 2,122 1:1 2,122
108+80-121+63
UTSF-Reach 2 121+63-132+24 1,209 P1 Restoration 1,061 1:1 1,061
UT1A 250+00-253+90 390 Ell Restoration 390 2.5:1 156
UT1B 199+08-200+00 101 Ell Restoration 92 2.5:1 37
UT1C 200+00-202+60 166 El Restoration 260 1.5:1 173
UT2A 295+15-300+00 485 Ell Restoration 484 2.5:1 194
UT2B 300+00-300+74 44 El Restoration 73 1.5:1 49
UT3A 395+79-400+00 418 Ell Restoration 421 2.5:1 168
UT3B 400+00-401+63 84 El Restoration 162 1.5:1 108
UT4A 497+87-500+00 217 Ell Restoration 212 2.5:1 85
UT4B 500+00-501+38 40 El Restoration 138 1.5:1 92
UT5 602+00-608+77 778 P1 Restoration 677 1:1 677
Component Summation Ina
Restoration Level Stream(LF) Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Buffer Upland
(acres) (acres) (square feet) (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 3,860 - - - - -
Enhancement -
Enhancement I 633
Enhancement II 1,599
Creation - - -
Preservation - - -
High Quality Preservation - - - - -
"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.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan July 2014 August 2015
Final Design-Construction Plans July 2014 August 2015
Construction October 2015-January 2016 January 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area' October 2015-January 2016 January 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments' October 2015-January 2016 January 2016
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments February 2016 February 2016
Stream Survey February 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document(Year 0) April 2016
Vegetation Survey February 2016
Stream Survey September 2016
Year 1 Monitoring December 2016
Vegetation Survey September 2016
Stream Survey March 2017
Year 2 Monitoring December 2017
Vegetation Survey August 2017
Stream Survey April 2018
Year 3 Monitoring December 2018
Vegetation Survey August 2018
Invasive Vegetation Treatment October 2019
Beaver Control November 2019
Year 4 Monitoring December 2019
Supplemental Planting February 2020
Beaver Control May 2020
Soil Amendments July 2020
Invasive Vegetation Treatment September 2020
Stream Survey March 2020
Year 5 Monitoring December 2020
Vegetation Survey August 2020
Year 6 Monitoring December 2021
2022
Year 7 Monitoring
2022
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Designer 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225
Jeff Keaton,PE Raleigh,NC 27609
919.851.9986
Land Mechanic Designs,Inc.
Construction Contractor 126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring,NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems,Inc
Planting Contractor P.O.Box 1197
Fremont,NC 27830
Land Mechanic Designs,Inc.
Seeding Contractor 126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring,NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources Green Resource,LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots Bruton Natural Systems,Inc
Live Stakes
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Monitoring,POC Jason Lorch
919-851-9986

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Project Information
Project Name Maney Farm Mitigation Site
County Chatham County
Project Area(acres) 16.69
Planting Area(acres) 16.00
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 35°50'18.00"N,79°20'38.00"Vu
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Carolina Slate Belt
River Basin Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03030002050050
DWR Sub-basin 03-06-04
Project Drainiage Area(acres) 211
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 3%
CGIA Land Use Classification 69%—Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous;28%—Forested/Scrubland;3%-Developed
each Summary Informatio
Parameters UTSF-R1 UTSF-R2 UT1A UT1B UT1C UT2A/B UT3A/B UT4A/B UT5
Length of Reach(linear feet)-Post-Restoration 2,122 1,061 390 92 260 557 583 350 677
Drainage Area(acres) 115 211 16 4 19 11 10 20 76
NCDWR Stream Identification Score 27/37 37 21 25.5 28 26/30 20.75 22.5 32.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification N/A
Morphological Desription(stream type) I/P P I I I I/P I I P
Evolutionary Trend(Simon's Model)-Pre-Restoration II/IV II/IV Ill V II/IV II/V V/VI II/V II/III
Underlying Mapped Soils Cid Silt Loam,Cid-Lignum Complex,Nanford-Badin Complex,Georgeville Silty Clay Loarr
Drainage Class Well Drained-Moderately Well Drained
Soil Hydric Status Cid-Lignum Complex 2 to 6 percent slopes-Hydric
Slope 0.0131 I 0.0086 I 0.0187 I 0.0396 I 0.0187 I 0.0366 I 0.0377 I 0.0232 I 0.0139
FEMA Classification X
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation-Post-Restoration 1%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States-Section 404 X X USAGE Nationwide Permit No.27
and DWR 401 Water Quality
Waters of the United States-Section 401 X X
Certification No.3885.
Division of Land Quality(Dam Safety) N/A N/A N/A
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
Endangered Species Act X X 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
March 24,2014 indicating they
Historic Preservation Act X X were not aware of any historic
resources that would be affected
by the project.
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act N/A N/A N/A
(CAMA)
Correspondence from Chatham
County Public Works Director on
January 12,2015 stated that a
FEMA Floodplain Compliance X X floodplain development permit is
not required since work is not
located in a Special Flood Hazard
Area.
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

_-NM:' '4 -I. j Conservation Easement
: =._.-._ ' '
I : - � � , Sheet 2 0f 2 r///, Culvert Crossing
.,--'• I 0_,,• 4.-: ::4" I Existing Wetlands
•Y. • i ♦ i • Bank Pins
" I UTSF : lit
Rk ,; : L `' I
r ' - Tv-A!Reach 2 4=.,� ''t t' r I Vegetation Plot Condition- MY5
'; ? . i Criteria Met
',� ;, A ' i - Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot
.1 X, _ ; A Vegetation Problem Area MY5
I - /// j Low Growth Area
� .., UT4B
. • Treated Chinese Privet
Zk —
^' - ;i •-,.. , j Stream Restoration
+ - A -. s . 1 Stream Enhancement I
.
it, i ''Z o�: ,- ,V+'`` - Stream Enhancement II
r UT4A
III
UTSF
Reach Breaks
Cross-Section
• Reach 1
i !kiA____Ic ! 'Ep
• Stream Problem Area-MY5
• } Beaver Dam
_,.,7 _,— . liki
I , A Photo Point
' 4 I
. I ' 0 Barometric Gage
,'A0 Flow Gage
it .. 0 Stream Gage
UT3A #<Iiiiib<0 y ■A . . r
l -r. • Vs, r• '.I1 .
Al: 1 ..• , UT2A
UT2B wf 1 •• s.�T :la
AA
r f A • " I 'fir
'. hRoad ..
,� � 'I .CruCC ♦fir 4 ;:- w
i RUTSF `F �� •
4 Reach 1 .9'• A •� -, Ge-,y. i .- ►•. , x i
' '
a I ` A , : ,7t
c� i , 6 ' - - ./- ' 4. ta. 4
i, , , ; s - r
wir 1 I,.. IL
4';'. cii ♦ ♦ .
UT1C _
• j I r T
•
.,
is r r
,'�:: i .
le i ,. "•^ 1• — -
` UT1A; c _ - ,-
el Sheetl_of2 _ 4�,—. • _ " ----
t2018 Aerial Photography ••.�. +� --Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View(Key)
WILI7LANDS Maney Farm Mitigation ProjectENGINEERING , DMS Project No. 96314
4? 0 175 350 Feet Monitoring Year 5-2020
I 1 1 I
N
Chatham County, NC

1 ' L .L.
6 A
i : ;r-
', I�
+, IJ . s 13 . s r
UT3A I «.^ .'�' . Ilk 4 1 '• + u,
Oi�i�iA� ,�• ••;�
or
q. .!- / of
_ i Conservation Easement J. ° ' E
fL4P ' 11
i ///�Culvert Crossing ,x i ,`• .g
- a•-
Existing Wetlands I- - • -
Vegetation Plot Condition- MY5
Criteria Met � L `'' 'f �
Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot ,'; .'. �'..; ''
Vegetation Problem Area-MY5 • ", «{ . : 1 4-,
- :0 4
4t.
Treated Chinese Privet UT1C ,, `
Is N- i ** 21 - r �f
r Stream Restoration 4�, „,r.,s 7:+4-� _ n
[ffl Stream Enhancement I ,I r Y
♦Q A o
Stream Enhancement II
"`-1- 4` ;"taa, . ...,•/ UT1B ' M '
Reach Breaks • �! r
Stationing ii 1s.,,yr . ,;I., ! • :
r. a:
18 i-h. .._
Cross-Section 2 . . J. •
® Barometric Gage '
A Photo Point • 1 _ _e'.
O Flow Gage .' '-
O Stream Gage �,� � isn+nn - , --- . - '20-18A,' + ''' ..-
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
,WI L D L A N D S 1111 0 90 180 Feet Maney Farm Mitigation Project
ENGINEERING DMS Project No. 96314
'4? 1 I 1 1 1 , Monitoring Year 5-2020
N
Chatham County, NC

• ,a- . . 4 iitIV 4 ... i i : . , . t , •1•••• . ,i. , Lo.•
„ — '® ,r- - 4r ! •.a"7.! t� *fir' i+ y r r
`: .. , -.; , '' '- ,,p- , :t '-‘1 b. t 44;, ',... :,..i....3."°, 1,. 4.) ,.... .'- t -_
w_:r -E
7.1 ° *.:.'..41.:
I. t , LT) + t4'
Tr 7; 10 ��1 ( 0, .A Y • 5 ''
y •• JI. � _
' r,� �`
-. _ 13 i .
i,.. 1 y 9 3F
‘t'. - I.
.. I _ _ !Conservation Easement
l '1-' 28 ' . 29 -
/��� ::1 : :et11
8
.12 Vegetation Plot Condition MY5
•
` d ♦ 7 Criteria Met
•♦ Q Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot R.
�, ii/4101 ill ,
♦, --1P.—' ; Vegetation Problem Area-MY5 i
♦ -. 11t Low Growth Area
•
•• `�i Stream Restoration
10
♦
Stream Enhancement I
i VP
-I. Stream Enhancement II
i � Reach Breaks
Reach 1 .4 - ` .,.� 1 • ,I. Stationing 11;
- hr, i Cross-Section
6
i' Photo Point
"- ` ® Stream Gage
•
018 Aerial Photography _ ,.
0 VLF I L D11111 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
LG AN NE DI S Maney Farm Mitigation Project
ENGINEERING 0 85 170 Feet DMS Project No. 96314
I i i i I Monitoring Year 5-2020
N
Chatham County, NC

Table 5a.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UTSF Reach 1(2,122 LF)
Number Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as in As-Built Unstable Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 38 38 100%
1.Bed
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 38 38 100%
Condition Length Appropriate 38 38 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 37 37 100%
4.Thalweg Position meanderbend( )
Thalweg centeringRun at downstream of 38 38 100%
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Bank 2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,caving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 30 30 100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 16 16 100%
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3.Engineered Structures lacking any substantial flow
ia.Piping 16 16 100%
Structures underneath sills or arms.
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent 14 14 100%
of influence does not exceed 15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat —Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth_1.6 14 14 100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5b.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UTSF Reach 2(1,061 LF)
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as in As-Built Unstable Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 i 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 17 17 100%
1.Bed
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 16 16 100%
Condition Length Appropriate 16 16 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 16 16 100%
4.Thalweg Position meander bend(Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 16 16 100%
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Bank 2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,caving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 10 10 100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 7 7 100%
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3.Engineered Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a.Piping 7 7 100%
Structures underneath sills or arms.
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent 3 3 100%
of influence does not exceed 15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat —Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth_1.6 3 3 100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sc.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT1C(260 LF)
Number Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as in As-Built Unstable Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 9 9 100%
1.Bed
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 8 8 100%
Condition Length Appropriate 8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 8 8 100%
4.Thalweg Position meander bend(Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 8 8 100%
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Bank 2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,caving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no n/a n/a n/a
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting n/a n/a n/a
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3.Engineered Structures lacking any substantial flow
ia.Piping n/a n/a n/a
Structures' underneath sills or arms.
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent n/a n/a n/a
of influence does not exceed 15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat —Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth 21.6 n/a n/a n/a
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5d.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT2B(73 LF)
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as in As-Built Unstable Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 i 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 3 3 100%
1.Bed
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 2 2 100%
Condition Length Appropriate 2 2 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 2 2 100%
4.Thalweg Position meander bend(Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 2 2 100%
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Bank 2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,caving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no n/a n/a n/a
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting n/a n/a n/a
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3.Engineered Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a.Piping n/a n/a n/a
Structures' underneath sills or arms.
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent n/a n/a n/a
of influence does not exceed 15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat —Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth>_1.6 n/a n/a n/a
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5e.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT3B(162 IF)
Number Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as in As-Built Unstable Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 5 5 100%
1.Bed
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 4 4 100%
Condition Length Appropriate 4 4 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 4 4 100%
4.Thalweg Position meander bend(Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 4 4 100%
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Bank 2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,caving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no n/a n/a n/a
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting n/a n/a n/a
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3.Engineered Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a.Piping n/a n/a n/a
Structures' underneath sills or arms.
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent n/a n/a n/a
of influence does not exceed 15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat —Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth 21.6 n/a n/a n/a
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5f.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT4B(138 IF)
Number Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as in As-Built Unstable Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 5 5 100%
1.Bed
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 4 4 100%
Condition Length Appropriate 4 4 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 4 4 100%
4.Thalweg Position meander bend( )
Thalweg centeringRun at downstream of 4 4 100%
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Bank 2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,caving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no n/a n/a n/a
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting n/a n/a n/a
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3.Engineered Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a.Piping n/a n/a n/a
Structures' underneath sills or arms.
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent n/a n/a n/a
of influence does not exceed 15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat —Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth 21.6 n/a n/a n/a
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5g.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UTS(677 LF)
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as in As-Built Unstable Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 i 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 17 17 100%
1.Bed
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 16 16 100%
Condition Length Appropriate 16 16 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 16 16 100%
4.Thalweg Position meander bend(Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 16 16 100%
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Bank 2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,caving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 9 9 100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 9 9 100%
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3.Engineered Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a.Piping 9 9 100%
Structures underneath sills or arms.
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent n/a n/a n/a
of influence does not exceed 15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat —Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth>_1.6 n/a n/a n/a
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Planted Acreage 16
Mapping Number of Combined %of Planted
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold
Polygons Acreage Acreage
(Ac)
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0 0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3,
Low Stem Density Areas 0.1 0 0.0 0.0%
4,or 5 stem count criteria.
Total 0 0.0 0.0%
Areas of Poor Growth Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small
0.25 Ac 1 0.7 4%
Rates or Vigor given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total 1 0.7 4.0%
Easement Acreage 17
Mapping %of
Number of Combined
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Easement
(SF) Polygons Acreage Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas of points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1,000 0 0.0 0.0%
Easement Encroachment
Areas of points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none 0 0 0%
Areas

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

r
r r
���� i�� 1��,. � � � . r9a�w� 1 ,l�� � ,r,J �I � �ipri�ln ., � ..,, • a �„
1\., to
r ,r ,fit R , fir' . i �y- h'1 1 , '� @1 iy: y - xa _ '� � 1� �,
to �tg §� , $ar '. i �' � 1 � , i
-vtli
�, + " rM. p ,'W., '• g- pi g am• 1: t. y %,� I Y t. : .`T F , ,_ �'
) *
.,!:.'-A"*.-$�< `` , 1 agt � r. `* 4 t ;, -gyp 1. i+`5., —:, .;\
s. ' 's &; ,tx : Peal E° ' .'� S i,wl \ i �- l f c _
� ' 4' '4,r/q Y
.� 4 ,0 �C ri' Yam' ,� '
zR t�- a r t t - �a b''_c y. "a -r
4;iti
,', � 1
PHOTO POINT 1 UTSF R1—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 1 UTSF R1—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
!4, yy��
y p ,k lf r,
.. ..,..,,, ..,„. ,
. . .,_
1 s- C' T ___ ,, _4
... .,..,. ,
taa }' yam. , ___
t. _ $
...,..._,
__.
t_ J
PHOTO POINT 2 UTSF R1—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 2 UTSF R1—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
f
r,� "i l
l:
�
a, s' f
PHOTO POINT 3 UTSF R1—looking upstream(3/03/2020J PHOTO POINT 3 UTSF R1—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
kill
� Maney 111.
Mject
Appendix
Far 2:Visualitigation Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

-
�r �� � f e' .- ,� Yakli, h ` - tE � .4 'Y x. -: = ' ,
i � ' ks� q a yy y y: yet ?
k$ y
�s v£ „'�' "---, , i V,yr t 'G "_'�F Fya.•-• Y .� ''� 'a'�F° -..``
• gyp,,' J-, ' �� 1'' + fi .t'n•, ¢ - � [=.
Y 5 ' V - %,�,`"Y'.S `K" i, • d. .�,,. ---_ •
, 447 _`JJ.' 'm{ y1 S �, ! i 1 {
Aike
Lr �' f";"''`i ear xi sr g '. -- _ A.
r ; f S,��:
F- as z W:'Y x - - u.*,•: .,: 1 . yw� -..g ti. as -#
�� �:- � l _ t, _ - ,1,1 f!-,� ° ; • ' t-- .s a` '�i• '� ..w '� K its ` }
y e,'� ` . i Fels ,+ : ''- �,
PHOTO POINT 4 UTSF R1-lookin upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 4 UTSF R1-lookin downstream(3/03/2020)
•
a .-ape
Fes} _ a ey# ,-:-,r„?.-,'-,-'' v ;t„.4 , ,,,gii:4 -;-",,ftt-';- -; „i''.-:%i'V-
' ° A �� s� -
YY '� 'i"S a � Tt � r� "`� f' '�:f R'.' _Izgjt p, F"' r' .
w. F `'� >z �k n. r i� a�Yi�ld91 �l G Pi-1 + `
I fix:
try ` „' kr �'•a`t�;�x`:�. ti, y
PHOTO POINT 5 UTSF R1-looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 5 UTSF R1-looking downstream(3/03/2020)
:, �o iF4!
h
'-- -. - -ai\j� � I r —4 dux - '
FS � 1 r � H f `
1
ms. n.�1 3 4:l,. .'k;
1
f.
kr
PHOTO POINT 6 UTSF R1-looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 6 UTSF R1-looking downstream(3/03/2020)
`nt Maney Farm Mitigation Project
01 Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data-Stream Photographs

1 -� ' ',I r t i. t,� q Yg5•� F 1 'w a� l`L 4 \ \'.
�R � - I { ��✓.�s � ��r3 Y"� C; �` -- / �`� ri p • 4 r �`,. I '�.1 t y 1
t �' i '€ -��> S� n 'v l ! >'� -� S - .',I_(.I#��Yhx.`IRS dv i' r V 4-a a
'�r C =_ - .y r:8 , .. T- rif ,t'E
f. - 7 t .-';'J.,:''-'444' '''''., '''' ----:--- , 1-1 .sj.,:-, -,? : N7-4,1c; V ,iii :1, - - '
1-it-t- ''-'-' ''`'' - *41''`N ' ,,' IF ' .7,-::,...---fi. - .1'
ttt •,--k- : , .,.-.47.1 - _,..,.. L.4. .. , ,; ,-- : , 1 ,,, ,, ,
iitr
- _. i r r� .
•
r.;i1-\.',,...:` u' 4.;'_"1-fj-,IN," -I..- .,,- : .1 4",..4_-'-'' .: ' ,ifi '..ir k - ,--- ''',1-1,' 1. , - ti
sJ }
..,'',y ...,-ro4,-.-, ,-,. ':,_ 'i ,, . ,„Arlikali.--'- - ,, P- ,i, . ) _
hatirik
PHOTO POINT 7 UTSF R1—looking upstream(3/03/2020J PHOTO POINT 7 UTSF R1—looking downstream(3/03/2020J
k. ,
' ' € ii!
-7 — 40,-.0%tk vi:,-,,t4 ttlre.4.1 , ''-..5.--,:,-,---k,.. 2.".,::=2-4--,A;.- , ' - -„---4...,,,._--,, ...,... .,5,:•;--. . - .....- .1, , .
t 1, 65' S4 3 . '
r- _ .yqv _. -, e v
fir, •��•. t�-,"
Ir
i - VIq l'i
PHOTO POINT 8 UTSF R1—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 8 UTSF R1—looking downstream(3/03/2020J
( «` �� 2y
r
\II: ,'1 ii,-.2 ''.‘T-', ,.▪-▪ 4" 9-141\V
kt,
'`, _ � ; A �7 �� � �5 g,'s. �' yt- vas
3A - i -A 5`� _ it -` ' I kg A s �_, , ,� T'a "r �T
a r i "a ar
�� -ems a' - „- y s , 3 0.-1/4 , #. tir $. ,g —.
�t �Y •,--3 .� �� s /-,/`fir - 3
_ Pam= [ ' h� r,71„ t'.-/" c'� '�. '^"�
� yr � ' � � ✓ � 7,. '
it b � 4 � .? - [ (1
1
PHOTO POINT 9 UTSF R1—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 9 UTSF R1—looking downstream(3/03/2020) 1
,
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Data—Stream Photographs
�,

io,- 1 '+ Feel ! s di( tc"�F' �.- Fly + t 5..- ! ,
1 r/i ;1 Li.,*,:,, tl j ,1. . r iyi R 1 a �. € , Q
,-' ot. -lit, 4
' ✓ .� h�, dip '-', f 'r r kP
�-=Nictr.--,! :,..,- ' rMk ar _ �- ,4r �,� .1' ' '-' - !/
41 ' i7 Itif;''''t i• , "1,,,c-tr -.1--;:',
ill
410*,
' s '' , t •. f ' fin r h Y
/kr
.."/
15,
*-7... ., - gvr„,,, * J.@-44 -1"...,--.,---1,5' tzt.-L-,%-:-:-.*-..., •• Y-'4,,/-;• ii,'"-V
f
�k 4 - 3.isr,,t1 ex, _ -,--z-': -'---,-%i,.,-_-'-;•,--'-'0.t,e,,,, '`-•'.,%:. ' ,_' .,I ---- , -- ---'-0.7%'-e-„e 1' 'i"" ','"r" ,*"ri'.C- _t' .. '' ''..
PHOTO POINT 10 UTSF R1-looking upstream(3/03/2020J PHOTO POINTS�10 •UTSF R1-looking downstream
al��Iyyy(3/03/20a20)
\ , •r �y {�,� k 1 r,hf( A
$a it,'.-''
a jo,y F..F,c.'V's `X. YM1 1 70 £a ( YY
1.
ft',
h � b $e
.F t�t a M* - c � -- i t r '-�Ob [y; z
' �''-`� F Sy���`]\ ..k �� Y 1. . -�, � �__ v.�,
i h �T . ....yy��'' ', 4
4i dy 4 ',11. i r'r f "--tie:::
! rb- ' F y;r, Feh ,i llkat•rg 'S�p ,-,?,,
�' ' 3� w e- r ',_%' h l{ ° ' /fir:' ' I_a �,y - �,� '{ r aF- -' ,-7:
_,_)
� � _�1 � Pis i _v�, �4�� � �t�.'' /�` }i � _ �., r -t `�'
- x i - k � T F FN e §:�r�r ly, •= 1 ' I +' y 7' i 'r ::S _ 4.�,. '� ', _ --,
,, - / ,- : ' __ ; , i____,-:2:,,-_--:::___-. ::-_- 1.,-.N.-i-
PHOTO POINT 11 UTSF R1-looking upstream(3/03/2020J PHOTO POINT 11 UTSF R1—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
e,„;,---',-/f/"' y ...r, .
esiiiil rjIll
`3+ -\.'t� 1 S it k iw a Y . 't � ; 1
'. � * J•• 'a r 0 ,
- a ,, ,"'x" Asa{
IN!
';,i4Z-,-;,-4j. .t..„„-,..;,,,. ,
rpm
�;�:�� -K¢ ems''! �-.1- � �� - V I�
, ,
0
s 1 _..,,
il
sr J L 7 / r-s
PHOTO POINT 12 UTSF R1-looking upstream(3/03/2020J PHOTO POINT 12 UTSF R1-looking downstream(3/03/2020)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data-Stream Photographs

T w yr _ F .,
-..''.;,'-,f,,A,-;i%i.Lrr.7.„.F.„:.-,""I„fe„i.-t.-44i,:..,.,)..1,r01
,44.„4i.p.f4,p.;:,'0i 1,,'4.„i_,a"..:.t,."_;=-e,,-."'t"-,:'.,:';..',,,.aw p { w'eti,-.1-
, i" Cam:
Fier . x, ' , '4 .F iir 17
3i= Y + - f
.'. Iv.-,,---.o,_--.7l1,.k:.-1-,•,-.--•_..!-
____ .....c.
--1773,11:4,,,,,, _.;:.:, :.:I.,:,:::::,..50-'44i4,...:2.1$:,01--,:;,:''../-: :1._ -, r:,,.., ':-: ' ,'. .,.-_____I- __ ,,,,.,_,.,, _.,. _____ _
:4S'A' <Ty_-4,p' .,f---d,- ',.',,,,:,-,. -,' I. , , l' , t-- _ — --- ,
'w A� g
4f1
14-
:I'� a s a i ' Y�i;a v f _� . � ys i III a "4 €r Deeti,\!
rO� it3\ �4"x
PHOTO POINT 13 UTSF R2-looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 13 UTSF R2-looking downstream(3/03/2020)
r "1
cA:1,.--A I v_„,, ,,,/
-, _ , _ ......„ .,„.., ..,,,,„ _, , , ,... F.
VI
a
..S— __ (s tom' ''` v --lw f ,,,;').-A. .,,---:-
' I
_'*e. q
om ` \,,,,..„
�� �. yt 1 y\a'4\\ \a y 434
-� S$ t� t , _ i. 1:.: o _•` @ `\ �'�. •�: .�Jam'°" �`.,r t'e � '� �P ° x + S,::s
il
4 - r � ' i ✓ �j �y \ q�yg \ r` _ gv4�y � x
t
} S,r 4,i 'I-
'k 4, p�� �Y 'Ne�'1S\,Ia1'�,Y� . 6i4i1T r� 7.i'�4.
10
PHOTO POINT 14 UTSF R2-looking upstream(3/03/2020J PHOTO POINT 14 UTSF R2-looking downstream(3/03/2020)
•
f 3i
L
-_ �», .f ,, � a _ df c' s ,L s�c; 1 ram• r ,yv' I s•
.�� y, F
a 1 ya F � -'""ij �'"i-',a'w a - r F, brY /� - ° C: '4
yy� 9
,„
-_ .__•:,,-,;12.1-4-7*-,f, Ait- -';..."--117..I.„-*,..
tr.„.„;..:7 lc: 7,--el, , 0 .: Atio.%.-7k-,-4.:
- - -..''L'� �i Y K x'e f''Y- Y Rom` �':h '
1
. r
d
PHOTO POINT 15 UTSF R2-lookin u stream 3 03 2020 PHOTO POINT 15 UTSF R2-lookin downstream 3/03/2020)
` Maney Farm Mitigation Project
`�'� Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

`=- "�a<i •u b e ' ,� f tip } e �i ! }
7. � -� r v ,ram x 3 � ? ,�. ..
is �-.1 za`� rs xL ?Olfi yg +, ".4 ,d'! ; �'7' -^ r+Fate, '' 3,�Pf`'�
� .,.3 _..,' ''' ,: y; s u'4=' e*iw ' --.a . -17 'i
A Say. .r; 7 G � a • r�v'� -' � � "� '!.�
_ d P.. t ti kA.45i.
Ui
( r F6.1� Hai.$ / - {,�..'
PHOTO POINT 16 UTSF R2—looking upstream(3/03/2020J PHOTO POINT 16 UTSF R2—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
` , ; V— Zi j s` �� -!lc. a ,.
..•Lie:4-.. i.,..ip.r;•==•-',; ,:':-...
s +4 d 1� ." 4 h 01€ i . t i 'AEI- 0 .: !. . ' ..
,,,iy.-v,,,,...,k,. .„... - . ,,, . 4‘,
° -,. x *'G ._ may,, 421 : '- '"s b "tea `.. � �� Nx�'ti" .
,,,. . 1 rx T'$ ii, i +r' fir.; ✓ k:A i<
s�
ti
�' ., `'4. r�` '. l`a`w�ttl;�fii i t.� "P ^s., �� u td"su =� s Q�t Y5� �-
12
a�g ,e �; �'` vT "� rra � � ,its rPyr,.3 � � �" '� ''; .�f-iPi�
�k '4 i7 am ..44 t. :f'k�. •,b,' - i r_,, �' s `
y. Iiii '�445� Y'�^' ' , 'ti\ ir'''.' t ` s ti' Frey -r: �1 '•_.. ti '-1 A'i4y; •, ' '1 di
j y • ► ' - •
,
PHOTO POINT 17 UT1C—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 17 UT1C—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
O `
-4 '1 lh,
_ 'c
Y
17.,,
r
PHOTO POINT 18 UT1C—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 18 UT1C—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
, Maney Farm Mitigation Project
e Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

w -
! a 1.
te
:iaritt '.. : .1,' ,•?7 '_ i,. -
--
•�y �f.r. .,- - S 4, T' ram'
)- ..cr- 'N 4k` Pt r. ".j " rt , T:' `
`, '' 3J :. c . _ i, '}` rest a .'
.ice '•, 'Qf .y` `] (��-,1�� ' ;, t,` _ a ` ` ' -
rvila
PHOTO POINT 19 UT1C—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 19 UT1C—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
r
��.��. }
fib: �fi � I _. §. � ��+�'�'
x. 1 p t
p,
v'e
PHOTO POINT 20 UT1C—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 20 UT1C—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
,?' - ' ,' ,, t t i q
Igl
"' - i .a h �v !' ` r
�:
JI _ �J ,
Nti-
PHOTO POINT 21 UT1C—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 21 UT1C—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
,�, Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

e4S.P�- y _ f• - I [ ff f'' ,.f4i 'ins.... ems^ Y,
> rryi � a r€4,& 'fig ,� `w -44 ."z z' -%,' *
:,-,,L,--,,— „;4tIki.,:;,;,, ,,,i,, „: ',:V..,„,;,::„.7— 'Lc.. „t--"`;;-'''.*•• ',-'"V.St-4.i.% '',-V4V,--',1'111,-,,,'-'''1,-;,1,4;
„..,. ....a4i::: .--:',- ":„. z". .---'7‘,!--- •..- ..` i--`,-: - '1',0.' -%,"'`,"'' ,94''-:',--"N.:,14,1".*:), N-";.-., virtiott.. ..-.--!;11.:''.._ i.,4.i,
,._=,. ...?— t-,44h,2 = .'",,":"-4706t,;.•°.1, t;' :p , .," ,,,,..-.:-.N4A=---,:',--..c'-..-:::,L.-..,..,-• -rioki,„- ,_-‘• .,,,'4 4-.;,1,,,,,,,,,,-..,---•',,.. 1%;--
;_ �� #r �� �' ;c 1s ��� '. .: ,'�, �� ��'` 1'�1 �1. "�4''d�ar�`�- .a��,.,, �.�r 3� �.•• '.�:i
_` e ay e ,1 r
' ,ter q - -l� - # a y;
�� r?"rz. a fit�� igc � r ���f.�,ygr�f �i � ,# �x� �= ��� .'••�� , ''• , a , ,,
`r j si 1 vs-1 ,+ •_. ,.�� �.• -a n�y y:h ;•fir �., y �,,,., -•w'
' �' �Y F '_ • ryc ep� �{' • 4 Y4?`T-�} 41 76�4s,�r
F_` L £. �5�#: a i ]°�^� �$` 1. ,, 3 � F�^', � F ,,,d. M•""'. k. Ley.. -„„'
'-.. , ., i. T. .4 �% r r`r _ .s'`. '�d'� `.t L'4 ,c!'?•: ;*. ",'tom �,�7 ti;�.
r
�1�t �" ! _ ! f14'� - Ir" - • p a "f.-; r .fir` f • ,i" -'".� mix "` At
sh r -' K 1A ! , y�y
PHOTO POINT 22 UT2—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 22 Uet, T2—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
lai
4
--44t
i q '`.i S at-. .f s ' . kC.., --,-a -- '� ' ,:--.te} ,�,7 , d - 7. µ . ? ,.»- 1 � - 5. #i a, � r z{ ' ,E- w 3 t� M ���k
:P1'-'4.1f‘.;i.-r.';-'0','.4-V'' •.'
4 s..a - ,.--ii".`Ati , x.. j' 0 - _. -''• 'r:' w'.pf i• 'Ar:`
PHOTO POINT 23 UT2—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 23 UT2—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
_i, .- • _. Yam, ��r° t- '_.^a•n 4 v,,,,, 'i9 r,.�s�• . —i
.,.a f �a t r 4sy i_ J� ¢ . s +ro. �J
t
44t ,
'-- ..,, `_ a .``T a7 _ r '`'yt, _, i { i 1-= � ' -•• _.' s< 1 ' y;, i z` -U � ,j ys - s hkM; ri• . .ft r ' , ,.a - ; _ kA �.4 ate ' Y"kf
-ftf
f v-"'t. 7 ---'----.14;;'-- It. ... -se:igw....1.„.4_1,410,:rt .,.,4,...„,. .
to
,,,,z.. ..er.:-...,..;...r......-.....--„:„.-,.,... -
"r
PHOTO POINT 24 UT 2—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 2. __ .
4 UT2—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
` Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Data
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

- _ -� '
Y -'# � -Yf+ r- A } S _ - • a-ti ` � �- :7*73 Y 3+l -" gyp ' �3 1. fT ._ g - O' �
t '-- - F�€ { • - - " -b. � ^ .-r — - d � P � c -41-4• `��f • L
- � ;�,F.�" .z, ,.�-�r'Mit�,, -' r'e" ' 'd -__ - _ 4 ...^ate e �
„. , •"-.-4, -,- .... 3•Q"•,-..,:-..,,"--. 3.4Nt.z"-4-=- :,-',zt:. '''..-4-
- i .- ° r f rF` "Ik7 may; `„ ..:.!`_ x '/x - .,� - ¢ ,� "
! a= (yam_ _ * x_ r , y - § y �'r ! ij�,-e'er! r�y .g, 7 ^_�, ,, ,,•,,
--:-
- 'f'" }T�l, li -s• "�e .3�',v %t; .:_ ij, f' k-- ^fir �,. �: '
* �r3 i -� „'s! s 1f1,•;,!'n/1' 4 -y 1 - - , 5 1 1 ? mac
ram? & ts = _ r :
PHOTO POINT 25 UT3—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 25 UT3—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
�-Y`
9� ` ' ._
- , . s
��
`;, --sue
`-+:: , ,+ .� -f R 1- %'- _ a-a EL
,j a • i
° �g Sr �. ' ;� , t., . • ,v r t \ . / _
..��. .. .. . y A J
PHOTO POINT 26 UT3—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 26 UT3—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
y� �� y F J Or,� �u� S,}
4 1y .v. s
I : 8 ..' a �4 t r i r _
•
3 -. '4/ s zi,.--� .. ^� --..-� 'day t ::I , A
.pr 'kW. ` , _ _
- _ - (, gin'=, - ! "K ti�- -L ,' x _ " -
1 =_,, � `'�- � ,lyr� r • r FL1-�'I y:jr. ,. .r. sR9, ` i.,t4a - 4' -;:`-€ '�"'3
, ,.,z f,� y - T'- I<' '� 1 v, v of I =FP ±. -\ „ , 7. - ,iT-
0
PHOTO POINT 27 UT3—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 27 UT3—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
,�, Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data-Stream Photographs

S.
.-y"�`_ d e -vim - ,e .
`� f 4z r st 'k a�-�''*` ILi
i ,, ar +�,.�st-.,�'..
Y _ P }:Y h '.- i} ti M1vt yr }fit
- -7;-"--r-';;-- '''.- ----....,-'-•:-/i':5' ''.-.--14i,---,iT.':` ---,.,_'-''''.4-.: -...:'''''.t44.-7—.,ri
+� .�`_ fig' �'`i e�,a i r _ .:-. '4g ," r �; h;�:. "f��,;. w
., er r,y'� _ cf. Is.-7�Y`��4[f - i ".e`a' 3+rs p; r\ ^4�._% - ,r-1
r 1 7 s g,1 mow. • i- ti -_'sy 'm5`• ` ::',.. �. -
/�i' i F��P! s ������33��'.��i � t N � 1� - � z��4 1. Fes., d - �.
- ice._ P - „ - l{ %-� y- -4 .•:u j yY.,
_ F q` .dg'- ',,zv'� _ . } x, -: l,/ l�,,k a .e., s '..r r`fit _1. a c ,,..,.-.' t_
ter , '+r 1F-� Y' f ' ,k i�iy�. �1` ',N �1 i'
PHOTO POINT 28 UT4—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 28 UT4—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
4.
y ` - [C�F j��`q 2 (Ct2 ! P P � � -. -
ty gh, A N'y ! f f 'N". -/ , ( !^
,, , 't',I,,l*y'14-'%. -'i-s, '-,',,-,.-,,1-.':"',,k.,_,.i.:..'.,.: "-t.,-•---1.".n'-,'2,-,.-,,-.......,-.--1:-,'.,1''' !,'-.0.J.:14'','..',.,,.v..1--...'4 T.*01.-,
e - 1 i4- {4 :6 fb Lf yfl sf ,', / A 7
\ iy,
%%tit
kt
1-10
Ktr _k \ r.,l; 2 � rff �- I , f "4tr p�/ = - 'r� '"pi-
-----'-'-'01:' �e 'i "{m Y\ .r 3.-'!''a h ' r -.. - '; �� -" _ %> '. � ' 'r t °T� '.S,i'L AL
v.
itt
�1 rya('y�q, ,,_,,..,,,,, .,,s0,,,,„,,, ..,_�_ ' &l -,L . ` 1'i411 ' 7♦ f �' J � _ Z, x
"--:, lc - ' .
,,., .. .:.,,,, , , t„, . *4,-,r—cA,-- - -r • ,
«� • `.- `3 01 \ irk
PHOTO POINT 29 UT4—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POI:::UT4—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
a
'�'''i S i v a,i� �1 as � , / `r. ..
, *ttit
� _- fC`_ -S.�' ` q r r './ �� __. { tea. � .
'�z i + t * j
c w gs - ` s a
�, K. 5 i OE.-
-�` �y� ; !
' '�5.."c- - �i 4, y �--, r , '` 4.
�aa' � '''� � '� 'd' t� .Ar Tyr' }w* 'n s
II ' .suefrtr� 1 _- �� -: �' . $t fi -"4/1-'
, -.,-",- ,, .,*-1/4„---,,,,..,:
-41
4 , 4 i ii.-. { �v'�j`--3 J, a '-4ra� "is • v - v'.'• ' & ,w^,ZT4+-i
•
aI
PHOTO POINT 30 UT5—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 30 UT5—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
,� Maney Farm Mitigation Project,
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

, ,,,,,,,,, ,p'',..,tii*".ik,kr r-,e.
„.- 4A- _ ,2.,kilic-,,, $
{�.t. �'� y. iiet s` tea' . d *{{ �' ! -."' ' �` i� .� Ik _ � r f
, - '.-!-...._ il ' ' _.,,,,,i,\74,$,-4--; ,'4`V,
L
lr. y.--p,10.1- y _ • .�.J
, 0
k, - ._.•,�� arc '- ,.
1,t-F---- ,oty. . ,-._.-x -, ,„,,,-.14,-.,0,,,,.... „....,..-.„4 ,‹..-.7----, -.",,,,-w4..., At,: „.....04,,fr
4
�- }f; ---S, --..°' 40 I *�j Jr , .r '" Ti f a .- 6! say:.
.S h' qq h t�'1yy14hi"`�ii 2 1 Y I �€ { - it.
1 i" v�. 't `3'
,if
t,i,,
, ,
J. .. lrf 7 i 1 1�1fi`rll h°!"T'tl',, ''lorigc..4,,iPl.
r- €,. k 3_ _. ^F`, 40' ''. �. f�' p,�-g am
�` -hr !I1��!f��.�l�� � �� .F2F• � �_ .- J',� `s �'�t `��"�\`t �`1 � _ \ �3 �p,,..„ .„
vim• : " It' ! lli 7E".aA� sw m : r '�:
F ,, r , ✓ u 4 - - ,it
[ y �r, -,
�j�� a
°eli, � l �; '' i� � � c a v ' a`ek » '� as r a y ^� v
_ :. yV -�i �' .. --ram! ".yr1'-/ . 'f•_
I` ]fir '
PHOTO POINT 31 UT5—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 31 UT5—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
�y T
Y - `x " "1�,. T�� q Ar JP .yes
_ 4• ' 0 '41-;;Al.
- r,,,,. ..., „Lk-,,c:-,-.. ..
� rya —ff�1'
j 5C - p s 9 {'aye
�% ` -YV� 4h ¢ fax
PHOTO POINT 32 UT5—looking upstream(3/03/2020) PHOTO POINT 32 UT5—looking downstream(3/03/2020)
wManey Farm Mitigationj
Appendix 2:Visual AssessPromentect Data—Stream Photographs

Vegetation Photographs

: a k` ;+ae+ ? s " ti — ' trp �` ,. •r �,s, a1 r
r
k e: .44*.
�� ••
rt ��y c A'Xa
7 '
6 `tit '4 ` 1: _� __:
:p_ 4 - ter ' ''''
v - t ��
Vegetation Plot 1—(08/06/2020) Vegetation Plot 2—(08/06/2020)
�.
Y �YI� Y�S -�F. j y4
" Fr• O
•
r
, Yy
Vegetation Plot 3—(08/06/2020) Vegetation Plot 4—(08/06/2020)
y� �r R _fir
Cam* ',,,,i fi� {1 (((���777'''��`,ds,..4e.
r ^
Vegetation Plot 5—(08/06/2020) Vegetation Plot 6—(08/06/2020)

h �rii ` er g y � it, !. - '+,, �C� 1^I.
r fag Ty n
\b �A ,• ; ' �- r'' , wi ... ems-. RAY. ° �wt14....20,_.ft, y`
`, D '
,,��..��pp.� '1 1.t � - � � ,� � `�� wy'f.�. ��'Y\/ i_ �try �}F��"
-_,,, ,it.,,,,,,-,.. .... ,., ___ _ , -----..--..„ ,.. ..i.s....."-em, ki”,..,,,,,f„ -__, --.,...11.;yria,-3,*,,,,'_,..r•.;,-.7•.,.„:.--A-.,t,t•l-x•--.,r,-.•--.s- ,..,r....•.-'.1 p..',-:,:..',_.„.,./,,',Ft-
V4 �} .^ -(\ :tea'..--:—,,.:- ----
Y !a" -v \ r3$44!
. fit _ _ r 1 ,- -
_"-4-.•4 4*g,,ew..r
.)' k TP:
�.� tee. R- .... ,-..••--..evs ....',.*••-•ft• ,.....-41".„_, ' ,,,,, , (.,,,, Nt..,....y.„, .) . , ._...,_.„ . , , ,..A:L.."- •.a'.
•
s 1
Vegetation Plot 7—(08/20/2020) Vegetation Plot 8—(08/06/2020)
3 ? . - 7 p ✓
i• � r;
' , .
Vegetation Plot 9—(08/06/2020) Vegetation Plot 10—(08/06/2020)
, , , . .. AI .
,s '�• Ss ?. [iG bG i 'P 'D.
n t"' W
. .1 — 41 ,,... .„ „,,._ , .
.. _ .....„*.,,... , . ,..1 ,...„.
1 „i. ._.I'.
_ ►' 4 a,
_. _
a{%
•
tt k.
p, f °W f1
Vegetation Plot 11—(08/06/2020) Vegetation Plot 12—(08/06/2020)

vvv���...CCCt.�` 1 1. .4
•
� Y` fir: i ' �i k fF tet
rc
k: fl -6,-
s,.. ' Ter _ *. - p
i
YyJA �' p.
f 1 { P
yFx •
y6t- 31� :..
Vegetationeat Plot 13—(08/06/2020) Vegetation Plot 14—(08/06/2020)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7a. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table(Standard Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DM5 Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Success Criteria
Plot Met Tract Mean
1 Yes
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 Yes
5 Yes
6 Yes 100%
7 Yes
8 Yes
9 Yes
10 Yes
11 Yes
Table 7b. Percent Survival by Plot Table(Supplemental Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DM5 Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Plot MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY1 Mean MY2 Mean MY3 Mean MY5 Mean
Stems/Plot Stems/Plot Stems/Plot Stems/Plot Stems/Plot Survival(%) Survival(%) Survival(%) Survival(%) Survival(%) Survival(%) Survival(%) Survival(%)
12 16 13 5 3 1 81% 31% 19% 6%
13 16 15 10 8 8 94% 63% 50% 50% 83% 46% 29% 19%
14 16 12 7 3 0 75% 44% 19% 0%
Table 7c. Percent Survival by Species Table(Supplemental Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DM5 Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Scientific Name Common Name MYO Stems MY1 Stems MY2 Stems MY3 Stems MY5 Stems MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5
Survival(%) Survival(%) Survival(%) Survival(%)
Aesculus pavia Red buckeye 3 3 1 1 1 100% 33% 33% 33%
Callicarpa americana American beautyberry 11 9 1 0 0 82% 9% 0% 0%
•
Calycanthusfloridus Sweet-shrub 6 4 2 1 0 67% 33% 17% 0%
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam 17 16 13 10 6 94% 76% 59% 35%
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Coralberry 10 7 5 2 2 70% 50% 20% 20%
Viburnum prunifolium Black haw 1 1 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Report Prepared By Carolyn Lanza
Date Prepared 8/10/2020
Database Name Maney Farm MY5-cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0.mdb
Database Location C:\Users\clanza\Documents
Computer Name CAROLYN-PC
File Size 94806016
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata Description of database file,the report worksheets,and a summary of project(s)and project data.
Project Planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre,for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre,for each year. This includes live stakes,all planted stems,and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data(live stems,dead stems,missing,etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot;dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species(planted and natural volunteers combined)for each plot;dead and missing stems are exclui
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code 96314
Project Name Maney Farm
Description Stream Mitigation
Sampled Plots 14

Table 9a. Planted and Total Stem Counts(Standard Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DM5 Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Current Plot Data(MY5 2020)
VP 1 VP 2 VP 3 VP 4 VP 5
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 1 1
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _
Calycanthus floridus Sweet-shrub Shrub
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree L 2 2 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 3 3 48 3 3 33 6 6 23 11 3-4— 3 5
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree _
Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Ceader Tree 6
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic 1
Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 2 2 _
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree _ 1 1 1 _
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Tree _
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 5 5 1 1 1
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree
Quercus palustris Pin Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 3 3 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Coralberry Shrub
Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 7 3 9
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm Tree
Viburnum prunifolium Black Haw Shrub Tree
Stem count 7 7 60 9 9 61 11 11 42 8 8 19 11 11 14
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 _ 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
4 6
Species count 283 2,428 364 364 2,469� 445 1,00 324�Stems per ACRE324 769 445 445 567
Color for Density
Exceeds 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 stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9a. Planted and Total Stem Counts(Standard Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DM5 Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Current Plot Data(MY5 2020)
VP 6 VP 7 I VP 8 VP 9 VP 10 VP 11
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all I T PnoLS P-all I T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree 2
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 4 17 1
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1
Calycanthus floridus Sweet-shrub Shrub 1 1 1
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree I 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 3 3 29 6 6 11 3 3 7 3 3 7 4 4 9 3 3 10
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 1 1
Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Ceader Tree 1
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic
Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 1 1
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1 1 1
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 8 8 6 6 7 6 6 21
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 1
Quercus palustris Pin Oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 4
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 1
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Coralberry Shrub
Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 4 2
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 17 8
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm Tree 1 8
Viburnum prunifolium Black Haw Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Stem count 11 11 54 11 11 18 13 13 23 12 12 23 14 14 55 9 9 38
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 _ 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 5 5 6 4 4 6 526 931 486 486 931 567 567 2,226 364 364 1,538
Stems per ACRE 445 445 2,185 445 445 728
Color for Density
Exceeds 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 stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9a. Planted and Total Stem Counts(Standard Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DM5 Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Annual Means
MYS(2020) MY3(2018) MY2(2017) MY1(2016) MVO(2016)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS1 P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree I 2 1
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 24 18
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 1 1 1 4 4 4 7 7 7 13 13 13
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 13 13 13 15 15 15 13 13 13 19 19 19 25 25 25
Calycanthus floridus Sweet-shrub Shrub 1 1 1 2 2 2
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 7 7 10 10 10 13 13 13
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 37 37 193 40 40 293 36 36 139 35 35 35 36 36 36
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 2 1
Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Ceader Tree 7
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic 1
Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 6 5
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 7 7 16 16 16
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Tree 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 38 38 56 37 37 45 38 38 44 37 37 37 37 37 37
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 1 1
Quercus palustris Pin Oak Tree 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 15 15 15 16 16 16
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 15 15 29 16 16 27 15 15 21 15 15 15 16 16 16
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 1 1
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Coralberry Shrub 56 7 7 7 10 10 10
Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 25 2 4
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 25 16
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm Tree 9 9 13
Viburnum prunifolium Black Haw Shrub Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5
Stem count 116 116 407 125 125 506 123 123 256 157 157 157 187 187 187
size(ares) 11 11 11 11 11
size(ACRES) 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27
Spe
ies count 9
cperACRE 427� 427 1,497 4 0 460 1,862� 453 942 57�
10 10 10 10 10
Stems578 578 688 688 688
Color for Density
Exceeds 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 stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9b. Planted and Total Stem Counts(Supplemental Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Current Plot Data(MY5 2020) Annual Means
VP 12 VP 13 VP 14 MY5(2020) MY3(2018) MY2(2017) MY1(2016) MYO(2016)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Aesculus pavia Red buckeye Shrub/Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
Callicarpa americana American beautyberry Shrub 1 1 1 9 9 9 11 11 11
Calycanthusfloridus Sweet-shrub Shrub 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 6 6 6
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Shrub Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5 6 6 6 10 10 10 13 13 13 16 16 16 17 17 17
Symphoricarposorbiculatus Coralberry Shrub 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 7 7 7 10 10 10
Viburnum prunifolium Black haw Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Stem count 1 1 1 8 8 8 0 0 0 9 9 9 14 14 14 22 22 22 40 40 40 48 48 48
size(ares) 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
Species count 1 1 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6
Stems per ACRE 40 40 40 324 324 324 0 0 0 121 121 121 189 189 189 297 297 297 540 540 540 647 647 647
Supplemental planting zones are monitored to determine survival rates of these species but the results will not be tied to project success.
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P-all:Number of planted stems including live stakes
T:Total Stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT South Fork Reaches 1 and 2
re-Restoration Condition Reference Reach Data r esi: . -Built/Baselin
Parameter Gage UTSF Reach 1 UTSF Reach 2 Agony Acres UT1A-Reach 1 UT to Cane Creek UTSF Reach 1 UTSF Reach 2 UTSF Reach 1 UTSF Reach 2
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 3.2 12.0 4.7 8.2 9.1 I 10.4 11.5 I 12.3 9.5 12.1 8.8 I 9.3 12.7 I 13.7
Floodprone Width(ft) 15 50 70 82 >36 31 21 I 48 27 I 61 85 150
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.6 1.3 0.7 1.2 1.0 I 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Bankfull Max Depth 1.2 2.0 1.5 1.8 1.2 1.6 1.0 I 1.2 1.2 I 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) N/A 4.1 7.1 5.4 5.6 10.7 11.3 8.9 12.2 6.5 10.2 5.3 6.8 10.9 11.0
Width/Depth Ratio 2.5 20.4 4.0 12.3 7.3 10.1 12.3 14.4 14.0 14.0 9.1 9.7 14.5 17.3
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 12.5 10.0 14.8 >3.9 2.5 2.7 2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0 6.2 9.5 10.9 11.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 2.2 1.4 1.9 --- --- 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0
D50(mm) Medium Sand Silt/Clay - 8.4 10.4
1 11
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- --- 9 50 9 40
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0036 I 0.0274 0.0062 I 0.0258 --- 0.0188 I 0.0704 0.0120 I 0.0505 0.0106 I 0.0447 0.0058 0.0432 0.0055 0.0326
Pool Length(ft) N/A - --- -- --- 12 47 23 50
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.5 1.8 1 8 2 2.5 1.8 2.3 1.1 2.1 1.3 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.1
Pool Spacing(ft) 23 239 44 145 --- 27 73 3 67 4 85 29 85 45 I 78
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 5 42 10 37 21 93 102 15 85 19 108 24 56 37 54
Radius of Curvature(ft) 4 25 5 13 14 60 23 38 17 55 22 70 9 36 17 28
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A 1.3 2.1 1.1 1.6 1.5 5.8 2.0 3.1 1.8 5.8 1.8 5.8 1.0 4.1 1.6 2.6
Meander Length(ft) 18 100 21 59 -- --- 29 156 36 198 68 151 110 144
Meander Width Ratio 1.6 3.5 2.1 4.5 2.3 8.9 8.3 8.9 1.6 8.9 1.6 8.9 2.7 6.5 3.4 5.0
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 21/13/64/2/0/0 28/10/56/6/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 N/A SC/VFS/MS/11.1/15.4/22.6 SC/SC/SC/6.1/28.5/180 - - SC/2.37/8.4/34.5/55/180 SC/0.40/10.4/37.9/71.7/180
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)Ib/ftz 0.39 0.45 0.42 0.44 0.32 I 0.34 0.35 I 0.37
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 28.9 34.2 31.7 33.0
_ Stream Power(Capacity)W/mz --- --- --- ---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.18 0.33 0.30 0.29 0.18 0.33 0.18 0.33
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) 5% 3% --- --- 5% 3% 5% 3%
Rosgen Classification ES E5 E4 E4 C C C C
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 2.8 I 4.8 3.4 I 3.6 2.2 I 2.4 3.8 3.0 2.8 2.8 I 3.6 2.6 I 2.7
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 19.6 19.3 25.3 40.0 19.0 29.0 19.0 29.0
Q-NFF regression(2-yr) 43 67
Q-USGS extrapolation(1.2-yr) N/A 22 34
Q-Mannings 4.8 I 8.0 6.9 I 11.0
Valley Length(ft) 1,720 910 --- --- 1,720 910 1,720 910
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 2,298 1,209 --- --- 2,163 1,061 2,185 1,077
Sinuosity 1.34 1.33 1.35 1.40 1.20 I 1.40 1.20 I 1.40 1.27 1.18
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)z 0.0084 0.0075 --- --- 0.0095 0.0113 0.0103 0.0078
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- 0.0129 0.0114 0.0102 I 0.0104 0.0077 I 0.0078
SC:Silt/Clay<0.062 mm diameter particles
(---):Data was not provided
N/A:Not Applicable

Table 10b.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT1C and UT2B
MIMI Pre-Restoration Condition Reference Reach Data Design As-Built/Baseline
Parameter Gage UT1C UT2B UT to Varnals Creek UT1C UT2B UT1C UT2B
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 4.1 2.6 9.3 10.5 8.1 4.0 9.8 5.5
Floodprone Width(ft) 5.3 4.4 20 64 18 I 41 9 I 20 60 60
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 _ 0.4 1.1 1.2 0.6 _ 0.4 _ 0.5 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth 0.8 0.5 1.5 1.7 0.9 I 1.2 0.5 I 0.7 0.7 0.7
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) N/A 2.1 1.1 10.3 12.3 5.2 1.5 4.9 2.3
Width/Depth Ratio 8.1 6.2 8.1 9.3 13.0 11.0 19.4 13.2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 -
1.7 1.9 6.1 2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0 6.1 10.8
Bank Height Ratio 2.3 5.4 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0
D50(mm) --- --- 3.3 0.1
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- 8 22 11 19
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- 0.0240 I 0.0570 0.0086 I 0.0355 0.0083 I 0.0342 0.0011 0.0110 0.0073 0.0106
Pool Length(ft) --- --- --- 6 22 13 19
Pool Max Depth(ft) N/A --- --- 2.5 2.6 0.9 1.8 0.6 1.2 2.0 1.5
Pool Spacing(ft) 34 I 44 --- 8 82 2 44 1 24 22 I 38 22
Pool Volume(ft')
r MI
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 10 18 1 2 15 45 _ 13 72 6 36 _ 16 26 ---
Radius of Curvature(ft) 9 16 1 3 8 47 11 47 5 23 9 15 13 25
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A 2.2 3.9 0.4 1.2 0.6 3.2 1.3 5.8 1.3 5.8 1.0 1.6 1.8 3.3
Meander Length(ft) 54 63 12 --- _ 24 133 12 66 _ 55 73 ---
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 4.4 0.4 I 0.8 1.0 I 3.0 1.6 8.9 1.6 8.9 1.7 2.8 ---
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/5%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 24/17/58/1/0/0 47/13/37/3/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 -- --- -- SC/0.21/3.3/22.6/34.8/128 SC/SC/0.1/22.6/50.6/128
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)Ib/ftz N/A -- --- --- --- 0.15 0.23
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull -- --- --- ---
Stream Power(Capacity)W/mz --- --- --- --
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.03 0.02 0.41 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) 13% 0% --- 13% 0% 13% 0%
Rosgen Classification B5 B5 E4 C C C C
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 3.0 3.4 4.4 I 5.2 1.1 3.1 1.1 1.6
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) -- --- 54.0 5.6 3.6 5.6 3.6
Q-NFF regression(2-yr) _ 13 8
Q-USGS extrapolation(1.2-yr) N/A 1 6 4
Q-Mannings - - 4.1 I 5.7 6.9 I 7.3
Valley Length(ft) 142 42 --- 220 62 231 67
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 166 44 --- 260 74 256 70
Sinuosity 1.17 1.04 1.20 1.10 I 1.25 1.10 I 1.25 1.11 1.04
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)z --- --- --- --- --- 0.0053 0.0101
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- 0.0083 0.0080 0.0078 _I 0.0080 0.0070 I 0.0084
SC:Silt/Clay<0.062 mm diameter particles
(---):Data was not provided
N/A:Not Applicable

Table 10c.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT3B and UT4B
El Pre-Restoration Condition Reference Reach Data As-Built/Baseline
Parameter Gage UT3B UT4B UT to Varnals Creek UT3B UT4B UT3B UT4B
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
_ Bankfull Width(ft) 2.2 4.4 1 9.3 10.5 4.0 5.0 4.2 5.7
Floodprone Width(ft) 11.4 23.3 20 64 9 I 20 11 I 25 60 25
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 0.4 1.1 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.7 0.5 I 0.7 0.5 I 0.7 0.6 0.9
_ Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) N/A 1.1 1.9 10.3 12.3 1.5 1.9 1.6 3.6
Width/Depth Ratio 4.6 9.9 8.1 9.3 11.0 13.0 11.6 9.1
Entrenchment Ratio 5.1 5.3 1.9 6.1 2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0 14.1 4.3
Bank Height Ratio 2.2 1.4 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0
D50(mm) --- --- - 5.6 4.0
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- 12 23 8 19
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- 0.0240 I 0.0570 0.0191 I 0.0786 0.0088 I 0.0312 0.0112 0.0419 0.0035 0.0113
_ Pool Length(ft) --- --- --- 10 22 _ 10 21
Pool Max Depth(ft) N/A --- 2.5 2.6 0.6 1.2 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.4
Pool Spacing(ft) 56 I 157 --- 8 82 1 24 3 31 30 I 36 31
Pool Volume(ft3)
-
Channel Beltwidth(ft) --- 2 3 15 45 6 36 8 45 12 23 19 23
Radius of Curvature(ft) --- 2 3 8 47 5 23 7 29 11 47 10 20
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A --- 0.5 0.7 0.6 3.2 1.3 5.8 1.3 5.8 1.7 7.6 1.8 3.6
Meander Length(ft) --- 11 22 --- 12 66 15 82 55 68 59 69
Meander Width Ratio --- 0.5 0.7 1.0 I 3.0 1.6 8.9 1.6 8.9 1.9 3.7 3.3 4.1
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 32/14/51/3/0/0 22/20/57/1/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dlo0 --- --- --- SC/0.08/5.6/33.4/56.9/90 SC/0.25/4.0/20.1/45/90
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)lb/ft2 N/A _-- _-- _-- _-- 0.33 0.14
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull --- --- --- ---
Stream Power(Capacity)W/mZ --- --- --- ---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.02 0.03 0.41 0.02 _ 0.03 0.02 0.03
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) 0% 0% --- 0% 0% 0% 0%
Rosgen Classification E5b E5b E4 C C C E
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 3.2 _ 3.0 4.4 I 5.2 3.3 _ 3.3 - 2.2 1.5
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) --- --- 54.0 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3
Q-NFF regression(2-yr) 8 12
Q-USGS extrapolation(1.2-yr) N/A 4 6
Q-Mannings 7.8 I 12.0 4.1 I 5.5
Valley Length(ft) 84 38 --- 138 117 148 124
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 84 40 --- 163 138 155 212
Sinuosity 1.00 1.06 1.20 1.10 I 1.25 1.10 I 1.25 1.05 1.71
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 --- ---
--- --- 0.0164 0.0043
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- 0.0170 0.0073 0.0127 I 0.0161 0.0059 I 0.0067
SC:Silt/Clay<0.062 mm diameter particles
(---):Data was not provided
N/A:Not Applicable

Table 10d.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT5
■ Pre-Restoration Reference Reach Data Design As-Built/Baseline
Parameter Gage UT5 Agony Acres UT1A-Reach 1 UT to Cane Creek UT5 UT5
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min L Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.7 9.1 I 10.4 11.5 I 12.3 7.2 8.1
Floodprone Width(ft) 40 >36 31 16 I 36 100
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.6 1.0 I 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth 1.2 1.8 1.2 1.6 0.8 I 1.0 0.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) N/A 3.5 10.7 11.3 8.9 12.2 4.1 4.0
Width/Depth Ratio 9.1 7.3 10.1 12.3 14.4 13.0 16.6
Entrenchment Ratio 7.1 >3.9 2.5 2.7 2.2 5.0 12.3
Bank Height Ratio 1.4 --- --- 0.9 1.1 1.0
D50(mm) Silt/Clay 5.9
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- 5 21
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0028 I 0.0638 --- 0.0188 I 0.0704 0.0128 I 0.0541 0.0081 0.0374
Pool Length(ft) --- --- --- 18 42
Pool Max Depth(ft) N/A 1.4 2.5 1.8 2.3 0.9 1.8 1.7
Pool Spacing(ft) 9 I 197 --- 27 73 2 44 31 I 51
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 3 18 21 93 102 12 64 22 40
Radius of Curvature(ft) 3 14 14 60 23 38 13 42 10 37
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A 0.5 2.5 1.5 5.8 2.0 3.1 1.3 5.8 1.0 3.7
Meander Length(ft) 16 58 -- --- 22 118 63 97
Meander Width Ratio 0.5 3.2 2.3 I 8.9 8.3 I 8.9 1.6 8.9 2.3 4.0
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 34/11/54/1/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/SC/SC/8.9/22.6/64 --- --- SC/0.08/5.9/29.8/53.7/90
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)lb/ft2 N/A 0.19 0.37 0.31
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 14.0 27.5
Stream Power(Capacity)W/m2 --- ---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.12 0.30 0.29 0.12 0.12
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) 0% --- --- 0% 0%
Rosgen Classification E5 E4 E4 C C
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 2.1 2.2 I 2.4 3.8 2.9 3.5
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 7.4 25.3 40.0 14.0 14.0
Q-NFF regression(2-yr) 32
Q-USGS extrapolation(1.2-yr) N/A 16
Q-Mannings 5.4 I 11.0
Valley Length(ft) 580 --- --- 520 515
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 778 --- 677 680
Sinuosity 1.34 1.35 1.40 1.20 I 1.40 1.3
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0111 --- --- --- 0.0114
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) --- --- 0.0138 0.0110 I 0.0114
SC:Silt/Clay<0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 11a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross-Section)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 1,UTSF Reach 1(Riffle) Cross-Section 2,UTSF Reach 1(Pool) Cross-Section 3,UTSF Reach 1(Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft) 567.0 567.0 567.0 567.0 567.0 566.4 566.4 566.4 566.5 566.3 556.5 556.5 556.5 556.7 556.5
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 567.0 567.0 567.0 567.0 567.0 566.4 566.4 566.4 566.5 566.3 556.5 556.5 556.5 556.5 556.5
Bankfull Width(ft) 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.6 8.4 11.1 10.8 11.5 11.9 9.1 9.3 9.0 9.0 9.5 9.5
Floodprone Width(ft) 85 85 85 85 i 85 i --- --- --- --- --- 85 85 85 85 85
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft') 5.3 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.2 13.6 14.0 13.6 13.6 14.2 6.8 6.2 6.2 6.8 6.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.6 13.3 13.5 13.8 13.5 9.1 8.3 9.7 10.4 5.9 12.8 13.1 13.0 13.3 15.1
Entrenchment Ratio' 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 10.1 --- --- --- --- --- 9.1 9.4 9.4 8.9 8.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 --- --- --- --- --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cross-Section 4,UTSF Reach 1(Pool) Cross-Section 5,UTSF Reach 2(Riffle) Cross-Section 6,UTSF Reach 2(Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft) 556.0 556.0 556.0 556.2 556.3 549.9 549.9 549.9 549.9 549.8 547.9 547.9 547.9 547.9 547.8
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 556.0 556.0 556.0 556.4 556.3 549.9 549.9 549.9 549.7 549.8 547.9 547.9 547.9 547.7 547.8
Bankfull Width(ft) 14.8 13.9 14.1 15.6 16.0 11.6 12.3 12.2 13.6 11.3 13.7 13.9 13.9 15.3 12.6
Floodprone Width(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 I 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft') 17.5 15.7 16.3 17.5 20.3 10.9 11.0 10.5 10.9 8.5 10.9 10.2 10.4 10.9 9.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.6 12.2 12.1 13.9 12.6 12.4 13.7 14.3 16.9 14.9 17.3 18.9 18.7 21.5 16.8
Entrenchment Ratio' --- --- --- --- --- 12.9 12.2 12.3 11.0 13.3 10.9 10.8 10.8 9.8 11.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 --- --- --- --- --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cross-Section 7,UTSF Reach 2(Pool) Cross-Section 8,UT1C(Pool) Cross-Section 9,UT1C(Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft) 547.0 547.0 547.0 547.0 547.1 572.5 572.5 572.5 572.7 572.5 572.4 572.4 572.4 572.5 572.5
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 547.0 547.0 547.0 547.3 547.1 572.5 572.5 572.5 572.7 572.5 572.4 572.4 572.4 572.5 572.5
Bankfull Width(ft) 12.3 12.0 12.1 12.4 13.7 7.6 6.6 7.0 6.3 5.0 9.8 9.8 9.9 10.7 9.7
Floodprone Width(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 60 60 60 60 60
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.2 0.5 I 0.5 I 0.5 0.5 I 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft') 14.7 14.0 14.5 14.7 17.0 7.7 5.5 5.2 7.7 5.8 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.9 4.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 10.3 10.3 10.0 10.4 11.1 7.6 7.9 9.3 13.9 4.3 19.4 20.7 21.8 23.2 19.6
Entrenchment Ratio' --- --- --- --- --- --- i --- --- --- --- 6.1 6.1 6.1 5.6 6.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.0 1.1 1.0 <1.0 <1.0
'Entrenchment Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum
'Bank Height Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum

Table 11b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross-Section)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 10,UT2B(Pa. ross-Section 11,UT2B(Riffle$ oss-Section 12,UT3B(Pool)
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft) 564.2 564.2 564.2 564.4 564.2 _ 563.9 563.9 563.9 563.9 563.9 563.0 563.0 563.0 563.2 563.1
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 564.2 564.2 564.2 564.2 564.2 563.9 563.9 563.9 563.9 563.9 563.0 563.0 563.0 563.1 563.1
Bankfull Width(ft) 10.7 10.5 10.7 13.2 9.4 5.5 6.5 6.8 6.7 5.5 6.2 6.3 7.0 10.9 6.9
Floodprone Width(ft) --- 60 60 60 60 60
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.4 I 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 I 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 8.6 6.3 6.3 8.6 3.4 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.3 1.4 3.8 3.0 3.2 3.8 3.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.3 17.4 17.9 20.2 25.8 13.2 15.7 16.5 19.3 22.6 10.1 13.4 15.5 31.2 14.3
Entrenchment Ratio' 10.8 9.3 8.8 9.0 10.8 ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 <1.0
ross-Section 133,UT3B(Riffle) .oss-Section 14,UT4B(Riffle$ Cross-Section 15,UT4B(Pool)
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft) 563.0 563.0 563.0 563.2 563.1 553.8 553.8 553.8 554.0 554.0 553.6 553.6 553.6 553.9 553.8
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 563.0 563.1 563.1 563.1 563.1 553.8 553.8 553.8 553.8 554.0 553.6 553.6 553.6 553.7 553.8
Bankfull Width(ft) 8.7 4.7 4.6 6.6 5.9 5.7 6.4 6.7 9.9 5.3 6.3 5.7 5.5 6.5 4.5
Floodprone Width(ft) 60 60 60 60 60 25 25 25 25 25
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 2.7 1.9 1.7 2.7 2.3 3.6 2.4 2.4 3.6 2.2 4.5 3.0 3.2 4.5 2.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.6 11.5 12.4 16.5 15.3 9.1 17.3 19.2 27.4 12.3 8.7 11.0 9.4 9.8 9.9
Entrenchment Ratio' 14.1 12.8 13.0 9.1 10.2 4.3 3.9 3.7 2.5 4.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 1.1 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cross-Section 16,UT5(Pool) iiittion 17,UT5(Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft) 552.6 552.6 552.6 552.7 552.7 552.5 552.5 552.5 552.6 552.7
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 552.6 552.6 552.6 552.8 552.7 552.5 552.5 552.5 552.4 552.7
Bankfull Width(ft) 8.0 7.6 7.3 8.1 6.4 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.4 9.9
Floodprone Width(ft) 100 100 100 100 100
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.2
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft') 7.9 8.0 7.9 7.9 8.5 4.0 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 8.0 7.2 6.8 8.3 4.8 16.6 18.7 17.8 17.7 21.0
Entrenchment Ratio' 12.3 12.4 12.2 11.9 10.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.2
'Entrenchment Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum
2Bank Height Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum
3 Alternative Bank Height Ratio calculation method applied due to insufficient MVO data

Table 12a. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT South Fork Reach 1
Parameter As-Builailifiiimill MY1 ■ MY2 IIIMY3 ■ MYS
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 8.8 9.3 8.7 9.0 8.6 9.0 8.6 9.5 8.4 9.5
Floodprone Width(ft) 85 85 85 85 85
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.2
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 5.3 6.8 5.7 6.2 5.4 6.2 5.3 6.8 5.2 6.0
Width/Depth Ratio 12.8 14.6 13.1 13.3 13.0 13.5 13.3 13.8 13.5 15.1
Entrenchment Ratio 9.1 9.7 9.4 9.8 9.4 9.9 8.9 9.9 8.9 10.1
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 <1.0
D50(mm) 8.4 14.1 3.3 2.4 5.6
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 9 50
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0058 0.0432
Pool Length(ft) 12 47
Pool Max Depth(ft) 2.4 2.6
Pool Spacing(ft) 29 85
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 24 56
Radius of Curvature(ft) 9 36
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 1.0 4.1
Meander Wave Length(ft) 68 151
Meander Width Ratio 2.7 6.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 2,185
Sinuosity(ft) 1.27
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0103
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.0102 0.0104
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 21/13/64/2/0/0 25/9/52/14/0/0 27/22/33/18/0/0 27/20/46/7/0/0 14/17/66/3/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/2.37/8.4/34.5/55 SC/2.4/14.1/60/107 SC/0.14/3.3/70/121 SC/0.16/2.4/34.8/ 0.07/2.5/5.6/22.6/55.6
/180 /256 /256 73.4/128 /90.0
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% i
(--):Data was not provided

Table 12b. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT South Fork Reach 2
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 12.7 13.7 12.3 13.9 12.2 13.9 13.6 15.3 11.3 12.6
Floodprone Width(ft) 150 150 150 150 150
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 10.9 11.0 10.2 11.0 10.4 10.5 10.9 8.5 9.5
Width/Depth Ratio 14.5 17.3 13.7 18.9 14.3 18.7 16.9 21.5 14.9 16.8
Entrenchment Ratio 10.9 11.8 10.8 12.2 10.8 12.3 9.8 11.0 11.9 13.3
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0
D50(mm) 10.4 14.6 7.3 8.0 13.3
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 9 40
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0055 0.0326
Pool Length(ft) 23 50
Pool Max Depth(ft) 2.1
Pool Spacing(ft) 45 78
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 37 54
Radius of Curvature(ft) 17 28
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 1.6 2.6
Meander Wave Length(ft) 110 144
Meander Width Ratio 3.4 5.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 1,077
Sinuosity(ft) 1.18
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0078
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.0077 0.0078
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 28/10/56/6/0/0 15/16/43/26/0/1 23/21/44/11/1/0 14/15/67/4/0/0 15/15/59/11/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/0.4/10.4/37.9/72.0 0.13/4.7/15/85/124.0 SC/0.3/7.3/53.7/90.0 0.1/2.5/8/33/53.7 0.14/3.06/13.3/58.0
/180 /256 /362 /128 /82.6/180
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
(---):Data was not provided

Table 12c. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT1C
Parameter As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY5 _ MY7
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 9.8 9.8 9.9 10.7 9.7
Floodprone Width(ft) 60 60 60 60 60
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.9 4.7
Width/Depth Ratio 19.4 20.7 21.8 23.2 19.6
Entrenchment Ratio 6.1 6.1 6.1 5.6 6.2
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 1.0 <1.0 <1.0
D50(mm) 3.3 12.9 8.9 5.3 4.8
Profile .1111111111111.
Riffle Length(ft) 8 22
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0011 0.0110
Pool Length(ft) 6 22
Pool Max Depth(ft) 2.0
Pool Spacing(ft) 22 I 38
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern illi AIMIL alli illi. alli.
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 16 26
Radius of Curvature(ft) 9 15
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 1.0 1.6
Meander Wave Length(ft) 55 73
Meander Width Ratio 1.7 2.8
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 256
Sinuosity(ft) 1.11
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0053
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.0078 0.0080
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% ---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 24/17/58/1/0/0 15/10/67/8/0/0 27/10/47/16/0/0 29/13/55/3/0/0 13/22/61/4/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/0.21/3.3/22.6/35 0.15/5.1/12.9/41/79 SC/0.63/8.9/64/107 SC/0.19/5.3/35.4/ 0.2/2.0/4.8/27.8/60.4
_ /128 /180 /180 56.9/128 /180
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
(---):Data was not provided

Table 12d. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT2B
Parameter As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY5 _ MY7
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.5 6.5 6.8 6.7 5.5
Floodprone Width(ft) 60 60 60 60 60
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2
Bankfull Max Depth 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.3 1.4
Width/Depth Ratio 13.2 15.7 16.5 19.3 22.6
Entrenchment Ratio 10.8 9.3 8.8 9.0 10.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 <1.0
D50(mm) 0.1 0.2 0.2 SC 1.3
Profile AlliNW
Riffle Length(ft) 11 19
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0073 0.0106
Pool Length(ft) 13 19
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.5
Pool Spacing(ft) 22
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern illi AIMIL alli illi. alli.
Channel Beltwidth(ft) ---
Radius of Curvature(ft) 13 25
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 1.8 3.3
Meander Wave Length(ft) ---
Meander Width Ratio ---
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 70
Sinuosity(ft) 1.04
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0101
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.0070 0.0084
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% ---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 47/13/37/3/0/0 39/23/31/8/0/0 44/26/21/9/0/0 61/32/4/3/0/0 44/8/47/1/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/SC/0.1/22.6/50.6/128 SC/SC/0.2/33.9/81.9/180 SC/SC/0.2/36.3/95/128 SC/SC/SC/0.6/32/180 SC/SC/1.3/8.4/16.0/90.0
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
(---):Data was not provided

Table 12e. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT3B
Parameter As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY7
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 4.2 3.9 3.4 6.6 5.9
Floodprone Width(ft) 60 60 60 60 60
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 1.6 1.1 1.0 2.7 2.3
Width/Depth Ratio 11.6 13.0 11.8 16.5 15.3
Entrenchment Ratio 14.1 15.5 17.5 9.1 10.2
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.2 1.3 <1.0 <1.0
D50(mm) 5.6 2.8 0.2 0.2 6.7
Profile 111.11w-
Riffle Length(ft) 12 23
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0112 0.0419
Pool Length(ft) 10 22
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.3
Pool Spacing(ft) 30 I 36
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern iiii AIMIL alMil illi. aii.
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 12 23
Radius of Curvature(ft) 11 47
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 1.7 7.6
Meander Wave Length(ft) 55 68
Meander Width Ratio 1.9 3.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 155
Sinuosity(ft) 1.05
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0164
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.0127 0.0161
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% ---
_ SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 32/14/51/3/0/0 33/14/43/10/0/0 29/39/20/12/0/0 45/17/26/12/0/0 33/13/41/13/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/0.08/5.6/33.4/57/90 SC/0.2/2.8/41.3/85/180 SC/0.1/0.2/53.7/83/128 SC/SC/0.2/48.3/ SC/0.1/6.7/49.1/107.3
104.7/180 /256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
(---):Data was not provided

Table 12f. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT4B
Parameter As-Built/Baseline MY7
Min Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.7 6.4 6.7 9.9 5.3
Floodprone Width(ft) 25 25 25 25 25
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 3.6 2.4 2.4 3.6 2.2
Width/Depth Ratio 9.1 17.3 19.2 27.4 12.3
Entrenchment Ratio 4.3 3.9 3.7 2.5 4.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0
D50(mm) 4.0 6.9 0.4 0.5 3.2
Profile AMU
Riffle Length(ft) 8 19
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0035 0.0113
Pool Length(ft) 10 21
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.4
Pool Spacing(ft) 31
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern iiii AIMIL alMil illi. aii.
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 19 23
Radius of Curvature(ft) 10 20
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 1.8 3.6
Meander Wave Length(ft) 59 69
Meander Width Ratio 3.3 4.1
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 212
Sinuosity(ft) 1.71
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0043
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.0059 0.0067
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% ---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 22/20/57/1/0/0 31/12/43/14/0/0 18/43/34/5/0/0 38/16/29/17/0/0 19/21/60/0/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/0.25/4.0/20.1/45/90 SC/0.19/6.9/59.2/90/180 SC/0.2/0.4/34.8/64/128 SC/SC/0.5/66/98.3/180 SC/1.2/3.2/17.1/26.2/45
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
(---):Data was not provided

Table 12g. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT5
Parameter millin As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MK7
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.4 9.9
Floodprone Width(ft) 100 100 100 100 100
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.2
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 4.0 3.5 3.7 4.0 4.7
Width/Depth Ratio 16.6 18.7 17.5 17.7 21.0
Entrenchment Ratio 12.3 12.4 12.4 11.9 10.1
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.2
D50(mm) 5.9 19.0 4.7 0.7 3.2
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 5 21
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0081 0.0374
Pool Length(ft) 18 42
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.7
Pool Spacing(ft) 31 I 51
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern AIMIL AIMIL alli.
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 22 40
Radius of Curvature(ft) 10 37
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 1.0 3.7
Meander Wave Length(ft) 63 97
Meander Width Ratio 2.3 4.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 680
Sinuosity(ft) 1.32
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0114
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.0110 0.0114
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% ---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 34/11/54/1/0/0 30/10/46/14/0/0 31/16/40/13/0/0 34/22/25/8/0/0 27/19/48/6/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/0.08/5.9/29.8/54/90 SC/0.18/19/61/101/180 SC/0.17/4.7/57.8/87/180 SC/0.14/0.7/45/75.9/180 SC/0.2/3.2/33.9/71.7/128
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
(---):Data was not provided

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 1,UTSF Reach 1
107+14 Riffle
570
568
0
566
w
564 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
+MYO(02/2016) t MY1(09/2016) t MY2(03/2017) +MY3(04/2018)
t MY5(03/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area - —-Bankfull(Based on MYO Area)
Bankfull Dimensions ry,. . °< .
5.2 x-section area(ft.sq.) a ;1
8.4 width(ft) [ f,O • .. T
0.6 mean depth(ft)
4
1.2 max depth(ft)
8.9 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius(ft)
13.5 width-depth ratio
85.0 W flood prone area(ft) :11. •
Yf:,
10.1 entrenchment ratio - •
<1.0 low bank height ratio
•
Survey Date: 03/2020 — - • -
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
•+ • '� -
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 2,UTSF Reach 1
107+47 Pool
569
567 14."0/8. 4114.4iftsei4............ion......anotiviovi\j/004#11111.14
0
v 565
w
563
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
MVO(02/2016) -MY1(09/2016) MY2(03/2017) MY3(04/2018) MY5(03/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.2 x-section area ft.s • y' ;
9.1 width(ft) + i. 1
1.6 mean depth(ft)
2.3 max depth(ft) •- +- -
11.8 wetted perimeter(ft) _
1.2 hydraulic radius(ft)
5.9 width-depth ratio - �; r.F :
Survey Date: 03/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering '
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 3,UTSF Reach 1
118+36 Riffle
559
557
0
555
w
553
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
+MYO(02/2016) t MY1(09/2016) +MY2(03/2017) +MY3(04/2018)
+MY5(03/2020) -Bankfull Floodprone Area - --Bankfull(Based on MYO Area)
Bankfull Dimensions
6.0 x-section area(ft.sq.) 1
9.5 width(ft) `
0.6 mean depth(ft) .l •' J =''y ��•T::. +; _::
1.1 max depth(ft) 4 •
�:�� j.(;. ,:' ;
10.1 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius(ft) "' �
15.1 width-depth ratio ,.• • •1,, •y - '= '
•
85.0 W flood prone area(ft) • rr;:g
8.9 entrenchment ratio ±�y �r '
�.5•-..
<1.0 low bank height ratio ` �:•� �'+ ; ` j.• '� -;y=
Survey Date: 03/2020 . . . , Il! i ce+
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering ipe•`'
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 4,UTSF Reach 1
118+63 Pool
558
0-
556
0
554
552
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
tMYO(02/2016) yMY1(09/2016) —*—MY2(03/2017) —0—MY3(04/2018) —0—MYS(03/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions •
20.3 x-section area(ft.sq.) .
16.0 width(ft)
1.3 mean depth(ft) !
2.6 max depth(ft)
18.0 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius(ft) - -• - a
12.6 width-depth ratio r` -
l •
„r
f ��� ..�+
Survey Date: 03/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 5,UTSF Reach 2
126+80 Riffle
553
551
c I!ilalg - - i -
v 549
w
547
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
+MYO(02/2016) t MY1(09/2016) t-MY2(03/2017) —4—MY3(04/2018)
+MY5(03/2020) —Bankfull Floodprone Area - - -Bankfull(Based on MYO Area)
Bankfull Dimensions .
8.5 x-section area(ft.sq.) -
11.3 width(ft) -•
0.8 mean depth(ft) .
1.4 max depth(ft) �� °-
11.7 wetted perimeter(ft) •
0.7 hydraulic radius(ft) ::-
14.9 width-depth ratioa .`
150.0 W flood prone area(ft) •
�7T * t ,
13.3 entrenchment ratio mot` 'l°:::. -
<1.0 low bank height ratio -� • - �• ,^i}
g v .
Survey Date: 03/2020 �•: /
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering ,
f
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 6,UTSF Reach 2
130+09 Riffle
551 - -
549
I
545 1 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width(ft)
+MYO(02/2016) t MY1(09/2016) MY2(03/2017) MY3(04/2018)
+MY5(03/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area - - -Bankfull(Based on MYO Area)
Bankfull Dimensions
9.5 x-section area(ft.sq.)
12.6 width(ft)
0.8 mean depth(ft) I %;
•
1.5 max depth(ft)
13.1 wetted perimeter(ft) ___
0.7 hydraulic radius(ft) '
16.8 width-depth ratio V i
150.0 W flood prone area(ft)
11.9 entrenchment ratio •
<1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 03/2020 -
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering �. . . �. .
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 7,UTSF Reach 2
130+39 Pool
550 -
548
0
546
544
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width(ft)
+MVO(02/2016) MY1(09/2016) +MY2(03/2017) +MY3(04/2018) +MYS(03/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions c
17.0 x-section area(ft.sq.) f
13.7 width(ft) '
1.2 mean depth(ft) '
2.3 max depth(ft) {r
15.3 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius(ft) ---,,,r,.r•11.1 width-depth ratio
•
Survey Date: 03/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 8,UT1C
201+44 Pool
577
575
573
0
_v
"' 571
569
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width(ft)
MY0(02/2016) - - MY1(09/2016) —*—MY2(03/2017) MY3(04/2018) —4—MYS(03/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions o f' r ' ,: a'JA}
•
5.8 x-section area(ft.sq.) '. , (. r'' 14
5.0 width(ft) - :ha,,•9,.; i( f,��e z. Y,''%
1.2 mean depth(ft) _•. � ;,•. `3. .ill,.; •• k•
):.
1.7 max depth(ft) •
6.7 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius(ft) •
4.3 width-depth ratio -- --- -- -
Survey Date: 03/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 9,UT1C
201+61 Riffle
576
574
c
0
ns
iv 572
w
570
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width(ft)
+MY0(02/2016) MY1(09/2016) t MY2(03/2017) +MY3(04/2018)
+MY5(03/2020) -Bankfull Floodprone Area - - -Bankfull(Based on MVO Area)
Bankfull Dimensions , • /._I; i�i,a.;f�e t \ �_ 1 �/, a l)44 iti�,¢,',,'•
4.7 x-section area(ft.sq.) 4 f PiiI r'� b ,' r
9.7 width(ft) )�4 ,, i I j 1;T r .
0.5 mean depth(ft) '' r; f. ar{ -r si ' ? " , ?,. . �';
0.9 maxdepth(ft) {.. f:4' ; 1•°p.;,,,, f ":t�
10.0 wetted perimeter(ft) f
0.5 hydraulic radius(ft) - • /" h. ti \ . '
19.6 width-depth ratio '.
60.0 W flood prone area(ft)
6.2 entrenchment ratio �. r- ) .
<1.0 low bank height ratio • L
Survey Date: 03/2020 ,•f':
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering •t - -.
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 10,UT2B
300+26 Pool
567
565
0
v 563
561
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
�MYO(02/2016) --MY1(09/2016) —*—MY2(03/2017) —*—MY3(04/2018) —*—MYS(03/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions 1- ►: �.
3.4 x-section area(ft.sq.) • - - - 5,,41U "
9.4 width(ft)
0.4 mean depth(ft)
0.8 max depth(ft)
•
9.7 wetted perimeter(ft) _ , "•-• •."Y' �._ . ;
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft)
25.8 width-depth ratio N.,.44- • -_•
�' •
•
'ram e__
Survey Date: 03/2020 . « v.E .- ' •
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering :s'# * ''i
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 11,UT2B
300+36 Riffle
567
565
4"""*"...1.- •_AsotioNisio:Pftate -4
el 4
563
561 -
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
MYO(02/2016) t MY1(09/2016) t MY2(03/2017) MY3(04/2018)
MY5(03/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area - — -Bankfull(Based on MYO Area)
Bankfull Dimensions ;r �' P j ' "1:"''
1.4 x-section area(ft.sq.) !� �� �!� r -
0.2 mean depth(ft) I
0.6 max depth(ft) •
.
5.8 wetted perimeter(ft) # _
0.2 hydraulic radius(ft)
22.6 width-depth ratio �.{• Y 4
60.0 W flood prone area(ft) __ ,x Y '"k' r • '':�
10.8 entrenchment ratio t -F ~' `` �• M
<1.0 low bank height ratio •
EVtS.
Survey Date: 03/2020 " -
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering s- s '}
per• - •
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 12,UT3B
400+77 Pool
566
564
0
562
560
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
+MYO(02/2016) - MY1(09/2016) t MY2(03/2017) t MY3(04/2018) t MYS(03/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions : +A lir
'•irk""'',-. L+ 1� 'r
3.4 x-section area(ft.sq.) 1.,
6.9 width(ft)
•
•
0.5 mean depth(ft) 3
1.2 max depth(ft)
7.6 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft)
14.3 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 03/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 13,UT3B
400+91 Riffle
566
564 -
0
562
560
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
MY0(02/2016) MY1(09/2016) +MY2(03/2017) MY3(04/2018)
+MYS(03/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area - --Bankfull(Based on MYO Area)
Bankfull Dimensions - r r x r ".
2.3 x-section area(ft.sq.) .., ii }4Tr'r�. 4ij. +F. .. "r•'
5.9 width ft) ",.. ' �`I ;�. .y:.• •.�
0.4 mean depth(ft) $ r. , �;, TT t
0.9 max depth(ft)
6.2 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft)
15.3 width-depth ratio ,
60.0 W flood prone area(ft)
10.2 entrenchment ratio
<1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 03/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 14,UT4B
500+26 Riffle
557 -,
•
555 _
O
553
w
551
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
+MVO(02/2016) t MY1(09/2016) t MY2(03/2017) +MY3(04/2018)
+MY5(03/2020) Bankfull -Floodprone Area - - -Bankfull(Based on MVO Area)
Bankfull Dimensions
2.2 x-section area(ft.sq.) y:.
•
K i�
5.3 width(ft) i f
0.4 mean depth(ft)
0.8 max depth(ft)
5.7 wetted perimeter(ft) ;. `-
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft) �'
12.3 width-depth ratio - :' . -_
25.0 W flood prone area(ft) Y',
4.8 entrenchment ratio •
n
<1.0 low bank height ratio Y v x=y<' i : . -
Survey Date: 03/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering '.
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 15,UT4B
500+38 Pool
556
554
v 552
550
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
tMYO(02/2016) MY1(09/2016) tMY2(03/2017) tMY3(04/2018) +MY5(03/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
2.0 x-section area(ft.sq.)
4.5 width(ft)
0.5 mean depth(ft) • "r ;,+',_
0.9 max depth(ft)
5.2 wetted perimeter(ft) • ' y ;., �
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft) ^
s.-
9.9 width-depth ratio `�T;
a• t - :-0•
'+, max
4 •
_si.: „ ...-
Survey Date: 03/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
t
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 16,UT5
606+30 Pool
555
553
c
0
ns
v 551
w
549
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
t MVO(02/2016) MY1(09/2016) t MY2(03/2017) t MY3(04/2018) +MY5(03/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions ' , .1.-•1•l:_;�' '" % }" '":''■„ ii •r
a . ri..:-,� •-L..:.r �r ''i yr .u,:, # 141', t'r f j r
8.5 x-section area(ft.sq.) — *:.� r .�•� �, ? Iri;
6.4 width(ft) ' 4 t.1,!.,;' 'j.//1+r •:;'�/
1.3 mean depth(ft) /'
1.8 max depth(ft) •/• j _.. f• `
8.1 wetted perimeter(ft) — *.....a',.: _.s
-�- 4 • , -
1.0 hydraulic radius(ft) k �:�. '":�
4.8 width depth ratio ' f ,; x
Survey Date: 03/2020 P �<
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering .'.
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section 17,UT5
606+45 Riffle
555
553
c
0
ns
v 551
w
549
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
+MY0(02/2016) +MY1(09/2016) +MY2(03/2017) +MY3(04/2018)
+MY5(03/2020) -Bankfull Floodprone Area - --Bankfull(Based on MVO Area)
Bankfull Dimensions L.,
. ! I S'•.') V.,l,,F. a.'' ; ..,,L:' f 1''�i, '. ;- .
4.7 x-section area(ft.sq.) „ • Vi
9.9 width(ft) I . _
0.5 mean depth(ft) � i
1.2 max depth(ft) ; "•''' � 1
. .
10.5 wetted perimeter(ft) .0 '*- , - ••i: Ilr
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft) i °'-E ;.r '"-., Y~
21.0 width-depth ratio ^v: ':t,• _ :y
100.0 W flood prone area(ft) a;\; ,,; a.
10.1 entrenchment ratio ✓.17.... "2� ' :
1.2 low bank height ratio t,�. Y
Survey Date: 03/2020 •P-.'/ 'f 4;
p
a' -
?
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering ,.:,•
e
•
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UTSF-Reach 1,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative UTSF-Reach 1,Reachwide
SILT/CLAY silt/clay 0.000 0.062 2 12 14 14 14 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 4 4 8 8 22 300 4 I I I ~�
90 Silt/Clay Sand k Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 22 Cobble < >
Bou der Bedrock
SP�O' Medium 0.25 0.50 22 80 �
Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 1 3 3 25 70 <
2' ill
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 3 3 6 6 31
gI 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 2 4 6 6 37 '.
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 4 1 5 5 42 3 50 -
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 3 5 8 8 50 v 40 -
Fine 5.6 8.0 6 6 12 12 62 w 30
2
40, Medium 8.0 11.0 5 4 9 9 71 a 20 +
GQ'P Medium 11.0 16.0 4 4 8 8 79 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 2 3 5 5 84
Coarse 22.6 32 5 3 8 8 92 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 92
Very Coarse 45 64 5 5 5 97 Particle Class Size(mm)
Small 64 90 3 3 3 100 MVO-02/2016 MY109/2016 M1,2-03/2012 t MY3-05/2018 MY5-03/2020
0i Small 90 128 100
t,,Ot Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100 UTSF-Reach 1,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
cif". Small 362 512 100
�0J� Medium 512 1024 _ 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK (Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 -, 70
Total 50 50 100 100 100 60
v
a 50
Reachwide
a 40
Channel materials(mm) u
Die= 0.07 30
D3,= 2.50 ? 201/43
+
D5,= 5.6 10 .Vi . I Li id!L
D„= 55.6 okra'. 1,2 O,fh• Oh 11. ,ti'b 1) ,,co 0 ,y's y 6 , ah
/0�,LQ, cot. cO 41, 1�0 1y0 ,
„50,,,,1. i yd ticp$�c0
D100= 90.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-02/2016 MY3-09/2016 M1,2-03/2012 •MY3-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UTSF-Reach 1,Cross-Section 1
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
min max Count Percentage Cumulative UTSF-Reach 1,Cross-Section 1
SILT/CLAY' ''Silt/Clay o.000 0.062 4 4 4 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 1 1 5 100 < I I Silt/Clay . Sand k I I I ~
Fine 0.125 0.250 5 90 Gravel obble N Boulder >
SP0) Medium 0.25 0.50 5 80 Bedrock
Coarse 0.5 1.0 3 3 8 70 < >
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 3 3 11
> 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 3 3 14 'P
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 5 5 19 50
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 8 8 27 a 40
Fine 5.6 8.0 9 9 36 y 30
2
,c\' Medium 8.0 11.0 10 10 46 a 20
03'. Medium 11.0 16.0 8 8 54
Coarse 16.0 22.6 8 8 62 10 {, I
Coarse 22.6 32 12 12 74 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 14 14 88
Very Coarse 45 64 6 6 94 Particle Class Size(mm)
M60-02/2016 -0-MY1-09/2016 -6-MY2-03/2017 t M13-05/2018 -111--MY5-03/2020
small 64 90 4 4 98
\‘<, Small 90 128 2 2 100
(.
e Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100 UTSF-Reach 1,Cross-Section 1
•
small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
OS" Small 362 512 100 100
�� 90
�0 Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 c 70
Total 100 100 100 60
a
a 50
Cross-Section 1 m 40
_ Channel materials(mm) u
D16= 3.23 v 330
_ D35= 7.69 20
D50= 13.3 110 A1aiiluil�idiI
Dsa= 40.8 0 �, , �, ,. �1 �1 �._ 1 �.1
-
D95= 69.7 o�0, ,f,oyh Oy N. 1. ,L". a 43 0 ,yti ,y0 itib 3ti ay ,,,,a cp yl'b $„y0��ti y,�L yO,1A le to
Dim= 128.0 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MV0-02/2016 •MY1-09/2016 •912-03/2017 •9Y3-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UTSF-Reach 1,Cross-Section 3
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
min max Count Percentage Cumulative UTSF-Reach 1,Cross-Section 3
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 4 4 4 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 4 100 Silt/Clay and* Sand
I ~• • •
Fine 0.125 0.250 4 90GravelCobble>14 Boulder
14 SP0) Medium 0.25 0.50 4 80 H Bedrock
Coarse 0.5 1.0 4 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 4
> 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 5 '�
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 3 3 8 50
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 2 2 10 a 40 y
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 12 y 30
111
1-2
P,�� Medium 8.0 11.0 6 6 18 a 20 '
0 Medium 11.0 16.0 4 4 22 10 • • •
Coarse 16.0 22.6 7 7 29 0 —jam • . •0
Coarse 22.6 32 13 13 42
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 21 21 63
Very Coarse 45 64 14 14 77 Particle Class Size(mm)
-11-MY0-02/2016 -0-MY1-09/2016 -II-M12-03/2017 t MY3-05/2016 -111--MY5-03/2020
Small 64 90 11 11 88
\‘<, Small 90 128 7 7 95
(.
e Large 128 180 4 4 99
Large 180 256 1 1 100 UTSF-Reach 1,Cross-Section 3
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
E� Small 362 512 100 100
�c 90
�0 Medium 512 1024 100
1-Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK''`;''Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 c 70
Total 100 100 100 "2 60
a
a 50
Cross-Section 3 m 40
_ Channel materials(mm) u
Dm= 9.89 To 30
D35= 26.54
320
D50= 36.4 c 10 0 _ I -I r 111+01+1 41.11k••1,
D84= 79.5
—
D„= 128.0 o�0, ,y,oyh Oy 'r 1, ,1,7 a yro 0 yti ,y`°iyb ,2y ah 0, cio 4,a 47s,yh6 4,1.yyyyO,ya I,��9ro
Dioo= 256.0 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-02/2016 •MY1-09/2016 •M12-03/2017 •MY3-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UTSF-Reach 2,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative UTSF-Reach 2,Reachwide
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 15 15 15 15 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 15 100 < •, , , * / - ~�
Silt/Clay Sandl
Fine 0.125 0.250 6 6 6 21 90 Gravel obble 14
Beu der
SP�O Medium 0.25 0.50 21 80 / Bedroll.
Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 2 2 23 0 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 7 7 7 30 m
60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 3 4 4 34 '_
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 2 2 4 4 38 E 50 J j'
Fine 4.0 5.6 2 2 4 4 42 a 40 ..../wyy r
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 3 4 4 46 a, 30
Jw Medium 8.0 11.0 2 1 3 3 49 a 20
GQ'P Medium 11.0 16.0 1 1 2 2 51 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 3 3 54
Coarse 22.6 32 3 3 6 6 60 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 9 2 11 11 71
Very Coarse 45 64 15 3 18 18 89 Particle Class Size(mm)
MVO-02/2016 �MV1-09/2016 �MYI-03/2012 t MY3-05/2018 MYS-03/2020
Small 64 90 8 8 8 97
�\C Small 90 128 2 2 2 99
`00 Large 128 180 1 1 1 100
Large 180 256 100 UTSF-Reach 2,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
<ci' Small 362 512 100 100
SO
�pJ Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK 'Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 c 70
Total 50 50 100 100 100 L 60
v
°- 50
Reachwide
5 40
Channel materials(mm) u
Ta
Dic= 0.14 30
D35= 3.06 3 20 Dso= 13.3 c
10
0 " diiA W LA LA.Lij1 lid.I....}
Dm= 58.0
D95= 82.6 ooe'Lotiyh otih o`' N. 1. ,.1, a e� 42 yti tic�ti6 3ti ah co- co 41, 0) �yc „50,ytiti oyo,tieb$to
Dloo= 180.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-02/2016 MY109,201b •MV2-03/2012 •MY3-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UTSF-Reach 2,Cross-Section 5
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
min max Count Percentage Cumulative UTSF-Reach 2,Cross-Section 5
slur/GAY silt/clay o.000 o.o6z 8 8 8 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
00
Very fine 0.062 0.125 8 1 90 Gravel
< SiltlCla * I a. ~• •
Fine 0.125 0.250 4 4 12 y
SP0) Medium 0.25 0.50 3 3 15 80 �pbble Boulder ge�rorfr
Coarse 0.5 1.0 3 3 18 7 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 18
> 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 3 3 21 'P
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 4 4 25 50
E /4
Fine 4.0 5.6 3 3 28 a 40
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 30 y 30
u
,0, Medium 8.0 11.0 3 3 33 a 20
03'. Medium 11.0 16.0 5 5 38 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 10 10 48
Coarse 22.6 32 4 4 51 0 : f :
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 16 16 67
Very Coarse 45 64 12 12 79 Particle Class Size(mm)
MY0-02/2016 -0-MY1-09/2016 -II-M12-03/2017 t M13-05/2018 -111--MY5-03/2020
small 64 90 11 11 90
�\� Small 90 128 7 7 97
�0Q Large 128 180 3 3 100
Large 180 256 100 UTSF-Reach 2,Cross-Section 5
•
small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
OS" Small 362 512 100 100
�� 90
�0 Medium 512 1024 100
'Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK''`;''Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 c 70
Total 101 100 100 60
a
a 50
Cross-Section 5 m 40
_ Channel materials(mm) u
Dm= 0.65 v 30
_ D35= 13.12 320 Dso= 28.1 c 10 • a, 4 ,- ti0,--11.,�
A��1i� �j105
D84= 74.4-
0
D9s= 115.5 cp0, ,y`'oyh Oy N. 1. 1,7 a 43 0 ,yti ,,cp itib 3ti ay 0, ono yyw $1y0,53ti 4,, soya�oa�ao90
Dioo= 180.0 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-02/2016 •MY1-09/2016 •912-03/2017 •96-05/2018 •MYS-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UTSF-Reach 2,Cross-Section 6
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
min max Count Percentage Cumulative UTSF-Reach 2,Cross-Section 6
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 4 4 4 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 4 100 < Silt/Clay * g and� � �• • •
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 5 90Gravel obble)10
you der E ►
SP0) Medium 0.25 0.50 5 80 Bedrock
Coarse 0.5 1.0 5 7 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 2 7
> 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 7 'P
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 8 50
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 4 4 12 a 40
Fine 5.6 8.0 3 3 15 y 30
u
,0, Medium 8.0 11.0 8 8 23 a 20
03'. Medium 11.0 16.0 6 6 29 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 5 34 •-.--- • •
Coarse 22.6 32 14 14 48 0 S-• • •
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 19 19 67
Very Coarse 45 64 22 22 89 Particle Class Size(mm)
MYO-02/2016 �MY1-09/2016 � Y2 M -03/2017 tY3 M -05/2018 �-MYS-03/2020
Small 64 90 8 8 97
\‘<, Small 90 128 2 2 99
(.
e Large 128 180 1 1 100
Large 180 256 100 UTSF-Reach 2,Cross-Section 6
•
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
�� Small 362 512 100 100
�� 90
�0 Medium 512 1024 100
'Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK''`;''Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 -d 70
Total 100 100 100 60
a
a 50
Cross-Section 6 m 40
_ Channel materials(mm) u
Dm= 8.32 v 330
_ D35= 23.17 20
Dso= 33.2 E
10 4
Dsa= 59.1 0 ,. I rL ��m� �i 1,
-
D9s= 82.6 o�0, ,th O.
Oy N. 1. ,1,7 a yro 0 ,,,N. ,,cp itib 3ti ay 0, opo yyw $1y0��ti yytiyoyaloa�oio
Dioo= 180.0 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-02/2016 •MY1-09/2016 •M12-03/2017 •MY3-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT1C,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative UT1C,Reachwide
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 3 10 13 13 13 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Very fine 0.062 0.125 1 1 1 14 < �' a-• ~• • •
Silt/Clay Sand ,/��
Fine 0.125 0.250 3 3 3 17 90 Gravel Cobble14 geu der
SP�O Medium 0.25 0.50 17 80 BedrorY
iiii/
Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 3 5 5 22 70
0
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 13 13 13 35
60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 2 2 37 •_
50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 2 2 4 4 41 E
Fine 4.0 5.6 6 10 16 16 57 a 40 / �- •f4
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 5 7 7 64 w 30
J<v Medium 8.0 11.0 1 3 4 4 68 d 20
GQ'P Medium 11.0 16.0 3 3 3 71 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 10 10 10 81
Coarse 22.6 32 4 1 5 5 86 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 3 1 4 4 90
Very Coarse 45 64 6 6 6 96 Particle Class Size(mm)
MV0-02/2016 -0-MV1-09/2016 -0-MY2-03/2012 t MY3-05/2018 1,41S-03/2020
Small 64 90 1 1 1 97
�\C Small 90 128 2 2 2 99
`00 Large 128 180 1 1 1 100
Large 180 256 10o UT1C,Reachwide
Small 256 362 10o Individual Class Percent
<<"' Small 362 512 100 100
�� 90
�p Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK 'Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 c 70
Total 50 50 100 100 100 L 60
v
a 50
Reachwide
5 40
Channel materials(mm) u
Ta
Dic= 0.20 30
D3s= 2.00
20
D50= 4.8 c 10 o t . i 1�,I Jai i• I L-Li �Wi�l� A IL-1. ��
Ds,= 27.8 ti h h ,2 N. ti , a o ti e e n h o- o w o o ti ti ro e
D9s= 60.4 0. 0'> oti o ti e ti ti titi• 3 a 6 o yn yw tih 3o hti oti tioo �e
D1oo= 180.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MV0-02/2016 MY109,201b •MV2-03/2012 •MY3-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT1C,Cross-Section 9
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
Count UT1C,Cross-Section 9
min max Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 2 2 2•
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 1 1 3 100 < , I I I •+ �• • •
Slit/Clay * gand 14-
Fine 0.125 0.250 3 3 6 90 Gravel Cobble you der E ►
SP0) Medium 0.25 0.50 6 80 Bedrock
Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 2 8 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 2 10
• > 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 11 'P
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 5 5 16 50
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 13 13 29 a 40
Fine 5.6 8.0 11 11 40 y 30
u
,0, Medium 8.0 11.0 12 12 52 a 20
03'. Medium 11.0 16.0 17 17 69 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 11 11 80
Coarse 22.6 32 7 7 87 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 7 7 94
Very Coarse 45 64 2 2 96•
Particle Class Size(mm)
MYO-02/2016 -0-MY1-09/2016 -II- Y2 M -03/2017 tY3 M -05/2018 -111--MY5-03/2020
Small 64 90 1 1 97
\‘<, Small 90 128 3 3 100
(.
e Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100 UT1C,Cross-Section 9
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
�� Small 362 512 100 100
�� 90
�0 Medium 512 1024 100
'Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK''`;''Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 c 70
Total 100 100 100 60
a
a 50
Cross-Section 9 m 40
_ Channel materials(mm) u
Dm= 4.00 v 330
D35= 6.80 20
050= 10.4 10 , L, • 4111W� �� �1-�-� ,
Dsa= 27.6 L.�•L.�
-
095= 53.7 o�0, ,f7 oyh Oy N. 1. ,.1". a yro 0 ,yti ,y`°itib 3ti ay ,,,,aopo 41, $„y0��ti yyti ,yale��9ro
0ioo= 128.0 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-02/2016 •MY1-09/2016 •912-03/2017 •9Y3-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT2B,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative UT2B,Reachwide
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 12 32 44 44 44 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 2 2 2 46 100 t Silt/Clay * I „ I =M` ;- ~ ~•
li
Fine 0.125 0.250 46 90 • �' - If
SP�O' Medium 0.25 0.50 1 1 1 47 80 �� CobbleBoulder l Bedroll,
Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 2 2 49 7p i
1
Very Coarse .0 2.0 3 3 3 52
gI 60 —�
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 4 3 7 7 59 '�
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 5 3 8 8 67 3 50
E _ i
Fine 4.0 5.6 4 2 6 6 73 v 40
Fine 5.6 8.0 9 1 10 10 83 w 30
2
40, Medium 8.0 11.0 5 1 6 6 89 a 20
GQ'P Medium 11.0 16.0 6 6 6 95 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 4 4 4 99
Coarse 22.6 32 99 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 99
Very Coarse 45 64 99 Particle Class Size(mm)
MV0-02/2016 MY109/2016 MY2-03/2012 t MY3-05/2018 1,41S-03/2020
Small 64 90 1 1 1 100
0, Small 90 128 100
`P6 Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100 UT2B,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
cif". Small 362 512 100
�0J� Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK (Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 -, 70
Total 50 50 100 100 100 60
v
°- 50
Reachwide I .
ro 40 --
Channel materials(mm) u
D16= Silt/Clay = 30 —
O 20
D35= Silt/Clay
Dso= 1.3 E 10 J
Dom= 8.4 0 JILJ �Y -J..I11YlaII,LIkiL- "'L
D9,= 16.0 0. ,.1
oo ,`,0* '1,
Oy ti 'L ti$ C. 5Cp 0 ,,''r ,,0�,LO ,,,'L Rh cot. c,O 41, 14,0 1y0 „50,,,"1.y�,yb 10�$�0,O
Dioo= 90.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•M1'11-02/2016 MY1-09/2016 MY2-03/2012 •MY3-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT2B,Cross-Section 11
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
Count UT2B,Cross-Section 11
min max Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 32 32 32 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 32 100 )k ': ?ObbleBoulder1( )
90 Silt/Clay ra
Fine 0.125 0.250 2 2 34
SP0) Medium 0.25 0.50 34 80 Bedrock
Coarse 0.5 1.0 5 5 39 : 70
en
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 14 14 53
> 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 14 14 67 'P
I/
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 8 8 75 50
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 5 5 80 a 40
Fine 5.6 8.0 7 7 87 y 30
1-_',0, Medium 8.0 11.0 6 6 93 a 20
(e. Medium 11.0 16.0 6 6 99 44 • • •
10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 99
Coarse 22.6 32 99 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 99
Very Coarse 45 64 99 Particle Class Size(mm)
-0-MYO-02/2016 -0-MY1-09/2016 -II- Y2 M -03/2017 tY3 M -05/2018 -111--MY5-03/2020
Small 64 90 1 1 100
\‘<, Small 90 128 100
(.
e Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100 UT2B,Cross-Section 11
•
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
�� Small 362 512 100 100
�� 90
�0 Medium 512 1024 100
'Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK''`;''Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 c 70
Total 100 100 100 60
a
a 50
Cross-Section 11 40
_ Channel materials(mm)
Dm= Silt/Clay v 30
D35= 0.57 > 20
Dso= 1.7 10
o ri IL, 1, I4,1,4..1,1IWlik1kl. Ei . _
Ds4= 6.9
—
D95= 12.5 �(on, ,fh o yh Oy N. 1. 11". a 43 0 ,,,N. ,y`°1,yb ,b1, ah ,,,a cio 4b ti'bo,yh6 30'L< 'yO,la�p0O a 00'
cj>
D100= 90.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MV0-02/2016 •MY1-09/2016 •M62-03/2017 •MY3-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT3B,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative UT3B,Reachwide
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 15 18 33 33 33 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
•
Very fine 0.062 0.125 1 2 3 3 36 100 < , , , * I ~• e
Silt/Clay Sand
14
Fine 0.125 0.250 2 2 2 38 90 Gravel Cobble 14 Beu der
SP�O Medium 0.25 0.50 38 80 � Bedroll.
Coarse 0.5 1.0 38 0 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 8 8 8 46
> 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 46 '_ V
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 47 B 50
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 2 2 2 49 a 40
--... 111111111111.)11111111111
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 2 51 w 30
1-2
J<v Medium 8.0 11.0 5 5 5 56 d 20
GQ'P Medium 11.0 16.0 1 5 6 6 62 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 7 3 10 10 72
Coarse 22.6 32 2 2 2 74 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 8 1 9 9 83
Very Coarse 45 64 4 4 4 87 Particle Class Size(mm)
MV0-02/2016 —0—MV1-09/2016 —0—MY2-03/2012 t MY3-05/2018 1,41S-03/2020
Small 64 90 5 1 6 6 93
0C Small 90 128 4 4 4 97
`00 Large 128 180 2 2 2 99
Large 180 256 1 1 1 100 UT3B,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
‹c'C` Small 362 512 100 100
SO
�pJ Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK 'Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 c 70
Total 50 50 100 100 100 L 60
v
a 50
Reachwide
2 40
Channel materials(mm) u
Dis= Silt/Clay s 30
D35= 0.10 320
Dso= 6.7 c 10
D50= 49.1 0 JII. L, Li .J.- J - .._L.i�`1���A A • ,
D95= 107.3 oob1. ,.1,'�oyh Oy N. 1. ,.1, b 5Cp 0 ,y'L ,0�,LO ,>,'1. Ph 6b 00 y,1b 100 1i3O „50,y,,ti�,yb tiOb$tie)
D1oo= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MV0-02/2016 MY109,201b •MV2-03/2012 •MY3-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT3B,Cross-Section 13
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
Count UT3B,Cross-Section 13
min max Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 13 13 13 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 8 8 21 100 < , 1 1 * I I I .-• • •
Silt/Clay :and v�'
Fine 0.125 0.250 3 3 24 90 Gravel Y Cobble Boulder E ►
SP0) Medium 0.25 0.50 2 2 26 80 Bedrock
Coarse 0.5 1.0 26 e 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 12 12 38
> 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 3 3 41 'P
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 41 50
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 3 3 44 a 40 / �/
Fine 5.6 8.0 7 7 51 y 301-2
//
,0, Medium 8.0 11.0 4 4 55 a 20
03'. Medium 11.0 16.0 7 7 62 -• •
10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 11 11 73
Coarse 22.6 32 6 6 79 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 8 8 87
Very Coarse 45 64 4 4 91 Particle Class Size(mm)
MYO-02/2016 MY1-09/2016 Y2 M -03/2017 tY3 M -05/2018 �-MY5-03/2020
Small 64 90 3 3 94
\‘<, Small 90 128 4 4 98
(.
e Large 128 180 2 2 100
Large 180 256 100 UT3B,Cross-Section 13
•
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
�� Small 362 512 100 100
�� 90
�0 Medium 512 1024 100
'Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK''`;''Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 c 70
Total 100 100 100 60
a
a 50
Cross-Section 13 m 40
_ Channel materials(mm) u
Dm= 0.08 v 330
_ D35= 1.68 20
D50= 7.6 1p �_ I,. iJI .A L �� �+.u.di1il�iiLr.I_,_
D84= 39.6
-
D95= 98.3 o�0, ,fh O.
Oy N. 1. ,1,7 a „.)30 ,,,N. ,,cp itib 3ti ay ,,,,aopo yyw $1y0,53ti yytiyoyaloa���9ro
Dioo= 180.0 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-02/2016 •MY1-09/2016 •862-03/2017 •8Y3-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT4B,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative UT4B,Reachwide
SILT/CLAY silt/clay 0.000 0.062 2 17 19 19 19 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 19 100 t SiltlClay * Sand `y. •• • •
Fine 0.125 0.250 5 5 5 24 90 Gavel Cobble 4 gnu ler
SPS4 Medium 0.25 0.50 2 2 2 26 80 Bedroll.
Coarse 0.5 1.0 7 7 7 33 70
2'
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 5 7 7 40
60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 7 7 7 47 •.
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 3 5 8 8 55 50
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 4 2 6 6 61 v 40
Fine 5.6 8.0 7 7 7 68 w 30
2
40, Medium 8.0 11.0 6 6 6 74 a 20
GQ'P Medium 11.0 16.0 8 8 8 82 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 10 10 10 92
Coarse 22.6 32 7 7 7 99 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 1 1 1 100
Very Coarse 45 64 100 Particle Class Size(mm)
MV0-02/2016 MY109/2016 M1,2-03/2012 t MY3-05/2018 MY5-03/2020
Small 64 90 100
0i Small 90 128 100
t,Dt Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100 UT4B,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
O(f". Small 362 512 100
�0J� Medium 512 1024 _ 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK 'Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 4-, 70
Total 50 50 100 100 100 60
a
°- 50
Reachwide
ro 40
Channel materials(mm) u
To il
D16= Silt/Clay 30
Dss 1.22
20
1/43
D5o= 3.2 10 I
Dom= v.1 o Ili .L�IILI.ILJ�J1.Ii,.1LJ�IW i _Li L+
D95= 26.2 o�0. ,.yh 0* '1,
Oy N. '1. ti$ a 5Cp 0 ,y1 ,(,.0L,(,.0�, ,5'L ah cot. cO 41, $ �y0 „50,yy'L y6,yb ticp$��0
D3oo= 45.0 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-02/2016 MY3-09/2016 M1,2-03/2012 •MY3-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT4B,Cross-Section 14
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
Count UT4B,Cross-Section 14
min max Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 6 6 6 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 6 100 < SiltlCla * g • ~ ~• • •
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 7 90 Y and ravel CobbleE ►
Bou der Bedrock
SP�Q Medium 0.25 0.50 7 80
Coarse 0.5 1.0 7 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 6 6 13
• > 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 3 3 16 'P
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 6 6 22 E 50
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 8 8 30 a 40 / e e e e i
Fine 5.6 8.0 4 4 34 y 30
,0, Medium 8.0 11.0 9 9 43 a 20
03'. Medium 11.0 16.0 14 14 57
Coarse 16.0 22.6 14 14 71 1016-7 �-
Coarse 22.6 32 21 21 92 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 7 7 99
Very Coarse 45 64 1 1 100 Particle Class Size(mm)
-0-MV0-02/2016 MY1-09/2016 Y2 M -03/201J tY3 M -05/2018 - MYS-03/2020
Small 64 90 100
\‘<, Small 90 128 100
(.
e Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100 UT4B,Cross-Section 14
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
�� Small 362 512 100 100
�� 90
�0 Medium 512 1024 100
'Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK''`;''Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 c 70
Total 100 100 100 60
a
a 50
Cross-Section 14 m 40
_ Channel materials(mm) u
Dm= 2.80 v 330
_ D35= 8.29 20 .'I LILI
D50= 13.3 c 10 a _1 .E.� �� ��_ ���r+ l W■ILIii, .1 _
D84= 28.0
D9s= 37.0 oo(01, .1,"otih o`' ti 1. 1, o- 5cp 52 ,yti y0�,ti6 3ti ah 0, 00 yy'b yOO�y0 O0ti yyti y�,lA ti0bO�040
Dioo= 64.0 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-02/2016 •MY1-09/2016 •992-03/2017 •913-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT5,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative UT5,Reachwide
SILT/CLAY silt/clay 0.000 0.062 3 24 27 27 27 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
oo
Very fine 0.062 0.125 27 190 Silt/Clay * Sand Gravel `� ~ ~• •
Fine 0.125 0.250 12 12 12 39 / Cobble Boulder
SPS4 Medium 0.25 0.50 2 2 2 41 80 .11
/ / Bedroll,
Coarse 0.5 1.0 41 - 70 ,
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 3 5 5 46
j 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 2 1 3 3 49 '..7.
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 2 3 3 52 3 50
Fine 4.0 5.6 3 2 5 5 57 v 40 • • ✓•'
Fine 5.6 8.0 3 3 3 60 w 30 .
2
JFN, Medium 8.0 11.0 3 3 3 63 a 20
GQ'P Medium 11.0 16.0 5 5 5 68 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 4 2 6 6 74
Coarse 22.6 32 7 2 9 9 83 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 6 6 6 89
Very Coarse 45 64 5 5 5 94 Particle Class Size(mm)
Small 64 90 3 3 3 97 MVO-02/2016 5 MY109/2016 MY2-03/2012 tY3-0 M5/2018 MYS-03/2020
0, Small 90 128 3 3 3 100
`Ot Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100 UT5,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
�ci". Small 362 512 100
�0J Medium 512 1024 _ 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK (Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 c 70
Total 50 50 100 100 100 60
v
°- 50
Reachwide
ro 40
Channel materials(mm) u
To li
0,6= Silt/Clay 30 3 20036= 0.20
1/43
Dso= 3.2 10
• �r ..1 . •••r�,h..,..L IJkA &A �. _
D9,= 71.79 ti h h h N. ti a o y e e ti h o- o w o o ti ti ro e
D9s= 71.7 oob e:› oti O' ti' S' y y '�. ' a 6 A y'L yw .lh 3/O yy yoti 1, cP
D1oo= 128.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-02/2016 MY1-09/2016 MY2-03/2012 •MY3-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT5,Cross-Section 17
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
min max Count Percentage Cumulative UT5,Cross Section 17
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 3 3 3 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 3 100 < Silt/Clay and* g I I • ~ ~• • •
Fine 0.125 0.250 3 90 Gravel Cobble Boulder N'
SP0) Medium 0.25 0.50 3 80 Bedrock
Coarse 0.5 1.0 3 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 6 6 9
> 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 9 '�
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 10 50
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 3 3 13 a 40
Fine 5.6 8.0 4 4 17 y 30
u
,0' Medium 8.0 11.0 4 4 21 a 20 e—e•-° ~
03'. Medium 11.0 16.0 9 9 30 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 21 21 51
Coarse 22.6 32 18 18 69 0 - --•—•
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 24 24 93
Very Coarse 45 64 4 4 97 Particle Class Size(mm)
-0-MYO-02/2016 -0-MY1-09/2016 —6—MV2-03/2017 t M13-05/2016 -111--MY5-03/2020
Small 64 90 2 2 99
\‘<, Small 90 128 1 1 100
(.
e Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100 UTS,Cross-Section 17
•
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
�� Small 362 512 100 100
�� 90
�0 Medium 512 1024 100
'Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK''`;''Bedrock I 2048 I >2048 100 c 70
Total 100 100 100 60
a
a 50
Cross-Section 17 m 40
_ Channel materials(mm) u
D16= 7.32 v 30
D35= 17.37 Ti.- 20
D50= 22.2 10
Dsa= 39.6
—
095= 53.7 o�0, ,y`'oyh Oy N, 1, ,y,7 a yro 0 ,yti ,y`°iyb ,2�. ph 0, o;o yyw 47s yy0��ti yyti ,ya le��9ro
0100= 128.0 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-02/2016 •MY1-09/2016 •992-03/2017 •913-05/2018 •MY5-03/2020

Table 13. Bank Pin Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT South Fork Reach 1-Cross-Section 4 Pool (Station 118+63)
Date posure(in)
Upstream 0.0
Midstream 4/15/2016 0.0
Downstream 0.0
Upstream 0.0
Midstream 9/14/2016 0.0
Downstream 0.0
Upstream 0.0
Midstream 10/19/2017 0.0
Downstream 0.0
Upstream 0.0
Midstream 10/22/2018 0.0
Downstream 0.0
Upstream 0.0
Midstream 9/25/2020 0.0
Downstream 0.0

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Date of Data Date of Date of Data Date of Date of Data Date of Date of Data Date of Date of Data Date of
Reach Collection Occurrence Collection Occurrence Collection Occurrence Collection Occurrence Collection Occurrence Method
UTSF Reach 1 8/8/2016 2/16/2016 3/9/2017 1/9/2017 7/3/2018 5/16/2018 9/26/2019 3/21/2019 2/11/2020 2/6/2020
10/17/2017 7/23/2017 10/22/2018 9/17/2018* *** 4/19/2019 8/7/2020 6/11/2020
3/9/2017 1/9/2017 3/21/2019 2/11/2020 2/6/2020 Crest Gage/
UTSF Reach 2 8/8/2016 2/16/2016 Pressure
10/17/2017 7/23/2017 10/22/2018 ** 9/26/2019 4/19/2019 8/7/2020 6/11/2020
3/9/2017 1/9/2017 7/3/2018 5/16/2018 3/21/2019 2/11/2020 2/6/2020 Transducer
UTS 8/8/2016 2/16/2016 9/26/2019
10/17/2017 7/23/2017 10/22/2018 9/17/2018* 4/19/2019 8/7/2020 6/11/2020
*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.
Monthly Rainfall Data
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Maney Farm 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020 Siler City,NC
8
7
6
5
c
.a`o
m 4
b.3
2
1
0
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20
Date
2020 Rainfall Data -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
2020 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,2020).

30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Maney Farm 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020 Siler City,NC
10 3
8 iii1 I
2
s. 6 .1111
�� • in
c W
v —
011111111 OM
Y .s
no 2
1
2 ri .1 jill
..,.'� \�-0 LWi!IUIJi! 0
3 no
DailyRainfall —30-Day Cumulative Total —30%Rainfall Total —70%Rainfall Total
1 2020 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,2020).

Recorded In-Stream Flow Events
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Maney Farm: In-Stream Flow Gage for UTSF Reach 1
Monitoring Year 5-2020
573.0 4.0
I• — • — • — • — . — • — • — . — • — . — • — .134 days_of consecutive stream flow_ . - 3.5
yy y - 3.0
572.0 _ ""14**411 _r'3 2.5
c
v —
- 2.0 m
c
'@ m
aC
- 1.5
571.0
- 1.0
I I 570.0 1 , L. i L 1- .-a� ' J .11I f _.1 . IIIJIIL I II, II ■L I J .p I i 1 I 0.0
0 -0 >. 0 as Q > C.,LL a s a' o z° o
Rainfall UTSF Reach 1 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • Bankfull

Table 15. Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Attainment Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Summary of In-Stream Flow Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Max Consecutive Days/Total Days Meeting Success Criteria*
Reach Year 1(2016) Year 2(2017) Year 3(2018) Year 4(2019) Year 5(2020)** Year 6(2021) Year 7(2022)
UTSF Reach 1 207 Days/ 137 Days/ 365 Days/ 365 Days/ 134 Days/
207 Days 191 Days 365 Days 365 Days 264 Days
*Success criteria is 30 consecutive days of flow.
**Data collected through September 23, 2020