20160366 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2020_20210105

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20160366 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/06/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/5/2021
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#:* 20160366 Version:*1
Existing ID## Existing Version
Project Type: C' DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Martin Dairy Mitigation Slte
County: Orange
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: MartinDairy_97087_MY3_2020.pdf 4.62MB
Rease upload only one R7Fof the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*
('AM ( 41

f dt w
iy �. .. ! +9P.: .� 't ..-- 'i`fi4t
•
VOW**
y� � "
C.y 4r 4 x Py
V r i4 *yi t& t p4 s
•
MONITORING YEAR 3 MARTIN DAIRY MITIGATION SITE
Orange County, NC
ANNUAL REPORT NCDEQ Contract No. 006831
Final DMS Project No. 97087
USACE Action ID No. 2016-00874
NCDWR Project No. 2016-0366
Data Collection Period: January—October 2020
Draft Submission Date: November 9, 2020
Final Submission Date: December 14,2020
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

WILDLANDS
December 14, 2020
Jeremiah Dow
N.C. Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
RE: Monitoring Year 3 Report Martin Dairy Mitigation Site, DMS ID#97087
Neuse River Basin—CU#03020201
Orange County, North Carolina
Contract No. 6831
Dear Mr. Dow,
We have reviewed the comments on the Monitoring Year 3 Report for the above referenced project
dated December 10, 2020 and have revised the report based on these comments.The revised
documents are submitted with this letter. Below are responses to each of your comments. For your
convenience,the comments are reprinted with our response in italics.
MY3 Report—Stream Mitigation
1. Section 1.2.1—Second paragraph discusses counting volunteers toward vegetative success criteria
and lists Sweet Gum when listing desirable volunteers. Sweet Gum should not be counted toward
vegetative success.
Sweet Gum were removed from the list of volunteers counted in vegetative success.
2. Figure 3—Recommend using a different aerial image.The image is largely devoid of any features
including roads and structures.
Aerial imagery in Figure 3 was updated.
MY3 Report—Riparian Buffer Mitigation
3.Table 1—Please change Final Credit Ratio for Martin Dairy 101-200 from 3.00000 to 3.03030.Take
all Riparian Buffer Credits (BMU)to 3 decimal places. Please change the BMUs for Martin Dairy 101-
200 to 30,776.478 and the total credits to 379,169.358
The Final Credit Ratio for Martin Dairy 101-200 was changed from 3.00000 to 3.03030. Riparian Buffer
Credits(BMU) were calculated to 3 decimal places. The BMUs for Martin Dairy 101-200 were changed to
30,776.478 and the total credits to 379,169.358
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P)919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225 • Raleigh,NC 27609

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Overall
4. As required by contract, specifically RFP#16-006477, Wildlands must submit an updated
Monitoring Phase Performance Bond (MPPB) for Monitoring Year 4 (Task 10) to Jeff Jurek for his
approval before DMS approves this deliverable and the associated payment.
An updated Monitoring Phase Performance Bond (MPPB) for Monitoring Year 4 (Task 10) was
submitted.
If you have any questions, please contact me by phone [phone], or by email
([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
r
Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
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 Martin Dairy
Mitigation Project(Site)for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS)to restore a total of 2,135 linear feet (LF) of perennial streams in Orange
County, NC.The Site is expected to generate 2,135 stream mitigation units (SMUs). All stream lengths
were measured along the stream centerline for SMU calculations.The Site is located approximately
eight miles northeast of Hillsborough, NC and eight miles south of Caldwell, NC (Figure 1) in the Neuse
River Basin 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201.The project is located within the Neuse River Basin
Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201030030 and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-04-01.
There are two unnamed streams on the Site, Martin Dairy Creek and UT1 with a downstream drainage
area of 526 acres.The downstream drainage area of the Site is 526 acres.The Site drains to the Eno
River which flows to Falls Lake and is classified as water supply waters (WS-IV).The 11.155-acre Site is
protected with a permanent conservation easement.
The Site is located within the Neuse River Targeted Local Watershed as presented in the 2010 Neuse
River Basin Restoration Priorities(RBRP) (Breeding, 2010), which highlights the importance of riparian
buffers for stream restoration projects.The Site was an active dairy farm until 2014 when livestock were
removed.
The project goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2017)were developed considering the
goals and objectives listed in the Neuse River RBRP plan.The project goals include:
• Reconnect channels with floodplains and riparian wetlands to allow a natural flooding regime;
• Improve the stability of stream channels;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain and streambank vegetation;
• Improve instream habitat; and
• Permanently protect the Site from harmful land uses.
The project will contribute to achieving the goals for the watershed listed in the Neuse River RBRP and
provide ecological benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While benefits such as habitat improvement
and geomorphic stability are limited to the Site, reduced nutrient and sediment loading have farther
reaching effects. In addition, planned and implemented projects in the same watershed and basin as this
Site will realize cumulative benefits.
The Site construction and as-built surveys were completed between July 2017 and January 2018.
Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) assessments and site visits were completed between January and October
2020 to assess the conditions of the project. Overall,the Site has met the required vegetation and
stream success criteria for MY3.The overall average stem density for the Site is 359 planted stems per
acre, exceeding the MY3 interim requirement of 320 stems per acre. Vegetation plots 6, 7, and 8 did not
meet the MY3 interim requirement of 320 stems per acre; however, the planted stems per acre for each
of the three plots remains above the MY7 requirement of 210. When accounting for volunteers in the
stem totals each of these plots are well above the stem requirements for MY3. A total of 6.6 acres of the
Site received supplemental planting. All restored streams are stable and functioning as designed.
Bankfull and geomorphically significant events were recorded on each restoration reach during MY3.
Bankfull events were documented on each reach during both previous monitoring years,thus the
stream hydrology success criteria has been met.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Nue Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report- Final

MARTIN DAIRY MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment 1-2
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment 1-2
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern 1-3
1.2.3 Stream Assessment 1-3
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern 1-3
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment 1-3
1.2.6 Maintenance Plan 1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary 1-4
Section 2: METHODOLOGY 2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES 3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a-c Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Tables- Metadata
Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Counts
Table 9a Supplemental Planting Tree Species
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a-b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters—Cross-Section)
Table 12a-c Monitoring Data—Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data
30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data
` Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report- Final ii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Martin Dairy Mitigation Site (Site) is located in central Orange County, approximately eight miles
northeast of Hillsborough, NC and eight miles south of Caldwell, NC off of Schley Road (Figure 1).The
Site is located in the Neuse River Basin and within the Falls Lake Water Supply Watershed,which has
been designated a Nutrient Sensitive Water.The project streams drain to the Eno River and eventually
to the Falls Lake Reservoir.The Site is within Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201030030,which is a Targeted
Local Watershed (Figure 1) as identified in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP)
(Breeding, 2010).The Site is in in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS,
1998).The project watershed consists primarily of agricultural and wooded land and the drainage area
for project site is 526 acres (0.82 square miles).
The project streams consist of Martin Dairy Creek and one unnamed tributary (UT1). Mitigation work
within the Site included restoration of 2,135 linear feet(LF) of perennial stream channels.The riparian
areas were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality.The final
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2017)was submitted to and accepted by DMS in March 2017. Construction
activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in July 2017. Planting and seeding activities
were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in December 2017. Baseline monitoring (MVO) was
conducted between August 2017 and January 2018. Monitoring Year 3 was conducted in 2020. Annual
monitoring will occur for seven years with the close-out anticipated to occur in 2025 given the success
criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides additional details on project activity, history, contact information,
and watershed/background information for the Site.
The Site is located on two tracts under the ownership of Ted H. Martin (PIN 9896-83-0483 &9896-83-
9111). A conservation easement was recorded on 11.155 acres (Deed Book 6218, Pages 270- 289). The
project is expected to provide 2,135 stream mitigation units (SMUs) by closeout.
A project vicinity map and directions are provided in Figure 1 and project components/assets are
illustrated in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the primary degradation at the Site was the clearing of vegetation and
channelization of Martin Dairy Creek and UT1. Channelization, as indicated by dredge spoil in the
floodplain, involved straightening and deepening of the stream. Historic livestock grazing and hay
cultivation on the Site further contributed to degradation of the riparian corridor and stream channel.
Table 4 in Appendix 1 and Tables 10a and 10b in Appendix 4 present the pre-restoration conditions in
detail.
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While
benefits such as habitat improvement and geomorphic stability are limited to the project site, reduced
nutrient and sediment loading have farther reaching effects.The table below, describes expected
outcomes to water quality and ecological processes are provided with project goals and objectives.The
project goals and objectives were developed as part of the Mitigation Plan considering the goals and
objectives listed in the Neuse River RBRP plan and strive to maximize ecological and water quality uplift
within the watershed.
The following project goals and related objectives established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2017)
include:
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Nue Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report- Final 1-1

Goal Objective Expected Outcomes
Reconstruct stream channels with Raise water table and hydrate riparian
Reconnect channels with designed bankfull dimensions and wetlands.Allow more frequent flood
floodplains and riparian depth based on reference reach flows to disperse on the floodplain.
wetlands to allow a natural data. Remove existing dredge Support geomorphology and higher level
flooding regime. spoil to reconnect channel with functions.
adjacent wetlands.
Construct stream channels that Reduce sediment inputs from bank
Improve the stability of will maintain stable cross- erosion. Reduce shear stress on channel
stream channels. sections, patterns,and profiles boundary.Support all stream functions
over time. above hydrology.
Plant native tree and understory Reduce sediment inputs from bank
Restore and enhance native species in riparian zones and erosion and runoff. Increase nutrient
floodplain and streambank plant native shrub and cycling and storage in floodplain. Provide
vegetation. herbaceous species on riparian habitat.Add a source of LWD
streambanks. and organic material to the streams.
Support all stream functions.
Install habitat features such as Increase and diversify available habitats
constructed riffles, lunker logs, for macroinvertebrates,fish,and
and brush toes into restored
Improve instream habitat. streams.Add woody materials to amphibians leading to colonization and
channel beds.Construct pools of increase in biodiversity over time.Add
varying depth. complexity including LWD to the streams.
Protect the Site from encroachment on
Permanently protect the Site Establish a conservation the riparian corridor and direct impact to
from harmful uses. easement on the Site. streams and wetlands.Support all stream
functions.
1.2 Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during MY3 to assess the condition of the project.The
vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the
Mitigation Plan.
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of eight
standard 10-meter by 10-meter vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring within
the project easement area.
The final vegetative success criteria are the survival of 210 planted stems per acre at the end of MY7.
The interim measure of vegetative success is the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the
end of MY3 and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of MY5. Planted vegetation must average 10 feet
in height at the end of MY7.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report- Final 1-2

The MY3 vegetative survey was completed in September 2020.The 2020 vegetation monitoring resulted
in an average stem density of 359 planted stems per acre,which is above the interim requirement of
320 stems per acre required at MY3 and 40% less than the baseline density recorded in January 2018
(597 stems per acre).There is an average of 9 stems per plot in MY3 compared to 14 stems per plot in
MYO. Vegetation plots 6, 7, and 8 were below the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre, with
respective planted stems per acre of 243, 283, and 243. Mortality of planted stems in these three plots
is primarily due to competition with two native herbaceous species: tearthumb (Persicaria sagittate)
and blackberry(Rubus canadensis). Despite the mortality of planted stems in these plots the number of
volunteer species remains high. When accounting for volunteers each of these plots meets the MY3
interim success criteria with the number of stems per acre totaling 1,214, 890, and 3,035. Volunteer
species include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), flowering dogwood (Cornus
florida), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra).
Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition assessment table and
Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
UT1 was a priority II restoration reach and the floodplain was graded during construction leaving poor
soil conditions for vegetation growth. Tree vigor and vegetative cover along UT1 has improved since
MY2 but is still not performing as well as the rest of the Site. Container trees and tublings were planted
in the 0.5 acre low growth area along UT1 at a stem density of 140 stems per acre, and soil amendments
were added to further promote vegetative growth. An additional 6.11 acres of the Site also received
light supplemental planting at a stem density of 70 stems per acre to increase species diversity.
Supplemental planting and low growth areas are shown in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) map
in Appendix 2, and a list of supplemental species can be found in Table 9a. If deemed necessary,
remedial actions will be taken in subsequent monitoring years to promote tree growth. Additionally,
existing trees throughout the site received ring sprays to reduce competition with herbaceous
vegetation and promote tree growth.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY3 were conducted in March 2020. All streams within the Site are stable
and functioning as designed. In general, cross-sections at the Site show little to no change in the bankfull
area, maximum depth ratio, or width-to-depth ratio. Bank height ratios are less than 1.1. Substrate
materials indicate the maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle reaches and finer particles in the
pools. Longitudinal profile surveys are not required on the project unless visual inspection indicates
reach wide vertical instability. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, CCPV map,
and stream photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
No stream areas of concern were identified during MY3.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in
separate years within the restoration reaches. Also, two geomorphically significant events must be
documented during the monitoring period. Bankfull events and multiple geomorphically significant
events were recorded on all restoration reaches during MY1, MY2, and MY3 resulting in attainment of
the stream hydrology success criteria. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Nue Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report- Final 1-3

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.
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary
Five of the eight vegetation plots have met the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre,
and all eight plots are on track to meet the final success criteria of 210 stems per acre. When counting
volunteer species, all vegetation plots exceed the interim success criteria for MY3. Despite the mortality
of planted stems in vegetation plots 6, 7, and 8 the total number of stems per acre and species diversity
in each of the plots remains high. All streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed.
Bankfull and geomorphically significant events during two separate years have been documented on all
stream reaches, resulting in fulfillment of the stream hydrology success criteria.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan available on DMS's
website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS upon
request.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Nue Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report- Final 1-4

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in Stream Restoration:A Natural
Channel Design Handbook(Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Crest gages and pressure transducers were installed in riffle cross-sections and monitored throughout
the year. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with
the United States Army Corps of Engineers standards (USACE, 2003). Vegetation monitoring protocols
followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Nue Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report- Final 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Breeding, R. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities 2010. NCEEP, NC
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley,J., Harman, W.A.,Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy,J.P. 1994.Stream Channel Reference Sites:An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D.,Wentworth,T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For
Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages
12-22.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2018. Martin Dairy Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and As-
Built Baseline Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2017. Martin Dairy Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Nue Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report- Final 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

i.
. j•_•J Hydrologic Unit Code(14) .-
- Project Area
DMS Targeted Local Watersheds .,e\ i..1
•�• -••-.� 03020201020010
N.
It /
► ,
- i F:r.••rl rF.
1 1‘N.
...•� ■
03020201020020. t►,I �.r 1
% •1
I
. t
I" I,, j �4, I•;•
~ 1 ` -) �I 0 120201020030
�� ~ ..
\� t I 1
1. !
ti
} ��._ ,"
f
t
03020201030030 /
t
i 2.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the 03020201030040
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services(DMS)and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement,but is Directions:
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may From Raleigh,NC,take 1-40 West towards Durham.
require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and r Take exit 279B for NC-147 N towards Durham/Downtown.
therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by { Travel approximately 13 miles and merge onto I-85 S.Travel
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
approximately 2 miles,take exit 170 for US-70 W.
designees/contractors involved in the development,oversight, "...IIn 0.2 miles turn right onto Pleasant Green Road.Travel 5.8
and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms 1 miles and stay straight through the intersection with
and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
i St.Mary Road onto Schley Rd.In 0.7 miles,the parking area
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles i is on the left in a powerline R/W 200 feet
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS. % south of Lipscomb Grove Church Road.
In
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
W I L D L A N D S , Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 0.5 1 Miles
DMS Project No. 97087
IIIII N Monitoring Year 3-2020
IIIM Orange County, NC

1
QParcels •—•—•—•
1—•,Conservation Easement i >
�r f 1
E.(i Internal Easement .
Powerline Easements •
gi- I ,7j -; if 401re
Powerlines �' � �
Project Streams �r ;`� 1
Reach Break j 1
1 1
e
1
MOB :1 �1 1I<
. .
1 •
. p ,
ii
1 F
w ii
J i 1
i •
iii
1 '
1 1 nailDai y@
i 1
i 1
i 1
1 1
1/111111 i 1
1
1 j 0
i i
1 1
1 1
1
1
. i
1
i i
1 1
i i
1 1
ii -
1
j •
f ; . i
yti ., r
1 3' • r g a .a"
2020 Aerial Photography Ai ,.,z • - _ • •
- .
Figure 2. Project Component/Asset Map
kiliPvigiv W I L D L A N D S 0 100 200 Feet , Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING DMS Project No. 97087
i I I I i
N Monitoring Year 3-2020
Orange County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
miM MITIGATION CREDITS
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 2,135 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
PROJECT COMPONENTS
Reach ID Centerline Existing Footage Approach Restoration or Restoration Equivalent Restoration As-Built Thalweg Mitigation Ratio Credits
Stationing Footage(LF)* Footage(IF) (SMU/WMU)
STREAMS
100+13-101+38,
Martin Dairy R1 101+78-107+61 503 P1 Restoration 708 721 1 708
Martin Dairy R2 107+61-119+71 1,173 P1 Restoration 1,210 1,258 1 1,210
UT1 200+33-202+50 138 PII Restoration 217 214 1 217
Restoration Level Stream(LF) Riparian Wetland(acres) Non-Riparian Wetland(acres) Buffer(acres) Upland(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 2,135 - - - - -
Enhancement - - - - -
Enhancement I -
Enhancement II -
Creation - - -
Preservation - - - - -
High Quality Preservation - - - - -
N/A:not applicable
*Linear footage calculated along stream centerline.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan March 2017 March 2017
Final Design-Construction Plans March 2017 March 2017
Construction June 2017-July 2017 July 2017
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area' June 2017-July 2017 July 2017
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments" June 2017-July 2017 July 2017
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments December 2017 December 2017
Stream Survey August 2017
Baseline Monitoring Document(Year 0) January 2018
Vegetation Survey January 2018
Stream Survey June 2018
Year 1 Monitoring December 2018
Vegetation Survey September 2018
Stream Survey May 2019
Year 2 Monitoring December 2019
Vegetation Survey September 2019
Supplemental Planting January 2020
Stream Survey March 2020
Year 3 Monitoring December 2020
Vegetation Survey September 2020
Year 4 Monitoring December 2021
Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey 2022 December 2022
egetation Survey 2022
Year 6 Monitoring December 2023
Year 7 Monitoring Stream Survey 2024 =cember 2024
egetation Survey 2024
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Designer 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225
Angela Allen,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
Dykes and Sons Nursery and Greenhouse
Bare Roots
Live Stakes Bruton Natural Systems,Inc
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Monitoring,POC Jason Lorch
919.851.9986

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
County Orange County
Project Area(acres) 11.155
Planted Area(acres) 10.139
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 36"7'25.76"N,79"0'14.26"'Al
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
Physiographic Province Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin Neuse River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03020201030030
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-01
Project Drainiage Area(acres) 526
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 0.4%
CGIA Land Use Classification 59.0%forested,40.6%cultivated,0.4%impervious
Parameters Martin Dairy UT1
Length of Reach(linear feet)-Post-Restoration 1,918 217
Drainage Area(acres) 526 141
NCDWR Stream Identification Score 36.75 30.75
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-IV
Morphological Desription(stream type) Perennial
Evolutionary Trend(Simon's Model)-Pre-Restoratior IV:Degradation and Widening
Underlying Mapped Soils Chewacla loam,Herndon silt loam,Tatum silt loam
Drainage Class - I -
Soil Hydric Status - -
Slope - -
FEMA Classification N/A
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation-Post-Restoration 0%
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification
Waters of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes No.4087.
Division of Land Quality(Dam Safety) N/A N/A N/A
Martin Diary Mitigation Plan;Wildlands determined"no effect"on Orange
County listed endangered species.The USFWS responded on June 3,2016 and
concurred with NCWRC stating that"the proposed action is not likely to
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes
adversely affect any federally-listed endangered or threatened species,their
formally designated critical habitat,or species currently proposed for listing
under the Act."
Correspondence from SHPO on June 3,2016 indicating they were not aware
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
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)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance N/A N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

;_,.Conservation Easement
C2$Internal Easement
r.------*- f
Powerline Easements i 1 I'
Existing Wetlands y/<Y
1_ :yZ. -
Powerlines V 7</,
-As-Built Alignment i _ yr*p, I
! • \ IiPtill dir
-Reach Break
Cross-Section (XS) i
4l i Dliglo C ( 1 Si
Photo Point(PP) !*� 2 y
4 Barotroll j .
�, ; .4
I
Crest Gauge 1 f
r- � } r •
VA Supplemental Planting I � ` Ai .
Low Growth Area i . *
Vegetation Plot Condition-MY3 i
*"
1 ti
Criteria Met 1 - UT1
_
Criteria Not Met i ,__
1 i ., Martin Hills Lane
*PP i
i I I fI
i 4 I.
- 'I.' 1 - -
I
i 5 f4$�C3G3
JOT' i • 1
4111111111114 i
I i I
1
i •
i i; ii ti-A4
ii i 7 * i
4.
.. i 4 i -
N i i
/4 1 .
'.ti PP 8
via )41111.-
tir
2020 Aerial Photography - - -
Figure 3. Intergrated Current Condition Plan View
PIZ,WI L D L A N D S 0 100 200 Feet \ Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING l DMS Project No. 97087
I I I IN Monitoring Year 3-2020
Orange County, NC

Table 5a.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Martin Dairy Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Martin Dair Reach 1
Amount of %Stable, Number
Stabilizing Stabilizing
hannel Sub-Category Metric Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody
Footage Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed Aggradation 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 8 8 100%
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 9 9 100%
Condition Length Appropriate 9 9 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 8 8 100%
4.Thalweg Position meander bend(Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 9 9 100%
meander bend(Glide)
2.Bank
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.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,calving,or collapse. 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3.Engineered
Structures' Structures physically intact with no
1.Overall Integrity 5 5 100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 5 5 100%
maintenance of grade across the sill.
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a.Piping 5 5 100%
underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
3.Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 5 5 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat -Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth 1.6 6 6 100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sb.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Martin Dairy Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Martin Dair Reach 2
Amount of %Stable, Number with1Footage with Adjust%for
Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
hannel Sub-Category Metric Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody
Footage Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed Aggradation 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 13 13 100%
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 13 13 100%
Condition Length Appropriate 13 13 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 13 13 100%
4.Thalweg Position meander bend(Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 13 13 100%
meander bend(Glide)
2.Bank
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.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,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3.Engineered
Structures' Structures physically intact with no
1.Overall Integrity 8 8 100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting B B 100%
maintenance of grade across the sill.
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a.Piping 8 8 100%
underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
3.Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 8 8 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat "Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth 1.6 4 4 100%
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
Martin Dairy Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
UT1
Amount of %Stable, Number withhFootage with Adjust%for
Major Channel Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody
Footage Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed Aggradation 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 4 4 100%
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)
2.Bank
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.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,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3.Engineered
Structures' Structures physically intact with no
1.Overall Integrity 1 1 100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 1 1 100%
maintenance of grade across the sill.
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a.Piping 1 1 100%
underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
3.Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 1 1 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat -Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth 1.6 2 2 100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Planted Acreage 10.139
Mapping
Vegetation Category -finitions Threshold
(Ac)
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
Bare Areas 0.1 0 0 0%
material
Low Stem Density Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based
0.1 0 0 0%
Areas on MY3,4,or 5 stem count criteria.
Total 0 0 0%
Areas of Poor Growth Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously
0.25 Ac 1 0.52 5%
Rates or Vigor small given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total 1 0.52 5%
Easement Acreage 11.155
T %
Mapping Number of Combined of
Definitions Threshold Easement
(SF) Polygons Acreage Acreage
Invasive Areas of Areas of points(if too small to render as polygons at map 1,000 0 0 0%
Concern scale).
Easement Areas of points(if too small to render as polygons at map
none 0 0 0%
Encroachment Areas scale).

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTO POINT 1 Martin Dairy R1—upstream(3/19/2020) PHOTO POINT 1 Martin Dairy R1—downstream(3/19/2020)
.,r 1h I - I. -
•
PHOTO POINT 2 Martin Dairy R1—upstream(3/19/2020) PHOTO POINT 2 Martin Dairy R1—downstream(3/19/2020)
P , -
a i 'I
a
i
PHOTO POINT 3 Martin Dairy R1—upstream (3/19/2020) PHOTO POINT 3 Martin Dairy R1—downstream (3/19/2020)

J `r
PHOTO POINT 4 Martin Dairy R2—upstream(3/19/2020) PHOTO POINT 4 Martin Dairy R2—downstream(3/19/2020)
4,11
PHOTO POINT 5 Martin Dairy R2—upstream(3/19/2020) PHOTO POINT 5 Martin Dairy R2—downstream(3/19/2020)
-. 11111111, 4
'z t w
•
.44
d a, v Y :2
PHOTO POINT 6 Martin Dairy R2—upstream (3/19/2020) PHOTO POINT 6 Martin Dairy R2—downstream (3/19/2020)

Apt'* y� qq ' y`` �.-
F=W
•
'� ' Y
I
PHOTO POINT 7 Martin Dairy R2—upstream(3/19/2020) PHOTO POINT 7 Martin Dairy R2—downstream(3/19/2020)
lir
I �'
I.
ipt
t r dry., �� a�yIP
•,
.fit �' Rni.,; ,. y7y ^ x p '''''t "
s+� I .;7 T4x-ti
6�. 'i fly„ P. _'
PHOTO POINT 8 Martin Dairy R2—upstream(3/19/2020) PHOTO POINT 8 Martin Dairy R2—downstream(3/19/2020)
' '
'
•
r.
1 PHOTO POINT 9 UT1—upstream (3/19/2020) PHOTO POINT 9 UT1—downstream (3/19/2020)

;x.
rP: •
1+ it f:y , -
�..
„
PHOTO POINT 10 UT1—upstream(3/19/2020) PHOTO POINT 10 UT1—downstream(3/19/2020)

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

1r'V '- '' /
_ pillir kr:
dillik-
_- ',,, . ,,...I .';-,'4, ",'T.:A'' ','?f,e,,,41r.,,i,_4.._74 °r
i
rypy
V i
V �U , K L t 7 h 1i, y.,,F i
IA'
VEG PLOT 1(09/22/2020) VEG PLOT 2(09/22/2020)
ilipalkilli
VEG PLOT 3(09/22/2020) VEG PLOT 4(09/22/2020)
t
n y „
,° - - - 6, I -
VEG PLOT 5(09/22/2020) VEG PLOT 6(09/22/2020)

•
'off ... • t -
! Cg
VEG PLOT 7(09/22/2020) VEG PLOT 8(09/22/2020J

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Success Criteria Met Tract Mean
1 Yes
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 Yes
5 Yes 63%
6 No*
7 No*
8 No*
*Vegetation Plots 6,7,and 8 do not meet MY3 interim success criteria of 310 planted stems per acre.However,when including volunteers
Vegetation Plots 6,7,and 8 exceeds the MY3 success criteria.

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables-Metadata
Martin Dairy Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Report Prepared By Jason Lorch
Date Prepared 9/23/2020 9:18
Database Name Martin Dairy-cvs-v2.5.0.-MY3.mdb
Database Location F:\Projects\005-02158 Martin Dairy\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 3-2020\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name KAITLYN2020
File Size 51679232
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 excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code 97087
Project Name Martin Dairy
Description Stream Restoration Project
Sampled Plots 8

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Current Plot Data(MY3 2020)
VP1 VP2 VP3 VP4
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
Carya Hickory Tree 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud Shrub Tree
Corpus florida Flowering Dogwood Shrub Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic 1
Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 1 1 3 1
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
Pyrus calleryana Bradford Pear Exotic 1
Quercus palustris Pin Oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 2
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 1
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree
Ulmus Elm Tree
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm Tree 1 3
Stem count 11 11 13 11 11 14 11 11 12 11 11 13
size(ares) 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 5 5 8 5 5 8 4 4 6 6 6 8
Stems per ACRE 445 445 526 445 445 567 445 445 486 445 445 526
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 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Current Plot Data(MY3 2020)
VP5 VP6 VP7 VP8
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4
Carya Hickory Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud Shrub Tree
Corpus florida Flowering Dogwood Shrub Tree 4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 2 2 62
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic
Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 3
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 24
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 2 2 6
Pyrus calleryana Bradford Pear Exotic 1
Quercus palustris Pin Oak Tree
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 2
Ulmus Elm Tree
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm Tree 2
Stem count 8 8 11 6 6 30 7 7 22 6 6 75
size(ares) 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 4 4 6 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 6
Stems per ACRE 324 324 445 243 243 1,214 283 283 890 243 243 3,035
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 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Annual Means
MY3(2020) MY2(2019) MY1(2018) MY0(2018)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 12 12 18 14 14 14 16 16 16 17 17 17
Carya Hickory Tree 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree 12 8
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud Shrub Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3
Corpus florida Flowering Dogwood Shrub Tree 4 2 2 2 2 2 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 15 15 83 15 15 45 17 17 29 18 18 18
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic 1
Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 9 9 2
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 4 4 4 5 5 7 7 7 7 19 19 19
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 24
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 22 22 29 22 22 27 24 24 25 25 25 25
Pyrus calleryana Bradford Pear Exotic 2 3
Quercus palustris Pin Oak Tree 3 3 3 12 12 12 16 16 16 20 20 20
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 15 15 15 12 12 12 14 14 14 14 14 14
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 1
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 2
Ulmus Elm Tree 2 1
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm Tree 6
Stem count 71 71 190 80 80 140 97 97 121 118 118 118
size(ares) 8 8 8 8
size(ACRES) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Species count 6 6 15 6 6 10 8 8 11 8 8 8
Stems per ACRE 359 359 961 405 405 708 491 491 612 597 597 597
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. Supplemental Planting Tree Species
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Betula nigra River birch 100 Container Plants(50),Tublings(50)
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 100 Container Plants(50),Tublings(50)
Prunus serotina Black cherry 35 Container Plants
Quercus lyrata Overcup oak 15 Container Plants
Quercus phellos Willow oak 75 Container Plants(25),Tublings(50)
Quercus rubra Northern red oak 45 Container Plants(20),Tublings(25)
Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak 30 Container Plants(20),Tublings(10)
Ulmus americana American elm 25 Container Plants
Quercus alba White oak 10 Tublings
Alnus serrulata Tag alder 15 Tublings
Asimina triloba Pawpaw 15 Tublings
Corpus amommum Silky dogwood 15 Tublings
Oxydendrum arboreum Sourwood 10 Tublings
*A total area of 6.61 acres were supplemeted with trees.Areas are shown in Figure 3.

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Martin Dairy
PRE-RESTORATION CONDITION REFERENCE REACH DATA DESIGN AS-BUILT/BASELINE
Martin Dairy Martin Dairy Martin Dairy Martin Dairy Martin Dairy Martin Dairy
Parameter Gage Long Branch Spencer Creek 2 Foust Creek
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 1 Reach 2
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) 8.6 14.0 14.8 I 18.6 10.7 11.2 18.5 19.4 15.0 16.2 14.8 12.8
Flood prone Width(ft) 121 200 50 60 114 49 63 33 I 75 36 I 81 150 200
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.2 1.2 1.3 2.1 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.2 0.9 1.1
Bankfull Max Depth 2.1 2.4 1.9 2.9 2.1 2.6 1.8 2.1 1.3 I 1.7 1.4 I 1.8 1.4 1.8
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft) N/A 10.0 16.1 25.0 34.6 17.8 19.7 23.9 24.1 16.8 20.0 13.2 14.2
Width/Depth Ratio 7.3 12.2 7.9 13.8 5.8 7.1 13.9 14.2 13.4 13.2 16.7 11.6
Entrenchment Ratio 14.2 14.3 3 5.5 10.2 2.6 3.4 2.2-5 2.2-5 10.1 15.6
Bank Height Ratio 1.5 1.4 1.2-1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
D50(mm) 2.6 11.0 -- -- -- 10.6 10.6 13.1 10.2
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12.0 35.9 16.7 51.0
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) -- -- 0.0130 I 0.0120 0.0130 0.0150 I 0.0350 0.0060 I 0.0180 0.0060 I 0.0190 0.0039 0.0193 0.0166 0.0266
Pool Length(ft) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 38.2 77.4 36.1 83.1
Pool Max Depth(ft) N/A -- -- 2.2 3.3 2.5 2.9 1.3 3.3 1.4 3.6 1.4 2.5 1.1 1.9
Pool Spacing(ft) 16 I 91 22 I 108 50 I 105 71 49 91 60 105 65 113 41 101 55 111
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 15 20 17 28 60 38 41 N/A 36 75 39 81 36 75 39 81
Radius of Curvature(ft) 11 32 7 46 16 87 11 15 N/A 27 75 29 81 27 75 29 81
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A 1.3 3.7 0.5 3.3 1.1 4.7 1.3 1.4 N/A 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0
Meander Length(ft) 46 74 46 114 66.0 191 46.0 48.0 N/A 60 225 65 243 60 225 65 243
Meander Width Ratio 1.7 2.3 1.2 2.0 3.2 4.1 3.4 3.6 N/A 2.4 5.0 2.4 5.0 2.4 5.0 2.4 5.0
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 0.13/1.3/2.6/4.6/7.2.4/8.1/11/15/33/ <0.063/3/8.8/42/ SC/0.45/2.8/21.8/ 0.11/1.10/5.0/27.6
N/A 7/77/-/- 54/-/- 90/- 45.0/128.0 /
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)lb/ft' 0.33 0.41 0.25 0.38 0.23 0.49
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power(Capacity)W/m'
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.54 0.82 1.49 0.96 1.38 0.54 0.82 0.54 0.82
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
Rosgen Classification C4/E4 C4/E4 C4/E4 E4 C4 C4/E4 C4/E4 C4/E4 C4/E4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 5.0 3.8 3.6-4.0 4.9-5.4 2.9-3.7 2.8 3.2 2.2 3.3
Bankfull Discharge(cls) -- -- 101-124 97.0 88.0 47.0 63.0 41.0 56.0
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation N/A
Q-Mann ings
Valley Length(ft) -- -- -- -- -- 607 1,043 607 1,043
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 776 1,258
Sinuosity 1.05 1.09 1.30 2.30 1.10 1.25 1.28 1.27 1.22
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)' -- -- -- 0.0046 0.0072
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.009 0.007 0.004 0.005 0.009 -- -- 0.005 0.007
(---):Data was not provided

Table 10b.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
UT1
iiii. _,- :U :f_\
Parameter Gage UT1 Agony Acres UT1- UT to Polecat UT to Varnals UT1 UT1
Reach 3 Creek Creek
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.7 9.1 I 10.4 5.3 10.9 9.3 10.5 9.4 9.2
Floodprone Width(ft) 12.7 36 25 65 20 64 21 I 47 65
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.0 1.0 I 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.8 I 1.3 1.4
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ftz) N/A 5.7 10.7 11.3 5.4 12.4 10.3 12.3 6.7 6.3
Width/Depth Ratio 5.7 7.3 10.1 5.2 9.6 8.1 9.3 13.2 13.3
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 3.9 3.2 8.3 1.9 6.1 2.2 5.0 7.1
Bank Height Ratio 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
D50(mm) 5.1 -- -- -- -- 7.4
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) -- -- -- -- -- 4 28
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) -- -- 0.004 I 0.047 0.024 I 0.057 0.006 I 0.024 0.009 0.016
Pool Length(ft) -- -- -- -- -- 4.2 34.9
Pool Max Depth(ft) N/A 2.0 2.5 1.8 2.5 2.6 0.8 2.2 0.4 1.3
Pool Spacing(ft) -- -- 34 I 52 8 82 38 56 30 73
Pool Volume(ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 9 19 21 93 28 50 15 45 23 66 23 66
Radius of Curvature(ft) 4 13 14 60 19 50 8 47 17 52 17 52
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A 0.7 2.3 14.0 60.0 2.0 5.3 0.6 3.2 1.8 5.5 1.8 5.5
Meander Length(ft) 35 47 121 171 - - - - 56 155 56 155
Meander Width Ratio 1.6 3.3 2.3 8.9 3.0 5.3 1.0 3.0 2.4 7.0 2.4 7.0
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 0.048/3/5.1/6.7/ 0.07/0.28/7.3/20.1/
N/A 8.9/13/-/- 37.9/64.0
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)Ib/ftz 0.6 -- -- -- 0.2 0.3
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power(Capacity)W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.22 0.30 0.41 0.41 0.22 0.22
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) 0.4% -- -- -- 0.4% 0.4%
Rosgen Classification C4/E4 E4 E4 E4 C4/E4 C4/E4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 4.7 2.2 I 2.4 2.2 I 3.5 4.4 I 5.2 3.6 2.5
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) -- 25.0 20.3 54.0 24.0 21.0
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation N/A
Q-Mann ings
Valley Length(ft) -- -- -- -- 186 186
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) -- -- -- -- 213 213
Sinuosity 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)z -- -- -- -- -- 0.0072
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.0160 0.0039 10.0280 0.0120 0.0170 -- 0.0103
(---):Data was not provided

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross-Section)
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
i Martin Dairy Reach 1
Cross-Section 1(Riffle) Cross-Section 2(Pool)
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft) 505.8 505.9 506.1 506.0 505.7 505.9 505.8 505.9
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 505.8 506.1 506.1 506.0 505.7 505.8 505.8 505.9
Bankfull Width(ft) 14.8 15.0 14.5 14.9 20.0 22.5 19.5 19.1
Floodprone Width(ft) 150 150 150 150 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.6 3.0 2.7 3.0 2.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 13.2 13.2 13.8 14.0 29.4 29.4 28.6 28.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.7 16.9 15.2 15.8 13.6 17.2 13.3 13.1
Entrenchment Ratio" 10.1 10.0 10.4 10.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
11111 An_
Cross-Section 3(Pool) Cross-Section 4(Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft) 501.8 501.8 501.8 501.9 501.5 501.4 501.5 501.4
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 501.8 501.8 501.8 501.9 501.5 501.4 501.5 501.4
Bankfull Width(ft) 20.8 21.3 21.0 22.5 12.8 12.4 13.0 12.7
Floodprone Width(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A 200 200 200 200
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 3.5 3.5 3.8 4.0 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.1
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 34.9 34.9 39.2 44.9 14.2 14.2 15.7 15.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.4 13.1 11.2 11.3 11.6 10.9 10.8 10.1
Entrenchment Ratio" N/A N/A N/A N/A 15.6 16.1 15.3 15.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1
Cross-Section 5(Riffle) Cross-Section 6(Pool)
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft) 504.0 503.9 503.9 503.9 504.1 504.1 504.1 504.0
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 504.0 504.0 503.9 503.9 504.1 504.1 504.1 504.0
Bankfull Width(ft) 9.2 9.5 9.7 10.1 11.5 11.9 12.3 11.3
Floodprone Width(ft) 65 65 65 65 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 6.3 6.3 5.8 5.6 11.8 11.8 12.5 11.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.3 14.3 16.1 18.4 11.3 12.1 12.1 11.7
Entrenchment Ratio" 7.1 6.8 6.7 6.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 1.1 <1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
'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

Table 12a. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Martin Dairy Reach 1
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 14.8 15.0 14.5 14.9
Floodprone Width(ft) 150 150 150 150
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9
Bankfull Max Depth 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.6
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft') 13.2 13.2 13.8 14.0
Width/Depth Ratio 16.7 16.9 15.2 15.8
Entrenchment Ratio 10.1 10.0 10.4 10.1
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0
D50(mm) 13.1 20.6 32.0 42.5
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 12.0 35.9
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0039 0.0193
Pool Length(ft) 38.2 77.4
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.4 2.5
Pool Spacing(ft) 41 101
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 36 75
Radius of Curvature(ft) 27 75
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 1.8 5.0
Meander Wave Length(ft) 60 225
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 5.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4/E4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 776
Sinuosity(ft) 1.27
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0046
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.005
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/0.45/2.8/21.8/ SC/0.18/14.6/45.0 SC/1.0/6.8/37.9/69.7/ 0.30/2.57/17.1/78.1
45.0/128.0 68.5/128.0 180 165.3/512.0
of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0% 0% 0%

Table 12b. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Martin Dairy Reach 2
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 12.8 12.4 13.0 12.7
Floodprone Width(ft) 200 200 200 200
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Bankfull Max Depth 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.1
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft') 14.2 14.2 15.7 15.9
Width/Depth Ratio 11.6 10.9 10.8 10.1
Entrenchment Ratio 15.6 16.1 15.3 15.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1
D50(mm) 10.2 38.7 40.8 45.9
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 16.7 51.0
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0166 0.0266
Pool Length(ft) 36.1 83.1
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.1 1.9
Pool Spacing(ft) 55 111
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 39 81
Radius of Curvature(ft) 29 81
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 1.8 5.0
Meander Wave Length(ft) 65 243
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 5.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4/E4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 1,258
Sinuosity(ft) 1.22
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0072
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.007
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 0.11/1.10/5.0/27.6/ 0.55/13.27/24.7/68.5/ 0.16/4.58/10.5/84.1/ SC/3.55/19.7/85.7
64.0/512.0 104.7/180.0 160.7/512.0 180.0/3 6 2.0
of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0% 0% 0%

Table 12c. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
UT1
Parameter As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 9.2 9.5 9.7 10.1
Floodprone Width(ft) 65 65 65 65
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft') 6.3 6.3 5.8 5.6
Width/Depth Ratio 13.3 14.3 16.1 18.4
Entrenchment Ratio 7.1 6.8 6.7 6.4
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 <1.0 1.0
D50(mm) 7.4 72.1 14.6 20.3
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 4 28
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.009 0.016
Pool Length(ft) 4.2 34.9
Pool Max Depth(ft) 0.4 1.3
Pool Spacing(ft) 30 73
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 23 66
Radius of Curvature(ft) 17 52
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 1.8 5.5
Meander Wave Length(ft) 56 155
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 7.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4/E4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 213
Sinuosity(ft) 1.1
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0072
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.0103
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 0.07/0.28/7.3/20.1/ SC/9.38/21.5/75.9/ SC/0.09/4.3/21.1/50.6/ SC/0.79/6.1/33.9
37.9/64.0 128.0/256.0 90.0 64.0/256.0
of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0% 0% 0%

Cross-Section Plots
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Cross-Section 1 Martin Dairy Reach 1
102+75 Riffle
509
508
507
-4111111L--
506 - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
o
rw 505
504
503 ,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width(ft)
MVO(8/2017) MY1(6/2018) MY2(5/2019) MY3(3/2020)
Bankfull ---Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
14.0 x-section area(ft.sq.)
14.9 width(ft)
0.9 mean depth(ft)
1.6 max depth(ft)
15.4 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius(ft)
•
15.8 width-depth ratio
150.0 W flood prone area(ft) "rn.
10.1 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020 , ` 1//Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Cross-Section 2 Martin Dairy Reach 1
103+01 Pool
508
507
506
505
0
w 504
503
502
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width(ft)
—0—MVO(8/2017) tMY1(6/2018) +MY2(5/2019) tMY3(3/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
28.1 x-section area(ft.sq.)
19.1 width(ft)
1.5 mean depth(ft)
2.9 max depth(ft) •
20.5 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.4 hydraulic radius(ft)
13.1 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Cross-Section 3 Martin Dairy Reach 2
110+46 Pool
503
502 40.11862711
_
501 ,✓
500
o
: 499
w
498 1
497
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width(ft)
+MVO(8/2017) tMY1(6/2018) +MY2(5/2019) tMY3(3/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
44.9 x-section area(ft.sq.)
22.5 width(ft)
2.0 mean depth(ft) -
4.0 max depth(ft) •
24.8 wetted perimeter(ft) --
1.8 hydraulic radius(ft)
11.3 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Cross-Section 4 Martin Dairy Reach 2
110+77 Riffle
505
504
•
503
I1 -
502
0
— J
w 501
w
500
499
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width(ft)
MVO(8/2017) MY1(6/2018) MY2(5/2019) MY3(3/2020)
Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
15.9 x-section area(ft.sq.)
12.7 width(ft)
1.3 mean depth(ft) '..
f.x.
2.1 max depth(ft) •' .fir
13.7 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.2 hydraulic radius(ft)
10.1 width-depth ratio
200.0 W flood prone area(ft)
15.8 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Cross-Section 5 UT1
201+04 Riffle
507
506 -
I
505
504 — -- -- —
0
w 503
502
501 7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width(ft)
MVO(8/2017) MY1(6/2018) MY2(5/2019) MY3(3/2020)
Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.6 x-section area(ft.sq.)
10.1 width(ft)
0.6 mean depth(ft)
1.3 max depth(ft)
10.6 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius(ft)
18.4 width-depth ratio
65.0 W flood prone area(ft)
6.4 entrenchment ratio
<1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Cross-Section 6 UT1
201+22 Pool
507
506 -
I
505
504 - - - ---
0
w 503 1
502
501
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width(ft)
—0—MVO(8/2017) tMY1(6/2018) +MY2(5/2019) tMY3(3/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
11.0 x-section area(ft.sq.)
11.3 width(ft)
1.0 mean depth(ft)
2.1 max depth(ft) .; .
12.3 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius(ft) --
11.7 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020 ( 1'^:„<i.; '
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering r
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Martin Dairy Reach 1,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class ® Class Percent Martin Dairy Reach 1,Reachwide
min max Riffle Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay0.000 0.062 2 14 14 14 100
...(- -).1... i i III
Very fine 0.062 0.125 -_-- 14 90 Silt/Clay Sand l Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 -_-- 14 80 Cobble Boulder 14
4.. Medium 0.25 0.50 8 8 8 22
Coarse 0.5 1.0 -_-- 22 :-..• 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 4 4 4 26 > 60 �/�/
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 m 12 12 38 E 50 y
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 in 1 1 39 u 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 En ME
3 42 III
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 ME4 4 46 v 30
.7y
.4*\' Medium 8.0 11.0 -ME 1 1 47 a 20
>< •
Os Medium 11.0 16.0 2 M 2 2 49 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 © 5 5 54 0
Coarse 22.6 32 4 © 7 7 61 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 6 © 8 8 69 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 8 M 8 8 77
t MYO-01/2018 MV1-06/2018 MY2-07/2019 tMY3-03/2020
, Small
\\ �V� Small 64 90 11 12 12 89
90 128 3 92
00�' Large 128 180 4 M 4 4 96
Large 180 256 2 M 2 2 98 Martin Dairy Reach 1,Reachwide
Small 256 362 1 M 1 1 99 Individual Class Percent
100
?; c) Small 362 512 1 1 1 100 90
Medium 512 1024 -_-- 100
11111111111111111111111111111111111. Large/Very Large 1024 2048 M 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 -_-- 100 c 70
Total 50 50 100 100 100 vu 60
a
t2 50
Reachwide m
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
30
Di6= 0.30 :0
D35= 2.57 v 20
D50= 17.1 E 10 I I 1 Da4= 78.1 0 1,1 ' 1 1,1 1 I, , ■,1 1,1 _,I .,I 1, I-, I-, I,. I,-1, 1,
D95= 165.3 ,oti �tih otih �y ti I. ,Lb b y<o b titi yC,�,L(p bti b� (0b ,O y,.,b 43 may( b(0ti�yti O,ib obb o40
o ti ti a
Dloo= 512.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO 01/2018 MY1-06/2018 MY2-07/2019 •MY3-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Martin Dairy Reach 1,Cross-Section 1
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent Martin Dairy Reach 1,Cross-Section 1
Count
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY >Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 3 3 3 100 4 1 1 1 'k I I I N< G r r
Very fine 0.062 0.125 3 90 Silt/Clayd }<a Gravel _
Cobble < you der
Fine 0.125 0.250 3 80 Bedrock_
CO Medium 0.25 0.50 1 1 4
S 70
Coarse 0.5 1.0 4
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 4 > 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 2 2 6 3 50
ii
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 6 1E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 6
d 30
Fine 5.6 8.0 4 4 10 0)
Medium 8.0 11.0 3 3 13 a 20
Medium 11.0 16.0 6 6 19 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 7 7 26 0
Coarse 22.6 32 9 9 35 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 18 18 53 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 20 20 73
MY0-01/2018 MY1-06/2018 MY2-07/2019 MY3-03/2020
Small 64 90 15 15 88
,\‘<, Small 90 128 4 4 92
00' Large 128 180 3 3 95
\ Large 180 256 3 3 9g Martin Dairy Reach 1,Cross-Section 1
MMMMMPIIIIIII Small 256 362 2 2 100 100 Individual Class Percent
Small 362 512 100
90
Medium 512 1024 100
80
Lar a er Lar e 1024 2048 100
g --
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 -- 100 v 70
Total 100 100 100 d 60
a
., 50
Cross-Section 1 u 40
Channel materials(mm)
30
D16= 13.27 v'
D35= 32.00 v 20 Dso= 42.5 10 I
I li LI_ I
D84= 82.2 0 L. . ♦ Imo ■ II IJI; g -i I-+ —
D95= 180.0 Olo'L ,Y1,2 Otih Oh 'v "1, ,L'b b 4. cb yti ,F3�,L<o 0,1, b� cob0O y.�'b $ ��6 �Oti y,''L yO,),b IS'
bO010
Dim= 362.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
■MY0-01/2018 ■WW1-06/2018 ■MY2-07/2019 ■MY3-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Martin Dairy Reach 2,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class El
Percent Martin Dairy Reach 2,Reachwide
min max Riffle Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 16 16 16 16 100 � :•—•' .--��
0.062 0.125 -_ 16 90 Silt/Clay Sand }< Gravel I N
Fine 0.125 0.250 -_-- 16 80 C bble Boulder nBedrock�
4C Medium 0.25 0.50 -® 12 12 28
Coarse 0.5 1.0 —_ 28 e 70
Ver Coarse 1.0 2.0 4 4 4 32 i 60
EMPEE 2.0 2.8 in 1 1 33 =° 50
2.8 4.0 1 © 3 3 36 E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 © 3 3 39 y
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 .1. 3 3 42 E. 30
Medium 8.0 11.0 1 ME 2 2 44 a 20 l
Medium 11.0 16.0 -© 3 3 47 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 © 5 5 52 0
Coarse 22.6 32 7 4 11 11 63 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Ver Coarse 32 45 4 in 5 5 68 Particle Class Size(mm)
Ver Coarse 45 64 10 10 10 78
—0—MVO-01/2018 tMY1-06/2018 �MY2-07/2019 tMV3-03/2020
Small 64 90 7 7 7 85
C'V,, Small 90 128 5 M 5 5 90
C 128 180 5 M 5 5 95
180 256 2 M 2 2 97 Martin Dairy Reach 2,Reachwide
Small 256 362 3 3 3 100 Individual Class Percent
MEMSmall 362 512 -_-- 100 100
90
Hilliiiiiiiiiri..4,.........„„AM Medium 512 1024 -_ 100
MMMMdMMMMMMMMEIZEBMEE 1024 2048 M 100 80
BEDROCK ',Bedrock 2048 >2048 -_ 100 a 70
u
Total 50 50 100 100 100 `m 60
a
w 50
Reachwide 16
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
- 30
D16= Silt/Clay
D3s= 3.55 a 20
Dso= 19.7 1LJ�J- LL
Dom= 85.7 Al.0 � I, ,I I,. 11.LIm,s11,11,ILI1 ,16,A,II.1,1'■r I,- 1,- l ..
Des= 180.0 c0'1, ,yL tih oy N. '1. ,L5 4, h,p ,ti yo ,Lro ,,,,'1, k,, 0b �o yew 41, yro ,0, ,v ,b b4 4,
p� ptio � . � � ,o1,,ob0
D10o= 362.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0 01/2018 •MY1-06/2018 MY2-07/2019 •MY3-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Martin Dairy Reach 2,Cross-Section 4
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent Martin Dairy Reach 2,Cross-Section 4
Count
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 4 4 4 100 t I I . • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 -- 4 90 Silt/Clay Sard Gravel �'�'
Fine 0.125 0.250 Cobble
4 3ou•er
-- 80 f Bedrock
CO Medium 0.25 0.50 -- 4
S 70
Coarse 0.5 1.0 -- 4
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 -- 4 > 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 5 3 50
ii
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 6 E• 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 7 u
d 30
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 8 ,.,
Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 9 a 20
Medium 11.0 16.0 4 4 13 10 lapillP-'41"id/ii
Coarse 16.0 22.6 6 6 19 0 ---
Coarse 22.6 32 14 14 33 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 16 16 49 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 18 18 67
MY0-01/2018 MY1-06/2018 MY2-07/2019 MY3-03/2020
Small 64 90 17 17 84
,\‘<, Small 90 128 7 7 91
C0b Large 128 180 6 6 97
Large 180 256 2 2 99 Martin Dairy Reach 2,Cross-Section 4
lllllllllllMMIIIIIII Small 256 362 1 1 100 100 Individual Class Percent
Small 362 512 100
90
Medium 512 1024 100
80
Lar a er Lar e 1024 2048 100
g --
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 -- 100 v 70
Total 100 100 100 d 60
a
. 50
Cross-Section 4 u 40
Channel materials(mm) Ti
' 30
D16= 19.02 v
D35= 33.39 v 20
D50= 45.9 c 10 J
Dsa= 90.0 0 J • J 1_ I_IL IL IL I-I I I li 41, iimiii
D95= 160.7 Olo'L ,Y1,2 O.yh Oh 'v 1, ,y'b b 4. 'b yti 16,yyro ,,,"1, b<0 cob0O ti,L'b ti'b0 tiSC> �Oti ytiti yO,Lb IS' b0010
Dioo= 362.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
■MY0-01/2018 ■WW1-06/2018 ■MY2-07/2019 ■MY3-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
UT1,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class El
Percent UT1,Reachwide
min max Riffle Total Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 —® 21 21 21 100 N •
0.062 0.125 —© 5 5 26 90 Silt/Clay Sand < Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 —© 3 3 29 80 Cobble E1 Boulder Bedrock
CSC) Medium 0.25 0.50 —_ 29 III
Coarse 0.5 1.0 9 9 9 38 e 70
Ver Coarse 1.0 2.0 —© 3 3 41 a, 60
EMPEE 2.0 2.8 —© 2 2 43 ni 50
2.8 4.0 —© 3 3 46 E 40 ,
Fine 4.0 5.6 2 in 3 3 49 y
Fine 5.6 i
0 4 4 4.0 7 © 9 9.0 4 5 5.6 8 8 8 75 0
Coarse 22.6 32 8 8 8 83 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Ver Coarse 32 45 6 6 6 89 Particle Class Size(mm)
Ver Coarse 45 64 6 6 6 95
t MYO-01/2018 MY1-06/2018 �MY2-07/2019 tMY3-03/2020
Small 64 90 2 M 2 2 97
�V,, Small 90 128 —_-- 97
L0� IIE 128 180 2 M 2 2 99
180 256 1 M 1 1 100 UT1,Reachwide
Small 256 362 �M�� 100 Individual Class Percent
iiiiiiiiiiiiEmime. ,9 1116Small 362 512 M�� 100 100
.......iii Medium 512 1024 —_-- 100 90
1024 2048 M 100 80
BEDROCK ',Bedrock 2048 >2048 —_-- 100 a 70
u
Total 50 50 100 100 100 `m 60
a
w 50
Reachwide 16
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
- 30
D16= Silt/Clay
D35= 0.79 a 20
Dso= 6.1 — 10
Dom= 33.9 0 641 A,. ■,. .,_ ■,1 1 is k i 1 1 1,1 1,. 1 s .. 1.L -
D95= 64.0 ,01, �tih otih �,9 ti 1. ,Lb b y<o b titi ,5,o�,(o ,6'L bb (ob ,O ,L4 43 �y� b(0ti�yti O,ib obb o40
o ti ti a
D1.= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-01/2018 •MY1-06/2018 •MY2-07/2019 •MY3-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
UT1,Cross-Section 5
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT1,Cross-Section 5
Count
min max Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 10 10 10 100
K
Very fine 0.062 0.125 10 90 Silt/Clay k
Sard GravelC obble
Fine 0.125 0.250 10 Boulder
Bedrock 80
CO Medium 0.25 0.50 10
S Coarse 0.5 1.0 10 . 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 10 > 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 2 2 12 i 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 12 E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 5 5 17 u
Fine 5.6 8.0 12 12 29
a 30
FV Medium 8.0 11.0 5 5 34 a
J 20
GQ'P Medium 11.0 16.0 7 7 41 10 •—• - - i
Coarse 16.0 22.6 13 13 54 0 •—, • f
Coarse 22.6 32 13 13 67 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 12 12 79 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 12 12 91
MY0-01/2018 MY1-06/2018 MY2-07/2019 MY3-03/2020
Small 64 90 6 6 97
0, Small 90 128 97
C0� Large 128 180 2 2 99
Large 180 256 1 1 100 UT1,Cross-Section 5
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
�k% Small 362 512 100 90
Medium 512 1024 100 80
""" Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 a, 70
ar
Total 100 100 100 a 60
a
,,, 50
Cross-Section 5 u 40
Channel materials(mm) —
Di6= 5.24 v' 30
D35= 11.60 v 20 L I
D5,= 20.3 E 10 i I 1 . I_ IJ IJ i1 ii ii i]ii j i. I Li
D84= 52.1 0
D95= 80.3 O<01 y,to Otih Oh 'v 'L 1, b h( 9, yti ,0 11,0 1,,ti b<0 Ob 00 4b $ e )Oti yyti yO.Lb tiObb b0olo
D 256.0 0 0
100= Particle Class Size(mm)
■MY0-01/2018 MY1-06/2018 •MY2-07/2019 •MY3-03/2020

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
MY1 MY2 MY3
Date of Date of Date of
Reach Method
Occurrence Occurrence Occurrence
4/15/2018 4/13/2019 1/24/2020
Martin Dairy
9/17/2018* 6/19/2019 2/6/2020 Crest Gage/
4/15/2018 3/24/2019 1/24/2020 Pressure
UT1 9/17/2018* 4/13/2019 2/6/2020 Transducer
6/19/2019 6/11/2020
*Hurricane Florence
Monthly Rainfall Data
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Martin Dairy 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020 Durham,NC
9
8
7
6
c 5
0
m
•a 4
a
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
1 2020 monthly rainfall from USDA Station Durham 11 W
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Chapel Hill 2 W,NC(USDA,2020).

30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data
Martin Dairy Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.97087
Monitoring Year 3-2020
Martin Dairy 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020 Durham,NC
10 4- J
- 3
c
—.1^—
c •—` J
_VL�`� r
.a 5 I —Th_ I
2. C
_ _
c) 2 m
c
J3 4
u
>
fo
0
CC
m 1
2
' AliII ,. i _ilil _ , _.
0 ♦ 0
c _a T c too o_ V
m , 2 Q '2' - Q VI O
Daily Rainfall —30-Day Cumulative Total —30%Rainfall Total —70%Rainfall Total
12020 monthly rainfall from USDA Station Durham 11W.
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Chapel Hill 2 W,NC(USDA,2020).